Woebot
Well-known member
With increasing regularity at the moment I come upon this issue. Some colleagues find the idea that anything more than the sonic itself is no criteria for the evaluation of a piece of music. This person is mildly horrified that a journalist would seek to publicise something which they'd been given by a friend or a connection, even worse that a journalist would be kind about a record which they weren't wholly convinced of the quality of.
Music Journalists are supposed to live in this vacuum, to be entirely divorced from the culture they comment upon with a pristine analytical objectivity.
But what total bullshit!
Looking back in history, the best and most useful Journalists have been the ones absolutely integral to the culture itself. Think Lester Bangs, or Paul Morley, or Chris Bohn (why not?) or even our big chum Mr Reynolds. And in my opinion the least interesting, least exciting Journalists are the ones who disdain involvement under a pretence of objectivity.
When you write in the press or online with a certain amount of regularity and consistency of opinion you find people gravitate to you. You'll find people who think they can (in the best sense of the word) "use you", will approach you. The truth of the matter is that nine times out of ten they're like-minded individuals. OK, only a smaller percentage of those people will have something you truly feel is worth publicising, but in my opinion thats a wholly healthy relationship.
Of course, ever since the appalling payola corruption endemic in the industry in the fifties and sixties there's been an attitude of discomfort about this kind of relationship. But really how much has the mechanics of this industry really changed in those years? Its still precisely the same of course. Again ideas of journalistic ethics, particularly strong in the USA as I understand, make anything other than "objectivity" problematic, but I'd argue that while that may be a worthwhile tenet to uphold in Political Journalism (though I don't doubt for a second that precisely the same allegiances develop in that field) but in Music Journalism? Surely not?
Lots of the Journalists here, Blackdown, Stelfox, Fiddy, jwd, and me (and thats just off the top of my head) have made a fine art of cheerleading their own particular tastes and getting deeply involved in scenes that theoretically opens us up to the charge of Nepotism.
Speaking for myself there are loads of moments when I have to balance a broad political view in order to more generally get my point across. There's records I feel a duty to be decent about. There's bigging up people who are essentially good friends (as well as, i believe, profoundly talented). And of course in the great percentage of instances there will be no connection whatsoever- but even in those instances I'll have to answer to some kind of political bent, be it respecting the reviews editor's opinions or being careful not to lash out at people who at the end of the day do a good thing for little personal gain.
On the negative side I don't think this means what I do is "Advertorial", but I do think it's just plain naive to assume that these currents aren't there. More than that I'm sick of pretending that navigating them, making decisions at this level isn't as important as just purely considering the sound issuing from the speaker. More than that, denying the presence my own grassroots network of influence (sounds pompous, i'm sorry) would be such a weird and totally counter-productive thing to do. Maybe its a Rockism thing again?
Music Journalists are supposed to live in this vacuum, to be entirely divorced from the culture they comment upon with a pristine analytical objectivity.
But what total bullshit!
Looking back in history, the best and most useful Journalists have been the ones absolutely integral to the culture itself. Think Lester Bangs, or Paul Morley, or Chris Bohn (why not?) or even our big chum Mr Reynolds. And in my opinion the least interesting, least exciting Journalists are the ones who disdain involvement under a pretence of objectivity.
When you write in the press or online with a certain amount of regularity and consistency of opinion you find people gravitate to you. You'll find people who think they can (in the best sense of the word) "use you", will approach you. The truth of the matter is that nine times out of ten they're like-minded individuals. OK, only a smaller percentage of those people will have something you truly feel is worth publicising, but in my opinion thats a wholly healthy relationship.
Of course, ever since the appalling payola corruption endemic in the industry in the fifties and sixties there's been an attitude of discomfort about this kind of relationship. But really how much has the mechanics of this industry really changed in those years? Its still precisely the same of course. Again ideas of journalistic ethics, particularly strong in the USA as I understand, make anything other than "objectivity" problematic, but I'd argue that while that may be a worthwhile tenet to uphold in Political Journalism (though I don't doubt for a second that precisely the same allegiances develop in that field) but in Music Journalism? Surely not?
Lots of the Journalists here, Blackdown, Stelfox, Fiddy, jwd, and me (and thats just off the top of my head) have made a fine art of cheerleading their own particular tastes and getting deeply involved in scenes that theoretically opens us up to the charge of Nepotism.
Speaking for myself there are loads of moments when I have to balance a broad political view in order to more generally get my point across. There's records I feel a duty to be decent about. There's bigging up people who are essentially good friends (as well as, i believe, profoundly talented). And of course in the great percentage of instances there will be no connection whatsoever- but even in those instances I'll have to answer to some kind of political bent, be it respecting the reviews editor's opinions or being careful not to lash out at people who at the end of the day do a good thing for little personal gain.
On the negative side I don't think this means what I do is "Advertorial", but I do think it's just plain naive to assume that these currents aren't there. More than that I'm sick of pretending that navigating them, making decisions at this level isn't as important as just purely considering the sound issuing from the speaker. More than that, denying the presence my own grassroots network of influence (sounds pompous, i'm sorry) would be such a weird and totally counter-productive thing to do. Maybe its a Rockism thing again?
Last edited: