Sign In:
Login with Facebook
51019

Being a music critic when music criticism is dead(?)



It’s been a funny old week, this whole Death Of The Critic doo-dah. Being largely handled by Everett’s crack team of experts, I felt a little daunted when Sean dropped me an email on Monday asking if I might be able to add something on what it’s like to be a DiS writer to the mix. And I shall tell you some reasons why.

One: You, dear reader, might not have the blindest idea who I am, and will in any case be eminently uninterested in what it is like to be me. Gone are the days when big swinging dicks like Mike Diver and Kev Kharas stalked the halls of DiS in a full-time capacity. And certainly compared to the veritable galacticos of late twentieth century music journalism that Everett assembled for this week, the most I can really say for myself is ‘interesting name’. But to clarify: I have been the albums editor for this site in a part time freelance capacity for a couple of months, and have written for it for about a year.

Two: this is all kind of a fraud – I am expecting to get a yes or a no on long-held plans to emigrate permanently to Canada by the end of the summer, and am only really dabbling in freelancerhood in the meantime. I am not a reliable example of anything.

Three: well it’s just a bit odd, isn’t it? Being the person in charge of the critical element of a website currently embroiled in discussion over whether music criticism is even valid anymore. What am I supposed to offer here? A gloomy description of what it’s like to presage over the last days of a DYING ARTFORM as it painfully hiccups up another desiccated internal organ, rolling with a muffled squelch along the parched canyon that is a metaphor for something or other, only to be moisturised by the urine of thousand bloggers? Because it’s not really like that, you know.

But looking at the mix of great journalism, interesting debate, petty backstabbing, craven vitriol and pompous naysaying this funny old week has thrown up, generally from writers infinitely more gifted, savvy and experienced than myself (hey Neil Kulkarni! Wanna review something? PM me! We can pay you in awe!) and... I don’t feel any different about being a music critic.

I don’t feel any different because – contrary to Everett’s much voiced obsession with ‘tastemakers’ and suggestions by the trolls on the John Robb article – I personally could not give less of a shit about my ‘influence’. Yeah, it’s nice to know your words have been helpful, and yeah, I have an audience and therefore I have some microscopic perceived power. But influence? Why would you want that? Because you believe you can alter the listening habits of the nation for the better? I’m writing this on a National Express coach and have absolute zero concern for what the girl next to me is listening to. I don’t even understand why I would.

Is it because you want to help the band out by taking it upon yourself to give them some free PR? I worry my favourite bands don’t make enough money these days, that is true, but I mean Christ, the last thing I would ever want is the gratitude of an indie musician.

Nah, obvious and tacky as it may be, but the reason I’m a music critic (of sorts) is because I really fucking love writing about music. I love trying to channel something as abstract as sound into something so tangible as words, to work through in my head why I feel the weird tingles of joy and rage and ambivalence and disappointment that I do when I hear music. Because I love language, and I’m a lazy sod who enjoys the reactive nature of the review format over hunkering down to write a novel or whatever. Because it’s normally an excuse to shoehorn in a couple of gags. Because I’ve crafted and created something that I view not as product, but a small piece of literature. Doesn’t mean it’s good, but it’s why I do it. I find it very hard not to do it.

And yeah, being a fourth or fifth or sixth tier critic you don’t earn a bunch of money, but at the same time gigs, festivals even short foreign holidays are free, I get to meet musicians I admire... it’s a nice life. I’m not sitting in my Hackney garret, sustained only by delusions of grandeur. I’m a music critic because that’s what I enjoy doing, and I get a lifestyle out of it that I enjoy.

Probably that sounds like a manifesto equal parts narcissism and mediocrity. Actually that’s almost certainly what it is. But what I mean is: there will always be people who feel like this. Fuck having power, fuck the ravages of web 2.0, fuck Lester Bangs, fuck Melody Maker, fuck Steven Wells and fuck Everett True. There will always be people who feel driven to write about music, essentially as an act of self-indulgence, and from thence careers are born, and hence critics will never die out.

Let your narcissism and self-indulgence drive you, but don’t be complacent. Be some twat with a blog for a bit, if you must, but don’t think smearing some damp patch of the internet with some trite bollocks about a fresh faced four piece from London should be enough to satisfy you. Though there are some amazing examples out there, let’s be honest: by-and-large personal music blogs exist for people too shit to have gotten published any place else. Or at least that’s how you should think. You may not want power, but like any good narcissist you really should be after validation, and that’s why ultimately you will drive yourself to be a better writer, to try and write for NME or DiS or FACT or Wire or The Guardian, set up your own publication, whatever. The days of power and tastemakers may or may not be gone, but don’t worry that music criticism is dead. Music critics are like cockroaches. Time may have gone when it was easy to make a living out of it, but it’ll always be possible.

And okay, finally, if you have stayed with me this long, you may be thinking ‘how dare this drab little dishcloth of a man presume to offer any sort of advice? He has hasn't exactly attained lofty heights himself.’ I shall end with two points. One, while we’re eulogising St Swells this week, can we remind ourselves what an awful music journalist he was? He broke the world down into a crude and entirely predictable ideological struggle and his reviews were about as trustworthy as Michael Jackson in a morphine factory. I can only really remember two of his old NME pieces – one where he attacked Sonic Youth with such vitriol that he actually switched me onto them, and an exemplary piece about the 2001 Bradford riots that had nothing to with music. What’s his legacy, music-wise? None, that I can see. And hence he was a wonderful writer, because he wrote for himself, to amuse himself, because he felt driven to do so. The right reasons. And point two: I am just some arsehole with a keyboard and an interesting name, running the reviews section of a site currently devoting itself to suggesting such things are anachronisms. And I do alright, really, I do. So you go do better.

@MrLukowski

Anyone wanna know why music criticism is dead?

See above.

“I personally could not give less of a shit about my ‘influence’. I really fucking love writing about music.”

Well get a fucking proper job, pay to get into gigs and write for yourself in a book that you keep hidden away and save the rest of us the bother of reading your waffle. Fuck me, I’m writing here and now to DO IGNORANT BASTARDS LIKE YOU A FAVOUR. The least fucking ‘proper’ writers can do is the same.

The reason that magazines are dying and you can’t charge to register on this site is because most journalists share your despicable attitude. I don’t write about music, but I do talk with mates about it. I fucking remind them every time I see them why Mudhoney are the best band in history and why electronic music had its day and is now irrelevant again. I do this despite the fact that they are too stupid to agree with me and have heard it all before. (Just in case you are too ignorant to know the answer it because distorted electric guitars make the best sounds, so why would you use an electronic instrument unless to replicate a distorted electric guitar, and that is just pointless). If you disagree with me you’re wrong and if you don’t respond you agree I’m right.

Next you’ll tell me The Troggs aren’t the best band ever and that Richie Hawtin isn’t even better. I dislike the lack of a ‘wall of sound’ element to his music but apart from that it is sonically perfect.

I struggle to think of anything more offensive than what you have said about the bus journey. The thought that there is some idiot out there who can’t even be bothered to help out the stupid bitch on the bus who (FYI) was listening to Razorlight and needs all the help she can get just upsets me. You clearly have no taste, but even you could have done her a favour and chucked her Ipod out of the window and played her some Foals. If she’d liked it you could have then determined she was beyond help and dealt with her accordingly.

“Is it because you want to help the band out by taking it upon yourself to give them some free PR?“

Jesus wept. Read the small print! FFS read the small print. When you signed up to be a music journalist you agreed that your raison d’etre was to help redistribute cash from U2 and Radiohead to Fucked Up and Los Campissycinos (I was joking about the latter of course! How we laughed). Radiohead eh, the first band ever to be more tedious than U2, that really did take some guitar wanking and whiney pissy vocals to achieve. Did I tell you I once saw Radiohead at the bar at ULU in front of about 200 people? They were shit then and they’re shit now.

“Doesn’t mean it’s good, but it’s why I do it.”

It’s not good. Stop doing it. Please.

“Let’s be honest: by-and-large personal music blogs exist for people too shit to have gotten published any place else.”

Nice theory proven conclusively incorrect by your good self. Unless you are a blogger, in which case spot on.

Re: Swells. What on earth has trustworthiness of a review got to do with how good a music journalist you are? You have absolutely no clue do you? This wasn’t true when you had to buy a record to hear it, now you can download it for free it is beyond untrue. And he introduced you to Sonic Youth so you owe him big time. Big time. And why did you have to have him introduce them to you? FFS you should have been listening to them since 1981 like I was.

“I am just some arsehole with a keyboard and an interesting name”

Having a foreign sounding name ain’t that interesting. And I fucking resent the implication about my name that your bullshit about your name implicatifies. And your sentence is about 7 words to long and is missing a “total”

Yours
Mr John Smith

eh i was just gonna say

Music criticism is creative writing. Whether it's any good or not, has any influence or not, or is paid or not, there'll always be people who want to do it for their own reasons. Like music itself. The internet aint killing anything.

I disagree

I think it was a good article that articulated an interesting position in an insightful manner

Yours
Big Phil McCracken

bahahaha.. I'M... SO... ANGRY.. AND..I DON'T EVEN KNOW WHAT AT!!!!!!!

pray hard enough maybe you can go back in time to when grunge is relevant again dude

good article, much preferable to the unbearable egocentricism of half the people this week

Thanks Mr. John Smith, for articulating pretty much the exact opposite of my point of view

Good article though, it sums up my feelings about writing - I do it for the excitement and satisfaction that comes of knowing I've managed to articulate something as intangible as my enjoyment and appreciation of music. If that can excite someone else about it then so much the better, really.

when was grunge ever relevant?

Probably the worst musical genre in existence (except for 'generic tossy corporate indie bollocks'*. proper fuck of garage rock n roll with fuzz n fury n funny bits too. Do you wanna list of the 5 worst bands of all time? nirvana, Soundgarden, Pearl Jam, Alice in Chains, Screaming Trees. nirvana being so bad I've stolen their capital 'N'.

* If you wanna know which bands fit in that genre look at your record collections.

lukowski: easy on the self-deprecation..

for what it's worth i reckon you're one of the best writers around at the moment

is this a parody?

Philip French???

I'm torn...

I see what Lukowski is saying as well as what WildEye means. I want to write about music because I enjoy it. I am a good writer but not a good singer and I can't play an instrument. But I also definitely want to help shape people's tastes, if I can, because I do want the obscure bands I love to become more successful.

I knew that way back in middle school I thought music was generally lame and that was because I only had access to the radio. Then in high school I met my good friends Kazaa and Yahoo Indie Radio. I have to assume there are people who think that Nickelback are good because they just simply don't know any better. Though those people aren't likely to be on music review websites, since their tastes are sated by the bins at Wal Mart. Though there are plenty of people skimming reviews to see what new albums they want to buy, by bands they haven't necessarily heard of, even if they have good enough taste to be reading said reviews on certain sites, like DiS. So, we can say that we're writing for them, or for the middle schoolers just realizing that they're really cool, but we know that we're just really writing for ourselves and lucky that anyone would ever give two shits.

Great article Andrzej

Honest, insightful, passionate, irritating, enlightening...? Tick, tick, tick. Everything I look for in music criticism. Speaking personally I like the self-deprecation: it counters the narcissism and self-indulgence rather well, I've always thought. But to each their own.

"I love trying to channel something as abstract as sound into something so tangible as words, to work through in my head why I feel the weird tingles of joy and rage and ambivalence and disappointment that I do when I hear music." - isn't this the reason why we all do what we do? But well put, sir!

You write to make an impact...? Oh easily. That one comes to you so instinctively, doesn't even need commenting upon.

incidentally

1) A manifesto equal parts narcissism and mediocrity? Sign me up!

2) Do you really think that I write for anyone's benefit except my own? Really? That I care for anyone's opinions except my own? Really? The entire time I wrote for NME I took it as read that everyone ignored the shit out my words: it was incredibly liberating actually, because it you really believe that no one is paying attention to you it frees you up to do whatever you want. I still feel the same way. I've always felt the same way. I really, honestly believe that no one gives a crap what I write. Why should they?

Check my mantra.

"I write, first to make sense of my own life. I write, first to make people jealous of me. I write, mainly because I can no longer dance."

ah no, of course I don't think you do it for anyone other than yourself

BUT obviously you have experienced having had a pretty hefty amount of power, which would seem to me makes you very aware of the idea of influence, the whole 'fading critic' thing, blah de blah...

I mean it is entirely possible that I will one day become influential, which would be odd, but having never been so I don't really think about influence as a factor. That said, I have a sense of RESPONSIBILITY - I really doubt my name carries any weight, but Drowned In Sound's does, and you can't be dismissive about that, same as other people I write for.

I suppose it is a bit fucked up what I was saying about narcissism serving to spur my ambitions more than influence, I guess there is a definite link in believing you should be writing for somebody good and you craving the influence attached to said good publication.

Er, anyway, ZOMG, Everett True liked my article, weeeeeeeeee!

Hold on a minute

Aren't we looking at this whole argument from the wrong angle? Isn't there just a lot less for music writers to write about at the minute? So we look at ourselves, ask 'What the eff is going on?' and conclude that everything is finished and music criticism is dead. Francis Fukuyama did this kind of mirror-gazing thing after the end of the cold war with his End Of History article/book. He was basically right when he said that political and economic ideology was no longer up for debate. There's nothing more for the human race to squabble over. (Some might want to throw in 9/11 and the way terrorism has changed world politics). But are we right to conclude that music criticism is dead, or is it the 'music' part of music criticism that needs looking at?

The music industry has had it bloody good since the early 60's. But music criticism is only as good or as exciting as the music it is criticising. Music isn't regenerating at the minute, it's largely regurgitating. There are no preeminent musical movements, there aren't even any dominant musical genres. Rebels don't really have a cause anymore (even if they sound like they do) and you either conform or you don't make a living. Music and the industry isn't anything like it used to be. No wonder we're looking inward.

But shouldn't we be discussing the whys and wherefores of this period of musical downtime/collapse (depending on how you look at it) and not the fact that writers are struggling to sound enthusiastic about a fairly derivative period? What was being written of particular note between Madchester and grunge or the period in between Britpop and the Strokes? We enthused about Britpop because it was a form of boy band escapism rather than anything substantially productive. If you don't believe me, look at the festival lineups for '94 and '95. There is much greater depth in music now than then.

Music writing and criticism will always be a pretty buoyant art form, but its buoyancy is determined by what is being criticised and written about, and not the people doing the writing. The people doing the writing are of a much more constant breed. (Cockroaches, Andrzej?). Writers will always write. It's a creative release. Writers do it because they need to, not merely because they want to. Some like the limelight, others don't care for it. That's really by the bye.

Writers will naturally think too much about themselves. They think too much about everything. Narcissism? Well, we all like to be liked. That's just being human. As a writer, if you're not in agreement with yourself you've got a wee problem.

The great thing about writing is that you don't really have to answer for anything. You're responsible to an extent, but then you're not. You bear as much responsibility as you want or you can just wait until you're sacked or you can just not give a shit. A writer can hide behind his/her's invisibility and the only thing affected by criticism is an already overly-inflated ego. More often than not, a controversial writer is a popular writer, so the biggest egos are lauded.

The Internet is a factor and it's also a double-edged sword. More write; but less, of substance, is written. People read less because of it, but they are exposed more to the things that they aren't really reading. We are now saturated with music and music coverage, so maybe it makes sense that everyone's experience is (and has to be) more dilute?

And to conclude, this debate probably wouldn't occur without the Internet, so work that one out.

Mr French?

?? Is there an ongoing beef between you and the film maestro?

Add your comment

Reply


 or Abandon