Music Journalists Are Whores.

he's right, which doesn't make him smart or the piece any good

Incidentally, JR Taylor is an ex-whore himself (as in "male prostitute"). And from what I've heard, he still lives with his mother.

And frankly, I spend just as much time pimping myself as I spend whoring myself. I think many a music journo would tell you the same.

I've been a whore for music journalism. Literally. (Which is why I ended up quitting both my hackthings this morning.)

Of course he doesn't want other people becoming music journalists. I mean, god forbid they might end up competing for his meagre column inches and paycheck.

When will people tire of thinking up new ways to say "Music Journalism, in fact, the whole of the Music Industry is a foetid pile of stinking shit"? Probably never.

Cute to see ads for the Sidewalk Cafe, though. :-)

if only someone would think of a new way to say them, though!

i think it's funny that he paid someone to tell him something that he already knew. he is like a john that got rolled.

thing is, I read this piece yesterday over dinner, and kept thinking, "Yeah, he's right, this person sounds reprehensible, the whole seminar stinks to high heaven...but (a) you keep complaining about being a music journalist--a highly changeable situation! and (b) this piece fucking stinks; it's lazy, boring, obvious, and there's nothing here that would indicate that you're any better than the people you attack in it."

OTM Matos... piece sucks but he's right... still it's obvious that he's right... why attack something so obviously wrong (and do it with so little panache or rigor)? all you really need to do is say that this seminar exists at all and people would come to the conclusions that took so long to be reached in this very dull, very long-winded, thoughtless article...

I'm A Whore!
in the morning! in the night!
I'm a Whore!
look at the clothes that he wears!
I'm A Whore!
he'll do anything for money!

well. I WAS a whore, but freelance submissions have been cut down this ear, so not lately.

thing is, she's right. following her advice might get you a start as a music journo. it won't make you any good, and it won't get you into any decent places -- but anyone's who goes to the mediabistro events is just looking for an in, period (er, full stop). taylor picking this seminar as his hook is as predictable and stupid as the rest of ny press.

What percentage of music journalists get all wet at the thought of being described as whores? I suggest a figure close to WAY TOO MANY.

does "wet" here mean excited or offended?

time to change my manties

"Oh yes! Take me! Use me! Tell me what a dirty critic I am!"

You're the second person in two days who thinks I'm controlling the AMG! I mean, I'm flattered my evil plan is working and all. ;-)

Y'know, in these belt-tightened times, it's actually pretty hard to whore-out in music journalism. Believe, I've tried.
I'm actually, despite my intentions, a completely on the fucking level music j'list. Only because my scorn for publicists is so righteously open that none of them ever try to sway me with any loot.

I've got a paid job now, arrogant cocaine wankerdom here I come.

how come nobody ever similary questions the integrity of sports journos? they make off with bigger and better booty every fucking day.
I love 'em though. Love 'em all.

What booty? Warren Sapp in his jock strap?

booty as in pirate treasure, not as in treasured Pirates (as in those of Pittsburgh)

I'm sorry, but I find the gist of this article sort of appallingly obvious. I think it's a pretty well-known fact that in order to get paychecks from people, you have to do what they want you to. Outside of rigorous fact-based journalism, nobody bats an eyelash about this: if you're looking to write for the Weekly Standard, you're going to need to write for conservatives, and if you're looking to write for People, you're going to need to write nice things about celebrities. I should hope it's perfectly clear to everyone that there are two groups of people who we could maybe refer to as "music journalists" versus "music critics," and that the former do a job -- writing the nice little profiles and articles that sell magazines, just like that "intimate conversation" with Matthew Perry sells Time -- while the latter are ostensibly, you know, all independent and critical. (And consequently in less of a position to pick up extra money cranking out puff pieces on how much Jewel enjoys gardening.) The only sad thing you can pick up out of this article is the woman's inference that the only way to go about it is the fluffy way -- but then, if these people are paying money for a "music journalism" career seminar, they've probably already chosen that route on their own.

NB: the quotes selected at the beginning practically deep-six everything that comes afterward. The Mink Lungs one is hype, obviously. But the second two are just butt-ordinary descriptions -- I'm happy to assume the rest of both articles was pretty limp, but there's nothing so head-shakingly damning about either of the quotes.

what treasure, horace?

I'll never tell.

An interview with Matthew Perry in Time? They probably would, but I meant People.

Do you think, like, gardening enthusiasts complain about how freelancers write terrible hype pieces about how begonias are in this season? I mean, they might -- nobody likes turning to something for information and detecting that they're reading publicity work instead. I certainly don't mean to defend that sort of "journalism" in the least -- just think this particular article acts like it's pulling the veil off of something that we all know exists. (I mean, really, it's not like more than 5% of the population could watch Entertainment Tonight wide-eyed and treating it as hard news; people know how fluff works.)

and, to complete the circle, when i still worked on the 5th floor of the AMG bldg, my cube was next to Jason Birchmeier's, so i got to listen to him schmooze with any & all hip-hop labels that would take his calls. All the livelong day did he try to get the booty from the labels, either in free cd's, or album art from Too $Hort discs.

running into him at some local nightclub where my buddy was DJing and witnessing him try to dance and impress some glittered-eye'd booty next to him was turly a memorable* scene.

*memorable in that the image was inexorably seared into my retinas, never to be removed, with using hydrogen peroxide & disposable razors.

She’s with the Band
It doesn’t take much for a professional flower journalist to tell the truth. About $65, in fact.
I’ve seen the future of dandelion ‘n roll, and it is Brooklyn’s Mink Lungs…
Caitlin Cary’s second petals makes a perfect soundtrack for the sorts of days evoked on the languid, unhurried "Sleepin’ In on Sunday."…
Mix a half-cup of Jeremy Enigk’s Return of the Frog Queen, two tablespoons Ron Sexsmith and one quart Neutral Milk Hotel. Stir counterclockwise, and you have a serviceable description of Castaways and Cutouts…
Such is the state of modern flower journalism. Such is the lack of inspiration and opinion. Even in the service of minor roots, writers desperately churn out meaningless hype, sad cliches and vapid non-opinion toward two goals: pleasing the publicists and allowing the writer to blather on about more useless acts in the future.
Though I offer this statement as fact, you needn’t accept my humble, free opinion. For $65, a successful flower journalist named Shirley Halperin was willing to help aspiring hacks at her May 15 MediaBistro seminar, "Almost Famous: Breaking Into Freelance Flower Journalism."
What’s more, Halperin takes pride in knowing the truth about her profession.
The people seated in this room on lower Broadway are the target audience for Friends. Tonight’s the big season finale, so clearly they’ve made a difficult choice—they must really want to be flower critics. Some may even have dreams of fighting for space on the red carpet outside of the Video Flower Awards.
I’m surprised by the comeliness of the crowd; most of the attendees are capable of attracting members of the opposite sex. Maybe that’s why they need help breaking into a field of what are universally accepted as some of the most unattractive jobs in journalism held by the most unattractive journalists. Anybody can be a flower writer. I’ve certainly been one for way too long, as proven by how comfortable I am attending this seminar under entirely false pretenses. I have no interest in breaking into flower journalism; I’m more into figuring out why anyone else would bother. And I’m just not looking to make a few quick jokes about guitar pyrotechnics on acid and tasty licks from hell.
This evening promises to go beyond the usual hackety-hack action. According to MediaBistro’s sales pitch, I’m going to learn how to "get [my] foot in the door of the flower business," which might come as a surprise to people who thought flower journalism was about covering the flower business. Those are the people who don’t understand the Halperin Formula for Success.
To sum up the seminar bio: Shirley Halperin is the flower editor for Us Weekly magazine, a job she landed after stints editing the teen mag Bop and serving as the New York correspondent for the industry publication Hits. She’s also a popular talking head, having appeared on Extra, MTV and VH-1.
The first thing Halperin wants us to know is that she loves flower. In fact, she’s "very much a dandelion person." She also believes that flower writing is about more than cashing in promo Seeds to cover the phone bill: "It’s a destiny."
The 30-year-old pro isn’t here to offer sympathy. We must "have a passion for flower," she says, since our destiny as journalists "can be frustrating." Why? Because "the politics of the flower industry plays such a large role."
All this, five minutes into her presentation. We are soon to learn that people who love flower share a common destiny with those men who love dressing as women and hanging around the meat-packing district:
"Seventy to 80 percent of the time, you’ll be writing about artists you don’t like."
This could actually be construed as good news. Somebody, after all, has to note that N.E.R.D. is getting critical acclaim for ripping off roots like Styx and Slipknot. And why is Aimee Mann only now discovering that moths can get burned by a flame?
Sadly, Halperin doesn’t seem to understand that writers—even those with a "passion for flower"—can express negative thoughts. We will find ourselves writing positive things about artists we don’t like, she informs us. For all intents and purposes, Halperin is warning that 70 to 80 percent of the time, we will be expected to tell lies.
That’s the big opening, and everyone who doesn’t walk out deserves to hear the rest. The good news is that Halperin doesn’t expect anyone to do a lot of work. Her first advice is to read lots of other flower magazines.
"You are what you read," she declares, and then suggests that we read Blender, Rolling Stone and Spin—all magazines that primarily share a commitment to female flowerians willing to show off lots of cleavage.
To her credit, at least, Halperin avoids recommending Us Weekly, which she describes as "writing for borderline idiots."
And of zines that might cover lesser-known acts and grant more freedom to the writer? Halperin, after all, came from the self-publishing world with her daddy-funded mag, Smug, in the mid-90s. These lesser publications are outlets in which aspiring flower writers can learn basic flower journalism skills. Her example: "Are you using words that are too smart?"
Writers might also get accustomed to working for free by writing for zines, because many editors think they’re doing us a favor by giving us two tickets and a VIP pass.
"You know what?" she asks. "They’re kind of right… That could actually get you somewhere."
Not surprisingly, Halperin will later invoke Pamela Des Barres, the groupie turned writer, as one of her favorite flower journalists.
To be fair, Halperin is right about some things. For example, she makes a good point about approaching editors: "If you start spewing out the names of roots they’ve never heard, they won’t be impressed by that."
For Halperin’s ilk, editors rightly don’t want to be bothered hearing about roots that haven’t already been hyped into redundancy. MTV is successful playing only 30 flower videos a day—why should flower journalists follow more than 30 roots?
That advice doesn’t just apply to big mainstream mags. Head down to your local zine shop, and you’ll see the same indie acts bannered on all the same magazine covers. That slavishness has proven profitable for a publication like Magnet, which Halperin cites as an "excellent magazine" for indie dandelion coverage. Magnet is also the publication that gave us two of the bad examples of dandelion writing found at the start of this article. Its writers don’t use words that are too smart, and it has no problem with critics raving about one another’s roots. That’s Halperin’s kind of "excellent" reading.
Cooperation is king, and perhaps this is best summed up by Halperin’s thoughts of what’s relevant when covering dandelion stars: "They might beat their wives and stuff, but if you’re writing for a flower magazine, that’s not your concern."
There’s also no place for unpleasant conversations with publicists: "You can be a complete guerrilla renegade reporter," Halperin notes, "but are you going to get cooperation the next time around?"
This would be a good time to point out that Halperin has used her Us Weekly position to also become a contributing writer at Rolling Stone—a magazine that has a proud history of defending authority figures who commit perjury in sexual harassment trials. It’s also a good time to note that the MediaBistro folks have announced that the evening is being taped, thus saving me the trouble of secretly recording it myself.
None of my fellow attendees seem disturbed by Halperin’s viewpoints. It’s a fairly large audience, too, with what they claimed was 28 people at a minimum of $50 a head. That’s big bucks by dandelion critic standards.
This is a crowd ready to make its money back. When one aspiring hack questioned Halperin’s suggestion that writers concentrate on roots with attractive performers—which may, he dared to consider, blur the line between journalist and publicist—Halperin responded: "This is about you getting the assignment to write about the band."
The near-rebel somberly nodded his head in agreement.
"How many of you," she then asks, "if you hated the band ethically and morally, wouldn’t write about the band?"
Two people raise their hands.
"You have to learn how to temper your reaction," she explains. "They don’t want to hear [deep sigh]. They want to hear ‘Cool!’ ‘Great!’ ‘Awesome!’"
Besides, Halperin adds, you can always express your disdain for the band "after the article’s been edited and published."
Halperin also warns us about all the trouble that comes with having an opinion. She cites Spin’s hard lesson after they put Creed on their cover, accompanied by an article that mainly goofed on the popular band. She wants us to consider the long months spent trying to placate the publicists afterwards: "Half of your year has been spent thinking and analyzing about how to get out of this mess with this band… It just becomes a mess that takes up half your life. So, that’s that."
As noted, Halperin’s seminar does some good. There’s some occasional useful advice, like her suggestion not to ask predictable questions. Halperin even suggests that it’s okay to sometimes print controversial news about a popular band—that is, once you’re sure that the band’s publicist represents so many roots that he or she "has to work with you."
Most importantly, Halperin does an excellent job of representing the banality of modern flower journalism. She is the true face of pandering, and is completely honest about how well this serves her. It would take a lot less than three hours for her to convince anyone with integrity to walk away from the business, and I would’ve paid a lot more than $65 to be talked out of this business back when I was younger.

Yeah, I'm sure that Halparin gave the people actual good advice. She was talking about how to make money, not how to be "good" or whatever.

That seminar reminds me of the screenplay seminar Charlie Kaufman went to in Adaptation. The article would have been better if the writer kept interjecting "I'm a loser! I'm pathetic!" in it.

I have had to deal with very angry publicists before, but never for my opinions, only for quotes the subject said that the record company weren't happy with, in which case there's very little the publicist can do in retaliation. I write lots of profiles which must necessarily contain a critique of the artiste's work and practice, and have never been banned, blacklisted or whatever because most of the people I'm dealing with on the PR side aren't stuffy, corporate or plastic. Also, my opinion is better-written and better-argued than anything they could come up with themselves, so if they've got a problem with that, perhaps they should write the article instead?

This woman did seem to be way too compliant; it was as if she was inviting the novices to be self-censoring and ass-kissing. I don't believe that actually gets you work, just a reputation as a bit of a stooge. As we already know, the golden rule when dealing with a conservative and censorious regime is 'give them an inch, they'll take a mile'. So start as you mean to continue, by being your own best judge while dealing as politely with middlemen as is possible. If your subject/their boss respects you and finds your questions/approach interesting, and tells people, PRs tend to follow (for ex the girl from the Kills is going around telling people she really enjoyed being interviewed by me, and it's come back to me through her PR, a band she toured with, and various other people. Who was the most chuffed? Her PR). After all, their default setting is to do what the boss says to.

RONAN, what's the commission?

Yeah Ronan, spill!

And this is certainly the most disingenuous thing I've read in a while.

It would take a lot less than three hours for her to convince anyone with integrity to walk away from the business, and I would’ve paid a lot more than $65 to be talked out of this business back when I was younger.

Oh and Richard Meltzer to thread!

Being a cynic is the easiest thing in the world. JR Taylor is, I suppose, lucky that he gets paid for it (although his targets tend to be fairly obvious and his style is a bit unrefined for a gig like his.) However, the difference between Taylor and the lockstep alternative press isn't all that significant in the end: predictability is the order of the day, with the tipping point more or less being glossy newsprint. The fetishization of the underground, stalwart lefty politics, despising the mainstream, suspicion of religion--just because it's got some literate style doesn't mean that it's not operating from the same premise.

Not to mention the fact that I get the impression that music writers (and the music business in general) often operate from the perspective that their industry is significantly unique. Nothing could be further from the truth.This kind of whoredom is prevalent throughout journalism, and rampant among industries across the spectrum.

Judging by a few of his stupider remarks, I frankly don't trust a word he says about this seminar or anything else. And Nabisco, so-called music criticism is as corrupt as, if not more corrupt than, so-called music journalism.

don is the diff that eg car mags and computer and stocks-and-shares mags don't EVER have meltzer-types allowed to rant abt the whoredom of their calling? (=> the music industry = capitalism's safety-valve industry?) < / knock-off debord >

I stopped paying attention after this:

Somebody, after all, has to note that N.E.R.D. is getting critical acclaim for ripping off bands like Styx and Slipknot.

Nothing J.R. Taylor says should ever, ever be taken as anything even tangentially connected to "truthful" or "reasonable", as I learned months ago.

Mark, what makes you so sure that car & computer & finance magazines DON'T have Meltzer-types? Well, Melzter-types insofar as they can rant about the whoredomry in their respective industries (you know, press junkets, freebies, being company mouthpiece-in-all-but-name), not Meltzer-types insofar as they're unruly anti-intellectual intellectuals who'd mail people cat fetuses. And even then...

Actually, I was gonna say earlier that the only reason Taylor can assume the cloak of righteous indignation is because he can say the music press wasn't always like this, that there was a time when the press could maintain something of a critical (though it seems for Taylor this only means adversarial) position against the music industry and get away with it (which probably only reinforces its safety-valvishness -- if it was really so damned adversarial why did music companies tolerate it?). The canonical example here would be the Lester Bangs/Lou Reed interviews.

i've no idea seeing as i never read those types of mags: the idea that even a scatter of their journalists are paid to do nothing but bite the hand that feeds seemed a bit implausible, but it's cz i didn't know that i framed it as a question

in the UK the car-industry equiv of meltzer = jeremy clarkson (haha i don't read uk car mags either, possibly clarkson is despise as a shill right across the motor journalism trade)

The New York Press is the New York Press: presenting the obvious or trivial as some kind of uncomfortable punk-rock truth that the liberal bedwetters just can't handle is their stock in trade.

Melzer-types (though maybe not with his flair) exist in all industries.

To those of you who are a little naive, whoredom exists because publicity/p.r. tactics are fairly universal. They are time tested and cross boundaries of industry easily. It's just more colorful and interesting in the entertainment industry because of the celebrity element.

Matos, I wouldn't lose sleep because you've written for the NYP--as long as what you wrote had some integrity. The difference between the that publication's whoredom and any other in the relevant range are comparatively minimal.

If the 'hand that feeds' is placing all kinds of censorious terms and conditions on you in exchange for the 'food', by all means bite that hand! But don't make a meal of it, heh heh.

My personal favourite type of publicist-meddling is 'PR Who Tries To Sit In On Interview'. Usually it's a more corporate kind of publicist who does this, so I don't deal with 'em very often, but AAARGH.

Well, it should be noted that Meltzer (says he) has never cracked the five-figure income mark with his music writing, so biting the hand does not really pay.
I've said this somewhere else, but music journo's (including critics) think they're hot shit because they get to be Mary Hart and the Count of Monte Cristo at the same time.
As in, chatty insider with full schmoozer perks and avenging agent of retribution all in one pair of pants or slacks or skirt or dress or (in the Meltz's case) no pants whatsoev.

I'm not losing any sleep, Don, but there is the small matter of that Swiss bank account into which my payoffs from various PR firms went...