Rolling Music Writers' Thread

I'm almost afraid to ask, but what on earth is "the art of pretend disingenuousness"

I'm almost afraid to ask, but what on earth is "the art of pretend disingenuousness"

anyone have any thoughts on yesterday's Awl piece on freelancing? are things usually really that bad?

http://www.theawl.com/2010/08/seven-years-as-a-freelance-writer-or-how-to-make-vitamin-soup

yes.

worse, in fact.

As a professional freelancer myself, I have no idea how some dude who clearly takes lots of high-paying, high-profile gigs is so perpetually close to financial ruin. I don't have a single outlet nearly as well paying as that guy; AND I pay a higher rent. And still have enough money to go on vacation and buy records and eat at nice restaurants.

No idea where all his money is going.

yeah i was wondering that too! he seemed to kind of elide the chronology of a lot of stuff--like, was he dirt poor the first couple years? or was he dirt poor last year while he was a contributing writer to the nyt magazine and stuff?

haha actually yeah having read it now, i've got some decent/well-known publication names in the old clips file, but anyone with names like playboy on his resume needs to stfu.

I once got paid $100 a word.

Pls give details.

I once got paid $100 a word

that's where his "freinds w/benefits" metaphor kicks in

freelancing means..writing shamelessly sycophantic letters to editors and not being embarrassed

Once, when I was 5, I met Big Bird. He wasn't so big in real life. But I was still glad to meet him. Grown-up to grown-up, I think I’d fare far better with you.

yeah, he made it seem like you're pretty much gonna be poor if you decide to go the freelancing route

Even before I attended the Graduate School of Journalism at Columbia University, I was writing features for Details that were being debated on “The O’Reilly Factor.” I wrote one of the rare freelanced cover stories for the New York Daily News —a school scandal I had pitched to the New York Times only to be told never ever to use the word “scandal” in my pitch (they ended up chasing the story the next day; it took two reporters to re-report my story). I went to the Turkish countryside to write about a 600-year-old Turkish olive-oil wrestling tournament for ESPN. I lived at a research station in the Alaskan Arctic for the Times. I went to Peru for National Geographic. I went to keggers at New York magazine and went to parties with Sigur Rós and the cast of “Saturday Night Live.”

if he parties with the current cast of SNL and Sigur Ros no wonder no one returns his calls.

"You won't believe where I'm calling you from!"

http://www.dankatie.com/pi2002/manila/mla_chilis1.jpg

"Waddup, guys. Here we are coolin it at Chili's with Sigur Ros. The tortilla chip dip is teh awesomez!"

Conceptual reviews - C/D?

Do you like it when people subvert the music review, playing around with its form or trying to entertain the reader with more than the old "sounds like Joy Division/angular guitars" dreck, or is this all a load of meandering Pitchfork-circa-2001 bollocks?

Also - how do you keep your writing fresh and interesting to read? Especially if you're reviewing a lot of releases at a time?

On the latter front -- try and (if possible) limit your formal reviews to one a day. Reduces stress and allows you to concentrate on just that one thing. (Obviously if you have a larger workload than I allow myself then...)

Conceptual reviews - C/D?

just don't

just don't even try

1% of conceptual reviews may work but THAT MEANS 99% DON'T AND ARE THOROUGHLY WORTHLESS.

so don't.

but sometimes its the only way for me to write about a viking metal album. and have fun.

Do you like it when people subvert the music review, playing around with its form or trying to entertain the reader

If the "people" is Scott Seward (or a few other people), then yes, almost all the time. (But if it's other other people, not so much.)

I hate conceptual reviews. Wouldn't run 'em as an editor, and will never write one.

Actually, I don't even really know what "conceptual" means, in this context. You can do all sorts of things, and write about all sorts of things, in the course of a music review. And if you're an interesting writer, you will. And you'll write about the music, too, and if the non-music stuff sticks out like a sore thumb, a good editor will let you know. (If you're not an interesting writer, your review will probably be boring, regardless.)

The trouble with a lot of "conceptual" reviews is that they can be an elaborate displacement activity for engaging with, and reporting back on, the actual music.

Sure. But that doesn't mean that writers with interesting things to say about the actual music should avoid them -- or rather, that the "conceptual" vs., uh, "regular" review battle isn't a false dichotomy in the first place. (Truth is, I almost never read Pitchfork back in the old days, and still don't now. I tend to gravitate toward critics I actually like, many of whom are capable of walking and chewing gum at the same time. So my stance on this issue might be shaded by that fact.)

xhuxk, I know I've mentioned this to you before, but your willingness, even eagerness (as I saw it) to publish format-busting reviews in the Voice actually kept me from pitching you for years, because I had the impression that it was "house style" and that anything I wrote would be re-edited until it was like that.

That, and the fact that I didn't see you publishing anyone interested in treating metal as anything but a punch line.

You obviously didn't look close enough (both for the non-funny metal writing -- Erik Davis comes to mind, right off the top of my head, but there was plenty, and being funny is hardly always the same as making fun of the music anyway -- and for writers who wrote more "straight" (including jazz guys, Gary Giddins for starters.) Actually, I got some complaints (from Sasha Frere-Jones, for one) that my section covered metal too much. And I sure as hell wasn't going to edit out all of, say, Scott's and George's jokes. But that doesn't mean they don't take loud rock seriously, either. (And so do I. But sorry, it's also funny, a lot of the time.)

In other words, it's the "anything but" that you're really wrong about. I have no idea who that would apply to. Scott and George and Dave Q never treated metal as only a punchline. They treated it as music worth taking apart and figuring out and analyzing, too. (Frank Kogan, on those occasions when he wrote about metal, probably didn't even joke very much; that's not really his style. And I'm sure if I went back and looked through seven years of Voice issues, I could come up with plenty of other examples.)

Well, this was a decade ago - I'd only been writing about music for money since '96, and I took myself and metal much more seriously.

"Music Journalism Faces Shake-Ups, Shake-Downs and High Tech Show-Downs in 2010" by Jason Gross

http://www.popmatters.com/pm/tools/print/135739

haven't read this yet, but i will

"addenda": http://www.popmatters.com/pm/post/135835-/

Music Journalism Faces Shake-Ups, Shake-Downs and High Tech Show-Downs in 2001

i still wanna put out a zine! i said that on here. i'm getting to it! there just don't seem to be enough hours in the day. i can never get enough done.

this is my favorite quote on here:

"Like wow, the Jesus And Mary Chain helped you get through high school. You and America, buddy."

i just love that image of the entire country relying on the jesus and mary chain to get them through high school. in a perfect world...

Have any of you writer types taken long breaks where you didn't write at all or very much? If so, did you find that you had trouble getting back to churning out quality copy when you came back?

Does being an editor for nine years count?

I don't think so unless you also stopped writing your own stuff, which certainly wasn't the case when I was an editor...

ha, i love how that popmatters thing has a whole "correction" about my work history / benefits situation, despite both the original and the update coming entirely from someone's imagination.

omg lol

the benefits of fact checking

xp I definitely wrote a whole lot less when I was an editor than before or after (which I now regret, since in those days the Voice would have paid me for individual pieces on top of my salary, and I could have saved the money.) But nah, I've never stopped writing completely.

I took last week off because I was out of the country on assignment, and it's been a little weird getting back into a rhythm. But I've never stopped writing for any serious length of time in the last 15-16 years.

Yeah, see, I ask because I have been pretty much retired for several years and tonight I have to review a show for a fairly large outlet and I hope I don't suck.....

Did it. Don't think it sucked but I could be told otherwise.

Hey - can anyone point me to some live reviews they've particularly enjoyed? Seems to be a bit of a dark art compared to cd reviews.

much prefer writing live reviews compared to album reviews, myself.

http://blogs.villagevoice.com/music/2011/02/_lady_gaga_madi.php

http://www.rollingstone.com/culture/blogs/pop-life/highlights-from-all-tomorrows-parties-the-perfect-rock-festival-20100908

much prefer writing live reviews compared to album reviews, myself.

Me too. I respond well to the immediacy/urgency of having to file a live review straight after the gig; the pressure energises me.

yeah i love writing live reviews, and they present a set of challenges and pleasures totally different from album reviews