Is music journalism really a career for an adult?

Are record reviews qualitatively different than film reviews? The most famous movie critics from the '60s and '70s, I could cite any number of negative reviews that are among their most passionate and well written.

(To answer my own question, there might be. Music is more abstract, more subjective I'd say, and harder to pin down with explanations.)

i think actually a lot of negative film writing is garbage, for example there was this recent shitty Dave Holmes piece about Valerian kind of epitomizing a lot of what i dislike about that kind of take on movies, and a lot of film writers are just wholly trash (Armond White a prime example), but i think really nasty film reviews can be better are their targets have it coming more often, since there are fewer movies, they're usually representative of something beyond themselves, and especially when the work is a cautiously released and corporate-tested entity i don't have the same level of sympathy or empathy and don't feel the need to meet halfway, say, Michael Bay's racist characterizations in a movie about giant robots.

This piece was whatever, and Brad's point about true engagement almost automatically torpedoing the binnings of yore is a salient one. (I often dive into archives for my teaching gig, and trust me: Music writing is so much better than it was even 15 years ago, even if it still has a lot of problems.)

As far as "where did all the negative reviews go" musings, there are a couple of factors at work here.

• The way not just music, but all journalism has developed since the rise of real-time analytics—and, more crucially, the altering of browsing habits so that most peoples' "homepage" is a platform (usually Facebook, sometimes Twitter, maybe even Instagram?) that they lazily scroll down looking for bits of news on their friends and the world outside their friend group—means that promotion is just as important as actually filing a piece, maybe even more since going "viral" can potentially increase per-piece ROI. The best ways to promote are then:
a) position it with a headline that prompts the sort of sharing that will double as a badge of identity ("we need to talk about," etc - this is where most of the truly bad thinkpieces have their origins)
b) overblow the opinion in one direction so that it gets a clickable headline, since 'this record is fine, whatever" isn't exactly an enticing stance. inchoate anger is great, and so is fawning praise, because the third option is...
c) get the subject(s) to retweet the piece, since people following them presumably *want* to read the results of successive 15-minute phoners / praise and justification for their fandom.

• The collective effect of neutral-to-sorta-positive reviews being collected (on aggregate sites like Metacritic and in the minds of people reading a lot about one album at a time), where a lot of "this is ok-to-good" reactions can feel like an overbearing "LISTEN TO THIS NOW." This has only gotten more cacophonnic with album release day being a worldwide thing.

• The absurd workloads of editors, who need the copy they work with to be clean, concise, and not bogged down by argument-related shittiness (unless it can be parlayed into stoking the fires of anger, in which case bring it on)

• The "pivot to video" resulting in outlets needing to play even nicer, since it's not like you'll get a lot of ad revenue from having writers on camera, so you need to play nice with "talent" (the MTV News anecdotes are a harbinger of "cultivated relationships" to come)

• Money and the ever-increasing reliance on freelancers. Why would publications, all of which are having their editorial budgets crushed in some way or another, want to shell out cash for something that—and this is a mercenary way of looking at writing, I know, but you have to be when your bosses are giving you barely enough cash to publish four pieces a week, let alone 15 or more—would either amount to the shruggie emoji or trash something that few people don't *want* to see ripped to shreds? And see the aforementioned tweet, and think about how freelancers are more disposable and if they fuck something up big (either on a factual level or a "we'll never work with you again" level) they can have bait cut on them way more easily.

It all sucks, I know. (Sorry for chiming in, I know I shouldn't exist. But there are a lot of market forces at work here that go way beyond "wow sellouts.")

https://twitter.com/search?q=arcade%20fire%20sucks

so ded

The collective effect of neutral-to-sorta-positive reviews being collected (on aggregate sites like Metacritic and in the minds of people reading a lot about one album at a time), where a lot of "this is ok-to-good" reactions can feel like an overbearing "LISTEN TO THIS NOW." This has only gotten more cacophonnic with album release day being a worldwide thing.

^ this

what examples of honest/thoughtful negative reviews would ppl suggest? ppl seemed to like that Laura Snapes review of the Ed Sheeran album in Pitchfork, imo that didn't come off as dishonest, disengaged or hyperbolic (but I guess an Ed Sheeran fan may feel differently?) (that review is all about Sheeran's alleged dishonesty and disingenuous) (I think that, in that case, after reading dozens of ppl saying that Ed Sheeran was awful, it was nice to read someone put into words exactly how and why he is awful?)

Jeremy Larson's dismissal of Arcade Fire yesterday.

yes

He presented himself as a betrayed lover, but he likes them more than I ever did.

In my very humble opinion, and being mindful of my own hypocrisy, any critic of any human effort should probably keep the 10/80/10 curve in mind - most things are okay, some things are truly reprehensible, some things are stupendous. And secretly, when everything seems to be awful and uninteresting and rote, hold to the hope inside of Sturgeon's Law - 10% of everything is (probably) not crap.

A critic's careful judgement and adroit penmanship should be deployed when gross perspective is wrong about something - when a popular thing is actually in the bottom tenth of terrible, or when something goes ignored that deserves acclaim. Don't waste all that thought and energy on reminding people that the 80% that is middling is merely middling. We know.

what examples of honest/thoughtful negative reviews would ppl suggest?

I'll go back to old film reviews--sorry, just don't keep up with record reviewing any more.

Pauline Kael on A Clockwork Orange, The Exorcist, Raging Bull, Roger & Me, Born on the Fourth July...there are so many. I don't agree with all of those, but I think they constitute great writing.

A bunch by Stanley Kauffmann, too, but I'd have to give that more thought.

Tom I think you're right to a point. And unfortunately the mechanics of publishing mean that space needs to be filled on a regular basis.

that's where i definitely don't know what i'm talking about. i should probably thank some animist deity on a periodic basis that i don't have to chase the clicks.

i should probably thank some animist deity on a periodic basis that i don't have to chase the clicks.

Yeah, I'm really glad I don't have to worry about that stuff. I mean, if enough people aren't reading my jazz column for Stereogum, they'll stop publishing it, and that's fine, but that's as close as I get to market-based writing at this point.

As far as that "write more negative reviews!" piece, it's a bunch of insecure posturing from a dude whose own site is full of shit more often than not. I've told the story here before of how they only wanted me to review the new Metallica album if I could guarantee that I'd put the boot in. (I didn't get the gig. Someone else did.)

As the arc of my career-as-such has gone, it went from college paper reviews and features to the AMG reviews and via that the various scattered reviews and features I've done as a result. The AMG work, in a way, illustrated the 10/80/10 split Tom noted -- difference being that the very nature of the AMG invited coverage of the 80 in detail as well, to have an accounting for, well, all music, or as much as could be found. Reviewed a LOT of middling indie rock of the 2000s, but I didn't rant about them, more like 'how many ways can I say "meh."'

Of course I did have my vivisections. My Stylus column was about looking at the leftovers, but if something provided an honest surprise I happily said so. But there was a lot of junk, and unlike the AMG approach, I could avoid an objective tone in favor of "ARRGH." I remember both Momus and Grady talking on here about not fully being on board with that but as Alfred said, there's a value in explaining why you hate something if you can do it well. (See also the Neil Tennant essay from 92 re the power of hate as a focus, artistically and elsewhere.)

As my post AMG writing career has settled into my groove of a few pieces here and there per month -- backed up, as I have always been, by the luxury of my full time job, utterly unrelated to music criticism or the for-profit world -- I can afford to pick and choose, quite literally, and these days I'm simply not interested in chasing everything down to opine on it all. Or more accurately there isn't time for it. (The fact that I can't easily listen to albums as much at my SF job as I used to in OC also is a big factor.) In ways I think I've explained my aesthetic enough on the one hand -- as much to myself as to any regular readers I have -- and on the other I'm much more content to read others' writing on music new and old (especially when talented younger writers take a look at older music and its accompanying cliches and assumptions around it to ask if it shouldn't be viewed differently instead -- an important part of sociopolitical evaluation and review well beyond music).

So sure I could write something about how, I don't know, I'd rather have my ears ripped off than have to entertain [insert EDM macho bro of choice here] any more than I have to, or how I wish Father John Misty did his trip to Big Sur, had a revelation that he was on the verge of being an obnoxious mediocrity, and chucked it all in to settle down and raise bees. For a start. But I don't feel like wasting more words than that on the matter and I'd rather do something like my NPR Algiers piece and try and unpack the context and creation of what I feel is a remarkable album in detail.

Negative criticism absolutely has a place. It simply can't and shouldn't just be schtick.

is it too obvious to point out that assigning value on a scale is among the least interesting or even helpful things a critic can do? (worth remembering anyway, maybe). i can't get enough of reviews that help me hear what fans of a musician hear, even - especially? - when i'm not a fan myself

Having to assign values (stars, numbers, whatever)...just horrid. Have always hated it, and am glad I barely have to do it anymore.

I've only ever had to do it at two places - Alternative Press and AMG - and in both cases, I can't remember a single numerical rating I assigned anything.

Part of me kinda wishes The Wire would assign numerical scores to albums, just because it would be hilarious.

"284.15, as scored in the hexadecimal system on the planet Tharg."

It's even worse for writers, since hardcore fans latch on only to scores and have their angry tweets at the ready if they feel their fave has been slighted.

(I got slammed for being a "longtime Lana hater" because 3.5 stars appeared above my LUST FOR LIFE review in RS.)

You're not? (Seriously; I feel like everything I've read about her with your byline has been "meh"-to-"ugh.")

Ha, Maura's story reminds me of something I was thinking about last night at OMD -- when I reviewed this album for Pitchfork:

http://pitchfork.com/reviews/albums/17843-orchestral-manoeuvres-in-the-dark-english-electric/

I spent nearly all of it pointing out how it was simultaneously a really lovely album and ultimately one that didn't develop their now considerable legacy, merely providing refinements. It came out and a slew of OMD fanatics only noticed the score and had a meltdown. Still irritated about that.

It's even worse for movies.

Imagine explaining how some terrible movies should be seen and argued about.

i actually gave HONEYMOON a good review when it came out.

also this should go without saying but being a "hater" and being "meh to ugh" are not the same thing.

Well, I can't stand the term "hater" anyway; anyone who uses it falls into the same bucket of slime where I leave people who refer to women as "females." But (and I haven't read your Honeymoon review but would love a link) what I have read of yours re LDR has always given me the impression that you strongly dislike her work and creative persona but are occasionally able to muster grudging respect for an individual track or something, here and there. In fact, I admit to having wondered why you keep engaging with her work. If I felt about an artist the way your writing makes me think you feel about LDR, I would simply stop listening, and certainly stop writing about them.

Ha, Maura's story reminds me of something I was thinking about last night at OMD -- when I reviewed this album for Pitchfork:

http://pitchfork.com/reviews/albums/17843-orchestral-manoeuvres-in-the-dark-english-electric/

I spent nearly all of it pointing out how it was simultaneously a really lovely album and ultimately one that didn't develop their now considerable legacy, merely providing refinements. It came out and a slew of OMD fanatics only noticed the score and had a meltdown. Still irritated about that.

― Ned Raggett, Saturday, July 29, 2017 8:08 PM (thirteen minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

You shoulda seen how the OMD hardcore reacted when John Doran didn't like the album before... he was essentually accused of having an agenda, despite writing about the band positively elsewhere as you have done...

xp

My opinion on her has changed since the early days of Interscope trying to play pretindie with their "secret shows" at Glasslands and Insta-filtered live shots. I thought people were being too harsh on her SNL performance, although I also loathed how laconic her vocal approach was on BORN TO DIE.

Probably notable: When I was more alienated from her work I had a staff job and a place where I could contour out my opinions more freely. As this exchange indicates, it's much more difficult to build a body of work and a critical profile when one's pieces are scattered all over the place.

*essentially

(xp)

(And why do I write about her? Because that's what editors want.)

lol "pretindie"

i didn't even mean star ratings or scores as such, just the whole concept of "good" vs "bad" consumer reports style is so weird to me. i guess it made sense when people had to buy music unheard. but the idea of proclaiming a "verdict" on like, the new rae sremmurd or LDR album is so ridiculous to me

I really like in depth music criticism and history and over time have come to value the opinions of young people as expressed though professional writing less and less. I know we're not talking about it now but the original thread topic had me thinking: I almost only want to read music writing from adults

Not adults who pose as Adults in the sense of inveighing on the pop of the day in a condescending bourgeoise tasteful sense but like as an example, a Brad Nelson review I will probably read and enjoy. I mean unless ur the next Carson McCullers your opinions are great but I probably won't glean insight from your efforts to articulate them

This is probably not a v popular opinion but I'm ok w it as polemical ilx posts go lol

*your efforts to articulate them *at age 22*

Obv I encourage young ppl to work at it, I'm just saying I think this thread has the dynamic of criticism upside down

Agree with the above 100%. When I read a headline like "We Need To Talk About (Album)" my immediate response is, "I had that conversation 20 years ago, thanks but no thanks."

you guys hate millennials, it's ok you can say it.

i'm cool w/honest well thought out responses from "millennials" but hot takes without actual intelligence behind them are basically "we showed these four year olds modern art and this is what they had to say"

I am a millennial

When I think about the best critics I've read in any field, their best/most interesting/well developed stuff was largely produced in their 30s +

I mean idk what say Richard Brody's movie reviews were like in his 20s but I love them now & I don't see age being a barrier for me to keep reading him as he gets older

i'm cool w/honest well thought out responses from "millennials" but hot takes without actual intelligence behind them are basically "we showed these four year olds modern art and this is what they had to say"

― nomar, Saturday, July 29, 2017 4:22 PM (eighteen minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

I too am cool w those well thought out responses *in theory* altho I think they're a lot less common than ppl would like to believe. Also, tbf, the editorial hand is very weak right now and a great editor would probably be key in younger writers developing their critical voices early

Phil: I sent you an email entitled: "How do you feel about the new Metallica album?" setting out why - on first instincts - I totally thought it should get a negative review, in what I felt was a jokily OTT manner - hoping to have some sort of discussion with you about it but definitely expecting you to respect a writer/editor relationship and for it to go no further. I was genuinely up for having you change my mind on this matter though - I'm not saying it happens on a weekly basis but it does happen, say, once a month. I had every right to be nervous about you as a potential first time writer for us given that I know you don't really like or respect tQ or me (as a writer or editor) and have been vocal about this in the past. And there it was literally the same day - your issue not taken up with me in the first place but taken straight to a thread for Metallica fans on a message board. I like you as a reviewer, I totally get that you're committed to what you do and I'd still like you to write for us in an ideal world but you insisting on treating this incident like it's Watergate is weak sauce imo. Regular and trusted writers for us get total free reign. Loads of them post here. Go ahead and ask them if you want - there are probably in the region of 15 people. (Any kind of interference is extremely rare. I'm still trying to live down the shame I feel that we ran an absolute drubbing of a really good documentary THAT MY FRIENDS MADE simply because I didn't want to stick my oar in.) None of us interfere with any of the columns at any level - and next to none of the reviews (but there are obvious cases where it would be mad for us not to know in advance what the reviewer thinks of an album, if Luke and I think Monoliths + Dimensions is a clear shoe in for album of the year, we'd be idiots to give the review to someone who hates it). I absolutely have to tread gingerly round new writers for obvious reasons and make no apology for sounding them out thoroughly in the first, second and third etc instances. We've done everything on a position of trust at tQ - I already work an 80 hour week, paying myself less than minimum wage to do the tQ portion of that [world's smallest violin etc.] and yet, even though we're closer to a fanzine than we are to P4k or Uncut, I still found myself having to learn about adding legal disclaimers to emails after this incident. You know - clearly, in retrospect I overstepped the mark and disrespected you as a professional which I'm deeply regretful about - but you not coming to me in the first place and twisting this to make me look like some dead-eyed moral bankrupt is bang out of order, not to mention extremely hurtful.

To the poster above: those negative reviews are the hardest to write. I had to do a Q and A onstage with Andy McCluskey after the OMD drubbing. It was one of the most difficult hours of my professional life. And then there was the Simple Minds review... Jesus. Apparently some Australian radio DJ read it out to Jim Kerr and they had an actual fight on air. And the worst thing about all of this stuff is these people are my childhood heroes. I take absolutely no pleasure in it whatsoever. In fact I find it quite distressing.

Ok what

I think millennials are fine. I'm more wary of people in my generational cohort and older treating them as if they're The Blob.

Do you know what? I'm actually really struggling at the moment due to a recent diagnosis of Mild Traumatic Brain Injury, which I only received on Friday after a road accident last November, which has put my ability to keep on doing tQ or carry on writing full stop into question, hence me getting upset in public about something I should be ignoring. I'd really appreciate it if someone could delete this post and the post above. I'm genuinely not in my right state of mind at the moment. Thanks.

Hey, I'm sorry. I was just being an Internet Dickhead because I don't know enough of the context to connect your last post to what others were talking about. I don't know you from Adam or Eve, but I do hope your days get better from here and I didn't really mean anything by that post. Should have put it on the "second thought about" thread. Or nowhere at all.

No foul. I shouldn't be on the internet at the moment. It's my own lookout. And thanks.

I'll just say I really love the Quietus and appreciate what you do