"[Music writing] attracts people whose primary interest in it isn't necessarily in the 'writing' part"

I don't agree with the assessment on an at-face or visceral level, but on the other hand my slightly-greater interest in writing than music is one of the (many) things that keep me from aspiring to be a serious/actual/professional critic.

Still, no, no, I think it's pretty far off-base; there's more resonance for me in this idea that music writers read a lot of music writing, as is to be expected, and so what develops is a particular inbred music-critic style and aesthetic that can be impenetrable and irritating and unfriendly and just plain ugly to people who haven't already made their way into it. (Hello, Village Voice!)

I always choose informative over stylistically fresh/hep/cool/whatever. And that's what I want as a reader, too. I'm definitely one of those people not interested in the "writing" part of music writing. Fuck your style. Tell me whether I should be giving this artist (or his/her label) my money. Once that message has been gotten across crisply and clearly, then you can start masturbating.

BTW, I also hate most celebrated young novelists, who are just as up-their-own-asses as the worst of the word-game music critics. Just tell the goddamn story.

Not in rockcritland, it doesn't.

I became interesting in writing music writing when I realized you could do it in an interesting way, in a way that was enjoyable to read, no matter what you're writing about.

Generally, I find the best pieces of music writing are of the "could be writing about anything" variety. The introductory nature of a lot of pieces hampers them.

xpost

Two quick points:

1. I didn't just "come along," I've been writing about music for money since 1996, and there are places I won't even bother pitching because they waste so much space on masturbatory idiots.

2. The problem is just as widespread in fiction/lit - remember that "Reader's Manifesto" that The Atlantic ran a few years ago?

Franzen's weird little piece didn't apply to literary criticism, it applied to actual novels. The equivalent would be complaining about the Decembrists' lyrics.

xpost

This may be what readers want, but the burnout rate that this approach produces among writers is amazing. At some point, you invariably begin to feel like a copywriter. There's just way too much product coming down the pike way too fast. Hence, "meta" reviews wherein the reviewer pretends he's writing a medical progress report or some such; it may be annoying but it's a way to let off steam. And when they're great, they're great (Christgau's infamous "skid marks" piece).

(And for the record the problem is only "just as widespread" in fiction among a celebrated top tier of young white-male novelists; the problem that's actually widespread is the massive production of crisp, clear, spare and immaculate short stories that will bore you half to death. Most people get to avoid those.)

I understand what you mean. We are in agreement. But it doesn't matter what other types of writing are doing right, all that matters is that music criticism - the subject under discussion - is so consistently doing it wrong (and it is). For whatever reason, a mix of puns 'n' namechecks 'n' obfuscation has become industry standard, to the point where someone like Richard Meltzer, or to use a more current example, Dave Q (who I really like, as a one-on-one human being), is lauded as a genius music critic, when in fact his stuff is damn close to unreadable, and utterly useless when one has $15 in hand and is thinking about heading on down to the record store on a Tuesday afternoon after school.

That's probably all I will be able contribute to this thread, so it needn't die just yet

A Reader's Manifesto: Classic or Dud?

Folks who think they can't hack it should try writing copy for a porn magazine for five years, like I did. How many different ways can you come up with to describe the exact same intersections of male and female genitalia - ten pictorials an issue, thirteen issues a year?

I dunno: sometimes I'm depressed by the number of critics I know who don't really read a ton outside of other criticism; sometimes I'm depressed by the number of critics I know who are better-versed in literature than I am.

For the record: I think genuine high-level literary criticism (i.e., not the book-report reviews in papers) does the best job of getting inside the work itself. But then it has any number of advantages: addressing words with words, having a relatively concrete world-image to talk about, having hundreds of years of development time, etc. Film criticism has certain problems of audience, I think. I dunno what would have to happen to strip the industry-standard jargon out of music criticism -- the internet surely isn't helping things. Possibly Tom Ewing has to edit everything ever, and instead of covering new releases, publications would be full of writers who just happened to have interesting thoughts about some songs from last year.

Aaron is one of the top eds at Spin, and there's a lot of editing all the pieces go through, so his mark is going to be on a lot of stuff as a rule.

David Sheehan

David Sheehan >------- my angry hands

When I started editing music reviews and features in the early 90s, after writing 'em for ten-plus years, I was struck by the emergence of some music journalists whose primary interest appeared to be neither music nor writing. Not that they didn't care about music (or good writing) more like they just weren't totally GEEKED OUT about it, as though they were smart young people who wanted a career in journalism and thought "hey writing about music would be more interesting than covering the police beat or the financial scene."

It's probably different now w/the internet etc is the feeling I get.

The sheer volume of music available dictates that artists would still need to be championed by tastemakers in order to be noticed.

Well, if we look at film writing, it officially falls into two categories: one that assumes that you haven't seen the film yet - "reviewing" - and one that assumes you have - "criticism." It's harder with music because there's no real body of academic work (on the level of Eisenstein, Basin, Lacan, Laura Mulvey etc.) to prop up the second kind.

also, people who want pitchfork to be a crisp, clear consumer's guide: you realise you're describing cmj right?

Think of IM's awesome and exhaustive 1981 collection. Heck in 1981 only a handfull of people in the world -- critics recordstore owners & rich collectors -- would've had access to half of that. Even for an old fart like me, the last couple years have been incredible in terms of new music discovered/old music unearthed via the computer. And I think this creates a huge demand for more music WRITING, more information and ideas and cockeyed theories, we need to sort out all these sounds. And as Blount suggests, people tend to get their information from multiple sources now, everything from traditional MSM to blogs and the web's coolest message board. The days of brand-name loyalty to a single print magazine -- whether it's Spin for the indie cred Blender for the babes or Rolling Stone cause you've subscribed since college -- are fading fast if not over already.

In the words of the poet: We created it, so let's take it over.

I presumed Nabisco was taking it to mean that most music writers are more into music than writing.

I DO think that that has a certain truth to it aswell, there's no point becoming a music writer just because you like music, but not writing!

Yeah, but you know what, lots of people do. I don't think anyone is sinking any boats. speaking for myself, I love writing for money, i don't give a shit what happens to the music industry, and i think there is plenty of room for print journalism and on-line journalism.

**if you're a "professional" music writer, you are part of the market economy of the music industry. You have a vested interest in doing whatever's necessary to keep the music biz going**

these days, that's quite a double-edged sword. another vintage quote: you're either part of the problem or part of the solution.

**Don't be so quick to sink the boat you're floating in.**

COME ON IN, THE WATER'S FINE!

*scrounges*

Some say the end is near.
Some say we'll see armageddon soon.
I certainly hope we will.
I sure could use a vacation from this

Bullshit three ring circus sideshow of
Freaks

Here in this hopeless fucking hole we call LA
The only way to fix it is to flush it all away.
Any fucking time. Any fucking day.
Learn to swim, I'll see you down in Arizona bay.

Fret for your figure and
Fret for your latte and
Fret for your hairpiece and
Fret for your lawsuit and
Fret for your prozac and
Fret for your pilot and
Fret for your contract and
Fret for your car.

---

Fuck retro anything.
Fuck your tattoos.
Fuck all you junkies and
Fuck your short memory.

Learn to swim.

Fuck smiley glad-hands
With hidden agendas.
Fuck these dysfunctional,
Insecure actresses.

Learn to swim.

Cuz I'm praying for rain
And I'm praying for tidal waves
I wanna see the ground give way.
I wanna watch it all go down.
Mom please flush it all away.
I wanna watch it go right in and down.
I wanna watch it go right in.
Watch you flush it all away.

Time to bring it down again.
Don't just call me pessimist.
Try and read between the lines.

I can't imagine why you wouldn't
Welcome any change, my friend.

I wanna see it all come down.
suck it down.
flush it down.

I don't write for you, for the market, for other critics or for tortured monkeys in hell such as yourself; I write for myself and hope that potential readers will connect, emotionally or otherwise, with the thoughts I express. I mean, I could bang on about my book deal, how many hits Koons gets a day, or even how many hits Church of Me still gets every day, 18 months after I stopped writing there - but that's not really the point. Doing things because you enjoy them. Money not being your god. That's more the point. Or even writing to live, as opposed to writing for a living. I'm not doing any blogging at the moment, but if/when I restart, I'd still do it if nobody read it. Some of us are funny that way.

Do you even understand why I called my first blog The Church Of Me? Do you understand even who the "Me" is in The Church Of Me? Perhaps you ought to try reading it before revelling in your gleeful asinine bovinity.

I don't actually have to hope about readers connecting. I have concrete and continuing proof that they do. Some of the greatest writers and musicians in the world among their number. And it's going to be published. I have a book deal. Do you have a book deal?

How much money did you make last year?

Now slope back to your creaking Wordstar Database and knock out 150 words on the Killers' searing guitar riffs. There's a good boy.

>Do you have a book deal?

My second book is coming out in November, and I'm dropping my third off to my agent on Tuesday.

Well that's a shame. Never mind! There are thousands of other blogs and magazines out there which will be extremely willing to agree with you and tell you what you already know! Happy reading!

It's this last bit that's the most interesting to me. Personally, I don't whole-heartedly agree with it, but I think it absolutely applies to anyone who *first* gets into music via written pieces about music. I never really cared how "well" the music article was written when I was an adolescent. I just wanted to read about my favorite band! The more words, the better.. period. This POV will vary greatly from person to person, but I feel confident my first experiences aren't that different than those of most.

that's true, at first. but even early on my reading of the press, there were writers whose turn of phrase i loved, who made me laugh, whose pieces held me rigid and riveted - as a teenaged pearl jam fan, i'd read lots of vedder interviews, but allan jones' pieces on the road with the band 94-95 were amazing *writing, and i knew that, even then.

Re: that, & other choice pdf tidbits (from yours truly, a 10th-rate-hack that you know whats):

1) Many college campuses have high-speed Internet connections built into dormitories, & college kids (a large demographic, no doubt) presumably consume tons of music, either through the old analog model of trading money for goods, or grabbing it on the DL / SLSK.
2) Internet access (of the high speed variety) is becoming more commonplace, as providers infiltrate previously non-wired areas, and the service becomes more affordable.
3) Just because lots of people don't have high-speed access or computers doesn't mean you get to conveniently forget that "lots" DO have these things when you're on the ad-hominem offensive.
4) If music journalists / consumer guiders are truly "vested [...] in doing whatever's necessary to keep the music biz going", then either a) it's amazing the music industry has managed to survive as long as it has or b) maybe the music industry can actually survive with a myriad of writers following their own particular muses! Holy shit I think I just said there's more than one way to skin a cat!
5) There's something to be said about the non-music-geek & their interest in reading informative consumer-focused writing about music (noting, of course, that ANY AND ALL writing is consumer-focused, regardless of the size of the pool of consumers) (and also noting that the 12 CD fucker can a "music geek" as much as the 5000-CD hording type), but fuck if being a condescending rude Kruschevian (sic) shoe-banging asshat about it is the best way to kick off that topic of discussion.
6) Really, if you want to have a discussion about this, by all means, break off some of that shoulder chip & go for it - if you want to just piss folks off and rant about What You Think And Why It Is Right w/out engaging in the damn conversation, go post it on your blog.

How the Other Tool Half Lives by Ned Riis

Arguably most of my writing has been consumer-blurb style via the AMG. But you know, I try and make what I do write there interesting as well as informative, and if someone sneers because it's too short or something, that's their problem, not mine. You get an opinion, you often get sound clips -- how much handier can it be?

*pic of Jaz ROFLING in jester cap X 10*