thread to track Poptimism 2.0

anyway, sorry if I upset anyone

Katherine I was intrigued by your comments above about feeling part of a "wave" of writers disrupting the role of legacy music critics.

Is that merely a timing thing (i.e. anyone who started writing after a certain point in time is part of the wave) or do you see your approach to music writing as meaningfully distinct?

the term "legacy music critics" interests me too. What does it mean in 2018 -- the equivalent of music crit tenure insofar as this is possible?

It's probably a function of first writing about music online myself (though scarily this was now almost 20 years ago), but I feel like the gulf between what I would consider to be "my generation" and people who got their start in the 70s through 90s is at least as distinct as any gulf vis a vis Internet 2.0 writers.

Though of course there's not really "gulfs" per se, rather an endless succession of shifts which different writers alternately embrace, reject or ignore (or some occasionally convoluted and contradictory combination of all three reactions).

just to keep everyone informed - brad quit ilx over an incident last night - can those of you who are friends with him maybe persuade him back to ilm at least, with the promise of emo and hugs or something :(

him/them/brad :)

What incident?

Oh never mind, I know what it was.

It's probably a function of first writing about music online myself (though scarily this was now almost 20 years ago), but I feel like the gulf between what I would consider to be "my generation" and people who got their start in the 70s through 90s is at least as distinct as any gulf vis a vis Internet 2.0 writers.

I had a discussion about this with (I guess) former ilxor xhukh at one point, and it seems to me there were at least 3 generations of pre-internet music critics:

• Old Fucks Who Started It All (Marcus, Landau, Marsh, Christgau, Meltzer, Bangs, etc.)
• 70s Rolling Stone Crew (Cameron Crowe, Jaan Uhzelski, etc., etc.)
• 80s Voice Writers and Assorted Brits (Greg Tate et al.)
• 90s Kids (too many names to mention here, and I suppose this is where I fit in, since my first paid byline was November '96)

Is that merely a timing thing (i.e. anyone who started writing after a certain point in time is part of the wave) or do you see your approach to music writing as meaningfully distinct?

It's a timing and demographic thing, I'd date it to around 2010 or so

My first paid byline was spring '99 but did it intermittently through 2003, after which it became a more regular freelance phenomenon. I guess I'm on the late end of the blog cycle.

but no, I don't remotely see myself as any kind of #disruptortwopointoh, unless the thing that was to be disrupted was my own security, which, stellar job all around there to me

FWIW my surprise was mostly driven by feeling very um 'close' to your writing style - as in the voice just feels so familiar to me in the best possible sense that it seemed startling to then ask myself rhetorically "is this writer in fact emblematic of a new generation that I don't fully understand?"

It's a timing and demographic thing, I'd date it to around 2010 or so

― algorithm is a dancer (katherine), Thursday, February 8, 2018 5:01 PM (seven minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

tumblr generation

my only overarching issue w the tumblr generation is a tendency to think they invented politicization of music writing

i do think i came up in an era where you had to argue radical ideas from within a 'reasonable' frame whereas post tumblr it seems a radical approach is taken more seriously

but they did invent the meme-ification of music writing, give'em that

the term "legacy music critics" interests me too. What does it mean in 2018 -- the equivalent of music crit tenure insofar as this is possible?

It's always been weird for me, I think. If you count my grad school work at UCI, when I was also the campus paper's main music reviewer, then I've been doing work one way or another since 1992, and though I was let go as a freelancer at the AMG in 2012, I did spend almost fifteen years contributing to its database on a regular basis. But it's never been my *job* and I never thought of it or any of the other work for all the other spots I've written for over the years as what I've done in terms of my day-to-day. (Which I realize is the case for you as well, Alfred, as well as many others.) Instead -- helped by the fact that in 1993 I started talking with people via newsgroups, email and the Web in general -- it's felt more like I've just always been steadily talking here and there about things as I choose. And it's a reason why I'm terribly casual about what level of work I do or don't do at this stage of my life, I pitch as I do, chime in as I do, don't feel the need to grapple as deeply as I might have done in the past, but that's not that I'm not thinking about things. I'm just thinking about a lot of other things too. And honestly I'd rather read more thoughts from others in most cases rather than put whatever supposed imprimatur I could on a subject of discussion.

the problem with music writing in 2018 is that the original purpose of music writing was to explain to readers what a particular piece of music sounded like and offer an opinion on whether or not the reader should try to hear it for themselves

mid-2000s music writing was especially valuable to people because online consumption of music was a disorganized and constantly changing landscape and music writers served as guides who helped readers find the best stuff there

spotify new music friday effectively drops a stack of free promo CDs on everyone's doorstep every week, and spotify themselves do a fine job of organizing new releases in such a way that helps every individual user easily find the new stuff that best suits their particular interests. pitchfork's front page can't compete with spotify's "new releases" tab. spotify already knows what you personally like to listen to and can make educated guesses about what you want to check out based on that data. what determines the way pitchfork's front page looks on any given day? most of the reviews they run every day only show up there because a publicist asked nicely. they're reviews of mediocre records that most of the site's writers don't have any interest in hearing. as a reader, it feels alienating.

i don't like the JT review, but i also can't blame young writers for trying to find a way to write about music in a way that feels important and useful. streaming has removed the need for music writing to function as a consumer guide because the audience no longer needs to spend money to hear music for themselves. it's no longer necessary for music writers to organize the chaotic landscape of online music consumption for the benefit of listeners because that landscape is no longer chaotic, and the data about listening habits that spotify and apple have access to is much a much more effective tool for organizing and recommending music than the sum total of knowledge contained in the minds of all professional music writers combined.

young music writers are not worse than old music writers, old music writers just had the benefit of circumstances that made their writing more important and useful to readers. there was a clear purpose to what they were doing that readers understood and appreciated. that's no longer the case, now.

I don't buy any of that. My interest in art criticism has never been for it to function as a consumer guide. I want to read someone who understands something. I want to read writing where someone is putting important things that other people sense about a given piece of work into words.

^^^

I would guess that most people in this thread have always consumed music criticism to better work out how to listen to music more than to work out what to listen to.

streaming has removed the need for music writing to function as a consumer guide because the audience no longer needs to spend money to hear music for themselves. it's no longer necessary for music writers to organize the chaotic landscape of online music consumption for the benefit of listeners because that landscape is no longer chaotic, and the data about listening habits that spotify and apple have access to is much a much more effective tool for organizing and recommending music than the sum total of knowledge contained in the minds of all professional music writers combined.

This is simply not true. Plenty of people enjoy hearing something that sounds nothing like anything they've listened to before. Also, Spotify is terrible at "organizing new releases in such a way that helps every individual user easily find the new stuff that best suits their particular interests" if those interests include jazz, classical, music from non-US/UK countries, or basically anything that's not utterly standard mass-market Western pop. And that's before we even get into the issue of writing about music that's not available on Spotify at all (there's a lot of it, you know!) and will thus require some actual effort on a reader's part to seek out.

I think the biggest influence on this whole thing-we-are-discussing is a social media inspired change in how we sort and organise ourselves and what information and opinions and allegiances and signifiers we use for that.

There’s a reason why 2016 articles on Kanye vs Taylor and Bernie vs Hillary could feel startlingly similar.

i.e. I think it’s too narrow to frame this solely in terms of patterns of music consumption

who is reading about jazz, classical, or music from non-US/UK countries? who is publishing it? who is reading and publishing writing about music by writers who have great passion for and expertise on the thing they're writing about?

i do not see any evidence that there's a market for nuance, for writing that is educated and/or educational, for expertise. i see news articles that summarize tweets and rushed takes on mass-market pop from good writers who are too busy trying to make rent to spend any time at all thinking about music that isn't the stuff everyone else is talking about and therefore approving pitches for.

i'm old enough to remember what the platonic ideal of music writing was supposed to look like, and i don't see anything like it today. what i see sure looks like an industry that's on the brink of being automated out of existence.

idk, The Wire is still in business, although others could speak to what capacity it is operating as a publication

books on music still sell reasonably well, as far as books go

I have no idea what "the platonic ideal of music writing" is supposed to be, especially when music writing has always been pretty varied. Any examples there?

who is reading about jazz, classical, or music from non-US/UK countries?

Lots of people. Granted, many of them are over 30, so they really have no excuse for continuing to exist, but they do.

who is publishing it? who is reading and publishing writing about music by writers who have great passion for and expertise on the thing they're writing about?

The Wire, Jazz Times, Down Beat, Bandcamp Daily, Stereogum, Pitchfork, the Log Journal, WBGO.com...those are just the first places I thought of. There are fucking tons of outlets for serious, thoughtful pieces on music that requires serious thought. Are there as many as there were a few years ago? No, but...

i do not see any evidence that there's a market for nuance, for writing that is educated and/or educational, for expertise. i see news articles that summarize tweets and rushed takes on mass-market pop from good writers who are too busy trying to make rent to spend any time at all thinking about music that isn't the stuff everyone else is talking about and therefore approving pitches for.

You're not looking hard enough. Seriously.

i'm old enough to remember what the platonic ideal of music writing was supposed to look like, and i don't see anything like it today. what i see sure looks like an industry that's on the brink of being automated out of existence.

You're wrong. But your first question makes me think you don't actually care, anyway. You probably like whatever the algorithms tell you you should like, and that's fine. It's a big world. There's room for all of us.

the wire, sure, that. unforced genuine expertise presented without concern for the popularity of the thing being written about. archival work focused on music that might otherwise never be discussed or cataloged, serious and thoughtful discussion of music that never relies on conventional wisdom or Default Smart Opinions.

what is the wire's circulation? who is reading that stuff? what do you think is bigger, the audience that's looking for great writing about music otherwise might not have interested the reader or the audience that's looking for Default Smart Opinions at lightning speed they can then parrot back to their friends in real life in order to seem hip and knowledgeable?

how many of the writers who are capable of the type of great thinking and great writing that a mag like wire might publish are just giving it away for free on here or elsewhere anyway? how many examples have you come across of writers who do their good writing about the subjects they are actually extremely passionate about on their tumblr or wordpress blog for free and inferior hot takes on mediocre zeitgeist records as paid work for publications?

did you really register an account just to complain on this thread in a long-winded manner?

i do not see any evidence that there's a market for nuance, for writing that is educated and/or educational, for expertise. i see news articles that summarize tweets and rushed takes on mass-market pop from good writers who are too busy trying to make rent to spend any time at all thinking about music that isn't the stuff everyone else is talking about and therefore approving pitches for.

your unspoken assumption here is that "mass-market pop," and writing about it, cannot be nuanced, educated and/or educational

I don't buy any of that. My interest in art criticism has never been for it to function as a consumer guide. I want to read someone who understands something. I want to read writing where someone is putting important things that other people sense about a given piece of work into words.

― timellison

otm

Fader, Okayplayer, Afropop.org, remezcla, songlines, plus a small handful of major Papers/magazine writers and alt-Weekly ones

Cover non-us, non-uk Music

did you really register an account just to complain on this thread in a long-winded manner?

― mh, Saturday, February 10, 2018 1:24 AM (sixteen minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

srsly

your unspoken assumption here is that "mass-market pop," and writing about it, cannot be nuanced, educated and/or educational

― algorithm is a dancer (katherine)

sure it can, but nuance and expertise are inherently less valuable to audiences now that it is easier to hear music than it is to read about it. people who are still reading about pop music are looking for Default Smart Opinions. they do not want to learn, they want to have their biases confirmed. you should know this better than anyone; all of the nuance and passion that inhabits your writing about popular music cannot do anything to stop your readers from heaping abuse onto you as punishment for your unwillingness to reinforce Default Smart Opinions.

i'm not advocating for music writing to become an online marketplace of Default Smart Opinions about pop music, but i think it's silly to pretend that's not what's happening just because there are small corners of the internet where communities form around other perspectives. who is the audience? what do they want? critics don't ask those questions enough.

the audience is Jann Wenner and he wants you to say nice things about U2, I think

who is the audience? what do they want? critics don't ask those questions enough.

Again, you're just wrong. Critics ask themselves these questions every day. They do so while formulating pitches.

what do you think is bigger, the audience that's looking for great writing about music otherwise might not have interested the reader or the audience that's looking for Default Smart Opinions at lightning speed they can then parrot back to their friends in real life in order to seem hip and knowledgeable?

I am aware that I write for a small audience. That's why I do it. I have consciously chosen to make a 20+ year career out of writing about things that only a few people are interested in, because those people are very interested. I seek a passionate audience, and the way to find a passionate audience is to write about obscure artists. (Or superhero movies.)

fwiw re: the argument i was having with katherine this seems relevant: https://www.nytimes.com/2018/02/09/arts/music/popcast-justin-timberlake-meek-mill-twitter-criticism.html

it's no longer necessary for music writers to organize the chaotic landscape of online music consumption for the benefit of listeners because that landscape is no longer chaotic

even if your premises about streaming services are right, the way they operate to provide music for consumption would still present a need for 'organization' by writers because the services conceal, even obliterate, the social and personal contexts which were the matrix in which chaos-organizing music writing worked.

Yeah j. Otm btw music writing is for people who love good criticism and good writing not for ppl looking for musics recommendations, tho in past eras a lot of hacks got by bc it coincided w those things

I've come to think that the best critical writing (music, art, lit - whatever) is an end in itself - ie not parasitical of, or dependent on, the medium of choice. Consumption has altered the market dramatically, but the good writers will always produce because that's what writers do. I do find that the best stuff is much harder to source (I probably mean 'stumble across' as much as anything), however, and this can lead to a weird kind of reading paralysis. Back in the day, Twitter was a goldmine, but now it's just too noisy.

this article responds to the title in the photo

https://www.avclub.com/heres-why-you-dont-like-new-music-any-more-1822926904

"This all makes sense, of course. We’re still developing physically, emotionally, and sexually in our early teens"

https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/S/sgp-catalog-images/region_US/showtime_svod-130064-Full-Image_GalleryBackground-en-US-1483994509386._RI_SX940_.jpg

"RANDALL!"

Based on incontrovertible, anecdotal evidence, that's mostly true for non-obsessive types, i.e. not ILM, i.e. most people.

yeah, no shit

non-movie people keep making movie memes referencing the franchises of their youth iirc

That was less a dig at pomenitul and more about a conversation about an aggregated news post about a Times story about a study that found something most of us knew

the comments truly prove that while most people lock in their tastes early, internet commenters are quick to tell you that they are not the average person

this study definitely seems pretty no-shit

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/02/10/opinion/sunday/favorite-songs.html

THAT SAID i really do think that there's something to be said for the better marketing that existed even ten years ago — these days, simple awareness of new music is very low among the general populace because of the ways media consumption habits have been rewired. add trump's sucking up all the air to that and it's nearly fatal

gauging how my coworkers (mostly extremely normal cubicle-dwelling suburban types) listen to music is illuminating and has really changed over time

the one that makes no sense to me is my coworker who is in his mid 30s and mostly has youtube sitting open with either 90s rock or a handful of newer things streaming on his work computer. somehow, since youtube has some instructional stuff on it, it's not blocked by the work web filter. but it's restricted mode so it's incredibly variable what you can get to. he also likes imagine dragons, I think

https://pudding.cool/2018/05/similarity/

some definite weird categorization is going on in the charts with the prominence of synths in #1 hits -- mainly, uh, a bunch that say "no synth" clearly have synths (mickey, power of love)

but other than that, some good (albeit traditional) observations with data to back it up:

1. pop music is becoming more homogenous

2. the working environment of music production is something that has never been seen before

(2) is one that is really interesting to me. 4+ and sometimes 10+ people working on a song, where one is assigned a snare person, and s/he is in charge of finding the right snare sound; ditto for kick drum person, etc.

laying the framework of a tune, then pumping out songs this way, with your man zedd being the most prominent example

seems a little contradictory at first, but this:

From 2010-2014, the top ten producers (by number of hits) wrote about 40% of songs that achieved #1 - #5 ranking on the Billboard Hot 100. In the late-80s, the top ten producers were credited with half as many hits, about 19%.

just seems like a sad state for music to be in. so each producer is basically a manager that hires different people for different parts of the song -- something like this:

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/04/22/arts/music/diary-of-a-song-the-middle-zedd-maren-morris-grey.html

In other words, more songs have been produced by fewer and fewer topline songwriters, who oversee the combinations of all the separately created sounds. Take a less personal production process and execute that process by a shrinking number of people and everything starts to sound more or less the same.

and, again, rockist although it may be, but hip hop (and i would add edm) is the main genre pushing this:

Hip hop is now the dominant genre, a track-and-hook archetype. Beats are programmed, copy and pasted or downloaded to mimic top producers. Recreating whatever’s fashionable has never been easier.

i think all this would be fine, except musical diversity in top 40 hits is close to nil