Where's the line between "music fan who writes" and "music critic"?

Message Bookmarked

Bookmark Removed

It's a bit of an inane question IMO, and not something I want under my name right now, so I'm logging out to ask it. This is just out of genuine curiosity: with the increase in music blogs and the continued saturation of the music journalism market it seems kind of overwhelming to try and get a foothold, to try to find a way to do this for a living. So, does writing or music journalism have to be your day job? Do you have to be on several record labels' promo lists? Does it matter which/how many publications you write for, whether you're a freelancer or staff, or how often your writing appears? The only how-to guide I've really run across so far is that thing Lester Bangs wrote a while back, and things have changed drastically since then, so I'm kind of lost.

― anon., Friday, 29 October 2004 15:28 (twenty-one years ago)

This is a good question. I would never call myself a "music critic" because I have never written FOR anybody -- but I can think of plenty of people I would call music critics who don't do it as their day job but simply freelance a lot. I also welcome the "saturation of the market," as I think it really expands the possibilities for music writing -- and in that sense, I'm not really eager to make distinctions between "real" critics and hobbyists, especially if the hobbyists are writing more lively stuff. If I make that distinction for myself, it's mostly out of modesty.

― jaymc (jaymc), Friday, 29 October 2004 15:35 (twenty-one years ago)

Judging by recent sales figures, I would specialise in music videos instead of CDs. Although that would be very boring, I think. Are there any music video blogs? I mean commercially available music videos, DVDs. Sales are booming, it says here.

― PJ Miller (PJ Miller), Friday, 29 October 2004 15:37 (twenty-one years ago)

The connotations of the terms you wrote suggest (to me) that we're comparing "person who writes for pleasure" vs "person who writes for money".

But it's not necessarily true that the writers in one group produce higher quality writing than those in the other group. If there is a difference, it's not in quality, but in quality control. People who write for money should have a greater obligation to produce high quality writing almost all of the time. This is axiomatic, I think.

― MindInRewind (Barry Bruner), Friday, 29 October 2004 15:45 (twenty-one years ago)

The connotations of the terms you wrote suggest (to me) that we're comparing "person who writes for pleasure" vs "person who writes for money".

I probably wasn't clear enough (or was misleading in the thread title). It's actually "person who writes every so often" vs. "person who can quit his day job", though there's a bit of undertone of "what makes a music reviewer 'professional' in senses other than a monetary one".

― anon., Friday, 29 October 2004 15:49 (twenty-one years ago)

i think money is the only decider between these definitions. fans who write and critics have never been closer because of how little magazines pay and because lots of the most exciting writing is online these days.

that said i've always felt anyone who criticises should also be a fan at heart...

― martin (martin), Friday, 29 October 2004 15:52 (twenty-one years ago)

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

― Myonga Von Bontee (Myonga Von Bontee), Friday, 29 October 2004 15:54 (twenty-one years ago)

You must be logged in to post. Please either login here, or if you are not registered, you may register here.