Why would anyone want to be a music journalist?

I'd guess that someone who actually tries to make a living from it would also think that it's a lot more fun and consequently a LOT easier than many other jobs.

Also you don't need any qualifications, just ability.

Why would anyone want to be a musician, either?

Free CDs are a burdon, not a plus. :-(

Oh wait, I lied. It did, once. Unfortunately, he was underage. The young are so easily impressed.

See: this is ILX reinforcement in action. I ask a serious question about writing, and one person responds. I talk about sex, and there are a dozen new answers in two minutes. FREAKING TYPICAL.

And people wonder why I talk about sex all the time...

People love music and just want to be around it.

As for me, I wanted to be Lester Bangs.

OTM...

why the fuck would anybody wanna do anything, Kate? be it make music, write about it, whatever? i think, n a lot of ways, that's an impulse that's difficult of not impossible to totally and accurately dissect... even if i don't always do it particularly artfully, it still feels like 'my' art, to me (or maybe craft, sometimes - definitely when writing album reviews for the Times)...

Writing has managed to get plenty of women attacted to me on a cerebral level. Actually getting them into bed though...

the girl i dated from just before i got my first pro writing assignments (Melody Maker) through that whole first year was a girl i met via sending each other our fanzines... beyond the physical attraction (i like to think we made a cute couple) there was a connection through our love of writing and music that made that bond so very deep (we are still close friends today, five years or so after breaking up)...

This is also a question I'm having trouble answering lately, so perhaps Stevie = more OTM than he realised. (See the companion thread.)

No one's answered. Presumably because I banned people from talking about sex. No one even notices I exist unless I start talking about sex. Sigh.

the fast-paced world of ILM is just too fast for me sometimes.

Because I didn't notice the other thread (ie this one) til now! Sorry, Kate. Let's try again...

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.

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.

I feel the same emotion when I’ve just written something I’m proud of as I do when I’ve made some music I’m proud of.

Personally it’s a stronger emotion when I’ve made music, but I can imagine that for others the reverse might be true.

Unless you're very successful you'll have to listen to and write about stuff you'd rather not, taking away time and energy you could devote to stuff you love. But I think you couldn't become that successful without wasting time on all the rubbish.

I became a music journalist (I'm a culture journalist/critic/feature-writer/editor now, which includes music) because a) I liked groups with an aesthetic and subculture and wanted to write about that all through high school and college, which I did and b) I liked the approach of the British music press, which wanted, at the time, the thoughts and opinions of its interview subjects, not just who they were shagging, where they drank, and where they bought their blingwear. It seemed plugged into a wider sociopolitical world. I also had to do something vocational with Knowing About Stuff First because it seemed, well, logical. I knew that my writing was crossover-friendly and there were plenty of other places that would take my work once I got up and running. It was also a lot less scary than shopping a novel around!

I think music that is merely mediocre (not actually bad) often gets a slagging because it's easier to write.

There's so much great music that 'average' or even 'quite good' is just not good enough.

I think writing about dance music you can either talk about tangential stuff or you could actually describe the music. The trouble with describing it, igf you do it a lot, is that writers tend to get more and more specific and assume the reader can follow.

I bought Jockey Slut for the first time the other day and whilst I like it I don't have any idea what most of the stuff they write about sounds like (apart from things I'd heard already ). That's particularly odd when so much dance music is only sounds, ie it's not actually about anything.

this is like saying the worst thing you can do is bore someone, but its not really is it, given that boredom is in the eye of the beholder. and the music is not technically BAD as it does comply fully with Geirist standards ;)

I don't mean it's the worst but with music average is just not good enough.

If you're choosing a car you might compromise on looks or performance to get a lower price.

But with music 'average' is up against 'great'.

Which just proves how silly Geir is being.

Music is bad if you don't like it.

(I know different people have different ideas about what's good, average and bad, but if it's average for them then they should realise it's also bad).

My brain aches.

I asked a shrink once "did you ever know anyone who killed themselves out of sheer boredom?" and he got a very sad look in his eye and said "Yes, actually, I do."

i think thats a dead end argument. i'm not one of those people who go around saying 'there are only two types of music - good music and bad music' because whatever i think is good and bad will differ to other people. and what could be more boring today than hearing 'Smells Like Teen Spirit' on the radio? i don't want to listen to it, but i would not call it a bad record because of that.

Music is bad (for any given individual) if you(ie that individual) don't(doesn't) like it.

Or something.

eg
I love Mclusky but someone else might say that they think Mclusky are average. I think they're wrong, not because they don't like Mclusky but because really, for them, Mclusky are BAD.

I still don't think I'm being very clear

conversely, and ironically Zero 7 or any 'coffeetable' stuff is admittedly quite boring, but tracks like 'Polaris' or 'This World' do not bore me at all. or at least they didnt but that album is 2 years old now so naturally time plays a part in these things.

Something Im learning now. Writing about music you don't love is hard and not much fun. I got sucked into writing for the college paper which was a blast. I couldn't write, but neither could anyone around me. I kept writing as I went through university and to a lesser degree now because my work is so bloody technical its akin to murder. Why someone would try to do it for a living is beyond me though.

(hence my proud compete collection of therapy! CDs)