"Music writing is better if you can hear the music."

Aw hell, you ALL get hugs! Come on, don't be shy.

(I like this thread!)

Comments from Strongo (nee Blackie)

Comments from Toom Ewwwwinnng

And, of course, the quote that set me off on my wacky way:

"After hearing Jess Harvell dismiss posting MP3 files on music blogs, Mike Merrill thrust his hand in the air to issue a challenge. Unfortunately, time had run out for further formal discussion, but Merrill approached Harvell.

"'Normally I wouldn't rush to argue with a speaker, but I felt that he missed the fundamental point that music writing is better if you can hear the music,' said Merrill. 'We agreed that the problems of posting MP3s are more technical issues than style issues.'"

I'm never sure with MP3 blogs whether the writing is meant to be read in that way or as an advert for the music.

If anything, my ire was triggered by the word "fundamental", as if there was a problem before MP3s became like crabgrass. Some of my favorite musical moments (aside from, y'know, listening to music) involved a convergence of the idealized version of a song (in my head) and a piece of writing about said song that illuminates an aspect I hadn't thought of before. No offense to most folks out there holding down the MP3 fort (which I've tried to do as well, and failed to do, for many of the reasons mentioned by other folks), but my experiences haven't been all that ideal. I read the blurb (which is often one step removed from being slid into a holder above a CD rack at Borders), I D/L the song, I get my fix, and I shrug my shoulders. (This is my failing, BTW, not a failing w/ the musicblog format, which is obviously doing just fine w/out my patronage.)

If I want to be sold a piece of music, I want it to be done w/ a bit of flair & panache, not w/ the workmanlike efficiency of a LL Bean catalog. Yeah, it's a pretention, and it's about semantics, but, fuck it, that's what I want. I don't want an information dump (which is my prob. w/ most "CLICK HERE" 2nd-generation blogging in general) (cf. blogs that act as street teams for bands / labels, either complicitly or obliviously), and I certainly don't want an information dump in an arena that's supposed to be about the personal and the awkward and the idiosynchratic.

Yeah, I'm a fossil. Kids, I am available for display in all accredited universities and museums.

& I'll say this again (as it might've gotten lost in my blather up thar): my problem is w/ the phrasing of the sentiment, specifically the phrase, "he missed the fundamental point".

It's the same problem I have w/ folks that breathlesslly talk of blogs (in all arenas) being THE WAVE OF THE FUTURE - it's ONE wave, but it's not THE wave, and to just assume that it is THE wave and will pwn all that is "outdated" & "obsolete" is garbage.

[xpost]

"[...] but I do sometimes feel more like a cut-and-dried consumer guide w/audio samples just throwing shit out there than I do a "personal" voice sometimes." = YES YES YES YES YES! (re: the sentiment expressed, not re: you feeling marginalized, of course)

HOORAY! (This sentiment can apply to many different things.)

If you blog with mp3s your entry is trying to persuade someone to listen to that mp3. Therefore your writing becomes an advertisement for the music. Blogs without mp3s have more chance of the writing being interesting in and of itself.

Counter would be:

I'm writing about music because I want people to hear music, of course my blog is an advert for the things I love!

Counter again:

So our dispute is actually over whether criticism should be advertising (advocacy a less loaded term?) or not, rather than over whether mp3s should be on music blogs or not.

Yeah, Marcello's on it: there's the blogging pretense of stuff (writing) coming "from the heart", wherein the MP3 approach makes it more a "commodity" exchange - instead of just ideas or thoughts, there's this GOOD being provided, which pervs the "from the heart" vibe, the "pure, intrinsic" ego-stroking connection (which is really just as fetishistic as the "commodity" / "service" vibe) (even though getting one's ego stroked is as much a service as supplying one w/ free music).

Ideally, the PERFECT zero-sum exchange (which I don't think has been yet perfected in the blog & comments format) is for the ideas put forth to be bounced back and forth between the originator and other folk.

I dunno - maybe this is just like quibbling about the difference between the subway busker just playing an instrument and the subway busker playing an instrument w/ CDs for sale.

But then - criticism (or, generally speaking, as I think the less specific & loaded term is better here, "music writing") is already advertising. It's a matter of what's being advertisted - the writer, or the subject.

re: advertising, I've heard plenty of people (who I always considered cynics) complain how music magazines and online review sites are nothing more than glorified new release lists - and I admit to thinking this too, in certain situations. However, to say all of this writing is advertising in some form seems dismissive to me. Argument and persuasion don't necessarily mean someone is trying to sell you something, except in an abstract sense that supposes the writer will gain something if you happen to agree with her/him. Surely that comes down to the writer.

Music criticism as dialogue is another issue I have questions about. I think it's a noble aim, but how often does it actually occur? Isn't the "zero-sum" exchange dependent on responses to the review? How to write when a zero-sum exchange is desired? Does one take it for granted, and proceed as if in a discussion? Can one take any exchange at all for granted? If not, how are reviews different from any other anonymous posting (like a blog, the majority of which have no comments)? Does that matter?

You'll have to excuse me, work isn't doing it for me today.