Is music journalism really a career for an adult?

is music journalism really a career for an adult?

is music journalism really a career for an adult?

is music journalism really a career for an adult?

one of the stipulations was that you had to read 200 blogs on google reader a day

what a disaster for Net News Wire users

Congratulation to 200 blogs for their extra 1 reader per day.

Classic Pop Magazine

6 hrs ·
.

Classic Pop is looking for regional correspondents (with some experience in journalism) to cover live shows and festivals in the North and North East.
Anyone interested? Let us know here asap!

(The link doesn't look like it has worked but if you can't figure out how to contact them ... )

answer to q is no, obv

shit we can't all be project managers and scrum masters

all careers are careers for adults

that's what makes them careers

but not every career has an adult

http://crackmagazine.net/opinion/opinion/when-did-music-journalism-stop-wielding-the-axe/

seeing that url I thought piece would be about how music journalists no longer hold authority to wield the axe

big data's a more scientific era. it's guillotines now.

it's p easy to rip things to pieces - that piece is guilty of the old assumption that negativity is somehow more intellectually valid than positivity. in a world where i can just go and listen to anything instantly it's not that worthwhile to have somebody telling me "don't listen to this", i mean except occasionally on some deeper level about a scene or whatever, or as a form of entertainment, or for people who can't see beyond the inherent discrepancy in power between the language of invective and the language of praise.

even talking about "bootings" - you're a middle-aged man sitting typing at a computer, there's nothing violent about criticising music made by some relative children, and if there was, that'd be nothing to feel macho or proud about.

Negative criticism is as important as positive criticism - I'm utterly bored with reading critics that apparently like everything. Nobody likes everything!

it's not as if there isn't still negativity around, or negative reactions to things, it's all still there in abundance, just that not many people need to read one man's big theory of why something is crap.

all rippings are not equal. I cld use a lot more negativity in music criticism, even hyperbolic/one-sided pieces when done well. there's so much stuff which is sufficiently niche that anyone who goes to the trouble of writing about it is cheerleading. liking things is cheap, doesn't require much investment, but I love reading about the things ppl loathe when they really engage, the more specific the better

^^^

it's the joy of dialectic; negative takes on things I love often clarify and harden my love more than a positive piece

in a world where i can just go and listen to anything instantly it's not that worthwhile to have somebody telling me "don't listen to this"

otm, but the accessibility also affects positive criticism - most people prefer listening to music to reading about it, robots can do a lot of the curating

the more specific the better

i'd agree if it was common for negative reviews to be well-executed, but a great many negative reviews end up sounding the same. wildly different things from food to movies to music get criticised for the same reasons.

there's so much stuff which is sufficiently niche that anyone who goes to the trouble of writing about it is cheerleading

i think with this stuff it becomes less and less likely that a hugely negative review has any kind of impact or even veracity. someone can hate it, sure, but it's incredibly difficult to connect it to anything.

a lot of ppl never had a lot of use for personal essays and could only really get on board w music criticism through the ideal of the objective consumer guide/product tester who'd keep their biases in check to save you time

obv most music writing is bad, always has been, but that seems besidea the point. idk what impact or veracity you'd want to aim for exactly, it's all just helping ppl make sense of things, hear them differently. I think it's natural with anything you really love to notice all the senses in which it fails, all the paths it doesn't take and so on, the idea that negativity is some distinct part of the listening/critical process is nonsense

On his side initially, but when he started off on how much he missed the tedious "bootings" of Johnny Cigarettes etc. in the late 90s I lost all sympathy for his argument - it was that sort of thing that put me off music journalism for a decade. I have literally never read one of these "bootings" which is not just an ego trip for the writer to show off his stock of elaborate synonyms for "this is bad, I didn't like it"

obv most music writing is bad, always has been, but that seems besidea the point. idk what impact or veracity you'd want to aim for exactly, it's all just helping ppl make sense of things, hear them differently. I think it's natural with anything you really love to notice all the senses in which it fails, all the paths it doesn't take and so on, the idea that negativity is some distinct part of the listening/critical process is nonsense

i mean, your points here are a lot more thoughtful and reasoned than someone talking about "bootings" etc in such an aggrandising and childish way.

In these unsteady times, the role of the critic in rocking the boat is more – not less – important. Contemporary trends in advertising and the corporate hollowing out of the media are so dire that in a decade you, the reader and consumer of music, are likely to be faced by an endless spew of clickbait and commercialised dross. It is our responsibility as critics to join the rearguard action against the age of beige, to call out its musical enablers, and start fighting back.

i mean... ffs. yeah cos otherwise we sheeple will be brainwashed by the media men. seriously - imagine having that level of self-importance.

likely to be faced by an endless spew of clickbait and commercialised dross

what does this actually mean? "faced by" - ie it exists. "an endless spew" - on... sites i don't read? doesn't seem endless.

this is "i don't like pop" volume 2,000,000 and that obvious vibe undermines anything thoughtful that could be said, ogmor much more reasonable on here tho

I think lgs and ogmors good thoughts on things above are separate to the real issue

Music writing is or may be ok but music writers are bad and should not exist

I was pondering this last night, while drunk.

Or, rather, I was pondering someone's response to it (before I'd read the actual piece).

I find Mr Agreeable style "bootings" a bit boring. I think the struggle is to say something is *okay* (and to engage with it in an interesting way) rather than declare it as great. I do wonder if there's been a slight shift towards positive reviews (that I get to read) because people are quite attached to the idea of free music (from PRs).

I was also reminded how irritating I find it when people tweet their positive reviews to the artist (which I think leaves you in a position of having to write a positive review because you want to tweet the artist).

I've lost count of how many vitriolic Charlie Brooker style "this made me want to rip off my own testicles and eat them" rants I've read in my life. They're always the same and they're always so boring and they always end up telling you more about the writer's own biases and viewpoints than anything insightful about the work.

I've never heard negative reviews referred to as "bootings" before, but this article is completely OTM. When was the last real "booting"? The Jet review of the gorilla pissing into its own mouth?

modern life is snrubbish

this is "i don't like pop" volume 2,000,000 and that obvious vibe undermines anything thoughtful that could be said

nonsense. Most of the music luke takes down is boring indie approved shit.

it's all pop

nonsense. Most of the music luke takes down is boring indie approved shit.

most of the music anyone "takes down" is "boring something approved shit"

it's not about liking or disliking things, it's about the level of engagement

ime it is hard to really hate something and describe it honestly

I don't really need anyone to "take down" anything tbh. But the last 2 bits of music writing I really enjoyed(Adam Shatz on Mal Waldron + Craig Taborn) were in the realm of boring old music for boring old tossers. And both were longform pieces of gushing praise for two extraordinary artiste types I really dig, written by a writer I usually thought was a bit of an arse, tbh. But there is an almost infinite space for whatever people want to write about music, and it doesn't really matter what approach they take. I wouldn't go as far as Dmac, but I would say what music writers do is of very little importance (which Luke doesn't seem to grasp going by the piece linked upthread) and lots of successful ones are very bad! Mind you, maybe a moratorium on all these shit Blair apologist music hacks from the 90's wouldn't go amiss.

Is this the same Luke Turner yhat used yo write for PlayLouder.com back in the fay? Now that was a site that knew how write a goddamn "booting" review. They were funny as hell.

Jesus I can't type today.

où sont les bootings d'antan?

it's not about liking or disliking things, it's about the level of engagement

― ToddBonzalez (BradNelson), Saturday, July 29, 2017 3:54 PM (two hours ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

ime it is hard to really hate something and describe it honestly

― ToddBonzalez (BradNelson), Saturday, July 29, 2017 4:04 PM (two hours ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

I think the main issue I have with negative take music writing is just this. A lot of it comes off as very dishonest, disengaged, and hyperbolic. Most vv negative reviews I read are extremely terrible, they make me want to refer the writer to a psychiatrist.

i agree with that, a lot of negative takes are crucial misunderstandings of what's actually there, or wilful/accidental inability to see what the defining characteristics or purpose of the music is, ie "why does this not have the properties of another entirely different thing that i like..."

i don't need anybody to tell me what to hate. negative criticism: "this record is bad! you shouldn't listen to it!" ok, then, well, i won't? for the same reason i don't often write negative criticism. if i think an album sucks i don't see the point of drawing attention to it unless somebody is paying me to (nobody is paying me to.) if i'm going to be cruel and vicious, i can think of better things to be cruel and vicious about than some stupid record.

I've never written a record review, but the only sort of negative review I can imagine wanting to write would be one of an artist whose work I've previously liked. I'd need to have that much investment in the material.

also like it's fine to say you'd like to read more negative reviews of stuff that's so obscure it only gets written about by people praising it, but how is a publication supposed to organically find this sort of review? sounds like a recipe for infuriating hot-takes. what if there aren't people out there who actively hate a given thing? it's prob pretty likely for obscure stuff. i think if the original piece had called for better quality of negative reviews as some itt have, that'd be interesting, but as it stands now things most likely to get slated are the things which have been hyped. these "bootings" are just the other side of the same coin.

xpost

i also think the original piece carries an implication, all too common, that somehow other people's positive opinions are deceitful, fraudulent, or not to be trusted.

That opinion is like the version of the Yelp reviewer who rails against a new restaurant and suggests all the positive takes come from friends of the owner or are bought and paid for.