Before New Yorker pop critic (don’t call him a rock critic; he hates that) Sasha Frere-Jones stops by Makor along with book blogger Maud Newton and arts critic Terry Teachout for a panel discussion on The Art of Online Criticism on Tuesday, December 6, we thought we’d ask him a few questions via email.

After the jump, Sasha Frere-Jones on Richard Meltzer, 50 Cent and the differences between writing and playing music.

You’re speaking at Makor about the art of online criticism. Looking at music criticism as a whole, which critics inform your writing the most? Somehow I have trouble picturing you as a Lester Bangs fan based on your New Yorker work. Consequently, what role do you think the review should play in popular music?

My criticism hasn’t necessarily been informed by the critics I’ve read. The conversations I’ve had with friends and fellow musicians have shaped my thinking more than the work of any critic. The authors I enjoy reading don’t necessarily have my rhythms or my habits of mind, so there’s only a tenuous link between my writing and my preference for reading Frank O’Hara or Joan Didion or Kevin Sampson or Edmund Wilson.

As for Lester Bangs, I think his name is invoked often, even when another name would be more appropriate. Bangs was a generally clear writer and exacting thinker, and most of his work appeared in well-known magazines. If the name “Bangs” is supposed to signal long, complex, allusive and highly referential sentences, Richard Meltzer would probably be a more accurate name to drop. He certainly has a loyal and fierce following among critics. (I am not a fan of his criticism, though I like the force and beat of his prose.)

As for me, and/or Bangs, and/or The New Yorker: my voice ranges widely, depending on the piece and the venue. For instance, older Voice pieces (linked on my site) and posts on the blog itself will suggest that what appears in The New Yorker is simply one way of writing.

In the Washington City Paper, your writing was called “the only high-profile rock criticism consistently worth reading.” At the same time, your recent reviews have covered everything from British hip-hop to house music to ringtones. Do you feel that popular music criticism has outgrown the label of “rock criticism”?

My title is “pop critic.” I’ve never called myself a rock critic, very intentionally. Much of my writing has been about hip-hop and genres outside rock, a music I have nothing against.

As the New Yorker’s music critic, you write about current music trends for an audience made up of people who range from Pitchfork and Mojo readers to people who are completely out of touch with contemporary music. Do you write with a particular kind of reader in mind or with certain expectations on the part of the reader?

The New Yorker is a general interest magazine, and is designed to be read cover to cover, by non-experts. You don’t need to know anything about leeches to read a long feature about leeches. You don’t need to know anything about drum machines or vintage cars or Serge Gainsbourg to read my column. If it’s inaccessible, then I’m doing a bad job. I have to assume the reader has little or no previous knowledge of the music I am writing about.

What do you think of current trends in the pop music world? With hard-core hip-hop continuing to go mainstream and tone down (as in 50 Cent’s recent appearances on the network morning shows) and rock bands like the White Stripes and Franz Ferdinand popularizing underground styles, do you think the current status quo will exist for a while longer or will we see another Nirvana-style sea change?

The history of pop is a progression of underground styles going mainstream, so there’s nothing unusual about the White Stripes or Franz Ferdinand selling records. (Neither bands are in the same league as 50 Cent or Eminem, who can sell four or five million copies. Few indie acts have broken the two million mark—possibly only The Killers, who actually aren’t an indie band, and never were.) As for the future, I am a terrible weatherman and won’t even pretend to know.

The internet and blogs have democratized music criticism. In your own blog, you write in a much different style than in your print articles. How would you define the effect that blogs have had on criticism?

There are an awful lot of blogs. It probably has helped one or two really great writers skip a few years of painful stringing and get some good freelance work. I don’t know if editors have changed their attitude about critics based on blogging. The New Yorker hasn’t, as far as I can tell.

You’ve previously played in a band who did their share of touring and recording. Any similarities between playing music and writing about it?

I still play in a band. No, they’re not very similar. Playing is mostly a physical and involuntary act, and is grueling over the long haul. Writing is mostly done while sitting and is a more conscious act, though not always. Writing has its grueling moments, though none as bad as riding a ferry from Amsterdam to Nottingham when you’re hungover and have played badly the night before. (This sounds whiny—I love doing both. Honest.)

Tickets for The Art of Online Criticism with Sasha Frere-Jones, Maud Newton and Terry Teachout are currently available.