Why Should People Be Paid For Writing About Music?

Of course, people who don't like writing about music shouldn't get paid. But, I bet they do anyway.

"completely ridiculous article in this week’s stranger (the hip anti-answer to the “free weekly” problem: namely drown all the shortcomings of free weeklies in a thick marinade of noxious irony and sarcasm, cf. “the best of our advertisers in seattle 2002” oh ho ho!) by charles mudede on mj cole and this notion of “black elegance” which seems to be his shorthand for the hip, refined afro-centric end of clubland – deep disco/house, rare groove, jazz funk, acid jazz – a palatial xanadu of upwardly mobile blackness from an era before the ugly specter of hiphop/acid house. his basic premise seems to be that cole represents the latest twist in the black elegance vine (no argument there), but that – surprise! – cole is white! (the fact that he’s british seems slightly less worrisome.) since sincere came out 2 years ago (?) now, this just seems like a fairly (if not untypically for the unsurprisingly indie-centric stranger) out of step free weekly puff piece. (cole just happens to be dj’ing in the city this week, surprise!)

until, that is, about 2/3 of the way through where he drops this bomb: “Despite their commitment to white, upper-class aesthetics, very few white musicians have been able to reproduce the effects and funk of black elegance.” it doesn’t really matter if mudede believes this (I think he does) because a. it’s wrong wrong wrong (not that I need to convince anyone reading this of that or provide some tedious list of artists to back me up) and b. he’s suitably vague enough about what “black elegance” is to provide himself a sly get out clause if need be. he talks a lot about fashion and dancing and the barest bit about the music itself. “tight, compact, & funky” words which mean little in or out of context. the description of uk garage is so bland and prescripted it could have come from cole’s press kit. (and probably did.) voices of “expressive restraint” (guh.) the notion that “the subjects of string arrangements, classical piano, and French impressionism make sense within the context of black elegance” (a sentence that I can’t parse as many times as I re- read it…what is the subject of a string arrangement? and is it the same in a 12th century mass as a john williams score?) is baffling, except when you retune yourself down to mudede’s level and see them as examples of “white, upper-class aesthetics,” as examples of “beautiful melody” (scare quotations mine) as separate from the “base rhythm”.

in a way, this is the idiot counterpart to another piece I just happened to read today frank kogan’s death rock 2000. where frank finds the endless groove launched by james brown “an indigestible problem” for modern music precisely because it can’t reconcile those “white, upper-class aesthetics” (boy I’m mixing my quotes all over the place tonite), mudede avers that “[y]ou can have strings and fragrant fragments of Debussy as long as they obey the law of the groove.” what law? “death rock” seems to imply that the only law of the groove is that it bucks against whatever you try to layer on top of it and the only way to circumvent this is to a. not bother and stick with the grunts, shrieks, and soul power proclamations (which I’d argue is basically what most post-disco music does anyway) or b. dumb it down to the point where it achieves a tentative and safe stasis of song and funk. (the third option, which frank seems to imply is the more interesting one [and I think he’s right], is the one where the need for song and groove put each other on the defensive and continually upend one another before it can achieve dominance. this third option is what keeps pop r&b and hiphop [nominally] fresh in 2002.) frank finds this un-balance a good thing by the way, and so do i.

but this notion of black elegance is safe not because the music it’s describing seems terminally stodgy (that’s a stylistic determination and a red herring at that) but because it’s not much of a theory at all. it’s the type of thing that (distressingly) one reads in pieces like this all the time, a bit of spice added to an otherwise bald concert write up. (or perhaps sadder: a concert write up used as the skeleton to hang the writers pet theory on, in order to get it into print.) as josh said tonite when I sent him the link: “free weekly writers sure do like their ‘edgy’ theories.” it’s all a card house; poke it too much and it crumbles. but who’s going to bother poking it? because, after all, it’s just some shmuck writing in a free weekly. somehow we’ve built a culture and an industry out of this slowly mutating, endlessly recycled collection of music crit cliché, a climate where this is the apex of “thinking about music.” (what else do we have? specialist journals? the wire? maximumrocknroll? blogs??) an argument could be made that the problem is one of space consideration (given the abrupt way the piece ends - “but maybe that's not so amazing when one considers that British whites have for years been great interpreters and assimilators of black American music” – really charles? then what, uh, was your point again exactly?) or maybe it’s one of readership: how much will someone who’s picking this up (not buying!) for the concert listings or the crappy alt-comics put up with? (judging by the average stranger writer: not much.) the voice can foster things like “death rock 2000” but only because it’s a very special case, right?"

it seems like an incredible wall to beat against to get anything of worth into print these days. it's not something i have the time for, although like you said above, i thoroughly respect the people who do and do it well.

I think they should be paid, but I think everyone on this board should be paid a commission, since all the best idea vampires frequent these forums and adopt threads as articles. :) And, you can't prove plagarism when people remain anonymous. Bwa ha hahahaha!

I think they should be paid, but I think everyone on this board should be paid a commission, since all the best idea vampires frequent these forums and adopt threads as articles. :) And, you can't prove plagarism when people remain anonymous. Bwa ha hahahaha!

This place is the Napster for music criticism.

Yow! There's a slogan.

As a beneficiary myself, I certain can't complain, but why? Jess I know isn't really fond of the 'buyer's guide' approach, but seeing how many albums I discovered through the old Trouser Press guides, I think it can have its place, and certainly I hope the writers there were all paid for their efforts! Then there's something like Stairway to Hell, both a very idiosyncratic effort and, in its own way, a buyer's guide approach -- generally short takes, but shot through with an individual voice, and very deserving of any sort of royalties Eddy got!

Since the latter seems to be more cultivated lately (cough, pitchfork), I wonder - what's the best way to bring forth and help a knowledgeable critic who won't get off on smarm/attitude/schtick alone mature?

Ah, Jess has finally discovered Charles Mudede; what a wonderfully easy target he makes. Muddled thinking, check; gross oversimplifications, doublecheck; dubious racial pronounciamentos, first of the fucking month. Too bad he doesn’t vampire off the threads on this board; he could use some actual ideas. (Maria: I try very very hard to credit folks when I rip their ideas off from here--- see my Jess quote in a recent review.)

In my case and I think a few others’ as well, there is something immensely satisfying about mastering certain forms inherent in writing for money: getting paid is satisfying, yeah, but I mean more in terms of being able to write 150-word capsules that are readable and interesting, or 350-word record reviews ditto. There’s a lot to be said for the ability to explore themes and ideas and whatnot in a short amount of space; in my case it’s made me pay closer attention to compression, meaning that I want as much information and/or ideas in that space as I can get in it; when I write longer pieces now, I think I chase my own tail less as a result, because knowing how to cram info/ideas means I can cram lots more into something longer. And it makes me appreciate stretching one idea across 1000 words, too.

Outside the tiny group of music heads, no one reads music reviews.

... and hopefully they can write a better sentence than that. Yikes!

It no more needs "theoretical justifacation" than the fact that obiturary writers get paid (I shoulda said).

Not paid to write, OK

I'm clearly missing something vital here...

Easy of course to be judgmental about these things when one actually does have a day job to cushion them (which at the moment I don't). So why do I persevere?

It might sound like a crap Stallone trailer line - "he was a man with a mission" - but that's how I feel. While I'm more than grateful to everyone who reads Church of Me and gives me feedback (keep it coming!), I do still want my words to be read in print - and MUCH more importantly, there are other people out there who also want this to happen and are giving me no end of support :-) I still want to try to make a difference, however impossible that might be. Even if it means starvation and homelessness, I'd still want to do it - that's how important it is to me. hah of course when the bailiffs come round I could say AWAY you coarse beasts you cannot have my records and books and computer for they are TOOLS OF MY TRADE ;-) I will find a conducive electric current somewhere in the region of Waterloo Bridge from which to ply my trade.

Anyone got any ideas on how a 38-year-old widowed ex-NHS professional can make a living out of a not too demanding, but not under- demanding, day job while still allowing him time to do the things he loves? Serious question actually - if you do have some ideas, please email me 'cos I'd like to read 'em.

If you get to the point where your work or name boosts sales of the publication you're writing for you can presumably earn decent money. Otherwise the problem is that you're competing with other people who are just as capable of filling the space and happy to do it cheaply or for free.

Yeah, but people only say that about writers, artists, poets, singers and critics... no-one ever mentions doctors, nurses, teachers, maybe firemen, pilots and so forth and so on...

(therefore lotsa talk about Sloan....so maybe it is for you, tee hee
Hey you leave my Sloan worship outta this, I can't help it if their popular AND good. They played a great set up in Bala, though i don't like the changes they made to She Says What She Means, it sounds like Sabbath now and not Nazz.

People who spend effort creating stuff, be it software, music, paintings, novels or music reviews should get a share in any revenue generated. But the should there is mainly to say that if there is money to be made then it should go to the "creatives".

I wrote a bunch of addons for a graphics program once. I didn't think much of them but they were kinda handy and other folks I shared them with liked them. I put them on the web for free but asserted my copyright to stop them being ripped off and sold by others. Not that that stopped folks, they've been on magazine covers (published by 'respectible UK publishers', or put on CDs for sale on ebay and renamed and claimed to be shareware. I don't want money, people who have wanted to buy the rights to the plugins have been politely declined. But I really don't want other people to make money on them without my cut.

But 'should' is more than 'if there is money going round who should get a cut'. Should to me brings in questions about what the existence of payment does to the writing and to the subject being written about.

I really hate paid music writing for its effect on the music business and wish it would just stop. People shouldn't be paid for music writing because it has a bad effect on music business and negligable effect on the music consumers. I know I know - you all disagree.

I don't like a lot of unpaid writing either - particulralry the jaded hipster smug sneering style of pitchfork (the recent Craig Armstrong review made me want to recant my mild critisism of the one on Allmusic). I know I know, some of you have a problem with me using jaded, for a definition of what I mean by jaded read the pitchfork review of aukafen.

I really enjoy reading well written things though, well written things about music especially. Writing that treats me like an equal and tries to involve me the reader. I'll pay money for well written things on music. And the writer deserves their share of my money. For instance I bought uncut and the wire this month in the hope I would find some (I didn't btw).

I cannot resolve the contradictions in those two last statements. Its down to the definition of should I guess.

I assume by "it" you mean that the Voice is a very special case. In any event, the Voice usually can't foster things like "Death Rock 2000." The only reason Chuck and I got away with that piece was that the century came to an end, so a long sum-up was allowed. Next opportunity comes in 97-1/2 years. Such ideas can make their way in bits and pieces into reviews, but without room to be elaborated.

Can I ask you to cite the source of this surprising claim? I am sure that there are plenty of us bla blas who have indeed a poverty of attractive prose, but I would argue that only an awareness of the essential parasitic relationship between the critic and the critisised can produce good writing.

I am also convinced the converse is true: a lack of understanding of the parasitic nature is a feature of extremely bad writing.

The inter-relationship between the writer, the written-about (the musicians) and the written-to (the reader) is my key to good writing. A writer who creates a review with the assumption of these inter- relationships have a similar relationship as that of an egotistical English Professor marking a looping pile of undergraduate essays creates terrible writing. (Many examples availble on request)

Or put it another way. How is it NOT parasitic?

It was a mangled typo ridden utterence. Sorry. I type quickly and rarely proof read. If you can't handle typos, the internet may not be your ideal medium for interaction. That said, it was especially bad...I'm not even sure why the word looping is there now and what it should be.

It was nothing to do with being part of the machine or working for the man, but trying to find an analogy about the assumption of authority made by the critic.

I know I keep banging on about the Craig Armstrong review, but it is an example of what I am banging on about. The author of the piece isn't trying to discuss the work in a way that lets the reader understand the work, they have already decided how the reader will react to hearing it "Any discerning listener must hope that the "featured artists" will crack through the sickly sweet monotony". This listener liked the album and the low key way the prima donna stars were used, perhaps I am not discerning enough.

The critic is lecturing Craig Armstrong on what a great record the critic would have made if he was in charge, there is no attempt to interact with the reader - the reviewer can't even tolerate a reader disagreeing with him.

I have no use for being the mute spectator at such an odious grandstanding. The writing in the review stinks and Im pretty glad that armstrong and not the critic is making music.

Straw man. I made no such claim, I specifically said that the Craig Armstrong review was an example. I agree with your statement. Even if all existing critisism was bad it would still not prove that critisism is inherently bad - not in a Popperian sense of proof.

I do postulate that critisim is inherently bad, yes, because I think it is part of the nature of critisism. A counter example - where critisism is 'good' would disprove my theory - but its a difficult thing to prove the universality of my claim.

Its strange how hostile folks are to my fascination by the fundamental nature of critical activity. Not just the finacial mechanisms, but the social and artistic ones. Tom's original question mentioned that 'theoretical justification' eluded him. It eludes me too, I can find very little writing on what seems to me to be fundamental questions. Is it OK to comment on someone elses artistic creations? If so, what are 'good' ways of doing this?

everything is parasitic Then you agree with me that critisism is parasitic? I do not think even I would go that far though. Thats quite a bleak absolutist world view you have there.

how is the listener NOT parasitic? how are YOU not parasitic?

I think its is a different mechanism, as the power relationship is different, but yeah, it is still is a parasitic one. This doesn't invalidate my point though. I may be a miserable sinner casting the first stone, but that doesn't prove the target of the stone is sin free.

did you have an opinion with that or is it strictly beebspam these days

hey, my beebspam is always on-topic!

i wondered if anyone cared about these reviews (i suspect not). but i do know a few people who are out of a bit of pocket money as a result of this (possibly even some posters here?)

my personal thoughts are 1) i didn't think the service really fit within the bbc's remit that comfortably and 2) the reviews essentially duplicated the tone, outlook and interests of several other outlets, i.e. guardian etc, so i don't see this is a bad thing particularly. but it's always a little chastening to see a regular, volume provider of writing about music just decided to pack up

yeah, should never have been part of the corp's purview i agree

the less "volume providers" that give neither heat nor light the better though tbph

Thought it had potential - I wrote a handful ages ago, the editorial hand was light and it was good to be able to write at more than capsule length but less than a full-on essay

Can't imagine anyone's seriously out of pocket given the rates (which is why I only ever wrote a handful)

yeah, "neither heat nor light" is one of the issues - the sorts of writing that command allegiance or enmity or pageviews were not really possible in a venue that was balancing boosterism with "impartiality" - the stools to fall between are elsewhere in 2013 imo

What's the standard rate for a review these days? I ask as someone who's been doing music writing for various places for a few years now and never ever been paid.

'Many' people may not be much out of pocket but Mike, the editor, is out of a job - he's redundant at the end of the month, with no redundancy pay. His twitter and Facebook have been pretty heart-rending over the last couple of months as he's seen it coming. I did a few things for him when he was at DiS. Guy has a wife and a young child and a mortgage. I really feel for him.

But at the same time, wtf we're the BBC doing running music reviews? It was online overstretch by them. They syndicated out to Amazon, and I suspect that's where most people saw them tbh.

amazed its taken this long to close down.
shame as i know a couple of contributors to it, and i love their reviews.
how many folks here helped out the bbc collective ?
i enjoyed that while it lasted ..

In utopian future everyone on ilm will be paid per 1,000 words posted

score

how much per frog gif?

did one or two of these reviews every month, paid OK, not great ("standard rate" for a review doesn't exist afaict). think the idea was to be a kind of rolling archive of noteworthy music releases, which seems to me a perfectly reasonable thing to fit under the BBC umbrella and hence the equivocal tone the reviews tended to take - however it didn't really seem to be on anyone's radar as a place to go and see what ppl were saying about this or that album, tho yeah I guess a lot of ppl saw them on Amazon. like Nick says it is a real pisser for the editor there of course

hey BBC have a Film 2013 show why not a Music 2013 show...

did you have an opinion with that or is it strictly beebspam these days

With the usual caveats that it's sad for the people who will lose their jobs, come on no one really had much of an opinion about the Beeb album reviews site and that was the whole problem. It always seemed to be doing a serviceable job in a solid-but-unexciting way but it never felt like it was properly part of any debate, or agenda setting, or something that anyone paid any real attention to, even compared to I dunno Drownedinsound or something.

Like I'm sure it was doing a better job and producing better-written material than DiS or NME.com but sometimes it's only the perception of relevance that matters.

they could've tried the crowdsource approach with album reviews before guardian did - might've made more sense for public-funded establishment to do so. bbc collective was pretty cool iirc.

but if there's seemingly no other proper arts reviewing on the site don't see why music should've been made an exception on this level.

Paying (I guess) musicians to do the reviews:

from a press release-

Noted music journalist Michael Azerrad today announced the launch of an exciting new online music magazine called the Talkhouse, where smart, notable musicians of all genres and generations write about currently released albums. Some of the writers already on board include: Laurie Anderson, Andrew W.K., James McNew (Yo La Tengo), acclaimed jazz pianist Vijay Iyer, Claire Boucher (Grimes), iconic avant gardist Elliott Sharp, Rosanne Cash, Duff McKagan, Dean Wareham, Dave Douglas, Josephine Wiggs, Bob Mould, Mish Way (White Lung), and many others.

The Talkhouse will feature one piece on one album written by one musician each day, five days a week. On weekends, the site will feature a long-form music feature piece written by artists across many genres: film, comedy, literature, etc. Each day, the artist writing the piece and the artist whose album is being written about will each get a log-in to the site and will be able to have a one-on-one public dialogue which will be updated in real time. For the weekend feature pieces, any artist with a log-in will be able to weigh in with their thoughts on the piece.

The Talkhouse soft-launched with a beta version in early March, debuting with former Smashing Pumpkins and Hole bassist Melissa Auf der Maur's piece on General Dome, the new album by Buke and Gase.

would read!

http://thetalkhouse.com/reviews/view/laurie-anderson-animal-collective

oh cool

http://thetalkhouse.com/reviews/view/vijay-iyer-flying-lotus

Yeah, see, this is the problem, though - magazines have been exploiting artists for free labor, under the guise of 'make us a theoretical mixtape,' 'tell us a story,' etc. Not only does this obviate the publication from having to pay a writer on staff, it also frees them of the obligation to actually listen to, understand, or otherwise interface with the artist's work / history / newest album. It's coverage without any effort whatsoever on the part of the mag / blog / etc. A pretty deplorable practice, really.

don't know if I agree, there. I have no idea how Talkhouse will work - but in my experience writers/editors/producers are still needed to put those type of pieces together and they're way more more work than assigning a freelancer to write a review. I"make us a theoretical mixtape" would just be a way of framing an interview that is conducted and copy-edited by a writer.

As far as I'm concerned from an editorial standpoint, it's actually often a good way to get to know an artist because it gets the writer out of the way - and breaks the artist out of a rut when they've tons of interviews.

Just my experience, but not a deplorable exploitative practice.

vijay's prose is a little purple but i like it when he brings the hammer down on the explicitly 'jazz' sections of that flylo record.

the vijay and the laurie are both fucking awful imo

yeah it seems a little unfair to writing as a practice to think that musical + smart = can do music writing well without extensive practice. No one takes music writers with good ears and says "write a song for my album"

it seems to work a lot better when a publication asks a musician to interview another musician, like the Chicago Reader's 'Artist on Artist' feature: http://www.chicagoreader.com/chicago/ArticleArchives?category=3685380

i'd also love to read a blindfold test-like feature, maybe for electronic music instead of jazz?

I like musicians writing first-person about their own music or experiences, and yeah the interview thing seems alright, but it's really boring to hear "heady" musicians do "heady" music reviews and essays. Kind of reminds me of Brad Mehldau's awful liner notes.

i like them both as musicians but found both those reviews kind of, embarrassing , i guess?

seems like most ppl here hate the bad plus, but ethan iverson's jazz reviews and analyses are amazing

^^^

i'd also love to read a blindfold test-like feature, maybe for electronic music instead of jazz?

http://www.thewire.co.uk/in-writing/interviews/scanner_s-invisible-jukebox

etc

i love any kind of invisible jukebox thing forever. would read an entire magazine of them.

love the listed thing in dusted. i just love interviews with musicians more than most music writing these days. probably already said that on this thread somewhere. and now i kinda take back my initial *would read* comment when i realize that the site is mostly musicians i don't care about writing about records i don't care about. if they had more fun with it i would be there. like, have mary j. blige review animal collective or stunt stuff like that. would be more entertaining.

I wrote about an issue related to this (the belief, common among some jazz musicians, that those who can't play are in no position to critique) back in 2011.

smart engaged listeners who can write well and also listen openly and attentively will always have interesting things to say about music. even when they are wrong! i don't read a lot of that out there though. occasionally. close listening. that's what i'm into. doesn't have to be classical-liner-notes close, but at least jazz-liner-notes close.

i think the talkhouse is an interesting experiment and i hope it succeeds. the artist-on-artist idea works in a mercenary way as well, since one very popular traffic-boosting strategy for music sites right now is to get artists being written about to amplify pieces on social media.

Someone should just write a script that conducts interviews and reviews records.

How about a Mad Libs record review...

(Band name), after being formed in (geographical location) in (a year), came up in the (musical genre) scene even though vocalist (lead singer) was considered (adjective) by the locals. After catching the eye of A&R folks from (record label), the band released (emotion) for a debut to acclaim from the likes of (magazine) and toured (country) with (band name). After losing (name of a person) who played (instrument) since the band's inception due to a tragic (way to die), the band continued on and now release it's sophomore release (four letter word) (six letter word). To say the album is (adjective) is an understatement; the songwriting is (adjective), the musicianship is (adjective) and the playing is the (superlative adjective) the band has ever done. Lead single "(eight letter word") is indicative of this (adjective) album, one that is destined to go (type of metal) in (a country), proving that there is a resurgence in bands that sound like (band name) but look like (a word for excrement). (Number) stars.

i had no idea about Invisible Jukebox, thank you!

one very popular traffic-boosting strategy for music sites right now is to get artists being written about to amplify pieces on social media.

you mean get the artists to tweet the link to their army of fans?

ugh i just said "artists", kill me

Check out the Jim o'rourke invisible jukebox, he really knows his shit

This is one of my favorite things ever:
http://www.noisemademedoit.com/miles-davis-blind-listening-test/

chuck berry reviews punk records:
http://musicruinedmylife.blogspot.ca/2012/10/chuck-berry-reviews-punk-singles-1980.html

This is one of my favorite things ever:
http://www.noisemademedoit.com/miles-davis-blind-listening-test/

Bill Dixon had an interesting take on that Miles blindfold test:

Even though Miles Davis, as an artist and innovator of the first magnitude, enjoyed considerable success in the early sixties — financially and otherwise — when the new music was beginning to be heard and discussed, he and his views were used by members of the critical establishment to buttress their hostility and negativity regarding that music as a logical development of what had preceded it. This was accomplished by Leonard Feather, a senior critical writer and journalist, playing recordings of Ornette, Cecil, or Eric Dolphy, for Davis to identify and rate, relating to musical merit, for Feather's "Blindfold Test". The predictable result, since it was an open secret that Miles absolutely detested the music, was an attack and vicious condemnation of the music, by Miles, thereby reinforcing Feather's own publicly known negative assessment of it.

I think Miles really nailed what was weak about some of those recordings, but also unfairly dismissed others (e.g. Money Jungle) for being conceptually different

that miles one is great.
also, his quote somone posted in the comments:

"...Prince don't hear Ravel when he wanna make love to his woman, he hears drums and shit..."

...i don't think he was dismissing money jungle for being conceptually different, i think it was because it sounds like the players aren't fully attuned to each other...

Money Jungle C/D?

also, Chuck Berry calling "Sheena Is A Punk Rocker" a "jump tune" is great...