WHY IN THE HELL ARENT YOU A MUSICIAN

Do both because...they let me? Actually, I've often wondered if what I'm writing really fits in with pure music journalism, because sometimes I don't feel like I'm coming from the same place. I will say that hanging around here has been an education.

I don't consider myself a writer. But then I do type more than I bang on the drums, I guess. Why? Because I prefer consuming music more than making it. I see my obsession/interest with music in a grander scheme: to understand culture and myself better.

arsey question wot r u ayatolla komini tellin us wot write not write about. if u so good wy u not in charts. wy U on this board eh?

hmm...I've been trying to formulate an approach to your question, in respect to my reasoning for coming up with this specific line of questioning regarding why music journalists write, but after a good amount of consideration on your part, I will opt for this retort: FUK U.

I will opt for this retort: FUK U.
Two possibilities: A journalist sans schpell chekker or a musician.

Follow up question: If you ARE a musician AND a music journalist, why do you do both?
Depends on yr definition of "musician". I play music, mostly for myself, and have recorded a bunch of stuff in my past. I occasionally play around with multitracking on my computer, but nothing for release or anything. I think the question is curious. Would you ask someone who writes about automobiles why they drive a car? Or someone who reviews restaurants why they cook their own lunches?

Oh bollox, he's interested to know why. From his standpoint, as a musician who enjoys expressing his emotions through music, it must seem baffling that some people like to pour their emotions in a record (instead of bashing on a drum). I think the question is great.

I'm not a musician because: I'm goddamn lazy.

My friend Matt Maxwell, who is a very good psych-drone guitarist, noted that there's a lot of music he doesn't enjoy because he can do it himself. I wouldn't go so far as to say that my not playing an instrument means I'm consciously keeping up a veil of mystification between myself and those who perform, but there's so much music to listen to and enjoy that I'd rather spend my time doing that. ;-)

I'm not a musician cos I'm no good at it. I'm quite good at writing and writing about music is a good way of writing about lots of other things too.

I'm not saying the question isn't unwarranted, because I know people ask it all the time. I'm just saying that I don't see why people assume that you can't do both. Because Gage-o asked it from both sides, I'm pretty sure that there was no implication that there should be a separation between church and state, as it were.

Listen: If you ask someone who writes about automobiles whether or not they drive a car, you don't immediately search their reasons, emotions, secret motiviations, et al for DRIVING THE CAR.

Music journalists sometimes implicitly draw their own conclusions from given musics, and ultimately judge them. They sometimes completely miss the point, but yet their viewpoint can be heralded for it's "uniqueness," it's "insight," it's "blah blah." Even though, in relation to the ARTISTS original meaning, is way fukking off base.

As a musician, I find it a tad disturbing. And funny.

an example: Two people talk about a new hip-hop single

Music Journalist: "His scratch-littered beats pulse in languid waves through the speakers, each tick and finite bass thump pulling into your stomach...the artist has hypnotized you, made you his slave to his rhythm....in an obvious homage to the funk-soul space rangers (ala Parliament) of the seventies."

Artist: "I just got fucking blasted and programmed that shit like at 3 am and shit."

It seems like writing and playing are two totally different things, insomuchas one requires skill with language, the other, with music. I know that's stating the obvious, but often good writers, ones who are able to convert ideas and feelings into a communication on paper, can't express anything on an instrument. It's kind of like being a coach or a teacher.

I suppose the underlying assumption to Gage-o's question is that anyone can play music, and that music can be valid. Otherwise, there's a pretty established tradition of writers covering subjects where they don't participate. Isn't that what reporting is?

I'm not a music writer, but I do spend too much time thinking about it and reading and writing about it. I would love to learn an instrument some day, but don't see where I have the time for it or the money (I would want to take lessons). It's one thing to grab lots of free moments and spend time on internet music forums, but it's another thing to learn a new art in a disciplined way. Of course, I could make music without learning a conventional instrument, but that's not the sort of music that interests me most.

I stopped playing music because it takes a long time to practice, and I'm better at and more interested in writing. I would like to start playing again, though, because I miss it.

I'm not sure why those two statements are incompatible, Gage-o.

In response to that. Journalism, by definition, is supposed to be objective. Within the context of music journalism, it is almost always opinionated to some degree, either positive or negative.

Now, music CRITICS, that is another story.

My favorite record reviews are the ones in the skate mag BIG BROTHER, where the review usually has nothing to do with the record itself. That, to me, is exactly the point.

Because I'm not quite good enough.

Music journalists sometimes implicitly draw their own conclusions from given musics, and ultimately judge them. They sometimes completely miss the point, but yet their viewpoint can be heralded for it's "uniqueness," it's "insight," it's "blah blah." Even though, in relation to the ARTISTS original meaning, is way fukking off base.
I'm with you all the way, actually. The reason I brought the original questions up is that, as a writer, I don't even think of stuff like that, so it seems curious to me. I find the same thing with English Lit, to be quite honest: I once wrote a poem three minutes before class started, just blasted it out of my pen at full speed, off the top of my head, with no real purposeful intent, and then people ripped it apart and found a whole pile of things in it that I had never intended to put there. It sure sounded like I put a lot of effort into it, the way they put it.

Gage-O touches on a deeper reason. I don't make music because I don't care about the artists' motivations for making it.

Journalism, by definition, is supposed to be objective.
Impossible. You can strive to be objective but at the end of the day it will always be personal opinion. You can even go so far as saying any type of journalism is subjective. I don't always read music books/journals for the music itself. I sometimes just enjoy the guy/girl's writing.

Journalism is supposed to get its facts right. This isn't the same as being opinion-free.

The two statements are not incompatible...my point was to show that journalism is prone to flights of fancy that focus on one person's subjective view. I love that, actually. It is precisely that situation that made me fall in love with music.

What is bothersome is journalism that pulls from the music itself, and adds what you could call "useless color" to a piece.

If I wrote a piece of music called "Raccoon Eyes" and someone wrote an article about how "Raccoon Eyes" makes subtle allusions to the slaughter in East Timor, which they interpreted from the line "look into my Raccoon Eyes, peering from the dumpster," I would probably want to talk to that person over dinner.

I think the problem is that a lot of music writers are a bit scared of their own reactions to the music and so try to blame what they're getting out of it on the artist.

that is quite a beautiful opinion, Tom. No fooling.

I think the problem is that a lot of music writers are a bit scared of their own reactions to the music and so try to blame what they're getting out of it on the artist.
Huh? Exclude me from that group then.

I am as good a musician as I am a music writer!

Same here. hah!

Says who, Pinefox?

Tell me and I'll punch them.

"I find the same thing with English Lit, to be quite honest: I once wrote a poem three minutes before class started, just blasted it out of my pen at full speed, off the top of my head, with no real purposeful intent, and then people ripped it apart and found a whole pile of things in it that I had never intended to put there. It sure sounded like I put a lot of effort into it, the way they put it."

I'm not normally prone to opinionated rants, but I must say, this attitude always strikes me as ridiculous. The question of "intention" is so ridiculous in and of itself. Sure, you might write something in 2 minutes or it might take 2 days. That is irrelevant. You might have been thinking about East Timor or McDonald's Fillet of Fish. That is irrelevant. Why do we assume that the author/creator of a book/poem/song/painting etc. has some godly ability to interpret their work? Why is their reading of their own work more important than anyone elses? William Golding once famously said that he didn't put any symbolism in "Lord of the Flies" and didn't understand why critics were insisting on all that biblical stuff. Just because he said it isn't there, does all of the commentary that describes the symbolism immediately become moot? Of course not. If it did, then we'd only be able to discern meaning in art if we could speak to the artists themselves. How then would we comment on anything? Would we rely on biographical information? If so, wouldn't that limit the analysis/reading available? Isn't it better to look at numerous readings?

There are good musicians and bad musicians and their are good critics and bad critics. Just because some one is a good musician, doen't meant that they will be the best critics and vice versa. To laugh at a music critic who has a broader reading of a certain piece of music than "it was made while cranked at 3am" is to be, as I mentioned above, simply ridiculous.

I make music, and I don't write about it. (except for now) writing about music is indirect; making music is direct.

Because there are quite enough songs out there - good and bad - as it is.

Because I realized at an early age that the world doesn't need two Acker Bilks.

if not us, then who. every word we don't write is a word that can be written by feebs, fools, and incompetents.

Because there are quite enough songs out there - good and bad - as it is

There are not nearly enough good songs out there.

Why do we assume that the author/creator of a book/poem/song/painting etc. has some godly ability to interpret their work?
I don't think it takes god-like powers to know what I was thinking of when I wrote something. If someone else wants to read something else into it, fine, but I know what I was thinking, and I don't think it's unfair to tell someone that. The resulting work may mean something completely different to the reader, but that doesn't mean the intention is irrelevant.

99.99999% of all music is utter ephemera

that doesn't mean the intention is irrelevant.

it doesn't necessarily mean they're relevant either.

(that wasn't meant to sound crass.)

No, just as someone reading something into it that wasn't put there intentionally isn't irrelevant either. Neither should be discounted.

i'm more bothered by this 0.00001% — where is it and how do we put a stop to it?

On the subject of musicians writing back to the critics, check out the just-made last comment on the Jurassic 5 thread.

it's kinda like asking a journalist why they're not a terrorist, if they write about them/critique them all the time.. but i was once in a band...why am i writing if i don't play, cos i love music and what it can do...and i hate music that deosn't

I'm sorry I intimated that author intention is irrelevant. I think, however, that I went on to say that it is neither relevant nor irrelevnt, just another opinion.

I am a much better musician than I am music writer (which is funny, being an English major and all).

However, I am the only one of my musician friends who has any interest at all in writing about music, participating in online discussions, etc. Once I got over the nagging worry that this might be a sign of some kind latent amateurism on my part, I found it odd that they don't (since they have no problem talking about music).

I'd like to be one. I'm sitting on enough lyrics at the moment.

I've got the opposite problem. I can write tunes til tuesday but I haven't been able to write worthwhile lyrics in years.

Hmmm...