Boards

I'll very rarely read reviews or writing about music these days.

I wanna get a better understand of THAT mindset, if you don't mind sharing/explaining. Is it that the boards offer lots of quick-fire recommendations and a chance to have a chat? Is it that being on the boards you get to know people, whereas with reviews you don't have the same relationship or context? Do you ever read reviews by any of the regulars on the boards?

I know there are three types of DiS user, the ones who only come for the boards (and maybe a few of the columns and round-up lists), the ones who lurk on the boards and read a few things, and the ones who don't like the idea of the boards and read the reviews every day. There are about 20k people who return to DiS every day and only about 1000 of you post on the boards every day, there's then another 10k people who trickle in from Google, never to be seen again. And it's pretty much the same every day, 30k people, which is like stadium crowd, which is nuts when you think how niche most of the music we review and chat about is... but anyway, this isn't meant to be some sort of stat bragging, I'm just curious what we could be doing better or making more of and where to focus time, attention and limited resource, as well as I'm fascinated by why some people are more into one thing than another (there are not right or wrong answers, I'm just a curious person)

understanding*
I imagine you don't come for the board posts grammar and spelling... really gotta remember to read things back before hitting post reply...

but stopped reading the website about 5 years ago.

When I first discovered DiS I was at uni and thought I was the King of Indie and all that, so it aligned with music tastes at the time. I listen to different stuff now - stuff that either DiS doesn't cover, or stuff that I wouldn't trust DiS's opinion on even if it did (that goes for the opinions of DiS writers and forum users). So I just stick to the (mainly social) forum.

So yeah, I still come to DiS to kill time at work with a bit of chat, but don't look at anything beyond the boards.

and why would I when I can use Spotify/soundcloud/youtube/whatever to form my own opinion? The only reason I would ever read reviews was to gauge an idea of what a record might sound like. A lot of reviews I read seem to be self-gratuitous and I'm not interested in wordiness and poetic nuances.

The reason I visit DiS is 99% for the boards. I'm more inclined to take recommendations from the people I engage with there.

what kind of music is that, that we're not really covering?

you know that some of our most active boarders are also some of our most active contributors, right?

but that's sort of irrelevant. I mean, it's good they've been asked to review for DiS but I wasn't referring to specific individuals.

Here's our music journalism RIP week from back in 2009, which includes Neil Kulkarni's guide to writing reviews http://drownedinsound.com/lists/ismusicjournalismdead

I know, I was just pointing out the blurring of the divide. Not being tetchy, I don't care who does and doesn't read reviews, I'm just interested as to why. And I totally get that streaming services take out the need to read, but I also don't quite get how people choose what to listen to in the first place. What came first, the chicken-friend steak or the breaded boiled egg?

but (proper) noise/harsh noise, power electronics, 'expeprimental' (vom), some drone/hypnagogic stuff (I know DiS strays into this territory at times) etc etc.

Mainly the kind of the stuff that's on sale here: http://www.secondlayer.co.uk/

Or, in part, stuff that's covered in Wire but without the wankerish, try-hard, pseudo-intellectual approach.

It's not that I only listen to that kind of stuff exclusively (I still regularly listen to indie/rock), but that's certainly where my interests are these days. It's fairly niche and there are other sources of information for that kind of music. I don't think it would, for now, be of much benefit to DiS to try and stray into these areas, but maybe in time - these things are definitely becoming more popular (even if the number of people that care is still tiny over all).

fried*

I don't not read DiS because of the easy access to music these days. I don't have spotify or last.fm or anything like that, I don't download music legally or illegally (unless it's a recored with a download code) etc.

It's just that my tastes don't really align with DiS so much anymore.

just because they move faster and the fact that I like a lot of dance music and usualy you find out about that on radio, in sets, at clubs way before they hit forums and way way before they end up in an article. So unless I'm bored and someone is really good at writing I'm not that fussed about hearing another opinion on the tracks I've heard since I've had an opinion on it already. I'll skim thru a lot of stuff just to see what people are talking about in articles but unless its someone like like I dunno Blackdown or Rouge's Foam who are really good in their own ways I aint that fussed about what they say. I'm more likley to read interviews I guess just because you can't pick that up elsewhere.

...was the name that sprang to mind reading Neil Kulkarni's rant.

For me, the diversity of options for consumption of new music makes music journalism MORE important, both boards like this and also actual publications that crop up on your news-stands. With a bit of trial and error you get a feel for which sites are on your wavelength - which doesn't mean you slavishly follow every recommendation.

In DrownedInSound's case I'm a big fan of the Spotify playlists you compile which work as a cracking accompaniment to the reviews and news stories. I've discovered some great stuff that way that I wouldn't have otherwise (Errors is the name that springs to mind but there are others) and also at least been able to form opinions on other acts who haven't been my cup of tea.

To be honest I read the NME the same way (and as I'm 37 and still buy the NME a couple of times a month this opens me up for plenty of stick!). It enables me to read about interesting music, and in some ways helps me filter down to the things that I think I'll like.

Finally I do post on these boards but not very often as I find it a bit cliquey and snarky.

What you're asking isn't restricted to music journalism. It applies to the whole journalistic/writing world. the 'creative industries' if you will (an oxymoron on the level of 'military intelligence). This industry, profession, whatever, has been commoditized to a level, and margins ahve been squeezed to the point where a taking a chance is a risk too far. A distinctive voice could make a difference but it's quashed, taken out by committee, slaved to advertising interests and made bland, vanilla, s t will not offend. Kulkarni is right when he talks about writers looking down on the reader - there's a downright contempt for the reader. Somehow, we need to take this whole environment away from commoditization; or somehow make that distinctive voice an economic benefit, but rhe distinctive voice is unpredictable, advertisers won't tolerate it, they've whined and bitch and bring it back to the mediocre for the sake of the income stream.

... What do readers want? What do I want? A good read. Honesty, I hope. Freshness. Passion. Something real. A Yazz record. Something smart. Something that doesn't reek of corporate interests.

Ps. I tend to flick through the forums and read the reviews.

and that any band (or even specific release) that DiS covers has nearly always been mentioned on the board months before a review goes up, so i'm already aware of them and see no need to read a review.

the only pieces i'll read now are retrospective ones (the Songs:Ohia piece Alex did is my favourite DiS piece, and when I was writing my favourite contributions were the Slowcore week ones) or the scene ones (like Dom's nottingham ones or the ambient ones).

"the WRONG FKN PEOPLE want to be music journalists, beavering hustlers and networkers, passionate ambassadors for their own needy inclusion in da biz, people so damn obsessed with getting their foot in the door they haven’t figured out if they have anything more than fuck-all to say, and couldn’t care less how revoltingly commonplace is the way they express that fuck-all. Style-less automatons of triteness and humbug and horseshit that criminally WASTE your time, and don’t even give you a laff in doing so."

I am so happy that someone's written this. Whilst the internet is a wonderful forum for lengthy, passionate, and well-constructed critiques of music, there's also no shit filter. Take these two recent attempts at reviewing Holy State’s ‘Electric Picture Palace’:

http://counteract-magazine.com/2012/04/17/album-holy-state-electric-picture-palace/

http://www.counterfeitmag.co.uk/reviews/holy-state-electric-picture-palace-lp/

As well as the coincidence in name (and the serendipitous fact that the review on Counterfeit came after that on Counteract), it’s obvious that the latter review has cribbed off the former (and both off the band’s extensive press release), which wasn’t very good in the first place. Why are people like this writing?

I read reviews because I like music, I like reading, and I like finding out what other people think about things. Why do I choose these over forums, most of the time? Because my discussion technique is awful, I don't handle conflict well, and reviews don't talk back.

I write reviews because I like music, I like writing, and I like being able to express what I think about the former through the latter. I don’t write reviews to help bands out (although this may be a happy by-product), I write them because I enjoy creating something through a medium I know I don’t suck at, and about something that has consumed me since childhood. It’s easy to see why music criticism is often branded ‘parasitic’ (and yeah, I started to blog because I don't play guitar too well), because it takes one form of art and creates another off the back of it, and the resulting effect or opinion can be malign. But really, when are writers held in higher regard than rockstars?

My main channels for discovering new music are through Spotify/last.fm recommendations, recommendations from friends and randomly perusing through the likes of boomkat/second layer/sounds of the universe, just picking out things that look interesting.

The retort after writing my thoughts... He's optimistic. But, if he's right about kerrang and Q - haven't seen them in a while - then maybe individuality is beginning to be prized as a competitive advantage again.

Simon Reynolds, say, or David Stubbs, maybe Chris Roberts. Not that you would like everything that they like but there was an identity there and you could pick you way through it. These days that just isn't possible. DIS is particularly guilty in this regard, though guilty is the wrong word - you don't have the resources to employ a team of writers. Because there is such a turnover of writers on this site it is very difficult to contextualise many of your reviews, and for this reason I find it very hard to place any value on them. And there have been some horrible reviews recently, truly awful (the Spiritualized one, for example). With these reviews I have tried to find some context: look for other reviews that writer have done, try to find out what music really makes them going. Usually there is very little to be found. Hence the review just seems pretty random.

And am glad that someone else can do it for me, summarise what things sounds like through points of reference I understand, and deliver a verdict on whether it's i) worth listening to, ii) nonsense.

that people put greater weight and significance to forum recommendations.

I've always felt that there's an authority attached to a published review (in print/DiS/The Quietus/etc) from a brand that you trust. I trust the editor to publish something that is interesting to read, regardless of whether I agree with it or not.

Maybe some print publications - like the NME - have lost this trust?

Also, (to echo some above comments) we read music journalism in regard to the writing as much as the subject. Music journalism has always been a very expressive medium in contrast to news, sport or whatever. People on forums can be occasionally witty, but it's nothing compared to some of the best articles when the writer is really on form and really in the flow of things.

I also thought that Spiritualized review was horrible. And it does mean that my reader/writer relationship with Didz Hammond has now soured - when I came to read his Cribs one (which was actually quite interesting) I went into it biased.

Perhaps it's indicative of my generation or whatever, but I have built and do build up that relationship with writers on here, whether positive or negative...

I grew up in a small village outside of a city that back then didn't have much of an independent music scene (Bristol's utterly-exploded for that in the last few years but back in the late nineties it was living off the reputation of trip-hop but there wasn't really much of a new band scene there at all) and reading reviews and articles about music was my way to find about new bands.

Now there's just so many other opportunities to find out about music and I've got loads of people I know in real life who share my music tastes and can recommend bands to me. And in the end I got bored of music journalists (not levelling this at DiS in particular to be clear) recommending things that I'd then listen to and think 'oh, is that it?'.

This isn't a particular gripe as you just can't cater for everyone's music taste but ultimately I just found the ratio of bands I loved to bands I wasn't arsed about that I found out enough through music sites just wasn't high enough for it to be a worthwhile may of finding out about new bands.

Writers with personality, a thread, accountability - which is missing now with the glut of content available - writers can't - or aren't interested in - buildi that critical mass? Aren't being given the chance or the platform to be individual, because there's always another gull who'll take their place in the sausage machine?

*worthwhile way

those are quite niche genres which, as you say, are better served elsewhere. I've always wondered what DiS can do to bubble up that knowledge from elsewhere, with sporadic 'introductions to...' and mixtapes and columns and aggregating the best bits of sites. Still something I'd like to do. Be curious if you started a thread like the rolling hip-hop thread to see what kind of reaction it gets...be worth a punt, no?

Negated a large part of my argument by getting excited and making a mistake...the Counteract review came after the Counterfeit one.

yeah, I've been thinking a lot about what a DiS Spotify app might do, and all I keep coming back to is a browsing experience, that mixes killer/intriguing one liners with genre tags and pack shots... I kinda don't want it to be all about what's out this week/month, much moreso an exploration of all the music that vaguely falls under DiS' parameters, and giving people a chance to dive down to the depths of niches, and be dragged back to the surface... which I realise sounds pompous but I can only think about music as some sort of water-based journey...

and occasionally the armchair dance floor column.

I mainly don't pay attention to the main site, though as I don't really think it covers most of the stuff I care about - also doesn't help that a good deal of what I listen to is older stuff. I pay more attention to the forums, there's more discussion of old shit, plus I probably get better knowledge of new shit I might care about from than the rolling Hip Hop and dance threads, and whatever else, than I do from most things on the main site

I do browse fact, pitchfork, resident advisor, tinymixtapes, once a week or so, mainly to see what has come out, rather than really paying attention to their opinions. similar reasons for looking at boomkat and aquarius. I also like the mixes that fact does, and resident advisor flags up everyday

basically I still need someone to sort through the massive amount of shit that comes out every year, but I don't follow any one site in particular.

I know what you mean about the cliquey and snarky nature of the boards, but, well, I'm quite a snarky person, so.... if you build it... but I think there's far more positivity than people realise.

Have you heard the DiSser DiScoveries playlist? This came out of a thread of bands people got into through the site and boards, thought you might enjoy it as a thank you for taking the time to reply http://open.spotify.com/user/seaninsound/playlist/1gswJeejNYHauomrpKw1TQ

there's a group of DiSers who I trust pretty well for certain genres, because they have a proven track record - I know they massive knowledge of a certain genre (not gonna name names and turn this into a circle jerk thread)

that Charlie Brooker is constantly one of the most read people on the Guardian, and Caitlin Moran at the Times, and both pull no punches and write with such a personality that you almost want to ask them to leave when they're done... I love it, and The Hits Don't Lie, but why isn't there a raft of people writing about music like that EVERYWHERE? It seems like all of these broadsheet people who seem to have had their jobs for a decade or two now need to finally move over and let some others get in on the action.

I mean, there are some fascinating people writing, and lord knows everyone I know bows at the altar of Quietus editor John Doran, people adore (and equally hate) Wendy Roby, and I have heard a lot of very pleasant remarks about Kevin Perry's pieces for DiS and mention John Calvert's Stay+ piece, and stuff like that. I mean, did you read this, one of the best things I've read from a young writer in quite some time: http://drownedinsound.com/releases/16737/reviews/4144411

It's great that Taylor Parkes, Stevie Chick, et al are still writing every now and then for theQuietus and Guardian, etc, but I'm wondering what's gone so wrong that there are not a new cluster of names to reel off... there's a glass ceiling, and maybe it's the lack of money or maybe it's the fact they're probably out there, happily blogging to a few people, writing because they have to, not because they want to pander to what others expect writing to be. I mean, can you imagine Andrzej writing some of the glorious pieces he's done for DiS over the years in the 50-word Metro format that used to be his dayjob? It saddens me to think the talent that might be wasted, enslaved to the stylesheet...

It has to grab me from the first paragraph, so I certainly gravitate towards writers with some real fire and style and wit and clear understanding of their own opinion (versus "what DO I think of this? what should I think of this? errr...what did other people think of this?"). There's a shitload of content out there and I'll never have time to read as much of it as I want to; if you haven't enough conviction to command my attention right away, it's on to the next one.

And I read far more live reviews than record reviews; my attachment has always been to live music, as I like reading about an experience, something that's pan-sensory rather than just about what you hear, and something that connects you directly with the band as people & performers. When I'm short of cash I'd rather pay to watch a band do their thing live than buy their record (which I' stream til I can afford to buy it). I trust friends with good taste to recommend me records.

I haven't bought a mainstream music mag in years. Partly cos I'm poor and I'd rather spend my cash on the music. And partly because they don't cover the scope of artists I'm interested in (more accurately, they zero in on a few saleable bands, at the expense of more diverse options). I will always pick up Stool Pigeon and Loud & Quiet when I see them, I will always make time to read things on the sites I like (DiS, Line of Best Fit, the Quietus among others), and with certain writers I'll pretty much read everything they write (Kulkarni, Stevie Chick, John Doran for a start).

plus a lot of the people who write the articles/reviews are on the forums too so there isn't much difference. I can't think of an example of a writer I like reading that I don't also know from a forum or twitter or something like that. I don't see much difference between recomendations from a website article to a forum post once you know the forum a bit and the people on it or know the writer a bit and their taste.

I've been thinking about formats that take things outside of the 'reviews' template, which is why I've been doing things like 5-4-Friday, and encouraging a lot more columns, but I'm trying to run less, so there's more focus on what we do run. The web is over-run with content and I don't want to be some dumping ground for 300 people to maybe click through from Google on a news story that is essentially a gig listing, for the sake of people noticing something like that Songs:Ohia piece, or choosing to read a few tidbits, rather than getting stuck in to Dom's piece about going to Japan. Not that I really know that people make those distinct choices, but people do tend to read whatever has just been published, while it's 'fresh', before it disappears into the 12 year archive...

It's an interesting challenge, and not one that I think DiS can fix without a lot of re-thinking, and possibly re-development to present things different/betterer.

Kinda reinforced the point that there's a lot more out there than just the commercial mags. They can keep doing what they do, but they have competition from all over the place, and much of that competition comes from sources that don't charge their readers, and have a lot more creative leeway.

I'm not saying that writers (or anyone, really) should be put on pedestals, but it should be (and sometimes is) an activity that requires an amount of hard work, raw skill, discipline, integrity, all that. That should be taken into account when taking on writers. By and large, it seems to be the case here, but to be honest, when editors of some sites can't write worth a damn themselves, what hope do they have of ever recognising that their output is shite? Passion, which practically everyone I know has for music to one extent or another, isn't enough.

my own whinge on a very similar subject about a month ago: http://flyingnelly.com/blog/some-thoughts-on-music-writing/

Suffice to say the idea of whether I'm writing just for me or trying to represent the likely opinions of those interested in the artist is something I struggle with, constantly. Because just as often as an opinion post arrives saying "Where's all the fucking opinions?!" there are people saying that it's our job to represent the opinions of those we write for, not our own. I've been slagged off for doing both, which I suppose is part of the process of 'finding one's voice' (KILL ME NOW).

I do think that writers aren't the sole problem though (and I take particular issue with Kulkarni dissing Matthew Horton, who I know a bit - enough to know he IS passionate about music). Ultimately people like Chief Rock Critic Of The Telegraph keep getting the work because they have the name, and sell. What I think is a great shame - and which Kulkarni touches on - is that it's now a lot more difficult for up and coming writers to establish themselves unless they've got 'tenacity', 'persistence' or things that have little to do with actual talent. Speaking from experience, all many writers want to do is their work as best they can then hide in a bunker somewhere eating cake, and let the work speak for itself. Where I agree with Kulkarni is that it seems, now, there's no room for that in amongst the constant sales pitches. And that applies whether it's music, film, food or the travel section.

*awaits bombing*

I certainly think that a lot of the writing I love, and a lot of the writing I love to write, is a kind of externalising my inner voices. It's obviously not the same catharsis as thrashing a guitar around on stage, but there's something about the reactions that happen inside of me when I hear music that I have to let out, and I know that speaking it would be lost on most of my 'friends'. Like, my School of Seven Bells review might have been a bit (intentionally) ridiculous and overblown, but if music can get me to that place, where am I meant to go with it? I'm not the dancing sort, and there's this cinema projecting onto the side of a tornado in my head half the time. Sure it's self indulgent, but that's the challenge, to make it entertaining to, and if ambient artists and progsters and whoever can make their self-indulgence interesting, there's no reason people writing about music can't do that too.

Some people are natural born entertainers, and that's great and all, but where are they? There's Peter Robinson from Popjustice who seems to marry the entertainment with integrity/insight/pizazz and then what, a heap of press release peddlers, desperate to get work experience at a label that might make their friends jealous? A bunch of people being paid £25 to knock out a pithy 75-word review for a music publication that then changes the score and intention of the review? Is that 'journalism'? Is it 'writing'? Is it just sticking a typewriter into a furnace shaped hole?

Then again, is wanting to be the new Lester, Hunter, Bukowski, Meltzer, Klosterman, et al, but without the skill and modern twists, killing music journalism, in the same way bands like Delphic and White Lies are killing rock'n'roll? Everything is killing something...

(I promise I will stop after this)

...there will always be a place for music writing as long as people who like to listen also like to read. It will never be irrelevant. Plenty of us are interested in other people's opinions. It's inherently pleasurable reading a fervent, smart piece of writing about something you're interested in, or something that really has the power to persuade you to get interested. Humans are good at language and plenty of us appreciate it when it's used with class & flair. The struggle is just to make sure that where it's done well, it rises to the top and actually gets read, instead of drowning unnoticed in the vast expanse of the internet.

If people want to moan about the standard of reviews maybe they want to get involved reviewing themselves?

Most reviewers don't get paid and do it in their free time. As someone who is a reviewer and an editor it is often difficult. Websites/blogs/magazines rely of people volunteering to review things and the number of said volunteers seems to be constantly diminishing. It is also difficult for magazines to provide negative reviews now the venues/PRs/Labels are very quick to withdraw access of "kick-off" if they don't like what they read.

As an editor I'm looking for reviewers to go into reviewers with a positive attitude. There's a way of criticising that doesn't include "the band are sh*t", there are almost always positive things to take from a piece of music/gig. There's a growing trend I've noticed to slag off newish bands; which is easy and doesn't help anyone. I'm also not looking for someone who “bigs-up” an ok local indie band up into the next big thing.

The standard of reviewing is definitely on the wane, this is noticeable in most music magazines. It seems more about the quotable phrase than the actual review. Its difficult as a reviewer who does it in their spare time and, to be frank, its flippin hard to review recorded music unless you have an encyclopaedic knowledge of the genre/band.

The most annoying and worrying trend is people with blogs who just rip stuff off from great blog writers without including anything of their own (and not stating where they got it from).

and it's something I've discussed with Andrzej our reviews editor a few times, but we keep coming back to this notion that only reviewing 1 record a day or just 10 records a week, wouldn't necessarily be a good thing, and doesn't seem to be what you, The People, want...

What I'm interested in right now is how to contextualize these individuals and their opinions. Obviously they have the ability to set out their stall write between the lines 'this is who I am' and give you a sense of their taste and knowledge in the opening paragraph or two, but I'm thinking about how to set a 7/10 in context of that person's 10/10 albums.

p.s. for the record, I loved Didz's Spiritualized review, but it's a personal taste thing. And I think if he'd done it after you'd read the Cribs review, you'd maybe have appreciated it differently.

do you think the way DiS displays things makes this easier? For instance, I know that things in our recommended section instantly get three times the traffic of everything else.

I like to read them too, but the stats for live reviews on DiS are startling. It's about a fifth of the traffic that an album review of the same act would get. Obviously there are a few exceptions, like Diver doing a Radiohead review, or 'first time playing new stuff' kind of ones, but they are few and far between. Even festival review traffic can be a bit disappointing compared to record reviews. And I looked back as far as analytics allows, and it's always been thus. It's very weird and I don't understand why people aren't as interested in reading live reviews as we are... maybe people want to have their own opinion of the gig they went to or they are jealous and don't want to hear about a gig if they weren't there?

re: appreciating the Spiritualized review differently, but I thoroughly enjoyed his Cribs review even with the taste from Didz' 'Sweet Heart...' still coating my tongue. Whilst it's often the case (and I'll admit to it freely), we're not always influenced by prior perception of an artist or work.

If I've got your second paragraph right, there's never going to be any way of applying that kind of contextualisation across the board...could you explain a bit more?

(even if I do suggest ridiculous concepts for reviews)

What constantly depresses me is the 3-5 emails I get a day from people wanting to write for DiS, and their lack of saying anything interesting. It's all 'here are some cuttings from [insert shitty magazine no-one has ever heard of]' or links to their blog. If they were a band, they would be basically going 'here is every demo we've ever recorded, hope you like one of them'. And although DiS relies on people to want to get involved, I'm always ALWAYS going to respond to someone who sends me an email that begins 'I just heard this record and I started writing because I had to, and I couldn't stop... is this something you might like to run'? Which I realise is now something someone would post on their blog, rather than need to send it to someone like me for it to 'published', as it were.

I like people who write because they have to. I don't know how to explain that desire but you can see it and feel it pretty quickly. People who love to play with language and ideas and fuck around with what a review is 'meant' to be, that's what I'm looking for (and it's baffling when I've done conference things that people have to ask what we're looking for, I mean, do your research, flick up my profile and see the sort of shit I attempt to write, and then out-gun me, yah wee bastah!)

Of course, I do love a well-written, fully-functioning critique too, and I'm aware we run a lot of those which are rather brilliant, and have little glimmers of batshitcrazy lurking between the lines, and sometimes that's enough, to tease it out a little and leave it there for someone to spot. That's what really great writing is, not the over metaphored, meta-narrative, beta-gonza that some people spool out...

right, I have some FUN 'work' to do now, will reply to this thread some more later on.

I still get emails from Jessie J's PRs. In fact, I get them from her UK online, national press and US online PR too, as well as from her inhouse person at the label. That review didn't sour any relationship. People worry too much about falling out with people whose job it is to get coverage for bands/labels who pay them to get coverage for their music. If you send something out for critical appraisal, you have to expect some negative to balance out the love. In fact, I'm pretty sure I've given 2/10s and 9/10s to recent things from the same PR. I wonder if they'd have rather I'd not done the 9/10 after doing the 2/10? I doubt it... maybe I'm/DiS is in a different position to most, but the very idea that writers should care about the industry, when so much music is now available to hear and consume and write about, is baffling.

I agree tho, being negative with no critical faculty is pointless, and might as well not be run. The way DiS writers put their hand up for something they wanna hear, means that we do tend toward the positive, which is fine, because we're a site for music fans, not people who just wanna hear what isn't good, right?

I should point out that the tension I tend to feel between my/readers' opinions is, in that sense, very much of my own making! I've never been told I *have* to give a specific album/film/whatever a particular review.

I'm speaking more generally in terms of the whole existential bollocks over What Makes A Good Music Writer that, ultimately, this debate's about...

The problem is when you're a fairly small concern with a limited number of reviwers, you can't easily match reviewer up with genre they like. Its difficulty reviewing a genre you're not familiar with (look how many bands are compared to Mumford & Sons by the Guardian for instance)

DIS are in a position where they will always get stuff from PRs. When you;re smaller, and relying on PRs to get your reviewers into gigs, it becomes more difficult. PRs obviously have a finite number of guestlist places for press, and you know who they will pick first!

The local aspect is probably a bigger pain. Local venues and promoters are very quick to jump on anything and are often overly demanding regarding preview coverage.

Music writing is definitely on the decline sadly.

(but that isn't very often).

You do need to update the list of records in the Releases area though, the top right list of records has had Cast and Dodgy in it since February. It's a redundant area.

I'm fairly sure at this moment in time that the main thing that attracts me to art is how much it bleeds. I'm a sucker for the downtrodden, the brokenhearted and the miserable in both writing and music, and there are ways of properly reconciling the two, which is why, say, Bright Eyes succeeds where Plain White Ts don't, why Bukowski is better than all the drunken, lovelorn short stories I ever wrote. But these facets, or the real or imagined ideal of 'passion for music', are too often used as a crutch for lack of skill.

I came across quite a lot of those described in your second point at The Great Escape - one guy working for some company who'd recently taken on A Winged Victory for the Sullen caught me on the way out of their show and asked about how they were because he 'was supposed to see them' but was too busy getting pissed. Another was supposed to go and see a band (who I care about a lot and would love to see able to support themselves off music) for the label he works for, but again, sacked it off for a drink. Both talked drunkenly through a later performance of a band they both professed to liking. These people get paid to be involved with music.

I have no idea how to combat this other than by continuing to put effort into listening and writing about listening. I think I need to go and lie down first though.

there does need to be some focus, or it takes away from the quality of the website (i reckon so anyway). it's why i've started writing for thesilentballet recently; although it has a much smaller readership than other sites i've written for it's a better home for the stuff i want to write about.

i've been actively trying to become less 'on the ball' recently though, as i was becoming acutely aware i was skipping from one thing to the next without really enjoying anything, but for a website like DiS i guess it's the opposite;? there's a need to be in touch with the latest trends/sounds, or people will have read everything there is to be read and see the site as out-dated. i don't think i'm really part of the core audience for DiS's primary content, despite using the site a lot.

there's just more of it, and it's easier to badly now (as there are more platforms).

Is seemingly to piss off Garbage fans

Don't get me wrong, I like a good snark myself!

Will definitely check out that playlist.

I guess because they're more about "something" than a review, which is about a something but it's also something I have direct access too. An interview gives me insight on the artist. A piece can give me insight on something beyond the music - a scene or a record label or a time period.

pertaining to tours, new albums/tracks, festivals...

(I guess I'm just more interested in music than the endless pontificating on cultural relevance and "the state of music" that most journos appear fixated on)

Always good to see what music writers felt about old classics on a revisit.

but it got deleted so I'll boil it down to this. In my experience reviews are generally read to reinforce opinions. Whereas magazine reviews are a passive format - you read stuff through the lens of a publication's editor, online the reader has full control over what they peruse through Google and not having to pay for content.

This means if you seek to challenge opinions in the worst cases you'll be called 'a cunt who needs to die' and several other choice phrases, I could reel off from recent memory. List culture plays into this trend because they're mostly written through a nostalgic lens of critical agreement. For example, a list of 90s best songs from NME will always contain Oasis, Blur, The Verve and Pulp. People can read this opinion, have their opinons be reinforced and feel good about it.

If you challenge perceptions the most likely response is you'll get kicked back against. It's not just the case with Q or MOJO, people find their musical comfort zone of drone, alt hip-hop or whatever and then read stuff that reinforces that opinion. It's not good, it's not bad, it's just human nature. Publications like the NME.com are just taking advantage of the situation.

are you thinking of something along the lines of Pandora, maybe?

And some of the records that I have loved most of the last few years have been bought on the strength of DiS reviews (I'd never heard of Anais Mitchell, read the 10/10 Hadestown review, bought it, haven't looked back).

More commonly though I'll read the review on DiS, then compare it to the review on pitchfork or, say, Rockarolla: often you can pick out some interesting common threads about strengths weaknesses.

I also review records, though not as often as I'd like, mostly in the school holidays.

I really enjoy reviewing because it forces me to really listen to and focus on a record that otherwise might just get a cursory listen and disolve into the murk. I'm not sure if anyone reads them though, certainly my JK Flesh review does not seem to have set the interwebs alight.

they are far too long

seriously can't remember the last time I made it to the end of a review on drowned in sound, pitchfork, or wherever else

What puts you off? Do you enjoy reading? Why do you start 'em in the first place?

I read album reviews so I then know what to type into Spotify and Youtube..... isn't that how finding out about music works if you don't have a friend to tell you all the time what's good?

It's all well and good having Spotify and Youtube but how do I know how to get the good stuff up if I don't know what it's called?

Fucking hell.

reviews too of course but there are loads of ways.

That was actually pretty inspirational. I used to enjoy his pieces in NME if only for the sheer enthusiasm, although him getting excited about bands like the Twang was offputting. He did address that though, to an extent, by mentioning Hamish McBain's passion for utter shit. The point is (I think) that opinion pieces and columns are more interesting to read than reviews.

Personally I've moved from someone who read everything posted on DiS and avoided the forums to someone who comes on the forums most days and only goes to the front page once or twice a week, unless something catches my eye in the ticker at the top. I think that's because I used to read the news pieces which are few and far between now, and I do understand that but I think maybe a weekly roundup would be good.

The album reviews don't seem to align with my tastes so much any more either, too many middling reviews of bands who sound a bit meh, or who I've never heard of so find it difficult to care enough to read the entire review. I dunno, maybe that one's just me.

Live reviews I think I've mentioned in reply to one of your threads before, they're all too often just about a band playing this song and then this one which wasnt as good, whereas I want something more anecdotal. Remember when someone posted that gig review some kid wrote for the Stool Pigeon and it was half about his bus journey? Brilliant. DiS' festival reviews tend to be more like that and I enjoy them more for sure.

Columns on here, especially the Armchair Dancefloor, classical and pop columns are great, as are some of the local scene reports but I guess that's to do with getting to know a writer. I love Wendy's singles column as well but that seems to have lost it's shine of late. Maybe I'm just jaded. But yes, more ranty stuff, more passion, more of everything. Less In Pictures pseudo-reviews maybe? I don't know, surely (other than festival ones) they only appeal to people who were there?

or albums by bands I'm well familiar with to find out what other people think of them.

I have friends and media for that. I read them because I enjoy reading people's opinions. I read reviews of bands I love and bands I really really don't like.

I'll rarely read a review of a band I don't know unless something happens to have picqued my interest- usually a very high or low score because I expect the opinions to be passionate and articulate. 6/10 review of a band I don't know- not interested.

As a writer I would love to say that scores on reviews are pointless and you could read the prose to form your own judgement but this isn't 1974, there's more than 20 records released a week and they're not all being reviewed by Lester Bangs.

I very rarely read live reviews as they're usually too descriptive and when I write them I need to have an angle to make it interesting- normally an evaluation of the artist's work/career/cultural impact, and the review is briefly tagged on to the end.

The problem with the NME was that during Conor whatsisname's tenure they became a device to promote records, rather than a device to promote passion about music, with the side effect of selling records. Every time I opened it, I felt like I was being sold something when I wanted to feel like I was discovering something.

I certainly miss the days when writers were angry and dared to express opinions that differed from their peers. I always find it so strange that something as subjective as music reaches so much critical concensus in terms of critics all raving about the same things, reserving any ire for easy targets.

But I don't think I ever connect to a reviewer...like...Even if I really love something...some album, chances are I've heard someone briefly mention it on a forum or twitter or whatever, I've listened to it myself, given it the time and it's either clicked or not.

The absolute last thing I want to hear is someone's like, fucking monologue about WHY they like it...gushing divvy adjectives...paragraphs and paragraphs and like...an inevitability that it's going to get reviewed at this point and "HERE IS OUR REVIEW OF X"....

It's totally the dancing about architecture thing, but If I'm in love with a piece of music, I'll listen to it like mental...Go to the gig and dance along around like-minded fans of it...say "This is fucking great"...but there's something kinda INEFFABLE about it...where you don't have to analyse...think up critiques...write a fucking essay about it: It's just something that I can't be fucked reading

...Some Zone 2 Macbooking trapeze artist yamming on and on: That's what it always feels like...

Like - Daydream Nation, right? I'll watch videos of Sonic Youth from that era over and over...read interviews with Thurston about it...google the studio on fucking streetview, whatever, but for some reason I just can't put my finger on, I couldn't bear to read some writer bang on about it.

Not saying the above is rational...Probably doesn't even make that much sense grammatically but I'm going to hit post without reading it back because I think it almost gets at my opinion on this. ok cool.

I started reading music journalism to carve out a musical identity for myself when I was a young teenager, sifting through positive reviews and buying recommended records before I had access to broadband, youtube, spotify etc. It was an extension of the radio, I suppose, and in the sense of needing to BELONG MAN a magazine like NME was important for context, hype and mythologising.

Eventually, in my mid-teens, Pitchfork and DiS alerted me to music I’d never have otherwise heard, and again, because I didn’t have access to broadband at home, they were an important tool for broadening my tastes by association with more conservative British artists covered by Zane Lowe, Steve Lamacq and the NME.

Now I/we have access to pretty much anything out there, the purpose has shifted entirely. For me music writing should be a springboard to discussing and dissecting people’s attitudes and values - like Neil Kulkarni, The Quietus, Laura Snapes - rather than describing notes and beats and separating things into stylistic boxes.

Or discussing and dissecting an artist or song’s personality with the analytical eye of an observational comedian or poet - Wendy Roby, Al Denney, Kev Kharas, Andrzej Lukowski, Emily Mackay.

Or exploring cultural phenomena within music, which is very occasionally covered by broadsheets and Pitchfork - thinking Tom Ewing in particular.

And I’m sure not everyone would agree, but I still believe there’s a place for the disillusioning, star-conquering format of 90s NME (and Melody Maker/Select? Never got round to them, actually), the type of snarky raised-eyebrow yet full-hearted writing you find on Popjustice and I suppose to an extent The Guardian - Alexis Petridis and The Guide’s single reviews.

As I’ve said before, album reviews WILL lose all value unless they can stand up as a piece of entertainment in themselves. Novels are often considered a deeper art form than music, and it’s not just because of their length - words can have the same power as music and the idea that they’re simply a recommendation or an aggregator of consensus or an objective description of music is depressing and old-fashioned, not the opposite.

I think there’s more to be said but I doubt anyone’s read this far anyway, so yeah.

(Ta for the hat-tip upthread, Sean.)

most reviews have nothing to say, they are just descriptions, frequently of records I haven't heard so I don't have any reference points, hence get boring really quickly

I don't dislike music writing - features can be ok because they generally seem to have some sort of purpose beyond description. some more in depth reviews are great as well, I like, for example, Julian Cope's album of the month (which he doesn't seem to do any more), but reading 1000s of words about an indie record where there is very little to say, and the writer ends up driveling on about the drum sound or whatever, is a fundamentally tedious experience

I think on the whole you'll read a review of a show you've just been to, an overview of a festival you've just got back from, or maybe a review from a date in a tour when you've got tickets for another venue. Writing about a live experience of an event your reader can never witness probably is rather self indulgent, and not comparable in purpose to other 'live art' reviews (i.e. theatre that effectively lives or dies from the opening night press a show gets).

That said, I really enjoy live reviews, it allows the author to write on snapshot experience and emotion, rather than the necessarily considered nature of a record review.

http://thequietus.com/articles/08813-the-enemy-streets-in-the-sky-review

Genius.

that's what I was getting at with the chicken-fried steak comment. how do people know what to look for on these services? Although we have started this http://www.youtube.com/drownedinsound to try to become a channel within YouTube

That I used to visit the front page a lot more when the news flow was more regular, although I understand the constraints of that. I find myself looking at FACT, for example, a few times a day because every time I click on the page there will be a few extra news stories and a bunch of stuff in the new music feed. DiS, by contrast, seems to put up reviews in the morning and then I might check back later in the day to see if there is a feature that interests me. I realise reporting on news may not have a big pay-off in terms of the time it requires to update, but maybe a regular flow of new music (perhaps through the integration of another service) would help keep things fresh.

is that a good one is like a short story. In describing watching a band live, in a defined, can't-get-it-back space of time, the writer's describing something that happened to them. To me that's interesting. While an album review is a description of something the reader can go and listen to themselves, a live performance should be unique, the coming-together of music and performance and place and crowd and circumstance. (That's not to do down album reviews, just to explain my preference.) And either you were there, and read it thinking 'YES, exactly that!' or 'No! You're fucking wrong, were we even at the same show?!', or you weren't there and you read it thinking 'Fuck. I really need to see that band'. A good live review is a really well written anecdote.

I go to lots and LOTS of gigs, so I read a lot of gig reviews, mostly of things I didn't see, whether bands I already like or new things. When I read something that can be summed up as 'this band tore my face off last night, I had no idea their music could sound THIS good outside the studio', that makes me want to go and find out if it's always like that. It certainly does make me jealous - so I go and buy tickets next time around.

of that review made my year.

That's why I suggested maybe a weekly roundup, coz I know DiS' thing isn't news any more but it seems daft not to do something on a regular basis. I know sean doesn't like it because it often ends up just being rehashed press releases and tour dates and stuff but that kind of thing isn't so bad, especially if it's only once a week

because by it's very nature it won't be new by the time it's written. Unless you mean a ronud-up of songs? Which I think is kind of already in place anyway.

What I was angling for is more of a daily feed of new songs relevant to the DiS community. Obviously you have that within the forums, but you also have to wade through a lot of Kid A > OK Computer > Pablo Honey if you want to get to it.

I just think there's a severe lack of it on DiS. I know that most newsworthy items appear in threads on the music board but like you say, it's not ideal. I just think it's an easy way to strengthen what DiS does. There's a news section on the front page, it just only gets updated occasionally. If you could get a regular thing, like a newsletter I guess, I think it would be a really good addition. I used to go on NME.com for news a lot but their website just gets worse and worse with every change. I wish they'd fuck right off with film news as well, who the fuck is going on NME for film news? NO-ONE.

Just one page with a list of bands on it, and a forum.
Would keep the overheads down.

I think there'll always be people who enjoy reading about music. The 'wrong people writing' rings true quite a lot, but that's in general and not really true of DiS. But I think there's a lot of people active in different forms of media for the wrong reasons too. Start pushing writers with personality - you'll get a lot of flaming, but I think one of the reasons music writing isn't as interesting as it has been is because publications actively want to avoid the aggro, and because the music scene's so splintered nowadays it's difficult for them to have a consensus, a sense of purpose, and as a result, a personality.

why I don't agree with attacking young music writers.

http://eve-barlow.tumblr.com/post/23343112876/actually-dont-know-wtf-im-doing-kulkarni

And open your eats to new sounds and exciting scenes. Just because most things are more freely available now doesn't mean some people don:t want guidance or the platform to write about their passion for certain records and artists.It is even more true of unsigned and Diy artists many rely on blogs and zines for feedback and promotion of their work early on.

or people making revisits?

depends on the place, but

'Because the WRONG FKN PEOPLE want to be music journalists, beavering hustlers and networkers, passionate ambassadors for their own needy inclusion in da biz, people so damn obsessed with getting their foot in the door they haven’t figured out if they have anything more than fuck-all to say, and couldn’t care less how revoltingly commonplace is the way they express that fuck-all. Style-less automatons of triteness and humbug and horseshit that criminally WASTE your time, and don’t even give you a laff in doing so.'

For sure rings true, especially for NME, the idea that I'm not quite sure why something is being written about - e.g. the feeling that money is paid for them for favorable coverage, or the writer has a self inflated sense of there own self importance so they can claim to have invented the new 'grunge' (insert genre here). So the writing has nothing to do with the music. Or alot of the website feels like half assed PR releases (even if they arent thats what it feels like).

Erm, I tend to read more books about music, such as 'cant stop wont stop', 'Turn on your mind', 'songs and circumstance: the work of david bryne', 'altered state'. Autobiographies, stuff that really gives an in depth look into a band or genre. Most books are cheaper than a magazine monthly subsciption now.

In terms of reading a review online. I might just glance out of interest, but mainly look at the artist name, but why bother reading when you can just type in google 'artist name spotify' 'artist name - rapidshare' 'artist name youtube' 'artist name bandcamp' and listen for yourself?. And there in lie the problem, if there is even a problem.

Reviews (i suppose 'traditionally') are designed to give an idea to the reader if they should listen to something or not, when you actually had to make the effort to go to the shop and pay this mightve been important. But now, in less time than it takes me to read a review I can have heard a good (30 seconds, skipping here and there) section of various songs to see if I should bother listening to it proper. So I dont think its anything to do with time, so much as availability.

Plus, no offence, alot of writing online is so pompous and self congratularly and a massive insular circle-jerk of supposedly knowing nods, in jokes and references that I get bored.

or new albums by artists i love. Just to see, y'know.

Reviews are a really, really shit way of getting into new artists though. They just are.

needs to re-introduce scarcity or something. When (or if) was it assumed that over saturation of media was a good thing. Democratisation of the media, and all that shit. The very fact that everyone everywhere can put shit out there could be viewed as the problem. (I understand the irony...)

having a sub-heading under artist and album name saying like `anal cunt are a twee pop band from glasgow. This is their third album of fey vocals over interlocking ukelele and glockenspiel polyrythms` or whatever.

is after a job in music journalism.

Things just haven't been the same since the Allgemeine musikalische Zeitung shut down in 1882.

but on the frontpage? http://drownedinsound.com/releases/reviewed

doesn't include the people who keep coming back, and obvious a lot of those look at one page and then vanish again...

that cache bug was meant to be fixed... but then we were meant to have had a new site ready 12months ago (if only we had a spare £10k knocking around to finish it off!)

just a really simple filter of half the stuff we get sent, so that people can see what we're really into but I've never found a simple visual way of presenting it...

5 albums a year? 1 album a day?

^this is awesome and well worth reading everyone^

that for a lot of unsigned and DIY acts, they get too much coverage too soon, and there isn't the follow through when they actually become amazing? that's my biggest problem with the music press new media mess right now... but I've waffled on about that on my blog a fair bit http://seaninsound.tumblr.com

Ok, so I've been meaning to explain what has happened with the news for a while. Basically, I went back through our stats and it seems about 5 years ago, when various social networks exploded and bands (and festivals, and venues, and labels) went direct-to-fan with information, our news traffic fell off a cliff. Even when we had Kev Kharas working on it full-time, there were still some stories only getting 100 hits.

Luke Slater (or JoeDiddly if you only know him from the boards) filled in doing an hour or so a day between dayjobs and stuff, over the past few years, and what was weird was that some news stories would also appear as threads on the boards (sometimes before, often after) and the thread itself would get 3-4 times the traffic of the news stories, and sometimes get 6000 hits, whereas the news story itself would only get a 1000 or so impressions.

What I really want to do is to find a good way to aggregate The News, so that you can create a nice personalized feed of things you're interested in, but also have a catchall of what's going on, online, and then chat about it - almost like a feeding stream for the DiS pool...

Basically to do news properly requires huge amounts of investment, and essentially trolling for traffic, and that isn't something I wanted DiS to do or be about, and have instead chosen to focus our limited resources on reviews, features and community... and hopefully we'll have a new site soon that will be able to pull things in from elsewhere (but I need at least another £5k to finish it, and times are tough)

especially if you're doing individual news items for each story. I'm not sure a personalised feed is such a great idea, I don't know if people would be that arsed to put in the effort in setting it up. I do think that DiS is sorely lacking on that side though and a weekly news round-up would be a big improvement. Even if it was just like the twenty biggest stories of the week or the most relevant to yr average DiSer's interests. It wouldn't need to be presented with comment, or if you wanted just a snarky aside about a shit band or an overly enthusiastic footnote about a good band. I'd offer to do it myself but wouldn't know where to start - I guess if I did I wouldn't be interested in DiS having more news.

Srslytho, with some pointers I'd be willing to put something together once a week.