A new direction for Lou/Slant: In 2010, it’s all about the music

The author's 2007 solo album, released to glowing reviews in various publications. (But not here. Promise.)

In the last months of 2009, I sensed that I wanted to change my blogging activity at True/Slant to bring my writing into more perfect alignment with my passions, my expertise and the responses I got from readers. The decision wasn’t hard: Sometime in October I decided I wanted to write about popular music, but in a way that you never (or seldom) see at the nation’s major newspapers, music magazines and Web sites.

And so, I bring you the first installment of my music column here on True/Slant, which will expand and expound on the work I do as the lead music critic at Christian Century magazine. And while various aspects of my life demand more time of me these days, I begin this venture with high hopes, and a promise that when I write, you can expect the following:

1) No sacred cows. Some critics and publications have such blind allegiance to bands and artists they can’t write a bad word about them. Not me, not here, not ever. For example: While I love The Beatles more than any other band, I’d argue that an honest appraisal of their work would find flaws with almost all their albums. Except “Revolver,” which I played for my son while he was in the womb.

2) Zippy style. Some of the same critics who gush about the likes of the more colorful ’70s critics write in pretty flat prose. “Writing about music IS like dancing about architecture”–except when the writing has music in it. I’ll do my best to make my prose sing.

3) No hipper-than-thou bullshit. Doug Feiger of the Knack complained to me in a recent interview about how rock critics in 1979, infatuated with punk, did in his group as a Beatles knockoff band. What Feiger points out is that the Knack became a target for critics as soon as they sold records and became successful. I couldn’t agree more. The Knack’s debut album holds up amazingly well because it was recorded live in the studio, with minimal overdubs, after the band did more that 180 shows honing the material. I want to judge music on its merits, not its sales. By the way, this works in reverse: I too often see critics “inflate” an appraisal of a band because they play death-metal-free-jaz-improv-proto-punk-mash-up … oh, you’re not cool enough to get it, anyway. And neither am I.

4) No low blows. They probably giggled all the way to PR bonanza, but the kiddos at Pitchfork went way too far when they posted a video clip of a monkey peeing in its mouth as their review for an album they didn’t like. I don’t do unethical criticism here. No stunts, no pranks, no smear campaigns. Unless, of course, it’s one of my old band demos. (Just DARE me to post one.)

5) Metacriticism. Every once in a while it’s fun to review the critics: What are they writing and do they actually know what they’re talking about? As probably the only music critic in the country who can mic a studio drum kit and pick out a Vox AC-30 amp from a Marshall JCM 800 just by listening to a guitar track, I have the chops to hold the critics up to course correction when needed–and praise when merited. Hell, I make mistakes myself, too, so I’ll do my best to make it all fair.

6) Cool Q&As. When I talk to a musician who has something significant, funny or poignant to say, I’ll post it here.

That’s the set list, then. If there’s anything you wan me to cover, look at or write about, send me an email at feedbacker@aol.com. But please, no unsolicited demos.

Unless you want me to rip off your songs, of course.