Music criticism has degenerated into lifestyle reporting

[OldSausage]

A seemingly heartfelt piece from Ted Gioia in the Daily Beast about the sad decline of music journalism:

http://www.thedailybeast.com/article...reporting.html

My own reaction is sort of "hasn't it always been this way?", but perhaps you feel differently and can enlighten me.

[Steve Zawacki]

Tend to agree. There's music and there's the music business, and they are in no way synonymous. The "selling" of a group more often than not is controlled by the sensationalism manufactured by the publicist rather than the recording skill of the producer. Turning the artists into items of wonder or desire gets them attention, especially in the print media which can't replicate a sound and relies on visual enticement.

The journalists know that their personal success depends on readership numbers, and in this "C-grade" world the package wrapper gets more attention than the contents, so journalists "build their product" for the "C-grade" audience/market.

[catmandu2]

From the article:

I’ve just spent a very depressing afternoon looking through the leading music periodicals. And what did I learn? Pretty much what I expected. I found out what the chart-topping musicians... (my bold)

Pop music/pop culture/fashion/ad absurdum

You pays your money and you takes your choice

[allenhopkins]

There are music-genre-oriented periodicals (I don't visit music-crticism websites much, so can't comment) that have articles which are generally "lifestyle/personal history" pieces about musicians, but also reviews, usually of recordings, that try to be more analytical. Do they get into real musicological analysis? Generally not, but they're written for the potential music consumer, so they're more generic as to overall skill, apparent influences ("Band X is derivative of Band Y"), and originality -- rather than discussing why Song #4 overemphasizes the 1-2-5/7th chord progression, or why the addition of oboe in Song #7 was a brilliant evocation of Stravinsky.

If you take the position that the average CD buyer or Itunes downloader is a 16-year-old girl, then a lot of what you write about music will be aimed at that girl's interests, experiences, and potential purchasing triggers. If you're like many of us, who care deeply about a particular instrument, musical genre, or individual artist, you'll spend a lot of time on those aspects of the music about which you write. The historian in me, makes me a sucker for discussions of songs', or a musician's, "roots" and background.

We didn't go to Tiger Beat for real analysis of 1960's rock'n'roll, but we found a lot of interesting discussion in Rolling Stone. Many of us pored over album liner notes, to place the music in context and understand where the performers were coming from. The stuff's around if you look for it. Billboard is a music industry trade journal, not a disinterested forum for commentary. Fan mags are fan mags, now as then. The good criticism is around if you dig for it. Maybe we shouldn't have to dig so hard, I agree, but don't throw the baby out with the bath.

[mandroid]

I read Rolling Stone for the National Affairs Reporting ..

[almeriastrings]

Trash and trivia sells. Always has. Always will. If you want a music "industry" that's what you make, that's what you sell. Same with newspapers and TV. You want big sales and popularity - publish inane gossip, trash, more trash and sensational drivel. If you want intelligent discussion, accuracy and knowledgeable insight, the mass market stuff is not going to deliver. I agree with everything he says.

[roysboy]

Thanks for posting this article . I wholeheartedly agree with what the writer posits. From a label's standpoint ,however, why would they want knowledgeable critics pointing out that their biggest selling artists are often the least artistic . In the label's eyes, if it ain't broke ......? Unfortunately the dumbing down train left the station a long time ago . Count yourself among the lucky if you missed it .

[SincereCorgi]

Trash and trivia sells. Always has. Always will.

I agree, but I think the article's point is that there used to be *some* high quality mass media music criticism that wasn't garbage. It boggles the mind that Time magazine had somebody like Horowitz on the cover as late as 1986.

[almeriastrings]

You're right. Things have certainly gone downhill since then...

[Bertram Henze]

Two principles are at work here, one for the publisher (P*), one for the reader (R**):

to P: if you sell talk about music to people without ears, you'd better invent some topic beside music
to R: if you have no ears, you better find something beside music to talk about

Bottom line: it's a Gestalt thing

* aka tailor for invisible clothes
** aka emperor

[Beanzy]

Unfortunately the author as a journalist is blinkered to the reality that those with the knowledege to appreciate music criticisim have long since ceased going to the press to be informed, so he is looking in the wrong place. Journalists in main-stream press are not writing for a knowledegable audience and would not be employed in that industry to do so. He fails to realise their egos made them redundant long ago.

[Astro]

Music journalism ?

Really ?


And all this time I've just been reading the music cartoons.

[Bertram Henze]

The author mentions cooking shows and what sense would they make if withholding ingredients from the viewer? - it's much worse: they are withholding the taste of their food, because the TV can't deliver it. Therefore, I don't watch those shows; I eat stuff, and if it's good I eat it again, and what others say about it is their problem because they're not me.

Applied to music, this raises the question why anybody needs music criticism in the first place. Maybe what the author is noticing is just plain truth, emerging.

[Steve L]

I think that people who know what they're talking about want to write for people who know what they're reading about. Down Beat is still in business, there are a number of guitar, keyboard, drum magazines with in depth features on players and gear and there are still some folk music magazines, I believe. I recently re-read Rolling Stone's early dismissive review of Led Zeppelins first album. This May, the Berklee College of Music is presenting Jimmy Page with an honarary doctorate of music. I don't go to comedians for in-depth political analysis and I don't go to under-employed hipsters with American studies degrees for cogent insights into music and musicians.

[journeybear]

As a former (or reformed, or rehabilitated and recovering) music journalist, I take just a bit of offense at the snarky comments about this enterprise and those who attempt it. It is daunting to describe for others what cannot be experienced in its intended manner. I worked hard to tell others what I liked about a song or artist, and why I felt it was worth the effort to seek out music worth listening to, dancing to, and otherwise enjoying. However that quip that mentions "dancing about architecture" goes, that's very true, and poignantly encapsulates the ultimate absurdity of this activity. That's not to say it's impossible, but it's an uphill push of a boulder.

But I think that is a little beside the point here. I've skimmed the piece, and it seems the main point is that music criticism, or even writing in general, has degenerated to something more akin to gossip writing. That DOES seem to be true in many cases. And that does indeed appeal to a lowest common denominator regarding possible readership. I admit I haven't read the whole piece yet, though I intend to go to the library on my way to work and print it out so I can do just that during some down time (along with the piece about music repetition), and then hope to chime in this evening with some better-informed opinions. Until then I realize I am risking being perceived as talking out of the wrong end of my alimentary canal, something I usually try to avoid. After all, you know what they say about opinions and those unmentionable orifices - everyone's got one and most of them stink.

[Rex Hart]

I read Rolling Stone for the National Affairs Reporting ..

Too funny!

I read Bluegrass Unlimited and used to read Bluegrass Now when it was still in publication. But I don't use them for album reviews as most Bluegrass reviews are way too generic and in my mind, usually too generous. I mean, every new release can't be "their strongest effort to date"

[Jim Adwell]

How in the world would you know what to like if someone didn't tell you?

[JEStanek]

Sing Out is still in print. I never really read Rolling Stone. Don't the New York Times and Washington Post still do music reviews? To be honest and transparent, I don't read those either and more frequently find new music I should be listening to (and old music to discover) through a variety of friends who make good recommendations.

I think after elementary school most people don't get much more music training and what they learned is mostly forgotten by High School. I won't bemoan the music biz. It is what it is and there's still plenty of good stuff being made out there.

Jamie

[John Flynn]

There is that old saying, "Everyone has the government they deserve." That goes for media also. "Everyone has the journalism they deserve." I say that for two reasons: 1) There has been a fair amount of sociological and media research, observation and theory that indicates it is the audience that shapes the media, not the other way around. Simply put, media is a business and therefore the audience eventually gets what they want, by buying/tuning in to some media outlets over others. So the current state of music journalism is (sadly) what the audience wants. It may not be what each of us personally want, but since we are here discussing it, we are all part of "the audience," like it or not.

2) The argument that people get the media they want is even more compelling than the similar argument about government, because each of us as individuals can opt out/opt in to any media we choose at any time. If you don't like a music journalist, don't read them or listen to them. It's that simple. As others have pointed out, there are still good ones to be found. Seek them out.

Finally, as has been said and we all know, the entertainment business and "art" pull in different directions. Once big money gets involved with any art: drama, music, visual arts, etc. the tendency is for the art, it's artists and it's critics to become debased. That's why I choose to follow artists who only make "tens of dollars" at music and have day jobs.

[Charley wild]

I agree with Allen. These days you can find the media you are looking for. And that goes for music criticism as well as about any other subject. I have no idea where to look as it isn't a subject I'm all that interested in. But if you are, I'm sure it's out there somewhere.

[Scott Tichenor]

Hilarious contradiction.

The author needs to click the Home button to see where his work of art appears. Daily Beast is all about sensational headline grabbing lifestyle stories. Today a small sampling includes JonBenet Ramsey, What Went Wrong With "Glee," America's Next Top Escort, Weir's Fabulous Spring Picks, Spain's Vegetable Whisperer, and much more. Certainly a place I'd peruse to have someone judge my music for me.

Favorite topic of music journalists and critics to lament the slow passing of their own occupation. Meh.

[Bertram Henze]

How in the world would you know what to like if someone didn't tell you?

Seriously, there is such a thing as acquired taste. It can be pressed upon you by a peer-group, it can be good or bad. It may have to do with lifestyle...

[OldSausage]

I also ran across this item in the Guardian's "From Rock's Back Pages" section, which has culled a bunch of articles from Circus (a rock magazine that ran from 1966 to 2006 and rivaled Rolling Stone) from 1974.

http://www.theguardian.com/music/201...eekend-reports

Gioia's article begins: "In the new paradigm, artists generate coverage by their clothes, hook-ups, and run-ins with the law. What happened to the music?". Hmm. I'll bet they didn't use the word "pentatonic" when writing about Hank Williams in 1948 either.

[Marty Jacobson]

Pentatonic? That has gin in it, right?

[John Flynn]

Pentatonic? That has gin in it, right?

Yes, five parts gin, one part tonic water (optional). It really improves your improv!