Sign In:
Login with Facebook
42678

Guest Columnist: Jeremy Warmsley vs. The Music Critic



There's not much less attractive than musicians complaining about their treatment by their press, is there? Case in point; I went to see Mark Kozelek play at the Scala a couple of weeks ago (possibly more by the time you read this). A great set, if a little long, but boy was he grouchy. He explained how he'd been touring the past week, and had mostly been playing to "crowds of 50 fat backpack-wearing dudes with no girlfriends". We, apparently, were a much better-looking crowd. So far, so good. But later, he returned to his theme with more enthusiasm, complaining ungraciously (I felt) about low attendances in the regional dates. "Maybe I need to record my next record in a log cabin... or become a transvestite or something" (I paraphrase).

This, presumably, was a reference, firstly to Bon Iver, who of course recorded his excellent debut For Emma, Forever Ago in a log cabin, and secondly to Antony, who is a transvestite (so I'm told by Wikipedia). Kozelek's point being (still presumably) that some, maybe all, of the press attention heaped on said artists is due to these "press angles" which have little or no bearing on the actual content of their music. Woah! Bitter! (Full disclosure: I own a backpack and have no girlfriend). Bullshit, obviously – the main reason such plaudits have been awarded is that they are deserved; said artists have impeccable bodies of work (and impeccable bodies, as anyone who has seen Justin Vernon with his shirt off can attest.

But it is weird how every single review of Bon Iver feels it necessary to mention, nay harp on about, the whole remote-log-cabin thing.

I mean, who cares? These days, with laptops and FireWire audio interfaces and whatnot you can make high-quality recordings anywhere. (There's an awesome studio, Bombanella, in a barn near Bologna. Horses and everything). Well, Bon Iver managed to capture the sound and feel of what it's like to live in that isolation perfectly; presumably if he had done it at Abbey Road it wouldn't have that sense of intimacy. Saying it was recorded in a log cabin actually imparts a little of what it's like to listen to the record - rare, these days in a record review. (Cutting! JW 1, media 0!) But as well as being an artistically informative fact about a lovely record, the whole log-cabin thing is also an example of what can be a pernicious drain. These days (same as it ever was), in order to publish an article about an artist, the hapless writer must first convince his or her editor that it'll be of interest to the readers. If there's little in the way of commercial success, or hype, or radio play, or if the artist does not fall into the sort of style or genre that automatically gets lots of coverage in whatever press organ we're talking about (e.g. boring indie and the NME – just kidding guys!), then the writer must be able to call on some other reason as to why the artist will be of interest to readers. The actual music itself only suffices in the rarest cases of extreme prowess.

What you need is a press angle. You know – a public spat with another artist, drug habit, weird and entertaining stories about the recording. Something to pad the piece out with some human interest. Sometimes the press angle is actually more interesting than the music e.g. Oasis, whose interviews are far more entertaining than their music – these days at least. Of course, I'm being naïve. At the end of the day, magazines and interweb netsites are there to be read. Their purpose, and the reason they're successful, is because they're interesting to read. So you'd better be able to say some interesting things about the artists you want to write about. So, you know, near-death experiences, supermodel liasons, unusual recording locales; the fact is, people would rather read about this kind of thing than an in-depth discussion of how cool the guitar sound on the third track is. Personally, I find this kind of thing to be a bit of a bummer. But I know being a critic is difficult - you're constantly balancing what you want to write about with what people want to read about. And it's not like I have any answers. I just wanted to bum everyone else out too. Anyway. Can't hang around - I'm off to start a beef with Laura Marling, develop a hard drugs habit and invent a brand new way of playing guitar (spoons underneath your armpits, no flexing of the elbow allowed).

See you next month.

DiScuss: would you rather read about guitar sounds and lyrical metaphors or celebrity hookups and tour anecdotes? Am I just being way cynical? What's your favorite press angle/gimmick?

This month Jeremy is plugging his new internet TV thing (which he filmed himself, ineptly).

J.Warmsley's New Thing 1: Mechanical Bride/JJ Pistolet/Peggy Sue

I don't have much to offer in the way of constructive critiques about muisc vs. the media,

but I can say that I very much enjoy J. Wo's writing. Long may it continue.

Also, "I Believe in the Way you Move" has been included on every mixtape I've used in the past couple of years to try and seduce a girl, for which, thank you.

Nahhhhh

I can assure you the reason why I give people bad reviews is because the music isn't very good. Log cabins, transvesticism, date rape or sibling rivalry really have no bearing whatsoever J.Wo, honest.

I think this is more true in newspapers

than the music press. But with stuff like the Guardian's Film & Music section, being of interest to a wide readership is often quite unabashedly the priority - with interviews with actors or directors in particular you see loads of pieces where the journalist says the film in question is actually shit - an article doesn't have to be a recommendation, it has to be of interest to lots of people, and if a press release provides a hook in advance then that's just good PR.

And quite aside from that, a prurient interest in the lives of people whose music we like is just the way these things go down, I don't think you can attribute it to press releases messin' with heads.

Does anybody remember NME's 'You Cock' where they spent about six months trying to blow a mild tiff between Starsailor and Oasis out of all proportion? Can't say as it helped Starsailor...

Well written, though, like...

If an artist or band has a personality

it can certainly help, both in terms of commercial and critical recognition but it isn't the be all and end all.

I like to write about music personalities

because it pays the big bucks.

Warmsley:

one of the good guys.

I for one think

It'd be amazing if he followed through on the Laura Marling beef. I want folkpop diss tracks!

With reviews,

it's got to be about the music. In Bon Iver's case, the way he recorded his album obviously had a huge bearing on the final sound. But no one really gives a shit what trouble an artist is in when reading a review.

With features it's different. You've got to delve into those tid bits because you can't someone 20-odd questions about their latest release or tour, it just gets dull. It's also harder to write a negative feature about someone because you've gotten to know them and made some sort of connection with them. I've seen negative reviews on DiS followed up by Q&A's which do a complete backflip (Presets).

Anyway, just some thoughts from the other side of the globe...

reason being

reviews are often the opinion of one person. we don't have some grubby party line but we do try to encourage our writers to think both subjectively and objectively.

That's not the point

really though. It's not one 9/10 review in, say, the NME that will make a band famous or make an album go gold... it's more about the general amount of column inches they get, which increases incrementally with 'interesting' stuff they do/how weird and quotable they are.

Kozelek has a point, because he is the equal of (or perhaps better than, given his long and fruitful career) Anthony Hegarty and Bon Iver. But in the end he's just a fairly regular guy without a press angle, so barely anyone has even heard of Sun Kil Moon, despite the amazing reviews.

yeah

this is a great article, spot on. It's why everyone here has heard of Joe Lean and the Jing Jang Jong despite them being really, really bad - because they had a stupid name, because the singer was a bit-part actor in a popular TV show, and because the singer made a tit of himself in interviews = voila, everyone's got an opinion on this thoroughly mediocre band while thousands of other, better bands get ignored.

I actually just wrote a wee thing about how the Bon Iver backstory massively contributed to his success. But it applies to all sorts of musicians - people want authenticity and mystery and intrigue - Robert Johnson at the crossroads anyone? How many times did 50 Cent get shot - everyone repeat after me - NINE TIMES! Labels are now MAKING UP stories for their bands to help the journalists with their angles and therefore to help the band get coverage. It's all a bit shitty for musicians like Kozalek, sorry to say, but if he wants to make a bigger breakthrough he's gotta play the game a bit more.

Add your comment

Reply


 or Abandon