Critic’s Circle is a new reoccurring column where I interview critic’s from various fields about the role they play in the Internet age.
Mark Prindle, best known for website markprindle.com which ran from 1996 until 2011, was an early adopter of the Internet as a platform for democratizing music criticism. Through the site’s fifteen year run, Prindle gave his readers unprecedented free access to his opinions on various artists’ and bands’ entire discographies. Information such as that would have been hard to come across in the pre-Internet era, usually only relegated to expensive books such as The Rolling Stone Album Guide. In this interview, Prindle opens up about his role in the shifting place of music criticism in the Internet era, as well as his feelings on what role music criticism plays for listeners today.
What was your background in music criticism prior to your website?
The first record review I ever wrote was a straightforward and way too positive critique of Pink Floyd’s “Live: A Delicate Sound of Thunder” for my high school newspaper, the Pony Express. I was 15, which is far too old to be writing things like “David Gilmour shines in his blues-influenced solos.” A few years later, I began reviewing music for a weekly supplement in my college paper, The Daily Tar Heel. I started off writing serious reviews, but eventually switched over to “humorous” capsule reviews that weren’t funny at all.
What drew you to the internet as a platform for your reviews?
It was my brother’s idea. We moved to NYC together in January 1996, and one night he asked me, “If you could write a book on any topic, what would it be?” I answered that I would like to review every album I owned. He thought for a moment and replied, “You could do that with a web site.” I didn’t know what the hell he was talking about, but he designed the back end, showed me the HTML I needed to add reviews and reader comments, and gave me some hints on attracting traffic and SH-BING! I wrote terrible, worthless reviews for at least a year and a half.
As a platform for connection, what ways positive and negative has your website had on you personally?
My experience in that regard has been mostly positive. I’ve made hundreds of online friends who now interact with me on Facebook, which is great because I only have a handful of friends in real life. The site also brought me extra income and lots of free CDs over the years. But one major negative is that by being so hypercritical in my reviews, I really invited readers to be hypercritical of me. And they were! Hate mail and death threats became a fairly regular occurrence. The other negative is that it job hunting is especially difficult for me now. Google my name and I guarantee you that the first 200 results will have nothing at all to do with my actual career.
What made you decide to tackle complete discographies of artists?
It seemed the obvious choice, and still does. Why should I trust somebody’s review of an album if I have no idea what they think about the band’s previous albums – or whether they’ve even heard them? For example, back when the Rolling Stones’ “Bridges to Babylon” came out, I remember a review in either Spin or Rolling Stone that read, “I’ve never heard an entire Rolling Stones album and even I can tell that they are repeating themselves here.” This person shouldn’t have been reviewing the album, and it’s evidenced by the fact that his key conclusion was dead wrong. “Bridges to Babylon” may not be very good, but it certainly doesn’t sound like any other Rolling Stones record!
What artist was the easiest for you to get through, which was the most difficult?
The easiest were bands whose discographies I’d heard dozens and dozens of times, like Led Zeppelin, Beatles, Pink Floyd and AC/DC. With those, it was just a matter of jotting down what I already felt about them after years of listening. The most difficult may have been Cannibal Corpse, because the songs all have like five million different parts. As such, I had to listen to all the songs many, many times, EXTREMELY closely, to figure out (a) how they went, and (b) whether I liked them or not! To this day, I have absolutely no idea how any Cannibal Corpse song goes. Seriously! I gave 8/10 grades to their first three albums (and meant it!), yet couldn’t sing you a single riff from the band’s entire discography.
What review are you most proud of?
I like my concept reviews. I thought what I did with the Lou Reed/Metallica album was pretty clever (I reviewed it on my Lou Reed page, raving about his input and trashing Metallica’s, and simultaneously reviewed it on my Metallica page, raving about their input and trashing Lou Reed’s). I also wrote a King Crimson review that incorporated every symbol on the periodic table of elements, in order. It’s a terrible review, but I like the concept! I wrote a Megadeth review that was a parody of Edgar Allan Poe’s “The Raven” in its entirety. It took hours, but was worth it. And some of my pages I’m fond of just because they make me laugh a lot. The Judas Priest, Joni Mitchell and Megadeth pages are all full of good laughs. And Guided By Voices, probably. I like my later stuff, where the reviews are really long because I spent so much time fucking around. You can do that when you’re unemployed.
What review drew the most “controversy” from your readers?
My negative review of AC/DC’s “Ballbreaker.” Back in 1996, there weren’t a lot of record review sites available, let alone ones that invited readers to add their own comments. This was long before there were comments sections under every news article. It was also long before people realized the implications of having their names and/or email addresses linked to expletive-riddled idiocy. Those two facts, combined with the fanatical and possibly under-educated nature of AC/DC’s core audience, led to me receiving more than 100 foaming-at-the-mouth responses like “”I think you’ve been in la la land too much sucking cock and you forgot what real music is, bastard” and “Why don’t you go fuck your dog and rape your goldfish? You’re the washed up pathetic old bag, MOTHERFUCKER!!!!!!!!!
How do you think the internet has changed the way music criticism is viewed and perceived by the public?
I love the fact that the Internet democratized music criticism, because most of the people doing it for a living in the daily newspapers and music magazines weren’t any better at it than you or me. However, the music critic is no longer necessary. In the olden days, you had to read reviews to find out whether a new cassette tape was worth the $10 they were asking down at Tape World. But these days, you can just listen to everything yourself. It’s all free on YouTube or easy to find as illegal downloads. Theoretically, the only rationale for critics’ continued existence is to introduce listeners to great new artists that otherwise would not have been brought to their attention. But honestly, Top 10 lists would work just as well. We don’t need to know what strangers think of a new record – just that it’s worth listening to.
Which leads me to this conclusion: music criticism now exists solely for people who enjoy reading about music. I include myself in that group; I still love reading All-Music Guide reviews, and I have no idea why.