Bang Part Two

Just wondering, y'know...

The edited version of the article that got me the boot is here, if anyone's remotely interested: www.geocities.com/baberesizing/pornofpop - not suitable for publication in Bang, as they didn't "understand" it. I mean it's hardly Stephen fucking Hawking, but there you go.

And I would have lasted a week, so there!

Wank always appealed to me as a mag title... however, that's kinda unnecessary and crude of me. can't say i'm too upset about swells... don't like him, sorry to hear about Taylor... funny old mag... thought it had potential to begin with but deeply unimpressed with it now... all i have left to say on the matter

this also has implications for the writers.

The fact that they then choose to yank the article out of the mag at the last minute and sack the writer for being too "complex" tells you all you need to know about the top brass at Bang. Idiots or cowards? Make your choice.

Can I say that the only mainstream music magazine worth reading is the Wire? I just wish it had more than one thing i actually know in it.

I think that "Arthur" mag is the best new one i've seen... seems to have a bit of a stodgy jazz-mag air to it though, like downbeat for 32 yr old phd students who still do shows on college radio or something (yeah a little ivorytowered but also smart, funny, well-informed, etc)

Bang actually commissioned me to write the Singles Column for the first issue, and another article - and, likewise, didn't have the fucking bottle to tell me to my face (or ear) (or email) that they'd pulled the articles. Pathetic fucking scared tossers. I like Simon Price, and I like Neil - but I'm starting to feel very guilty I passed Simon's email address along to "the Gloom Brothers" (who didn't even have the botle to ask me direct until forced) because he doesn't need their shit.

Er, I know we STILL don't pay (and believe me when I say we lose money on this...) but you're more than fucking welcome to write for CTCL. Be nice to be back working in tandem.

Oh, and Mr Stelfox - I believe you were gonna send me something...?

it was creepy meeting them - like reminded me of the time when i went for my first interview at a law firm - a charimsa-free shaky tree zone... all ego no talent.

and now i've just read Taylor's piece (thanks Kate, for cross-posting to 22) which is splendid, thought-provoking, intelligent, topical, generally spot-on stuff...and now i find out that's the very piece that got you the boot, Taylor? What the fuck?

I give in. I'm off to work for You & Your Ramekin. Their singles column's fab.

Although thinking about it, pseudonyms serve a similar purpose to anonymity don't they?

Jerry, you should print Taylor's piece.

Pseudonyms would be a good idea, though.

Anyway (going off on a tangent), I don't think ambition (for your work, not yourself) is a bad thing - for instance, when the (liberal) broadsheets want a provocative political piece, they might contact Greg Palast, John Pilger, George Monbiot, Paul Foot or Robert Fisk. These people are not writing exclusively for Znet or Red Pepper. But when they want something on popular culture, they ring Miranda Sawyer or someone, and the more thoughtful voices are absent. Or there's Burchill, bullshitting and blustering for the sake of it. I think it's important that this changes, and that culture is given its due (it seemed for a time that Bang might contribute to this shift, rather than just being another nozzle pumping more and more pointless shit into the world). I never quite understood what seems to be the prevailing ILM attitude, that entryism is redundant and cottage industry is the way forward. I'm from that generation that still wanted to put hi-falutin' stuff in the mainstream press, because I believe strongly in the power of subversion. Not to spark revolution or anything like that (I'm realistic), but to encourage a natural impulse towards free thought in people who might not have that impulse encouraged anywhere else. I think what attracted many of us here to good music writing was the way the old pop press carried on traditions from the 60s underground press. That's what's been whittled away. When I write an article, my first thought is: "The world is fucked. I'm angry. Everything in the world needs to change. I'm writing this article from the *starting point* that the world needs to change." Once you could write like that and *assume* that the readers were with you. Maybe not now, but I don't believe giving up is an option. I like CTCL and probably will do some work for them, but I had high hopes for Bang, because it appeared to be aiming for something "rock'n'roll" in a worthwhile sense - a MAINSTREAM magazine that took dissatisfaction with the lack of soul and thought in the world (and the rock world) as it's starting point. Of course, they were lying about that. Anyway, fuck this, I'm rambling like Jack. Apologies. Drunk already.

Which is interesting in that it's the opposite to what the supposed ILM attitude is towards music, in that entryism/actually BEING in the charts is seen to be paramount. But I say 'supposed' and 'seen to be' for a reason since that's a stereotype rather than the reality of the situation, and I think, Taylor, that your take might be equally so. At the least, I suspect that many people here would love to (and might well be aiming at) trying for the brass ring of getting into the wider media outlets, for good rather than for ill and for the reasons you outline, to get something across.

This line alone proves while Taylor rules. A fine article and a half.

This really needs its own thread. But I'm tired and haven't had enough coffee yet to start it.

I think, as Pash pointed out, it's more like Entryism is viewed as IMPOSSIBLE, rather than being redundant. Even those who *try* these days are facing double resistance - they get the derision of their indie peers for daring to be arrogant enough not to want to be indie as well as the relentless pounding of the Establishment just Not Being Interested. Why bother climbing if you know that you will be both dashed against the rocks and then eaten by sharks?

So very fucking true. Great article, by the way.

But people do think this about ILM, as well. As disparate as it is, there is a definite tone, and slant and attitude that I think of when I read ILM. Maybe it reflects my own biases in that I filter out responses that don't fit my opinion of what the attitude is, but the *perception* that there is such an attitude definitely exists.

the *perception* that there is such an attitude definitely exists.

definitely! but people dont agree on what that attitude actually is.

its ambiguous, to geir it is too dance/rockandroll/rhythm, to tuomas it is too melody/rock/indie driven. when people see a prevailing attitude it is often a result of homogenizing the things they dont like about something, while failing to realise that the things they do like about something are part of a different prevailing attitude in anothers perception of it

you may be opposed to the prevailing attitude as you see it, but to someone else you are totally illustrative of their view of what the prevailing attitude is

I am all in favour of entryism but the argument always seems to assume that the way to be entryist is to write for a pitifully crumbling music press. I don't think music/reading/the world works like that any more.

''No one who's ever made half a living from writing would go for that, surely? It's not an ego thing in terms of wanting people to think you're clever, it's an ego thing in terms of self-respect, or pride. Writing this stuff gets you no money, or if you're lucky a little money, and you tend to get treated like shit by editors, and so on. You never meet anyone who's read it, unless you count things like ILM, and nobody ever remembers it. Being able to look at your work printed up with your name at the bottom is the only thing that convinces you you've done something real, or that you didn't dream it.''

ppl would still get paid surely otherwise no one would work for mags (Ok so i don't know how it works exactly).

"Prevailing attitude": just meant that the largest and most vocal set of people here seem to carry that attitude, not *everyone*. I'm thinking of these two Bang threads specifically, and people's seeming hostility to the idea of writing for a mainstream publication.

I'm old fashioned in this respect, perhaps. But I think of it like the deregulation of TV, and the million special-interest channels safe from unprepared eyes, or the way half-decent progs are shifted to BBC4 so terrestrial Beeb can fit in more DIY shows. I think this is a stone-cold Bad Thing, because I didn't grow up in an "intellectual" family, or surrounded by "intellectual" people, and I didn't go to university - I got my grounding in culture/politics/writing by picking up on interesting things in the mainstream... BBC2/Ch4, reading the Guardian, reading the old music press even. These were the seeds, I went on to water them. It's not that I don't think people are interested in "leftfield" ideas or art, it's that I don't necessarily believe they're interested in (or capable of) looking too far to find them, when they don't really know what it is they're missing.

I always remember one thing, too. At the time Simon Price, Neil Kulkarni, ET and me were more or less writing the entire Melody Maker ourselves every week, the sales went up (yeah, so Britpop was getting big, that may have been the main reason). Worrying that the style of the paper was too uncommercial to suit what now seemed a genuine challenger to NME sales-wise, the uber-bosses leant on the Maker, and for whatever reasons it softened itself: writers like us were rather marginalized, word-counts went down, ET was denied the editor's job which was rightfully his, and then came the relaunch, Mark Sutherland etc etc. Throughout *this* period, the sales were plummeting, and finished up at an all-time low, before the plug was pulled. I suspect that the same sort of thing will happen at Bang in the coming months. All of which suggests that doing something unusual in the mainstream makes far more sense (on the mainstream's terms *and* "ours") than more-of-the-same in an overcrowded market. And somewhere, there will be high-ups who realize this. I'm not even sure you could call it entryism at all, actually - I think that by trying to get my work into the mainstream, I'm continuing a small-g great British tradition. Kind of.

Taylor's comment: "... All of which suggests that doing something unusual in the mainstream makes far more sense than more-of-the-same in an overcrowded market..." is something I wholeheartedly agree with (as I'm sure he probably knows). I never deliberately chose to place Careless Talk outside of the mainstream, I never chose to deliberately place it *anywhere*. Maybe that was the problem.

I guess, when we started the magazine up, we had two choices - go the conventional route, do a dummy issue, get ourselves a nice friendly publisher and aim to EXPLODE into the mainstream (the Bang route), six issues max, or... well, the route we took. We certainly had the necessary experience, insider knowledge of how the magazine industry works and names to take the first option. Much more so than the self-proclaimed "Gloom Brothers", who I fear will eventually be proven to be naive in their belief that art and commerce mix. (There again, as Taylor says: *you have to try*... but usually, it's people already on the inside able to pull this sort of stuff off.)

I never wanted Careless Talk Costs Lives to fail to make money, to be so irrelevent that PRs don't even bother using our quotes on press releases (how fucking humiliating is that - when you consider the crap they do use)... If I wanted to write just for myself I wouldn't put a fucking magazine out at all. I want to PAY our contributors, ourselves, even make a living... I guess, on these terms, I consider CTCL a failure. Because I want to REACH people.

Or maybe I just lack patience.

It's possible that our approach may yet still pay dividends. We reach issue one soon. We always said we'd stop once that happened, unless we'd manage to overthrow the prevalent heirarchy. But fuck that. This shit is too ingrained in our lives to stop now: sales continue to rise (and this issue, we even have ads to match): if we switch to slightly less expensive paper and a monthly schedule, we could even be making a profit. Yeah, *could*....

But fuck it. How much nicer it'd be to have an office and a wage and a publishing company at our beck and call. I don't like their magazine or their cowardly approach to commissioning (which, in all fairness, is probably more a reflection of their naivity than any more worrying malaise) but yes... I envy Bang their bucks.

Why is it then, I have the overwhelming feeling CTCL is gonna be around, and influencing *way* more people, long after Bang is consigned to the same dumper as irrelevent space-fillers as Select?

Because, with the way you've set it up - your not competing, you are there, waiting to be discovered, the more persuasive route, and people, 'trust' that approach - more than putting up a thousand posters in Hoxton declaring CTCL as the 'magazine you've been waiting for'.

To be honest, Everett, I thought the magazine was crap *without* reading it - but the weird thing is when I bought my first issue of CTCL - in May - I actually read it, over and over again. Huh? I was thrown as much as anybody - why? Because it's a great magazine. You've got that whole 'secretive approach' - whilst not making money, but, it will stay around. You know?

And I never *read* a whole issue of any magazine.

entryism (en)
Example:
political term for infiltrate an organization to change or subvert its policies or objectives.
Derivative
entrist n.
entryist n.
The Oxford English Reference Dictionary, © Oxford University Press 1996 Book information

Be careful not to make too many compromises.

The paper's a huge appeal for me, and the photos look great on it.

Non-monthly schedule gives the impression it comes out when there's stuff worth covering.

Ha-HEM. Yes they do. I've seen at least four bands use CTCL quotes on their press releases - probably more, but I only notice my own bylines. ;-)

Fonda 500 made their CTCL their *letterhead* - I'd be surprised if they haven't tattooed in on their bodies by now.

OK, this doesn't make up for not having money, and all those other "nobody loves us" persecution fantasies/realities that Jerry harbours, but it does mean that *someone* is appreciating it.

You get to be involved with something you love and you get to express yrself.

Look how many musicians don't make a profit from their work/art(concurrent thread for example), and writing/photos/criticism is only a very distant 3rd to making music.

(Maybe techie music stuff is 2nd, though in a lot of cases that's intrinsic to the music creation)

My fave band at the mo' is Shellac and their guitarists Steve Albini uses his techie job (recording/producing) to support himself which means the band he's in only needs to pay for itself.

That would be my ultimate goal I think.

I'm very interested in how much people earn for doing different kinds of work.

I have a friend who makes a good living from cleaning drains with big machines with his dad. It pays very well for manual work, for obvious reasons.

Why are so few teachers prepared to change jobs even though they whinge on about pay, there must be something in it or some limitation in themselves?

I have a friend who earned £100,000 last yr, 2 yrs aftyer finishing his Phd, but his employers treat him like a slave.

Most humdrum office jobs pay more than most even reasonably successful musicians earn.

The Velvet underground in their career prolly eared less than they would've done in decentish ordinary jobs, but had a huge effect on many people's lives, why were they not rewarded?

Why do footballers and _some_ pop stars earn ridiculous amounts.

Almost makes me want to take up Communism.

You could probably be a plumber and a musician, if you worked for yourself, took less pay and did less call outs.

Worth thinking about.

Actually, I think this is spot-on. I didn't realise at the time, but Dan(in particular) had issues with me which meant that instead of seeking to get me on board (which probably could have helped, considering everything) he saw himself in direct competition. Which is weird, considering what Bang is and what CTCL is... but hence the initial emails sent out to prospective contributors saying "think Careless Talk, only glossy".

But Doom-e is correct: the Gloom Brothers are naive and scared and this is making them behave in ways that more experienced editors wouldn't. (Well, Steve Sutherland of NME aside... but there's a case to made for calling him naive and scared, even after all these years.) Annoyance at the way they've behaved towards me aside, no I don't really think they're the enemy. In fact, I believe they're trying to create something of real value.

It's unfortunate that in doing so they're might well be beginning to contribute to the problem. Certainly that fucking design doesn't help. I'm sure Steve Sutherland still thinks the NME is good. Really. No one likes to consider what they do is shit. (I constantly question whether CTCL has any fucking value at all, but that's another matter entirely...)

The way I judge whether a magazine is any good or not is: would I want to contribute to it if I wasn't getting paid? Dan and Crispin's old magazine, Circuit - yes, I did. It felt and smelt lovely. It was designed a treat as well. Punk Planet, BB Gun, Ampzine... of course! CTCL - goes without saying. ILM (and yes, I do consider it a magazine, in as much as it's a forum for ideas) - yep. But BANG???

Of course not.

HA ! turning NME into a music version of Heat mag, aimed at teenagers that listen to the Evening Session [or whatever it's called these days] and who know very little about music apart from high profile bands of Now.

As for Bang, every newsagent I go in has stacks of unsold copies - anyone know how low the sales are?

Have to confess that these days I find writing for Uncut an increasingly demoralising experience. My writing there is bland, anonymous piffle with a byline too small even for my mum to read. I try to push Girls Aloud as Album of the Month and (even though Lester agrees with me!) they go for Willard Grant Conspiracy, just like they went for Supercharge and Racing Cars in '77. What a decrepit and wretched publication it is. I look at the new issue and think (the mirror reverse of ET's question): "if I wasn't writing for this magazine, would I be buying it?" and I remember that two years ago at the height of the Americana rot I didn't. Whereas I kind of like the way in which CTCL's developed; it's interesting to read and there is some evidence of LIFE within its pages. So much so that I'd actually quite like to do some writing for it myself... ;-)

that's a very good point - and there's only one i would right now (piece with you by monday week as arranged Jerry!!!) i remember sweating blood, staying up all night on coffee and countless ciggies putting a magazine together once every six weeks for two-and-a-half years while holding down a day job and had many of the same concerns as Mr True, but they were great times and i wouldn't trade them for anything - because i believed in what we were doing. also it was starting to open wider doors (for both myself and our other contributors - which, funnily enough, were later slammed in my face in much the same way as for Taylor and Jerry, but hey...), was getting noticed and being enjoyed by quite a few people. i wouldn't do this for just anyone and have to have a hell of a lot of faith in the spirit of the publication to put in that kind of work in for no financial reward. while careless talk is vastly different to what we were doing, i get this feeling from it and that's what makes it valid above and beyond anything else... keep up the good work!

Cozen - you need patience. Missed opportunity? That's assuming the game is over. And it ain't started yet, not by a long way...

Marcello - heh. Actually I have a hard job slapping down the champions of alt country at CTCL, especially as one of them is the Visual Dictator. Everything in its place... even Girls Aloud.

Dave S - yeah, me too. Something that's been bugging me for a while is our bias towards certain genres (I mean, I'm fine with it obviously but there's only a limited amount of space). Now, if we were MONTHLY...

I'd, like Stelfox, like to see more risks taken in coverage.

You'd think that the BBC budget to stretch to at least Rolf Harris, wouldn't you? Or send Alan Titchmarsh out to the 'hoods ("I'm here with this smashing hardy perennial, Nas..." etc.).

As Lew Grade said after McGoohan pitched The Prisoner to him: "It's so crazy that it might just work."

Yes I have and they're generally the ones who shouldn't be working at all...

I like the way he avoids writing about 'difficult music' in the overly-studious, sometimes-uptight way that seems infects the rest of the mag. Ken Hollings too. But I also love all the other writers you mentioned.

Petridis and the rest of the stultifying generalist mafia to thread...

As for making a living thing, I could never do it. And I find writing quite a painful process anyway, so only really do it now if asked.

Gloom Brothers - I thought they were a bit weird. They don't talk to the writers, I mean *at all*. They don't turn up to editorial meetings either. The task of telling me and Swells that we were sacked was left to the features ed, a friend/ally of both of ours - nice. In general, they have an approach to editorship that seems to me, in a word, Stalinist. I could follow this up with some VERY strange and baffling stories, but I'm keeping certain info under my hat for the sake of various friends who still work there. Let's just say that...nah, let's just say nothing, then, if/when the whole thing goes belly up I can dish the dirt at my leisure. "Naive and scared" is a good description, though.

The Gloom Brothers are the LAST people who should be deciding what is good writing and what is not. Which of course makes them perfect mainstream music press editors.

but crispin - whose emails were of an uninspiring sort (his invective directed at me because of my complete and utter hatred of the darkness would not even pass as an affecting ilx post) told me that 'i had not found my voice yet' ... huh?

of course it did not help when the question were answered as thus:

do you have any friends in england besides ms doom-e...

errr .. *l*n mg** (which was true at that point in time...!)

why did you leave canada?

i [reference deleted at request of poster].

etc.

then crispin started going on about coldplay - well if i asked you to write a 1000 word article about coldplay's new album what would you say?

err...i had not heard the album in question - so i would not know - until i heard the music?

etc.

bizarre. though i got the feeling that dan was more crispin's bitch. but thought that dan was 'cooler'.

I've had comments along these lines.
Darling.

My feelings preceicely - I'm finding myself wondering if I was stuck in my shitty little hometown with just the radio and Terrestrial TV, how on earth would I actually become myself. Unexpected things in mainstream culture which I wasn't expecting just snagged, and I happily followed the bait. Since there's less interesting stuff in the mainstream channels...

I shiver.

(To be honest, if I somehow had net access, I think I'd have been fine. That's where the hope for the hypothetical me-now would lie. I still remember the difficulty I went through to get hold of a mAKE-up record. Now, assuming net access, it woudln't be a fucking problem. Or a triumph, but that's a different question)

And I concur with Mr. True. "Would I do this for free?" is the ground-rule for judging the worthiness of any writing venture.

Bang? Ah - another time. I'm tired.

KG

*The problem being is that I'm not sure if I'd have had it to any great degree. It's not if my family were either wealthy or technophillic enough to get a home PC.

after my first year of music journalism - you quickly realise - you don't do this for the money. because, obviously, you would be insane.

If you're doing it for a living then you are doing it for money, whatever way you want to dress it up.

drop the pretentious twaddle for once, ta.

I write because I want to, and because I want to say things, but why would I aspire to do it for free, why would I even think that wanting to do it for free is something to be praised or fetishised, we're all getting shite enough pay as it is without this away with the fairies nonsense.

Also next time you think you'd write for free, do it for a few weeks and see.

you write for free because 1) you love to write 2) you love music 3) constantly improving your craft

whether paid or not - my free writing gets the same amount of love. see, i love writing and i love music. i like to constantly write. i won't sit around waiting for commission..

get a banker's job in the city then careerist.

cause ronan, yer attitude is like, a dime a dozen in the music industry...

but that's it - end of my screed.

and csi miami is back on.

You are what you write, not where, or anything else. I'm sure you actually agree really.

Totally agree.

but hell, you are talking to someone who loves eugene o'neill *and* the national enquirer and would love to write like either!

baby, i've got to keep you updated on what has happened. of course, if jerry sold my reviews to allmusic.com or amazon.com for cash - my eyebrows would be raised ...

i have to go now. someone has been stabbed outside the library.

Fuck, it's raining. Wish I was in Seattle so I could buy a Dicks' burger

Why thank ya. Haven't said much here myself, though! :-) I must consider this Dicks' burger next time I am there (was just in Seattle two weekends back -- and I forget to hook up with Eric Reynolds at that, my brain was soft).

It's hard to be entirely objective when someone threatens to do what you do, as well as you do it, more cheaply or free of charge.

Saturday, 21 December, 2002, 13:21 GMT
US blocks cheap drugs agreement

The United States has blocked an international agreement to allow poor countries to buy cheap drugs.

This means millions of poor people will still not have access to medicines for diseases such as HIV/Aids, malaria and tuberculosis.

Lucky me, nobody here poses that kind of a threat to my job.

Mei, I don't know what you do for a living, if anything, but writers don't sit there thinking 'ooh, she got paid £500 to do that for the Times, I'll give it to them for £250 or for free.' You're a bit touched, aren't you, boy? Can I sell tickets to you for £1 a throw, just like a real freakshow, and keep all of the proceeds myself?

I believe it follows that those people who currently make money from writing have something to gain from discouraging others to write for free.

That dosn't mean they _will_ act selfishly, just that they might, and I am definitely not accusing you of acting selfishly or disingenuously.

Yes, I am definitely a boy, thank you very much

hell, i'll undercut - why not!!! that's why i hold another job. going to start make my contacts and work my ass off and hopefully things will sort out.

i write for a living, and have been able to 'live' off only writing for five years, and feel utterly, and totally grateful for that.

the way i define it, though, is that i don't write 'for the money'. if 'for the money' was the true defining matter in my choice of vocation, then i wouldn't be writing, because i write *everywhere*, for *weveryone*, and still earn a very modest amount and live a very modest life (and i am happy with that). i get paid to write and make my living from it, but i do it because i love music, love writing, ilove writing about music, and i love the lifestyle it allows me to lead (i am sitting in the sun in the garden writing this morning, yay).

i am well-educated and have worked all kindsa jobs on the side while pursuing music-jounralism as a 'career'. i grew up in a dodgy council estate (housing prioject, for you Americans) in south london and have no trust fund or real 'safety net' to catch me should this all go tits up. this isn't a hobby for me, this is something i'm pursuing 'for real', but i don't do it for the money, because if i really cared about money and if it was the sole focus for why i live my life the way i do, i could earn more doing something/anything else.

and you'll have to forgive me if i take a slight offence from people who assume this kind of thinking is any kind of posture. when you grow up poor and stick with something through thick and thin because you believe its right and its what you wanna do, any kind of effort to work it as a 'posture' to impress others falls away quite quickly. i've met plenty of people working at NME who come from very healthy backgrounds, who probably don't need to work for a living (and i remember one particularly plum-throated dude who would chide me for writing as much as i do, that i should just 'chill out and enjoy it') who aren't doing it for the money, because they don't need it. i *do* need it, but that's not why i'm doing *this*.

while i don't think the blame for the status quo for freelancers and writers should lay at the feet of volunteer writers and people willing to take poor pay, it *is* part of the reason for why wrietrs get paid sso little. the thinking at publishing houses is that writers are replaceable (cf those cowards at Bang) and that there are teemig thousands fo kids willing to do it for free, so why pay em more? that's why kerrang!, a mag i *love* writing for, pays a lickspittle 9pence per word depiste being so hugely profitable, thereby supporting more aiing mags in the Emap empire...

BTW
Did you know you're namechecked in the Valerie song "Popstar".
It's only got ONE chord as far as I can tell. Wow.

Most _musicians_ want to do both too.

This is a very bitter and intensely personal opinion due to my own personal experiences and I don't expect people to defend what they do.

It's particularly galling me right now that in the past, when I've talked about my craft, I've had SO MUCH derision and hatred, and yet they expect sympathy from me.

I can't qualify right now, and I shouldn't even be debating. There's just a pit of bile in my stomach right now and I'm having more and more trouble understanding why anyone would even *want* to be a music journalist, let alone why they would expect to be paid for it.

OK, I'll shut up now before I get in any real trouble.

yeah, like stopping other writers getting published at all, not letting them build up portfolios and reputations, thereby allowing the same names to hang onto all the paid work going and keeping the field clear for no-talent, cunts like Ale*is Petri*is to monopolise the music press. I avoid writing for nothing at almost all costs, coz I work hard at what I do, think it's worth people's money on the whole and don't believe you can eat prestige or pay gas bills with it (especially when wankers like Rankin are making a fucking fortune from their various business interests, swanning round with supermodels and looking smug on TV at their latest NY gallery opening, but refusing to invest even the most token amount cash in their magazine contributors, many of them talented and completely bloody broke) but when the chance comes up to do something I really want to for a mag like CTCL which isn't rolling in loot and whose ethic I admire, well, bollocks to it - I'll do it coz I'm being given a chance to do something that I couldn't do for anywhere else... the crucial thing is to make sure you're not being exploited...

my thrill from being name-checked in that song was somewhat soured by the fact that they linked me to NME in the same line, though i guess 'kerrang!' would've queered the rhyme scheme a tad...

Kate, you might be surprised to hear this, but there are a lot of people who write about music for exactly the same reason you do: they love it so much that they simply Have No Choice, they MUST enthuse wildly and passionately about what they love, and shoot down and wax critical about what has disappointed them or let them down or - to borrow the above-mentioned analogy about writers offering to work for nothing getting in the way of those wanting to get paid - just plain Got In The Way of other more talented/interesting artistry.

My reasons for writing about music now remain, I hope, exactly the same as they were nine years ago when I wrote my first review - and the same as my reasons for dragging people into my bedroom to play them something that's affected me (no sniggering), and the same as my reasons for paying for tickets for people on the "if you like it, pay me back, if not, don't" proviso (I get offered payment more often than not), and the same as my reasons for forcing music into people's possession because they Have To Hear It.

It's all about love, pure and simple. Share the love, Kate - you might even enjoy yourself. And as for wanting to get paid, if I've written something I think is of some worth to both reader (and, sometimes, artist), yes it'd be good to get paid. But over the years I reckon I get paid for more thing that arent' worth the money, than I *don't* get paid for things that *are*, so it all equals out in a weird way.

ps. you write about music too, right? Yes, you do. I don't know why though, since you moan about it so constantly. I've always assumed you write for the reasons described above (ie. you just Can't Keep It In, no matter how hard you try - in my ideal world, that'd be everyone's reasoning), but I'd be forgiven for thinking, in the light of your above comments, that you're actually not only a frustrated musician, but also a fristrated journalist/critic, and really you just enjoy doing things that give you cause to have a good cathartic moan now and again.

If a music journalist is a failed musician, and a music PR is a failed journalist, then what's a failed music PR? What a about all three? Why d'you think I'm still here? Jeez. Less precious, already.

If you post it over there, I will reply over there.

I kinda disagree here. It's Simon Reynolds right? I've heard the name but don't really know who he is. Don't know who Penman is either.

I'd like to write the best I can and at a distant second I'd like other people to appreciate it.

But it is only writing about music. Not actually doing it.
I know it's valuable and worthwhile and gives people enjoyment by reading it.
I agree with Kate that if anyone then it's the music creators who should be rewarded and appreciated.

It'd be different if you'd said Albini/Guðmundsdóttir.

I never, ever, EVER wanted to be a music journalist. It was something I felt roped into. I guess I am extrapolating, not understanding why anyone else would want to do it.

Some of this I'm guessing, but anyway:

You have released albums;
You've done live shows;
Some people like your music;
You are proud of at least some of the music you've done (this is the most important).

Don't be confused by the fact that you couldn't support yourself financially doing it. Price should have nothing to do with value.

Because you haven't failed, Kate. I'm not going to go into the details of what I think about your music - not relevant here - but I know you well enough to realise, as I think I've explained at length, that you're driven to do this, that you're *compelled* to make music, and talk about music, and dissect it, and love it, and hate it and and and isn't it BRILLIANT? To be like that? Do you know how many people would KILL for that passion? If they had any passion in the first place? Hmmm. You get my drift.

So don't get all uppity and start taking things personally. In fact, I was totally generalising about the frustrated musician=journo=PR=whatever - it applies just as much to me as it does you, and, frankly, most people on this here ILM.

Define failure, anyway! Are you at all happy with the body of work (music/writing/whatever) you've created thus far? Have you made other people happy and/or affected them in some way with what you've created? Are you on death's door and thus incapable of writing another note or word before you expire?

Then quit your whingeing and get on with it..!

ps. be gentle with me, it's a special day today ;-)

Oddly enough, I think standards are better when writers are actually paid enough to cover their rent. When I worked for NME my first few months in London, I made about £500/month from my writing/subbing shifts, and less than half of that went on my rent. It was 1990 and the word-rate at the paper was 10p. But you could live on that then, and there were only two marketeers to pay for because NME knew what it was and didn't need constant brand management. The writers were good enough at doing that by following the style sheet and letting everything else look after itself.

Stelfox, I could think of a few people at the Guardian/Obs that deserve your ire much more than Petridish. I actually help other writers to the point of telling them who to call; I'm not terrified someone better than me is going to come along and swipe 'my' work - favours come back to me nicely, always - but I am galled that someone with my experience, cuttings and contacts still has to crisis-call accounts departments to see where that days-late bloody cheque went.

Most indie musicians I know don't make lots of money until they have a substantial back catalogue. On major labels this also holds true: not even Blur made money for the first few years (source: J Frischmann).

Incidentally, if you're a freelance writer who has done ANY work for NME/Melody Maker over the past decade or so, you ought to be taking a CLOSE look at these "NME" specials IPC are releasing...

However if you were a staff member at the time they own your stuff, right?

The average album they review is probably 45 mins, you have to listen to it 3 times at least to be fair then spend say, an hour writing it up.

That's about 3 hours for say 300 words * 9p = £27 or £9/hour.

I think that's a pretty good hourly rate for work you can do anywhere, anytime, which you can mostly do while doing other things and which so many other people can do and would like to do instead of you.

I know it's not a steady income, no sick pay etc. but we should compare like with like, and the things closest to writing music reviews with respect to working conditions are homeworking stuff like assembling mailshot packages or transferring batch processing forms to compuetr. The fringe benefts and satisfaction you get those jobs just doesn't compare.

I know it's not a steady income, no sick pay etc. but we should compare like with like, and the things closest to writing music reviews with respect to working conditions are homeworking stuff like assembling mailshot packages or transferring batch processing forms to compuetr. The fringe benefts and satisfaction you get those jobs just doesn't compare.

well, factor in these facts, my naive friend...

* most K! reviews are £16 for 120 words. and those albums are still 45+ minutes long.

* features, Risings, etc - factor in interview time, transcript time, research, typing up feature, rewrite time (URK!!!), expenses involved with writing feature.

* factor in time for pitching ideas, etcetera, which is the bulk of time spent as a freelancer.

i won't even begin to tackle what you're suggesting with "which so many other people can do"!

yeah, its better than working down a mineshaft or as a prostitute, that's true. that's not exactly the point, though, is it?

IMPORTANT NOTE: i actually love writing for Kerrang!, quit NME and took a 2p per word paycut to do so, and hope to br scribbling misfit reviews for them for a long time to come.

FURTHER NOTE: i also believe that staffers at K!, including the editor, are paid less than industry standards for a magazine of similar success.

I think that's a pretty good hourly rate for work you can do anywhere, anytime, which you can mostly do while doing other things and which so many other people can do and would like to do instead of you.

what a great way to look at things - i never, ever want to hear you maoaning about music journalism when you seem to think we're so unskilled and ten-a-penny... fuck that's annoyed me...

I know there's a lot more involved - I get paid hourly for what I do too. I teach at a tertiary college mostly A-levels and some things called Key Skills which are basically totally pointless. I get £17.06 and hour and when I found that out I was amazed at how high it was but...as you so rightly say there are lots of other things involved. Meetings, preparation work, marking and making sure you actually get paid. I'll probably earn about £9000 this year. I do get about 3 months off, but with that little money I need another job in the gaps.

I was talking specifically about CD reviews, I know there's more involved with features and interviews. Don't Kerrang pay more for those because of the extra work?

I'd gladly swap my job for yours. Kerrang is still pretty cool.
I would _love_ to be able say to myself "I write for Kerrang". I'd probably have a huge idiot grin plastered over my face as I did.

yeah, its better than working down a mineshaft or as a prostitute, that's true. that's not exactly the point, though, is it?

I was comparing it with homeworking and part time occasional work like that, which I think is a lot closer to music writing than prostitution or mining.

I stand by the comment that many people could do it, but that might be a problem with _me_. I'm sure I could do it, but I've got a huge tendency to under value myself and think that if I could do it anyone could, and that might not be true.

Do you realy think that writing a short review of a CD in a genre you've probably been listening to for years is very hard?

I don't think you can argue that you can't listen to a CD anywhere or anytime (Discman) and when it comes to writing up computers can be pretty portable or there's always a pad of paper and pen. Also I think most people wouldn't sit down and just listen intently to the music. They'd be erading or tidying up or drinking coffee or something.

How many people actually write CD reviews for Kerrang + NME + Q+ etc. etc.?
50?

How many people do you think there are in the country who could do it?
I reckon 100 would be a _very_ conservative estimate and that would still mean there are 'plenty' of other people who could do it.

oh, just as it should be - something you have to work pretty bloody hard at to get noticed, work for fuck all for years and then finally enjoy the luxury of being paid a pittance for it... great... i always thought *good* writing deserved a little more respect than that... jeezus christ just look at penman, reynolds, morley etc... these guys changed my life!!! they deserve to be paid better than a casual office temp (and those are the kinds of jobs *thousands* of people can do)... what you're advocating is pretty much the way it has gone... a bunch of hired typists

People, it's only through thinking we are unskilled and ten-a-penny that Mei can indulge in the fantasy of Being Just As Good when the scribblings here demonstrate that compared to those of us getting paid in full, he simply isn't good enough in terms of subject knowledge, composition or research skills (never mind the other interpersonal skills you need to get on as a writer/critic/journalist). Shocked as I am about the quality of some of the copy I've had to rewrite over the years, I'd still commission/pay for any of it given the choice between that and Captain Farmpunk.

Okay, sorry, I was comparing the _conditions_ of the two sorts of jobs and their pay.

I'm not saying they require the same sort of dedication or skill. I'm not very successfully trying to emphasise the fact that there is a huge difference between these occupations, that isn't evident if you look _just_ at the money.

oh well, now i know why i aint got that contributing editorship on vanity fair yet...

Strictly speaking, no, IPC Media don't earn the rights to my Nirvana material - but it's complicated. As Suzy rightly says, I was staff so all my writing is automatically owned by IPC, but I had a verbal agreement (witnessed by many in the office) with the then-editor of Melody Maker, Allan Jones that IPC could NOT sell on any of the interviews/articles I conducted with either Kurt Cobain or Courtney Love, post-"Nevermind"...

The reasons for this weren't because I thought I'd be able to make tons of money later from same, but because Kurt absolutely fucking detested the British press at the time and would NOT, in any way shape or form have spoken to me under any other conditions. (He did so, because I was considered a "friend!.) How rich the irony then, the "NME" Nirvana Special - put out by a paper that Kurt (rightly or wrongly) hated.

And I'm fine with that, because I don't think that what someone will pay for necessarily bears any relation to how valuable it is.

Also Suzy, I read both volumes of Julian Cope's autobio and enjoyed them very much. I think he only mentions 'farmpunk' once, somewhere in the first book, and he doen't properly explain what he means. Still, I think I may well be one.

i remember,before i quit NME, the latest contract IPC put through would've claimed ownership of all interview TAPES as well as material and feature. meaning any confidential, off the record conversations with trusted artists would now be in their possession and, hence, no longer 'Off the record'...

How much does he get paid for turning NME into teenagers rock weekly, and writing bollox about Coldplay, The Strokes, Oasis and The Vines?

I see Mark Sutherland is still being paid to churn out rubbish,these days at the BBC:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/6music/music_news/editorial_20030604.shtml

way way way too much...

It's odd: I feel like a good university lecturer who is well-published, respected work-wise and can't get tenure despite everything.

i feel like one who can't get it in england...

what??!! I know I've been out of the loop for a while, but jeez...

It's odd: I feel like a good university lecturer who is well-published, respected work-wise and can't get tenure despite everything.

I hope that doesn't make you feel bad. I think even people who know it's not all about money/recognition sometimes subconciously forget that.

Better measures would be:

'How much do you enjoy it?',
'Do _you_ think it's worthwhile?'
'Is there something else you'd rather do?'

and, for the competitive:

'How many people wish they had my job?'

(I'm guessing for you the answers would be 'lots', 'yes', 'no' and 'lots').

not sure... i quit shortly after. i mean, it was unworkable, but yeah, i'm sure lotsa scared naive freelancers signed the contract...

-- DJ Martian (xxxxxxxxxxx@excite.com), June 9th, 2003.

Why do you think it's rubbish?

It's not _very_ good, I don't agree with him and I didn't enjoy reading it, but why is it rubbish.

I think Stereophonics fans, of which there are quite a few, would like it.

*EXPLODES*

But why? You wouldn't review an album or gig and say the band weren't very good because 'it's shit music'.

*EXPLODES*
I've just asked a friend who likes the Stereophonics to read that article, without telling him why.
He laughed several times, said afterwards that he enjoyed reading it and thought the writer had a valid point. My friend didn'y think it was shit writing.

It's not _very_ good, I don't agree with him and I didn't enjoy reading it, but why is it rubbish?

To put it another way, REM aren't _very_ good, their lyrics are annoying and the music is unexciting.

Because they're shit.

(in the mid-80s the nme and new scientist and one of the women's titles went on strike for SIX WEEKS!! a pyrrhic victory, esp. as the melody maker scabbed — except for the good writers, who all debunked over to nme!! — and ipc management then spent a decade looking for editors who would toe the company line absolutely...)

the main reason i lost interest in entryism has been the petrification of possible formal categories: yr allowed reviews/live reviews/lists/big interviews/brief news stories AND THAT'S IT!!

i ran out of ways to use these to my own satisfaction => went on to be editor of a smaller mag (= could write any kind of piece bcz the editor was happy to run it) => lost that job and was unemployable as a writer except for very occasional one-offs

(my approach to reviews is apparently out of bounds at wire these days, even tho i'm v.long-time buddies w.almost its entire staff -> no one ever explicitly told me this, it's just that good pieces got spiked or clumsily cut, and for the amount you earn, i stopped seeing the point)

hence: ilm/nyplm is better (for some reason i never yet got into using radio free narnia for music writing)

village voice primarily started using me as a result of stuff i did here, so you cd call it kind of loss leader/woodshedding/R&D if you like => basically i write better not for money, but i don't think i ever put anyone out of a job (haha who is the more expensive me? i pity the fool... )

And when I say anyone who writes for a living is doing it for the money, I mean in the sense that it is their living, not their vocation. The idea that music journalism is a vocation is the really iffy and undesirable one.

Bah at this stage in my relatively young career I am entirely sick of writing for free, the real world doesn't recognise kudos from anyone around here, they'd sooner recognise a nice new shirt or a name in print or even a few bloody interviews with minor celebs.

do you really think so? why?

Loving music may be a vocation. Writing about it isn't.

I'm not Scottish, that was a typo.

The reason the NUJ is irrelevant to anything IPC might do is not that hungry young hacks won't join a union. It's that IPC doesn't recognize the NUJ, which was the eventual result of that 80s strike detailed above. They just ignore it. You work for them on the understanding that you have no union rights whatsoever. Which doesn't get them out of trouble re. the NME "Originals" controv, of course.

I've been quietly fuming at this talk of writers and how their highly-skilled work shouldn't earn them any money. It's like if I went into a students' union forum and starting saying "well I'm not a student, I've never been a student, I'm a taxpayer funding students, so I think student loans are a great idea. Why should I pay for you bastards to lounge around while I work my arse off and get fuck all?" It sounds fairly reasonable, unless you have ANY IDEA AT ALL of what you're talking about, or its consequences, or of which people with which objectives you're effectively siding with.

100-word capsule reviews on Teletext, or in some freesheet handed out in record shops shouldn't earn anyone a living. Because anyone *can* do that, and would probably like to. But - and forgive the self-aggrandisement, but I'm out of work and bitter - read one of my articles, or an article by any 'good' music writer, and ask yourself "could anyone do this? Could *I* do this? Could my Auntie Susan do this?" Does it contain IDEAS? Then clearly, *no one* else could have written that *particular* article. Does it draw on reserves of knowledge which might be described as 'specialist'? Is it constructed properly and spelt correctly? Then it's skilled work. In general, people whose work involves exploiting skills which they have and other people don't - no matter how easy, or how much fun the work might be - get paid MORE than those who do something that any jerk could do, given a few months' training (for example, telesales. Or driving a bus. Or playing bass in a rock band). Footballers, popular songwriters, TV "personalities", actors, and then everyone from C++ programmers to CEOs. These people are valued (in some cases overvalued, clearly) because they have either a talent or a gift for applying themselves. So I want money. I don't even want *much* money.

You musn't lose sight of the fact that there's a battle on at the moment. The imperative of the last 100+ years has been for the elite to force the rest into a position where they're valueless and interchangeable. You know, like Iraqis will be under whatever government the US installs. You're flipping burgers, you're pressing buttons, you're doing what you're told. An efficient service economy. Globalization is speeding up and intensifying the process, and while it's long been a fact of life in the Third World, it's encroaching pretty quickly on the First World. Journalism - ok, we're discussing music journalists, but whatever - journalism is a profession already feeling the pinch because of the importance of media to corporate power. Fox News in the States, and the people working for it, and the conditions they work under, are a case in point. People working in journalism, or any media, who are happy to undercut are as bad as those who surrender the moral obligations of journalism (and even music journalism has some) in the hope of "getting on". They're like those who scabbed happily at Fortress Wapping, selling out people they'd worked with for years, having been assured their jobs were safe...then found themselves fucked by the same sword a year later.

The notion that music writers in particular are "parasitic" is ignorant rubbish. Well, not always. The indie fans on the NME swanning around town like heroes because they rearrange a sequence of cliches once a week, or men like S. Sutherland, for various reasons, can safely be described as parasites. Because they don't *give* anything. They add nothing to the imagination, they don't help anybody to get anything more out of music than they do already, and they simply ignore ideas: they don't pick up on ideas expressed in the music they write about (it interferes with the established template style), and they certainly don't generate ideas themselves. But the fact that some of us feel utterly divorced from those people isn't just hubris. If there was no such thing as music journalism, the NME types and the student-paper gigglers would find some other way to live vicariously, like moving to Beverly Hills and selling maps of movie stars' homes. But some of us would still be writers, writing about something else. Simone de Beauvoir, the sex parasite. Noam Chomsky, sucking the blood from world politics.

There are two reasons writers get so huffy about people in bands sneering at them.

ONE: it's another musicians' conceit, part of most bands' tendency to act like the frigging Stones before anyone gives a toss about them. "Oh, the press, man." It usually means either "The press, man, *they think we're shit*" (if that's your problem then say so), or "The press, man, what a drag, we take this weird smalltown approach of trying to lord it over anyone we can perceive as less cool than us, because we're AAAAARTISTS." Eh? Even if the sneerer is your all-time favourite pop star, it seems so petty and uncharitable that it simply lowers your opinion of them. What makes these people think they can act so royal? Anyone can sing a song, right?

TWO: Musician, heal thyself. Sure, printed media is hugely responsible for pumping crap into the world on a daily basis, and no one needs more of that. But we need more CDs in the world? More kind-of-OK bands? I don't think so (should point out here that I'm not sniping at any particular ILMers on this thread, as I have no idea who anyone is anyway). One of my main reasons for choosing criticism as a form of expression is my problem with the sheer volume of mediocrity in the world. What I *don't* want to do at any cost is become some schlub at Time Out, writing witty meaningless props for middlebrow trash, just ONE OF THOSE GUYS, y'knaaa. It doesn't interest me, I think it would be a waste of whatever talent I have, and most importantly, I don't want there to be any more of this crap de-oxygenating the world, and I certainly won't accept money to do the job myself. But musicians never for a moment consider that this might be what they're doing. When stung by a slating, they'll sneer at the journalist who wrote the review in precisely the same way every time - by assuming that (s)he has no life, doesn't "understand rock'n'roll", or is a "parasite". Stands to reason, doesn't it? I mean, anyone who doesn't like your band. There has to be something wrong there. I say: compare and contrast the relative worth of the specific contribution to humanity of a record without wit, brains or imagination, and a witty, intelligent, imaginative criticism of that record. Any world in which Paul Morley is a parasite, whereas The Strokes aren't, is fucked somewhere. Who creates? Who reacts?

bit of asslicking but i used to buy this edgy mag for nathan's stuff alone. what u up to now?

The parasites are the likes of Steve and Mark Sutherland, who want to uphold the status quo, are afraid of change, stick to their narrow confines, unwilling to explore, offer nothing new and are cultural philistines that abuse their position/ power.

I sort of agree with this, most people don't read an article about a band or a CD review because they're interested in the writer, but because they're into the band or want to know more about them.

Metallica should put an extra spoken word track on their next CD single encouraging all their fans to share printed music mags this way:

- Any magazine you buy, scan in all the articles
- Share them on P2P

Magazine circulations plummet, 100s of music journalists lose their jobs. Let's see them justify THAT.

being shit is generally a large part of why things can be deemed to be shit... however, i was being flippant and don't particyulartly want to have to deconstruct cobblers like that coz it really aint worth my time or effort.

my new word of the week

But by failing to explain why it's shit you're giving the impression that your view of it isn't worth the time to explain or justify.

Christ, even the ugliest man in the world looks beautiful to his mother.

You know all those successful people who just KNEW they were going to make it?

Well I've got news for them, there are lots of unsuccessful people who also KNEW they were going to make it. But didn't.

Then there are all those tortured artists who are never satisfied with what they do, always strive for better, for perfection.

They think they're mediocre when they're not.

The real point here is that knowing you're good or whatever is never a 100 percent 24/7 thing, nor should it be. Music journalism, like most other careers, like life itself really, is a matter of a few goals or dreams tied together by a few prejudices, a few principles, and generally described as a schtick.

Believing you're "going to make it" is the common way people refer to this, but the fact is any fool can believe they're going to make it.

Real and genuine self belief is directly linked to real and genuine self knowledge, knowledge of your own failings as well as your strengths, knowledge of areas where you are more bluster than logic, and areas where you know in your gut that you are right.

The tortured artist part comes in the times when our belief in our own schtick wavers a bit, for whatever reason. It's not a case of them thinking they are mediocre, it's a case of them losing motivation a bit. I don't think in their heart of hearts that many successes really ever fully believe they are mediocre. Some days it's difficult to continue plugging away because in artistic careers you always annoy someone and obviously the language of invective is more potent than a few kind words.

Some people say they believe in themselves because this is the attitude they have learned is necessary for success and because "self belief" is such a Disnified cliche and basically a massive life-ring to cling on to. This sort of self belief is blind and just lip service really, and sooner or later the person may realise this.

The point is the people who KNEW they were going to make and didn't were wrong weren't they?