The music journalism hall of shame thread

[Slothrop]

The power relationship between the press and the record companies/artists has reversed, which is because the press is in even worse shape than the companies, who are in a very bad way anyway.

Well, basically the press have lost their role as gatekeepers of the music scene haven't they? For the most part they're now basically stringers trying to catch a ride on youtube / social media /TV talent show based success...

 

[craner]

the professional media outlets

Yes, I am. The magazines and the papers, not social media. There's plenty of opinion around, and good writing in some online areas, like The Quietus. It's very diffuse, though, and diluted and flat, all the fight and faith has gone out of it. And, as I said, it's specialised, locked in ghettoes. This is no one's fault exactly, but the media platform for obtuse or extravagant critics acting like they are making a crucial intervention in a cultural war has vanished. Those who remain in the game are gargoyles of their former selves, or have become ugly peddlers and mountebanks (Julie Burchill, Paul Morley). Or, they are effectively unemployed (Ian Penman, Taylor Parkes).

 

[craner]

The professional thing is important, as you invest something in paid critics, take sides with them against other critics, respond to their aesthetic, await their interventions. I mean, my cards are clearly on the table: I love print magazines (the format, the feel, the look, the tension between permanence and temporality) and (on the whole) dislike websites, blogs, forums and comments threads. I like bold statements, targets and positions, rather than chatter and tips.

 

[luka]

craner wanted to be a music critic at one point and i think this is one of his better rants. hes definitely spot on i reckon..

 

[Slothrop]

i think there's two cases here:

- negative reviews of material many people think is poor.
- negative reviews of material many people think is good.

the former i really dont have time for personally. there's just so much poor or mediocre music i'm sent monthly (like 400 tracks), writing reviews of this would be kind of purgatory.

the latter i can see the value of perhaps but in most cases i cant be bothered. in most cases there's quite a lot of popular music that's not for me, it too would take forever - and at what gain? in a few cases i might see the value and i have written these kinds of pieces (when huge numbers of people began loving wobble for example) but mostly i'd rather use my time elsewhere.

Pretty much agree with this. There's room for trying to puncture hype in writing, but even there I think it works better in the form of "X that everyone's going crazy about is actually shit compared to Y that noone seems to be paying any attention to."

Purely "anti" writing tends to get very self indulgent - basically, the writer trying to validate their own tastes by demonstrating that people with different tastes from them are inherently wrong (or in the case of certain writers, that people with different tastes from them are trapped in an an-hedonic matrix of post-consumerist de-libidinization) and it takes a very good writer to make that sort of self-indulgence enjoyable.

 

[SecondLine]

I've always been intrigued by the possibility of alternative critical approaches, could
reader-response criticism be applied to music reviews? Some kind of greater utilisation of the chatbox to make an initial statement then engage the readership in state and respond discussion?

The idea of this makes me shudder - but then maybe I'm a dinosaur trapped in a young man's body

 

[slackk]

I kind of get the impression that most journalists- there are exceptions- only really write about what they get in their inbox as promos these days as opposed to actually making an effort to seek things out.

The amount of press really poor rappers with PR- e.g. Kreyshawn- get behind them get in comparison to the attention someone like Chief Keef- with a legitimate regional presence and not much else- got before that Gawker article kind of reaffirms that, for me.

I might be wrong and hope I am but everything just seems really lazy and stage-managed now. Maybe it always was but I wasn't necessarily aware of it, I dunno.

 

[Gombreak]

The idea of this makes me shudder - but then maybe I'm a dinosaur trapped in a young man's body

I think the idea is nice but ultimately it would probably turn into the bile that Guardian comments sections often are, it's too idealist really.

 

[SecondLine]

I think the idea is nice but ultimately it would probably turn into the bile that Guardian comments sections often are, it's too idealist really.

yeah maybe. I think also the shouty attention grabbing nature of most commenters distracts from the fact that a good proportion of readers (of anything online) never comment and have no desire to interact in that way...that's just a hunch tho

 

[Sectionfive]

Music press is no different to the regular press insofar as there is much better stuff on a few select blogs. The enthusiasts do much better stuff in their spare time then 90% of the mags. And again like the regular press it needs to move on as I don't see much point in reviews any more when you can hear or even own the music with eight seconds of knowing about it.

 

[Esp]

the media platform for obtuse or extravagant critics acting like they are making a crucial intervention in a cultural war has vanished.

I never actually experienced this form of journalism in the music magazines I grew up reading. People talk about the glory days of Rolling Stone and NME but as a teenager in the late 90s, that era was already long gone. The print mags widely available covering the genres I listened to were like Hip Hop Connection, Muzik, Mixmag, Knowledge, ATM etc. None of them maintained a particularly high journalistic standard. I remember having to stop reading Knowledge because the thing felt like a sketchbook of press releases.

 

[Elijah]

Would be nice to see more people writing about the music actually at the events for artists they cover. Its all too easy to watch streams, listen back, look at a view youtube videos and come to a decision on things.

They can actually see the impact the music they cover has in a rave too. Normally, very little. Not saying thats what defines a great record. But it definitely determines what stays around for a long time.

 

[SecondLine]

Would be nice to see more people writing about the music actually at the events for artists they cover. Its all too easy to watch streams, listen back, look at a view youtube videos and come to a decision on things.

They can actually see the impact the music they cover has in a rave too. Normally, very little. Not saying thats what defines a great record. But it definitely determines what stays around for a long time.

Interesting point, I'd always thought 'live' reviews were bullshit on the grounds that people who weren't there (the majority of readers) are unlikely to care/will feel alienated. But at the same time I think if you're gonna write about dance music you pretty much have an obligation to go out and experience the music in its natural habitat before you start passing judgement on it. So yeah. Maybe someone should start a rave reviews blog

 

[rrrivero]

It would be great to know what kind of nights go off and which tend to be empty and stale. Which DJ's really know how to work a crowd? Which clubs / crews own the best equipment? Hell, it might even motivate organizers to go that extra mile when putting on a night.

Furthermore, I personally like to hear about people's experiences from certain events, because I live far away from where the magic happens and vicarious pleasure is all I can really allow myself.

Though to be good, such pieces can never be mechanically produced like a 200 word review, they'd have to be genuine as fuck.

edit: though I think a blog dedicated solely to rave reviews wouldn't be very successful. Rather, such reviews should be parts of bigger 'state of the scene' posts. Writing about raves out of context isn't that interesting, as part of a movement, however, it can be positively beautiful.

 

[Leo]

good point about the live experience...there have been times when i haven't thought much of a track when i played it at home but was impressed when i heard it out on a big sound system. from a critical perspective, can a critic give a valid evaluation without experiencing a track in it's intended environment?

 

[Roshman]

Interesting point, I'd always thought 'live' reviews were bullshit on the grounds that people who weren't there (the majority of readers) are unlikely to care/will feel alienated. But at the same time I think if you're gonna write about dance music you pretty much have an obligation to go out and experience the music in its natural habitat before you start passing judgement on it. So yeah. Maybe someone should start a rave reviews blog

The live event review thing is something that happens regularly in Kerrang and the like, which makes it even weirder that DANCE MUSIC doesn't have the same sort of coverage of live events. As stated by rrrivero, it would be useful, particularly for nights that occur semi regularly like Butterz / Swamp81 / Night Slugs as line ups and crowd tend to be similar.

The problem is that most people turn up to the event at 12 having pre-drunk, go in, spend an hour trying to find someone to buy drugs from in the smoking area and then eventually make it in to see the "Headline" act in a state not fit to give an opinion on anything. Which raises the question, how many people would actually be interested in reading a review about a night and who would be in the right mind to do it?

Given I don't even drink, have been given the cloakroom ticket with the number "001" written on it countless times and stay to the end of every event I've been to, partially because the trains don't start up till the rave finishes, I'd guess it'd be me. It's certainly something I've thought about doing, but as said before, it might need to be part of a bigger picture on the scene.

 

[Blackdown]

i dunno, i wrote lots of live events reviews early on but quickly found there's so little scope. it gets dull quickly. exceptional events differ but i'm not keen to read many either.

 

[rubberdingyrapids]

i must be one of the few people who like live reviews. esp if i missed the gig. i like to know what it was like. plus, i cant really afford that many gigs at the moment so i get to live vicariously through reviews.

 

[Roshman]

i dunno, i wrote lots of live events reviews early on but quickly found there's so little scope. it gets dull quickly. exceptional events differ but i'm not keen to read many either.

http://blackdownsoundboy.blogspot.co.uk/2005/07/dmzeehehehee.html

 

[Elijah]

good point about the live experience...there have been times when i haven't thought much of a track when i played it at home but was impressed when i heard it out on a big sound system. from a critical perspective, can a critic give a valid evaluation without experiencing a track in it's intended environment?

Its music for the clubs and a lot of people who write about it are not going to clubs don't you find this ridiculous.

So frustrating I have people writing about our music constantly that make no effort to hear it in its intended environment and they aren't deemed as incompetent. That Dazed article is classic. There are loads like that, even the current wave of Grime bloggers are like that too.

Look on the early days of all the decent Grime blogs there were blogs about events all the time. Now they just repost videos and dont bother going to the events. Jokes...

http://hyperfrank.blogspot.co.uk/2006/12/dirty-canvas-skitz-beats-launch-party.html
http://chantellefiddy.blogspot.co.uk/2006/04/restin.html