"The only thing that has tainted what I’ve done is that YouTube shows ads before my videos .... All that they ask and all that they demand is that they show ads before my videos begin. I can’t reach that many people any other way."
"When your viewpoint goes up with a Converse banner behind it, you better start digging."
― katherine, Thursday, 5 December 2013 15:58 (ten years ago) link
whereas beer or whatever, that's fine, that's a product pure and simple, so capitalism is totally fine for that.
― intheblanks, Thursday, 5 December 2013 15:58 (ten years ago) link
WE ARE NOT MEANT TO PRODUCT ART OR ART COMMENTARY FOR THE AD-PR COMPLEX WE ARE MEANT TO WORK IN THEIR SALT MINES AND MAKE PURE ART ON THE WEEKENDS. THAT IS THE WHOLE OF THE LAW.
― da croupier, Thursday, 5 December 2013 15:59 (ten years ago) link
Ott places huge importance on being there and "having lived through it." Pity he wasn't born 20 years earlier so he could have screamed "PUNK IS DEAD!" in 1979
― 乒乓, Thursday, 5 December 2013 16:00 (ten years ago) link
Ads on YouTube videos are not mandatory, btw. You have to opt in.
― Humorist (horse) (誤訳侮辱), Thursday, 5 December 2013 16:00 (ten years ago) link
da croupier otm, i think that's basically Ott's point. I think it's a tad ridiculous
― intheblanks, Thursday, 5 December 2013 16:01 (ten years ago) link
fucking entitled music writers
― you are kind, I am (waterface), Thursday, 5 December 2013 16:01 (ten years ago) link
expecting to get paid to write a review of art
wtf
― you are kind, I am (waterface), Thursday, 5 December 2013 16:02 (ten years ago) link
God damn if I don't find his appropriation of the term "speak truth to power" genuinely offensive here
― combination hair (underrated aerosmith bootlegs I have owned), Thursday, 5 December 2013 16:02 (ten years ago) link
If I want to hear about brands and counterculture without all the toxic self-regard and name-calling, Thomas Frank did it 20 years ago.
http://www.nytimes.com/books/first/f/frank-dissent.html
― Deafening silence (DL), Thursday, 5 December 2013 16:03 (ten years ago) link
I agree he's a little out of his mind but dude makes a point
― you are kind, I am (waterface), Thursday, 5 December 2013 16:03 (ten years ago) link
it's like the world's teeniest tiniest version of "fight club" - a guy giving himself a righteous ideology to explain why he made the choice he made, then going batshit trying to force that ideology on the world.
― da croupier, Thursday, 5 December 2013 16:04 (ten years ago) link
I get why we can't turn away (for all his talk about the entitlement of music critics, he's set himself up as their unchecked, ugliest form of id), but I don't get how anyone can take him seriously.
i've been semi-following this and i was gonna ask, as a britisher who's not in the NYC music crit scene, is this guy actually like...relevant to anyone, or is it just ~naming names that's provoked this conversation
― lex pretend, Thursday, 5 December 2013 16:04 (ten years ago) link
he's relevant in the sense that i'm sure lots of people toil with the idea of whether it's worth it (or whether they should try harder or should have tried harder, etc), and he's pushing the envelope on the "hey maybe if i don't try to make money off my art, my art will be better" impulse to a violent, blinkered extreme.
― da croupier, Thursday, 5 December 2013 16:06 (ten years ago) link
violent, huh? missed the part where he stabbed Vampire Weekend with a machete in his video
― you are kind, I am (waterface), Thursday, 5 December 2013 16:07 (ten years ago) link
at this point it is relevant for being relevant
― katherine, Thursday, 5 December 2013 16:07 (ten years ago) link
His point seems to be that music writing should be a hobby for the already affluent. Or for people who live on air. Much like the pro-piracy hardliners who resent any band who expects to earn any money.
― Deafening silence (DL), Thursday, 5 December 2013 16:09 (ten years ago) link
"His point seems to be that music writing should be a hobby for the already affluent."
some would call this a bug, not a feature
― katherine, Thursday, 5 December 2013 16:09 (ten years ago) link
I really hate how he thinks he has music writers "shitting their pants" - like what people are responding to is His Great Truth instead of his poor reasoning
― combination hair (underrated aerosmith bootlegs I have owned), Thursday, 5 December 2013 16:12 (ten years ago) link
Really uh, lol, that when he talks about independent music pubs that don't depend on ads he fails to mention Maura Magazine which iirc is entirely based on reader subscriptions, but then later calls out Maura as not having the independence to say what she wants to say?!
that shit was heinous. also i still don't know what a collapse board is
― emo canon in twee major (BradNelson), Thursday, December 5, 2013 9:48 AM (2 minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink
especially weird because it looks like he writes for Maura on occaission??http://www.maura.com/451/unreal-is-here
waterface doesn't agree with ott but is powerless to resist the siren song of such percfecto online assholism
― My Chief Keef Keef (upper mississippi sh@kedown), Thursday, 5 December 2013 16:12 (ten years ago) link
Everyone wants to always invoke riot grrrl as if it was some fucking scion of feminism—you weren’t fucking there, I was there.
They don’t know. They’ve demonstrated that they don’t know… I cannot allow that. If you’re going to start talking about things like punk and DIY, then I can’t allow that.
http://www.theonion.com/articles/90s-punk-decries-punks-of-today,1486
― Just noise and screaming and no musical value at all. (Colonel Poo), Thursday, 5 December 2013 16:14 (ten years ago) link
xpost totally, that plus the fact that he's calling out names. Take the bizarre NME/Pelly section out of that video, my guess is that the online response to Ott decreases about 60-70%
― intheblanks, Thursday, 5 December 2013 16:15 (ten years ago) link
xxpost on that last one
I agree with him u numbskull
― you are kind, I am (waterface), Thursday, 5 December 2013 16:18 (ten years ago) link
i don't care
― My Chief Keef Keef (upper mississippi sh@kedown), Thursday, 5 December 2013 16:20 (ten years ago) link
you have achieved perfecto online assholism
― you are kind, I am (waterface), Thursday, 5 December 2013 16:20 (ten years ago) link
nah man i'm a nice guy
― My Chief Keef Keef (upper mississippi sh@kedown), Thursday, 5 December 2013 16:22 (ten years ago) link
online posting should be for the intellectually affluent
― the objections to Drake from non-REAL HIPHOP people (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Thursday, 5 December 2013 16:23 (ten years ago) link
delurking to comment that oddly Ott's position reminds me more than anything of these quotes from Austrian economist Friedrich Hayek I read in a Corey Robin article this year:
However important the independent owner of property may be for the economic order of a free society, his importance is perhaps even greater in the fields of thought and opinion, of tastes and beliefs.
The importance of the private owner of substantial property, however, does not rest simply on the fact that his existence is an essential condition for the preservation of the structure of competitive enterprise. The man of independent means is an even more important figure in a free society when he is not occupied with using his capital in the pursuit of material gain but uses it in the service of aims which bring no material return.
It is only natural that the development of the art of living and of the non-materialistic values should have profited most from the activities of those who had no material worries.
http://jacobinmag.com/2013/06/nietzsche-hayek-and-the-meaning-of-conservatism/
― i have sounded the very dub step of humility (anonanon), Thursday, 5 December 2013 16:26 (ten years ago) link
to think this could have all been avoided if people had funded his kickstarter (well, and mark mcgrath's)
― da croupier, Thursday, 5 December 2013 16:28 (ten years ago) link
ha
― SHAUN (DJP), Thursday, 5 December 2013 16:28 (ten years ago) link
I mean, everyone is kind of painting Ott's argument on some NO LOGO, SHEEPLE 9/11 truther shit because, well no doy, brands have been tacking themselves on to bands since Fred Astaire was shilling cigarettes in the '30s.
But I think what's getting lost here (probably since Ott can't make a cogent argument) is that the gap between the oligarchs at the top of the internet food chain and the bands they cover is probably wider than it's ever been.
It's one thing to talk about how Bob Guccione Jr or Ryan Schrieber bought a nice house covering Husker Du or Tapes N Tapes, but another thing when the FABULOUSLY WEALTHY (ie, Vice is a BILLION DOLLAR company, Mountain Dew's record label, Converse Rubber Tracks) are taking advantage of the new culture of cool: writers and editors who will work for the lowest rates in the history of music journalism, and bands who've existed less than a year.
It sucks and that's the way things are headed now.
― tuostprophets (Whiney G. Weingarten), Thursday, 5 December 2013 16:29 (ten years ago) link
I don't know if blaming the writers is the answer, but I wish editors would pay more since this is basically hastening the eventual demise of "music journalism" as a career even faster than Spotify can
― tuostprophets (Whiney G. Weingarten), Thursday, 5 December 2013 16:30 (ten years ago) link
(probably since Ott can't make a cogent argument)
this appears to be the crux of the problem, resulting in the whole "blaming the writers" thing
― SHAUN (DJP), Thursday, 5 December 2013 16:34 (ten years ago) link
― tuostprophets (Whiney G. Weingarten), Thursday, December 5, 2013 10:29 AM (7 minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink
― tuostprophets (Whiney G. Weingarten), Thursday, December 5, 2013 10:30 AM (5 minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink
you're right of course
it's all horrible
then Ott's essentially like a guy walking through a field in Bakersfield screaming "SELL OUT" at the migrant workers & asking to be treated like a hero for doing so
― My Chief Keef Keef (upper mississippi sh@kedown), Thursday, 5 December 2013 16:38 (ten years ago) link
considering you want editors to pay more to help "music journalism" as a career survive, i don't believe what you see as being lost is what ott's trying to have found
― da croupier, Thursday, 5 December 2013 16:38 (ten years ago) link
The writers are to blame if they pretend they aren't contributing to the corporations. Isn't that the point he's making?
― Evan, Thursday, 5 December 2013 16:39 (ten years ago) link
and the crux of *that* problem is, suppose a writer agrees. suppose a writer feels chastised, they have SEEN THE LIGHT, they want to do right, come to jesus, what have you. what can they do? "Get a job. That’s what I did. I got a job." I mean, fuck, at least evangelical christians offer people a sinner's prayer they can do right away
― katherine, Thursday, 5 December 2013 16:39 (ten years ago) link
evangelical Christians in America these days would want you to get a job before they pray for you, so maybe Ott's missed his calling.
― the objections to Drake from non-REAL HIPHOP people (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Thursday, 5 December 2013 16:40 (ten years ago) link
ott isn't exactly articulating problems that pretty much EVERY JOURNALIST isn't aware of and hasn't been discussing at length already
― lex pretend, Thursday, 5 December 2013 16:40 (ten years ago) link
Well, he isn't saying anything about how easy it is to get a job. He's just saying if you give a shit about whether you are contributing to corporations by compromising your actual opinions about music, than don't expect music criticism to be the way in which you expect to build your career.
― Evan, Thursday, 5 December 2013 16:42 (ten years ago) link
ha god if only that was just what he's saying
― da croupier, Thursday, 5 December 2013 16:44 (ten years ago) link
"hey, principles can get in the way of career, guys. sucks but it's true. anyway, curve's new album..."
This isn't true, in my experience. Over and over YouTube asked me if I wanted to monetize my videos by including ads and I always said no, so eventually they just put ads on them anyway.
― polyphonic, Thursday, 5 December 2013 16:44 (ten years ago) link
I was perhaps too smarmy on Twitter about this, but if I gave a shit about whether I was indirectly contributing to corporations, I could not use this laptop, populate these sites by tech corporations, drink this coffee, take this cold and flu medicine for the cold I have, probably live in this house, definitely not live in this city, or really do anything but go off the grid.
― katherine, Thursday, 5 December 2013 16:47 (ten years ago) link
a stance he paints as absurd because he is not anti-corporation. he's just anti-taking a paycheck from corporations for knowing about or creating indie rock. that's literally all he's anti.
― da croupier, Thursday, 5 December 2013 16:48 (ten years ago) link
I don't see how he ISN'T saying (overall) "Look, if you care, keep your music criticism untainted by keeping it a hobby and make money another way, because it is extremely difficult to both make enough money to live on AND keep your opinions untainted".
― Evan, Thursday, 5 December 2013 16:48 (ten years ago) link
as for compromising my opinions about music, I've never done that, not even when I primarily covered pop music. (this is honestly the part that baffles me -- why he doesn't go after THAT segment of the music press, considering the problem is even more endemic there and -- this is mean but -- there are plenty more young female writers working there.)
― katherine, Thursday, 5 December 2013 16:48 (ten years ago) link
I appreciate Whiney making the argument Ott's too blinkered to make. I posted somewhere itt that some of Ott's big picture stuff about the economics of music journalism right now seemed pretty good, but the rest of the argument was filled with crazy nonsense.
― intheblanks, Thursday, 5 December 2013 16:49 (ten years ago) link