Since there's no longer (and hardly ever was) an I Love Writing board, and since there are a quite a few pro and amateur hacks here, I thought it might be worth starting a general purpose thread for the dark art.
I don't really consider myself a journo, having only had a couple of things published here and there (mostly for free might I add), but it would be good to get more stuff in print I admit. It would be interesting to hear more from people who've been doing it for longer than I have.
To get things rolling, I thought I'd ask a staple question that I think may have been toiled over before on ILX, regarding use of the first person in gig and LP reviews. Is this generally considered unacceptable in anything less than the most stylistic circumstances? Or does it really not matter too much? What about the use of "this writer" (don't really like this myself, I'd rather use "I/me" than "this writer", but that's just a personal thing).
Anyway, feel free to discuss whatever you like about music writing and journalism here.
― dog latin, Tuesday, 11 August 2009 12:04 (3 years ago) Permalink
I've said before about how I always hated that "The NME was told by Morrissey'" which is fine on the news page, but when it's "Morrissey bought the NME a drink and began .." on an interview, it's dumb.
― Mark G, Tuesday, 11 August 2009 12:08 (3 years ago) Permalink
Wrt first person: depends on who you're writing for and what kind of piece it is. Personally speaking, I've often had issues with the idea of "objective" criticism, so pretty much everything I've written, music-wise, has used the "I." But I've also avoided writing album reviews for publication, preferring to keep to autobiographical essays, short takes on singles, and blog posts, and in those contexts, no one's had an issue with it.
― jaymc, Tuesday, 11 August 2009 12:14 (3 years ago) Permalink
I often use first person, though rarely in a particularly deliberate way. It doesn't seem like that big a deal to me.
― Tim F, Tuesday, 11 August 2009 12:17 (3 years ago) Permalink
Something I've noticed that crops up in features like that, something that isn't necessarily wrong per se, but I feel is one helluva boring way to start one of these goes along the lines of: "It is 3:17pm on a rainy Monday afternoon. The NME sits in a Harringey spit'n'sawdust boozer sipping a pint of Timothy Landlord..." etc. What I mean here is that the intro seems to tell you more about the time and weather and location of the actual interview than about who is being interviewed. Whenever I read features like this I tend to stop reading much past the first paragraph.
― dog latin, Tuesday, 11 August 2009 12:19 (3 years ago) Permalink
3:17pm on a rainy Monday afternoon. The NME sits in a Harringey spit'n'sawdust boozer sipping a pint of Timothy Landlord
^ very accurate summary of state of british indie rock in the 09, though
― thomp, Tuesday, 11 August 2009 12:22 (3 years ago) Permalink
"It is 3:17pm on a rainy Monday afternoon. The NME sits in a Harringey spit'n'sawdust boozer sipping a pint of Timothy Landlord..."
if you're gonna "set the scene" like this the best way to do it is to say "[the artist] sits by the swimming pool sipping a mojito" - the i/v is about them after all
― lex pretend, Tuesday, 11 August 2009 12:26 (3 years ago) Permalink
i mean all obv dependent on what kind of feature, which publication &c &c &c
― lex pretend, Tuesday, 11 August 2009 12:27 (3 years ago) Permalink
"[the artist] sits by the swimming pool sipping a mojito"
The Lex interviews Raygun.
― Ned Raggett, Tuesday, 11 August 2009 12:45 (3 years ago) Permalink
I tend to use first person if my experience is an important part of the total picture. If I'm writing a piece that's based on a phone interview and three listens to the album, I don't do it; but if the publicist has flown me to Ireland to spend three or four days with the band, fuck yes I'm gonna inject myself into the story because I am then part of the story. I never use first person in CD reviews.
― unperson, Tuesday, 11 August 2009 12:52 (3 years ago) Permalink
there's no i love writing board per se but consider this thread. a not-just-music writers' discussion might be fun.
New: "I Love Writing"
the first person thing is tricky. back when I wrote for the village voice many many years ago it was practically required in music reviews. as time went on many publications took the opposite tack, pretty much banning the "I" these days in the NY Times reporters are required to don this pseudo anonymity which I think reads terribly. instead of "so and so told me that..." it's "so and so told a reporter" waht? was it YOU or just some other random journalist who happened to be in the room?
― m coleman, Tuesday, 11 August 2009 15:03 (3 years ago) Permalink
ha, you *are* the room!
― Mark G, Tuesday, 11 August 2009 15:06 (3 years ago) Permalink
Maybe 5% of music writing in the first person isn't hacky. I see it as a huge red flag. Unless it's absolutely necessary to the story, don't do it, imo.
― wooden shjipley (Whiney G. Weingarten), Tuesday, 11 August 2009 15:08 (3 years ago) Permalink
How is it "hacky"?
― jaymc, Tuesday, 11 August 2009 15:12 (3 years ago) Permalink
Maybe 5% of music writing in the first person isn't hacky.
― Hoot Smalley, Tuesday, 11 August 2009 15:13 (3 years ago) Permalink
On second thought:
― Hoot Smalley, Tuesday, 11 August 2009 15:14 (3 years ago) Permalink
o here we are slagging off writers again, that didn't take long at all
― lex pretend, Tuesday, 11 August 2009 15:17 (3 years ago) Permalink
there are different kinds of first-person usage. the kind i can't stand is the showy first-person narrative, where the writer becomes some kind of presence. but there's also just the casual "i" where it can be sensible and unobstrusive. "i love the first two tracks" doesn't seem more objectionable to me than "the first two tracks are great" -- they're both obviously subjective statements of personal preference. but i know some editors who will reflexively remove every "I" from copy, so it's good to know the standards you're writing to.
― flying squid attack (tipsy mothra), Tuesday, 11 August 2009 15:18 (3 years ago) Permalink
Just slagging off the hacks. If you'd like to defend bad writing, have at it.
― Hoot Smalley, Tuesday, 11 August 2009 15:18 (3 years ago) Permalink
My favourite one, (iirc)
"Kirk Brandon formed Theatre of Hate around the same time as I joined the NME. At the time, we were both unknown..."
(Can't remember the writer)
― Mark G, Tuesday, 11 August 2009 15:20 (3 years ago) Permalink
(many xposts)
I mean, I get into this argument all the time. Generally, I don't CARE about the writer. If the writer was an interesting person, I'd be reading an article on THEM, not the artist I care about. Like wow, the Jesus And Mary Chain helped you get through high school. You and America, buddy.
Generally if a piece of music writing has the word "I" in the first sentence, I usually stop reading, real talk. Save it for your dream journal.
The sad shit is now most mag writing is indistinguishable from internet writing because rates are so low.
― wooden shjipley (Whiney G. Weingarten), Tuesday, 11 August 2009 15:21 (3 years ago) Permalink
Not that there isn't exceptions blah blah blah strawman lol flame etc
― wooden shjipley (Whiney G. Weingarten), Tuesday, 11 August 2009 15:22 (3 years ago) Permalink
What about "I don't know about you but I'm fucking sick of this indie-lite electrodribble that permeates every airwave within earshot"?
― dog latin, Tuesday, 11 August 2009 15:38 (3 years ago) Permalink
Whiney, you do realize you just used the first person yourself five times in two sentences yourself, right?
― xhuxk, Tuesday, 11 August 2009 15:41 (3 years ago) Permalink
I'm posting on a message board, not writing for a paycheck!
― wooden shjipley (Whiney G. Weingarten), Tuesday, 11 August 2009 15:42 (3 years ago) Permalink
the mark richardson thing about lovely music in stylus is pretty much verbatim all the first person objections ur spoutin btw but imo its top5 great but I suppose its kinda like how it used to be pretty awesome when Buffy had to make some inspirational speech but in the last series she did it every episode and it was really tiresome?
― ❊❁❄❆❇❃✴❈plaxico❈✴❃❇❆❄❁❊ (I know, right?), Tuesday, 11 August 2009 15:44 (3 years ago) Permalink
xp (And I just used "yourself" twice in one sentence, duh.)
Anyway, first person is a tool, like any other tool. Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't. (As an editor at the Voice, I was frequently known to edit sentences from pitch emails back into submitted reviews in part because the emails did use the first person, and sounded less stiff and stilted and more conversational in the process. I.e., sometimes it helps make for better writing just because that's how people talk. So I've never bought the idea that "writing for a paycheck" required "detaching yourself from the subject.")
― xhuxk, Tuesday, 11 August 2009 15:47 (3 years ago) Permalink
Again, i'm not saying that it's always bad, but there's not a lot of writers who can pull it off without sounding like My First Fanzine
― wooden shjipley (Whiney G. Weingarten), Tuesday, 11 August 2009 15:49 (3 years ago) Permalink
"The first time I saw Spoon..."
So why would print them (unless it was a really good fanzine?)
Still, especially when space on the page is at a premium -- which it was even when wordcounts could get away with being ten times higher than they are now -- wasted words are wasted words, "I" included. (Though at least "I" is a fairly short word.)
― xhuxk, Tuesday, 11 August 2009 15:50 (3 years ago) Permalink
the mark richardson thing about lovely music in stylus
Think you mean Mike Powell, but Mark Richardson is a good example of someone who uses the first person to excellent effect in his Resonant Frequency column.
― jaymc, Tuesday, 11 August 2009 15:52 (3 years ago) Permalink
oops yeah
― ❊❁❄❆❇❃✴❈plaxico❈✴❃❇❆❄❁❊ (I know, right?), Tuesday, 11 August 2009 15:53 (3 years ago) Permalink
If you can write entertainingly, I forgive your first person narrative.
― Mark G, Tuesday, 11 August 2009 15:54 (3 years ago) Permalink
xhuxk on point
― max, Tuesday, 11 August 2009 15:59 (3 years ago) Permalink
xp "So why would print them?", I meant.
Anyway, bottom line is, no fucking way does the the detached pseudo-objective tone used in most glossies and daily newspapers make for better music writing than what I was printing week in and week out in the Voice for ten years (though sure, a few pieces I published may have sounded "Internetty" or whatever. Point was to have lots of different voices, so it'd be a miracle if anybody approved of all of them. I didn't want to ban Internetty writing -- which can be good too, sometimes -- either.)
On the other hand, I like the creativity with which guys like Sanneh at the Times have managed to get around the limitations against first person and swear words. A smart writer can work within those perimeters, too, and make it entertaining anyway.
― xhuxk, Tuesday, 11 August 2009 16:02 (3 years ago) Permalink
its funny you mention sanneh--his profile of michael savage in the nyer from a couple weeks ago was very careful about not using "i" (which i think is generally a no-go in the nyer, except in the personal essays they publish every once in a while) but still managed to tell a set of interesting stories about sanneh's own encounters w/ savage that sort of hinged on sannehs own specific experiences trying to set up an interview... in the end, though, i thought it would have been a better piece if they had let him use an authorial I
― max, Tuesday, 11 August 2009 16:06 (3 years ago) Permalink
wow that got convoluted
I thought about that, too.
Over the years, Savage has noticed that his disdain for the mainstream media is widely reciprocated ... So when he received an e-mail from a journalist asking for an interview, he was deeply suspicious. He read the e-mail on the air — he kept the writer anonymous, and didn’t mention that the request came from The New Yorker — and then asked his listeners, “Should I do the interview or not?”…
About a week later, Savage revisited the topic — “my continuing correspondence with a big-shot magazine writer.” He quoted the latest exchanges, along with his tart response, in which he asked, “Why must all of you in the extreme media paint everyone you disagree with as demonic? Why is the homosexual agenda so important to the midstream media?”
...
When he invited the journalist into one of his undisclosed locations, he proved to be a first-rate host, chatty and solicitous. A steady supply of beer refills lubricated the conversation (one of his earliest books was “The Taster’s Guide to Beer,” which was published in 1977), and as the temperature dropped and the sky above Berkeley started to turn orange, he seemed to be working hard to stay suspicious, despite himself. On his next show the next day, a caller asked how the interview had gone, and Savage described his interlocutor: "If I told you he looked like Obama, I wouldn't be far from the truth." Coming from him, this sounded like a deeply twisted compliment.
Sanneh has to resort to speaking of himself in the third person ("the journalist," "his interlocutor") but otherwise does a decent job with passive-ish phrases like "a steady supply of beer refills lubricated the conversation."
― jaymc, Tuesday, 11 August 2009 16:22 (3 years ago) Permalink
no i think you're OTM, that NYer piece was convoluted. it read to me like sanneh had a personal 1 on 1 reaction to savage that was quite different than what he expected and the resulting article would have been more effective and immediate using the "I" but the NYer has always employed a certain lofty distance from its subjects, even in the 70s it wasn't really into the personal/new journalism thing. well apart from pauline kael I guess.
but journalists do have to meet readers half-way. my problem with a lot of the vintage village voice stuff is that it's so personal to the point of being impenetrable or off-putting.
― m coleman, Tuesday, 11 August 2009 16:24 (3 years ago) Permalink
the best first person stuff illustrates how the subject of an interview interacts with other people, rather than "setting the scene"
― lex pretend, Tuesday, 11 August 2009 16:25 (3 years ago) Permalink
i'm guessing whiney's not big on fiction as a rule.
― strongohulkingtonsghost, Tuesday, 11 August 2009 16:26 (3 years ago) Permalink
I'm not big on fiction as a rule either, and one of the principles that was drilled into me when I started writing was that first-person is something you have to earn--expecting the reader who's never heard of you before to go along with I-I-I-me-me-me instead of saying "So what?" and moving to the next item is not generally a good idea--but I love first person writing even if (despite whatever reputation I may have for it due to the 33 1/3 book) I don't use it all that often professionally.
― Matos W.K., Tuesday, 11 August 2009 16:30 (3 years ago) Permalink
matos if you don't mind me asking: you're not big on fiction as a journalistic device or (gasp) you don't like reading novels?
― m coleman, Tuesday, 11 August 2009 16:36 (3 years ago) Permalink
I don't write fiction or about music, but first-person is the default in my area of writing (analytic philosophy). Sometimes we resort to the royal "we" if we're feeling nervous about first-person. But it was made clear to me that third-person is to be avoided, as is passive voice.
― deep olives (Euler), Tuesday, 11 August 2009 16:37 (3 years ago) Permalink
hang on, you're not big on reading fiction...at all?!
xp!
― lex pretend, Tuesday, 11 August 2009 16:37 (3 years ago) Permalink
xp I don't buy the "have to earn" thing. I'm not even sure what it means. If I listen to a song sung in the first person, I might be able to relate to, and be moved by, the song even if I'm unaware of the singer's specific biography. Not sure why reviews are necessarily different. You don't have to be a famous writer to have a life that creates a context.
― xhuxk, Tuesday, 11 August 2009 16:37 (3 years ago) Permalink
i thought he meant less that you have to earn it in the sense of being already famous or noteworthy, but in the sense that you have to earn it through your writing--i.e. you have to justify use of the first person in the piece itself, not necc explicitly, but at least in making your "I" of interest to the reader
― max, Tuesday, 11 August 2009 16:39 (3 years ago) Permalink
When it's well done - and it does have to be superbly well done, and yes, generally (but not always) "earnt" - first-person music writing is my favourite of all music writing. (And when it's pointlessly done, the reverse holds true.)
For my own part, I avoid it at least 95% of the time - but then I come from a personal-blogging background, and taking "myself" out of the equation was a deliberate, sought objective.
― mike t-diva, Tuesday, 11 August 2009 16:40 (3 years ago) Permalink
My first piece at the Voice (when no reader could've had any idea who I was) and a couple soon after were in the first person, fwiw. I seriously doubt they would have improved if the "I"'s had been edited out. (Whether they stunk regardless is another question, but they wouldn't have stunk less.)
Editorial "we" -- first person plural -- bugs the hell out of me no matter what, though. I never buy it, and I've fought editors to keep it out of my own writing (which usually they've been open to).
And btw, I've also edited at Billboard, where first person is almost never allowed. So it's not like I don't know that drill. I just don't like it much.
― xhuxk, Tuesday, 11 August 2009 16:45 (3 years ago) Permalink
Of course, at Billboard, the writing tended to be more news and less review-oriented. (So first person would have probably have made no sense anyway.)
― xhuxk, Tuesday, 11 August 2009 16:47 (3 years ago) Permalink
And I come from a journalism (and not fancy dancy "new journalism") background too. I came up covering zoning boards and sewage commissions, where objective detachment is strived for. Not saying I don't understand it there, obviously. When I'm defending first person, I'm specifically referring to criticism (though, when it comes to say artist features, I prefer criticism to be part of the deal.)
― xhuxk, Tuesday, 11 August 2009 16:51 (3 years ago) Permalink
i thought he meant less that you have to earn it in the sense of being already famous or noteworthy, but in the sense that you have to...justify use of the first person in the piece itself, not necc explicitly, but at least in making your "I" of interest to the reader
Well, obviously I buy this, if that's what Michaelangelo means. But in that sense, you need to earn whatever you put in your writing -- so first person's no different from anything else.
― xhuxk, Tuesday, 11 August 2009 16:54 (3 years ago) Permalink
I mean I don't read novels almost at all. Gasp!
― Matos W.K., Tuesday, 11 August 2009 16:59 (3 years ago) Permalink
xpost: If there's one thing I hate even more than editorial "we", it's the sort of "we" that includes both the writer and his/her presumed readership. ("When did we all fall in love with Kings Of Leon?")
― mike t-diva, Tuesday, 11 August 2009 17:01 (3 years ago) Permalink
haha please tell me you made that KoL quote up Mike
― Matos W.K., Tuesday, 11 August 2009 17:02 (3 years ago) Permalink
Really: What do you mean we, kemosabe? (Those ILM threads titled "What Do We Think Of [fill in the blank]?" are almost as bad.)
― xhuxk, Tuesday, 11 August 2009 17:04 (3 years ago) Permalink
Tbh, reading good first-person music writing is what made me want to write about music. (Or even reading bad first-person music writing: some Pitchfork stuff from around the turn of the century, though hard to read now, at least made me realize that criticism need not be all neutral/detached/objective.)
― jaymc, Tuesday, 11 August 2009 17:08 (3 years ago) Permalink
(Which, I should add, was mighty refreshing for someone who just wanted to write about his experiences with music and his reactions to listening to certain songs or albums without the burden of serving as some kind of authority.)
― jaymc, Tuesday, 11 August 2009 17:12 (3 years ago) Permalink
Avoiding first person is a good technique to get beyond the inherent subjectivity of reviewing music- it pushes the writer to find a common ground with the reader, rather than just reporting their personal reaction. I drop it if I start to get grandiose.
― bendy, Tuesday, 11 August 2009 17:26 (3 years ago) Permalink
lots of reasons here why i generally prefer reading about music on the internet just my personal opinion!
― ❊❁❄❆❇❃✴❈plaxico❈✴❃❇❆❄❁❊ (I know, right?), Tuesday, 11 August 2009 17:35 (3 years ago) Permalink
Re this, exhaustively shat upon by Eric Boehlert.
http://mediamatters.org/columns/200908030038
Related:
http://mediamatters.org/columns/200908110005
― Gorge, Tuesday, 11 August 2009 18:09 (3 years ago) Permalink
"Avoiding first person is a good technique to get beyond the inherent subjectivity of reviewing music- it pushes the writer to find a common ground with the reader, rather than just reporting their personal reaction. I drop it if I start to get grandiose."
I think this is one of the root issues but it also points to the fallacy of avoiding first person - the technique assumes that it's the specific use of "I" that makes music writing solipsistic or uncommunicative. It also suggests that that the choice is between solipsism and objectivity (I accept that specific publications may have other reasons for disliking it).
But it's not hard to write a review that avoids using "I" but still reads like the writer has never thought to question their personal reactions, their prejudices, their assumptions.
Learning to adopt a critical perspective w/r/t those things has a lot to do with how you relate to music generally, how you try to convey what the music is actually doing etc. etc.
Kogan is a good example of a writer who puts himself into the story but still makes the music's potential to affect different people differently the star attraction.
― Tim F, Tuesday, 11 August 2009 23:33 (3 years ago) Permalink
The tendency to lean toward the first person is usually an indicator of a writer being green but not always of self-obsession. A lot of these throw away 'I thinks', 'I feels', 'as I was saying to x' etc come from a nervousness about stating an opinion without a crutch or without reflexively reminding people that, it's just, like, their opinion, man. All reviews and value judgements are obviously the opinion of the writer. We can tell because it's prefixed with a byline. It's just that if a writer is all apologetic and constantly reminding people that it's all subjective innit, they won't get ripped to shreds on the internet. Or not as much anyway.
But it's a writer's job to be authoritative. In, er, my opinion it is anyway.
It's more acceptable in features but then the reasoning still has to be solid behind it. I've been stabbed during or around three interviews. Once accidentally by a member of a band while we were larking about, once purposefully by a band member during a play fight that got out of hand and once after getting so drunk in an interview I got thrown out of the hotel by security and got stabbed randomly outside.
The first piece was written third person with only passing mention of boisterous high spirits. The incident was unremarkable. Barely drew blood. The second time was pertinent. The guy was a loon and this helped to illustrate that. Some of the piece was written in the first person. It was impossible to write it neatly otherwise. The third incident was ignored and the piece was written in the third person. A good pub story perhaps but nothing to do with the band or the story.
Once I got to an interview with Matt C from The Bronx to find out that we'd both broken our noses the night before. That was kind of on the cusp. Could have been written either way. Just about interesting enough as a jumping off point to be worth including.
As a rule you shouldn't do it unless it's an on the road/reportage piece or you have a unique involvement in the story that no one else has (or at least your readers don't). That said - and I'm twisting Eric Arthur Blair to my own ends on this - I'd break any rule about writing I have rather than write something barbaric.
(And house style rules. If you can't write a piece around I said/we said/Rolling Stone said and still make it readable, maybe you shouldn't be writing. It's fairly straightforward after all.)
Co-sign everything that guy said about a variety of voices on a magazine.
― Doran, Wednesday, 12 August 2009 10:37 (3 years ago) Permalink
Re. "authoritative": should music writers attain a certain level of knowledge of music before setting up as arbiters of taste?
― smoke weed every day, Wednesday, 12 August 2009 11:06 (3 years ago) Permalink
Not necessarily because knowing loads about music doesn't necessarily give you good taste in music and beyond that 'good taste' is a bogus concept on its own.
It's up to the individual writer not to make a fool out of themselves/magazine that's hired them. Canonical thinking is the enemy of good music writing but that doesn't mean you shouldn't know about this stuff anyway. I mean, I hate the Beatles and a lot of other big groups from the 60s and won't write about them as a rule but it doesn't mean I don't have a basic grounding in them.
Some writers set up this completely false binary of the job being fusty old rock professors with their "facts" and everything and young, free spirited rebels who don't know about the music but who can "feel" it and "live" it. Somehow suggesting that the more you know about music, the less you can actually appreciate it, which is obviously not true.
― Doran, Wednesday, 12 August 2009 11:23 (3 years ago) Permalink
good for you for fighting the power
― max, Wednesday, 12 August 2009 11:32 (3 years ago) Permalink
i can't believe people are still arguing this stuff.
― strongohulkingtonsghost, Wednesday, 12 August 2009 11:37 (3 years ago) Permalink
^^^ probably listens to the beatles
― max, Wednesday, 12 August 2009 11:38 (3 years ago) Permalink
i'll fight you for that.
― strongohulkingtonsghost, Wednesday, 12 August 2009 11:38 (3 years ago) Permalink
with a broken copy of rubber soul.
― strongohulkingtonsghost, Wednesday, 12 August 2009 11:39 (3 years ago) Permalink
i dont think u have earned the right to fight me
― max, Wednesday, 12 August 2009 11:40 (3 years ago) Permalink
It's more acceptable in features but then the reasoning still has to be solid behind it. I've been stabbed during or around four interviews. Once accidentally by a member of a band while we were larking about, once purposefully by a band member during a play fight that got out of hand and once after getting so drunk in an interview I got thrown out of the hotel by security and got stabbed randomly outside. And once in the arm with a broken record by the ghost of a well-known music bloggist after I made some heavy accusations.
― max, Wednesday, 12 August 2009 11:42 (3 years ago) Permalink
for example's sake, here's a review i wrote last year that uses the first-person twice in the first two sentences, and then never again. especially writing in that venue, it felt honest and useful to state up front my own skepticism about the band. it tells the reader -- whatever their own position on the band -- where i'm coming from, and also establishes a little bit of critical tension. i'm sure i could have written the same thing without the first-person, but it would have been less direct, and i don't think would have improved anything.
― flying squid attack (tipsy mothra), Wednesday, 12 August 2009 13:47 (3 years ago) Permalink
It works fine, tipsy (and your review is first-rate).
― Anatomy of a Morbius (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Wednesday, 12 August 2009 13:49 (3 years ago) Permalink
that is a really nice review, but I would have edited the first sentence out if you had turned it in to me since its burying the lede. Ppl are picking up the article to read about DBT, not tipsy mothra.
― can au jus (Whiney G. Weingarten), Wednesday, 12 August 2009 13:55 (3 years ago) Permalink
not to dog yr review, becuz it is a v nice review.
no that's fine, i've had editors who think the same way. i don't have strong feelings about it, it just isn't always a big deal to me as a writer or an editor. (and thanks.)
― flying squid attack (tipsy mothra), Wednesday, 12 August 2009 14:04 (3 years ago) Permalink
a pretty large amount of my freelancing is live reviews, and i don't always write in the first person, but sometimes in those situations you kinda have to -- i think when strongo was my editor a more 'editorial we'-or-avoid-it-altogether thing was reccomended, but now that he isn't i get away with straight up first person more. it's just awkward to go by yourself to a show where there's maybe 5 other people in the audience, and then later on not be able to talk about the experience without referring to the obvious fact that you were just a guy in the room and not some omniscient observer. i don't think i've used first person in record reviews much at all, if ever (although i use it a lot in casual, vaguely review-y blog posts because who cares, and also i hate when one-person blogs refer to themselves in the third person like they're Rolling Stone or something).
― ringtone lizard (some dude), Wednesday, 12 August 2009 14:10 (3 years ago) Permalink
(should note here the "editorial we" was a diktat imposed from above. there's actually little i hate more than the editorial we. (about six months before i left cp i just gave up and started shoving first person in anywhere it made a piece flow better.))
― strongohulkingtonsghost, Wednesday, 12 August 2009 14:12 (3 years ago) Permalink
yeah -- not blaming/crediting you with the policy at all, dog, just saying i think you enforced it more
― ringtone lizard (some dude), Wednesday, 12 August 2009 14:14 (3 years ago) Permalink
(that's not to say i wanted people running wild with first-person, either, but it makes anyone sound less goofy than referring to him/herself like the king/queen of a small, bankrupt nation.)
― strongohulkingtonsghost, Wednesday, 12 August 2009 14:14 (3 years ago) Permalink
i dunno, i think sentences like "Your Royal Eloquence then retreated to the bar, and ignored the opening band" would really make a piece come to life.
― ringtone lizard (some dude), Wednesday, 12 August 2009 14:24 (3 years ago) Permalink
maybe lou-jag can punch up my prose for a fee
― ringtone lizard (some dude), Wednesday, 12 August 2009 14:26 (3 years ago) Permalink
I've always liked it when reporters refer to themselves as the name of their newspaper. It's stupid but endearing. "The Observer caught up with Mickey Rourke at last night's charity fandango, but he got away again."
― Tracer Hand, Wednesday, 12 August 2009 14:30 (3 years ago) Permalink
"Stereogum stirred his drink, stifled a cough, and then continued the interview"
― ringtone lizard (some dude), Wednesday, 12 August 2009 14:53 (3 years ago) Permalink
I'm always endeared by the NY Times' second-and-subsequent references to a subject as "Mr." or "Ms". . Now and then, when Mr. Korvette ripped into a new song looking as if he was going to eat his microphone, or when the band started a new, messy riff, leaking feedback and channeling Black Sabbath or Black Flag, it seemed that this was going to be a very good gig.
― bendy, Wednesday, 12 August 2009 14:59 (3 years ago) Permalink
I wonder what the call would be on Mr. Horribly Charred Infant. Mr. Infant, Mr. Charred Infant?
― bendy, Wednesday, 12 August 2009 15:01 (3 years ago) Permalink
I remember reading an article that read something like "[name of artist] was friendly and demure throughout the evening, even pausing the conversation to pick up Select's sunglasses from off the table to stop them getting scratched"...
Incredible, I didn't know magazines wore sunglasses.
― dog latin, Wednesday, 12 August 2009 15:07 (3 years ago) Permalink
only Fader does
― ringtone lizard (some dude), Wednesday, 12 August 2009 15:08 (3 years ago) Permalink
at some point thats really just a branding thing isnt it? publishers want you to think of the magazine as the source of the information, not the writer. saying "steven tyler was kind enough to buy max a lollipop" attaches max to the cool steven tyler story, whereas "steven tyler was kind enough to buy the paris review a lollipop" attaches the paris review to the cool steven tyler story
― max, Wednesday, 12 August 2009 15:10 (3 years ago) Permalink
Ppl are picking up the article to read about DBT, not tipsy mothra.
Does it have to be one or the other? I mean, part of what I like about film critics like Roger Ebert and David Edelstein is that they're smart guys who write in this breezy, friendly, conversational tone. They put their cards on the table -- they admit to their biases, they worry they're being too harsh or too kind, etc. This is all very endearing to me, and I'd much rather read them than most boilerplate movie criticism, since I like the overall effect of feeling like I know them.
― jaymc, Wednesday, 12 August 2009 15:11 (3 years ago) Permalink
dnr u were writing for paris review btw
― ❊❁❄❆❇❃✴❈plaxico❈✴❃❇❆❄❁❊ (I know, right?), Wednesday, 12 August 2009 15:11 (3 years ago) Permalink
also, so awesome hanging out with aerosmith and eating candy
― ❊❁❄❆❇❃✴❈plaxico❈✴❃❇❆❄❁❊ (I know, right?), Wednesday, 12 August 2009 15:12 (3 years ago) Permalink
ill let u know when the article goes live
― max, Wednesday, 12 August 2009 15:12 (3 years ago) Permalink
i have a similar reaction in q-and-a's, when instead of just Q, it says VF or something. like the entirety of vanity fair is having drinks with penelope cruz.
(altho for all i know, "drinks with penelope cruz" is a monthly staff event at vanity fair.)
― flying squid attack (tipsy mothra), Wednesday, 12 August 2009 15:13 (3 years ago) Permalink
one of the many fabled conde nast perks
― max, Wednesday, 12 August 2009 15:14 (3 years ago) Permalink
now downsized to bar snax with jessica biel.
― flying squid attack (tipsy mothra), Wednesday, 12 August 2009 15:15 (3 years ago) Permalink
Back to The New Yorker, the Talk of the Town is often the most aggravating at this avoidance of the first person, because half the articles are little observational reports on Manhattan cocktail parties or society events, as though The New Yorker is just a fly on the wall, eavesdropping on people's conversations, which invariably include "a journalist," as though we didn't know it was actually you, Lizzie Widdicombe, with your fancy connections. Thing is, I don't think I'd mind half as much if they went back to omitting bylines, because then I wouldn't be as aware that there was a specific journalist responsible and wouldn't idly wonder "how did she get invited to this?"
― jaymc, Wednesday, 12 August 2009 15:31 (3 years ago) Permalink
yeah i dont mind the third person thing but it would work a lot better if they removed the bylines
― max, Wednesday, 12 August 2009 15:32 (3 years ago) Permalink
i don't really like the omitting of bylines anytime it's not necessary; i hate flipping through the bigger music mags and seeing all these little articles and regular features that might have an interesting voice or perspective or just make me curious who wrote it, and there's either no name or "by staff"-type line at the bottom.
― ringtone lizard (some dude), Wednesday, 12 August 2009 15:39 (3 years ago) Permalink
the economist, which is prob my fav magazine out there, certainly the best-written, omits all bylines - and has a hugely distinct, consistent house style throughout - i suspect its quality is at least partly down to this
i love the gossip columns which refer to themselves in character - pendennis, pandora &c (americans won't get those sorry)
― lex pretend, Wednesday, 12 August 2009 15:45 (3 years ago) Permalink
The Daily Howler has a habit of referring to "our analysts" and "our staff" when I'm pretty sure he means "me, sitting at my laptop in my underwear."
― Tracer Hand, Wednesday, 12 August 2009 15:48 (3 years ago) Permalink
"I've always liked it when reporters refer to themselves as the name of their newspaper. It's stupid but endearing. "The Observer caught up with Mickey Rourke at last night's charity fandango, but he got away again.""
this has always been fun for me as a reader, though i try not to do it myself. well, when i've interviewed whoever and i have an intro that presages the Q&A, i do the "XXX publication caught up with Katy Perry last week via email and discussed, A, B, and C" thing because it's what a lot of publications i write for do. when in rome, etc.
― Gang Gang Sign (Waaaavvves Remix) (Beatrix Kiddo), Wednesday, 12 August 2009 16:02 (3 years ago) Permalink
okay, i'm going to try to steer things in a different direction for a second.
one of the biggest issues i have with some blogs (and even some more 'professional' publications/sites) is the level to which many don't even talk about music any longer. some examples:
A flat sea lit by infinite jetties of Crocketian excess. Sleek yachts deathly still in their moorings. The conspiracy of their impossible symmetry visible only from above, hanging in the cloudless night, or below in the warm throbbing abyssal depths.
The purple night laid out before her older self, wooden platforms leading out across the sea offering up each boat’s bass heavy delights. A network of unobtainable ritual dances. Moving between the vessels, stars vibrate as a precursor to the bacchanalian delights on offer.
She pauses, the infinite possibilities of the night on water beneath her feet. Adrenaline bubbling to a peak, managed, subsiding, then surging once more. The anticipation paralysing her in ecstatic indecision…
OR
They’re having boat parties in America! All ‘cross the territories, from Italo-disco glides tracing the very edges of New York to the viney boondocks of Missouri, citizens are hauling bold bodies to the waterside and filling aquaways with bustle and blood, red cells under a transient spell of summer. NPIP, too! - in shilly-shally dock shoes and rolled-up jeans, holidaying in the surf, talking to the faces. Faces to listen to, too! - punk sons of out-of-work raftsmen talking all Tom Sawyer; sons of richer men falling in with the wrong crowd and - better - daughters, chewing on river-reeds and shooting doe; bug-eyed acid kids floating in a cherry-pink spume, vigilant sentries for any angry langoustine and (god forbid) kill-krill. We sang and boister-bought as the light changed over our heads, put bricks through the window of the run-down boat-house and ran off guffawing into the woods to doze like drunken apes in trees.
This is a deck of lies of course. NPIP spent last night on the banks of the Thames, glugging kidnapped cans and looking on as the party boats, pumping stale sound out into the air, pottered up from under London Bridge and far enough past the one that shook ("synchronous lateral excitation") to disappear on the way to Vauxhall or Westminster or Blackfriars, before returning, louder and drunker and, somewhat inconceivably, with even worse music wafting from their tow. YMCA?! Balls to Village idiots. We need our own boat party.
WHAT THE FUCK.
― nice! he have the balls to say the truth! (the table is the table), Wednesday, 12 August 2009 16:08 (3 years ago) Permalink
no need to be dry and terribly serious in music writing, but this is just...not good music writing.
― nice! he have the balls to say the truth! (the table is the table), Wednesday, 12 August 2009 16:09 (3 years ago) Permalink
thats always sort of been 20jfg's "thing" hasnt it? baroque ott descriptions of the MP3s theyre putting up?
― max, Wednesday, 12 August 2009 16:12 (3 years ago) Permalink
i kind of like it tho i dont blame anyone for skipping over those paragraphs. but that blog i think is better known and loved for its curatorial skills than for its writing--i could be wrong.
― max, Wednesday, 12 August 2009 16:13 (3 years ago) Permalink
well, yes. i still think it is fucking stupid, and hardly ever read a word they post-- i listen to the embedded player, and if i like, i download. the writing does nothing for me.
― nice! he have the balls to say the truth! (the table is the table), Wednesday, 12 August 2009 16:14 (3 years ago) Permalink
"glugging kidnapped cans"
I hate when people try to use "colourful" language in this way, "drinking cans" is ten times stronger than the above, if you're investing meaning in drinking cans then say DRINKING CANS.
― I for one welcome this new Nazi ILX (Local Garda), Wednesday, 12 August 2009 16:15 (3 years ago) Permalink
and let the reader agree or disagree that it merits a mention
yeah table id wager youre not the only one. like i said i can dig on their writing if im in the mood--but if music writing as a whole went in that direction i wouldnt be aboard. at all.
― max, Wednesday, 12 August 2009 16:16 (3 years ago) Permalink
one nice thing about blogs is theres room for everyone!
― max, Wednesday, 12 August 2009 16:17 (3 years ago) Permalink
hate this kind of thing even in a blog where it is a group project. "we at blog x...." or "here at blog x we try to...blah blah blah"
― I for one welcome this new Nazi ILX (Local Garda), Wednesday, 12 August 2009 16:18 (3 years ago) Permalink
the second example i posted is so much worse than the first.. i even had a little email fite with the guy who wrote it, because i thought he did a terrible job of describing a great track.
― nice! he have the balls to say the truth! (the table is the table), Wednesday, 12 August 2009 16:24 (3 years ago) Permalink
i admire ur dedication to keeping up the standards of internet writing table but i wonder if ur not needlessly raising your blood pressure
― max, Wednesday, 12 August 2009 16:25 (3 years ago) Permalink
I think you should escalate the email fite into a knife fite.
― I for one welcome this new Nazi ILX (Local Garda), Wednesday, 12 August 2009 16:26 (3 years ago) Permalink
eh.
― nice! he have the balls to say the truth! (the table is the table), Wednesday, 12 August 2009 16:28 (3 years ago) Permalink
perhaps i come across as too strong-headed...i'm not really that pissed or anything about the phenomenon. it's more like a really annoying mosquito-bite-- i just want it to go away.
― nice! he have the balls to say the truth! (the table is the table), Wednesday, 12 August 2009 16:29 (3 years ago) Permalink
Whenever I read that kind of writing, I recall the Peanut strips where Charlie Brown is recounting his dreams in detail, and Linus is nodding off or trying to escape.
― bendy, Wednesday, 12 August 2009 17:14 (3 years ago) Permalink
20jkg is awesome but i'm not gonna actually read it or anythin
― ❊❁❄❆❇❃✴❈plaxico❈✴❃❇❆❄❁❊ (I know, right?), Wednesday, 12 August 2009 19:21 (3 years ago) Permalink
Another question for you all, amateurs and pros... What is the best way to get or pitch for freelance work? I'm currently building a bit of experience simply writing for free, which is all fine and dandy, but I'm only writing about 5 short album revews a month, so it's becoming a bit repetitive and I'd like to eventually get a bit more work, and maybe one day get paid a little for the effort.
Is it better to write a letter to the editor saying "I'm me, I do this, I'm interested in whether you have any freelance opportunities at the moment" or OTOH should I have some ideas for features already prepared that I should pitch directly upon initial contact? Should I send portfolio examples straight away and should they be scans of the edited versions or my own unedited versions? Is it even worth sending complete unpublished articles and saying "here's an article, wanna print it?" or is that just silly?
― dog latin, Thursday, 13 August 2009 11:40 (3 years ago) Permalink
dl, to everything in yr second paragraph i'd say yes - say you're available, suggest some ideas, include a couple of short examples - short of sending the unpublished article. all of the former are essential in pitching to a new editor.
― like i'm the fucking orange juice man (stevie), Thursday, 13 August 2009 11:53 (3 years ago) Permalink
And I don't want to state the obvious but the majority of people who email me for work spell shit wrong, haven't read the site properly. Come correct, as the boxer dude (who looks like Marvin Gaye) out of The Wire, might say.
― Doran, Thursday, 13 August 2009 13:12 (3 years ago) Permalink
I've only ever cold-pitched once. I didn't hear anything back, and I didn't chase the pitch up as a) self-promotion makes me squirm and b) parts of the pitch itself made me squirm. However, the editor did eventually came back to me - nearly two years later, having spotted something I wrote elsewhere - and comissions ensued from there. So, um, you never know...
All my other freelance gigs (such as they are) have resulted from editors making the initial approach to me, on the strength of work which they've seen elsewhere. (Friends who have edited fiction and poetry tell me that this how things normally operate, and that scouting is part of an editor's job, but I don't know how much this applies to music journalism.) This has provided me with enough work to keep me happy - but then freelancing is something I do on top of the day job, so I'm not looking to work constantly, or indeed to earn a living wage from it.
That said, I do sometimes find myself wondering what would happen if I wasn't so shy of pushing myself forward.
― mike t-diva, Thursday, 13 August 2009 13:44 (3 years ago) Permalink
I cold-pitch myself every once in a while. Shit, I wrote the editor of JazzTimes an email this very week looking for work. (He said their masthead's overcrowded as is right now, and he's gonna prioritize the roster he's got. Which is perfectly fine; that's what Albert Mudrian told me when Metal Edge went under and he was mobbed by our writers, and I totally understand.)
Speaking as an editor, I have recruited writers whose work I liked...just dropped 'em an email saying "Hey, would you like to write for Metal Edge?" I have not generally hired writers who came to me, because the samples were boring, bad, etc.
― unperson, Thursday, 13 August 2009 15:28 (3 years ago) Permalink
I'm at a point where I've got as much freelance as I can handle without going insane - and this is after losing some gigs because (a) places have gone under, (b) space is sphincter-tight, or (c) editors have revealed themselves to be either inept at corresponding or severely overworked (and i'm talking about editors who I'd worked for for years before, suddenly, my submissions and pitches vanished into the ether and my inquiries after same began to be roundly ignored).
Have I sent cold-pitches in the last year or so? Sure. I've even gotten some feedback. But until one or two outlets disappear or don't need my services, I'm not gonna bother. There are only so many hours in a day, and I have a family and friends, and I have a super-demanding full-time job.
(And I'm starting my own online concern, because I am insane.)
― I'M IN MIAMI, TRICK-OR-TREAT (Beatrix Kiddo), Thursday, 13 August 2009 16:15 (3 years ago) Permalink
I used to get several writers pitching me every week at the Voice. Always got back to them, and always told them I needed to see examples of their writing, preferably as published. Then, if they didn't send ideas, I sent them back to the drawing board.
Never understood writers who figured an editor would just stumble on their byline somewhere and they'd be called out of the blue, but then again I don't understand people who buy lottery tickets, either. I already had scores of writers to choose from; the idea that I'd go hunting for new ones who hadn't even contacted me is, well, really wishful thinking.
Well actually, once in a while, I would see somebody's writing somewhere else and be impressed enough to track them down, or I'd really be in a pinch for some obscure genre specialist and I'd go out hunting, but those were exceptions to the rule.
Anyway, if I still had that job, here's what I'd say: (1) Send clips first (I prefered hard copies to links, because I didn't want to do your work for you, but then I'm old); THEN (2) send specific pitch ideas, in an email convincing me that the topic is worth covering. Not "if you ever need somebody to write about something, I'm here."
― xhuxk, Thursday, 13 August 2009 16:18 (3 years ago) Permalink
I mean, obviously if you're already a household name (if you can be reasonably sure the editor would know your work without googling), sending clips might not be necessary. But when I was editor, that applied to fewer writers than you'd think (and at the Voice, since I ran Pazz & Jop, I probably had the most extensive database of music critics on earth. So I can't imagine it would be different anywhere else.)
― xhuxk, Thursday, 13 August 2009 16:23 (3 years ago) Permalink
Chuck, I'm one of those writers who pitched you and received a thorough, welcoming, quick-turnaround reply! You never were into my pitches, but I appreciated you taking the time to say "no thanks."
I've never been recruited, probably because I don't write for super high-profile outlets.
― I'M IN MIAMI, TRICK-OR-TREAT (Beatrix Kiddo), Thursday, 13 August 2009 16:35 (3 years ago) Permalink
Before the Collapse of 2006, I sent cold pitches all the time, with clips attached (xhuxk actually gave me the second fastest turnaround I've ever experienced).
― Anatomy of a Morbius (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Thursday, 13 August 2009 16:42 (3 years ago) Permalink
Writers thought I was really efficient at getting back to them! But really I just neurotic; figured if I didn't answer right away, I'd never get around to it. (Billboard was a little different, btw, since the stable of freelancers was smaller, and the pay was less than it had been at the Voice, and since people who can write about the industry are rarer, especially certain segments of the industry. So there, I did spend more time looking for writers. At the Voice, they came looking for me.)
― xhuxk, Thursday, 13 August 2009 16:50 (3 years ago) Permalink
xhuxk was the the fastest turnaround in the biz. i did do my best to always reply in a timely fashion to pitches, but my "best" varied widely. to be kind.
― strongohulkingtonsghost, Thursday, 13 August 2009 16:53 (3 years ago) Permalink
jess, you were pretty fast, man!
― I'M IN MIAMI, TRICK-OR-TREAT (Beatrix Kiddo), Thursday, 13 August 2009 16:54 (3 years ago) Permalink
we should start a thread on the slow, cruel death of the print music review? or just talk about it here?
― I'M IN MIAMI, TRICK-OR-TREAT (Beatrix Kiddo), Friday, 14 August 2009 13:50 (3 years ago) Permalink
i think it's been discussed on a few threads (weingarten's recent speech at the twitter conference raised a lot of discussion) but feel free to talk about it here. that said i'd prefer if this thread could focus more on positive discussion, hints and tips, solid examples rather than hundreds of people moaning into their pints about shit bloggers etc.
― dog latin, Friday, 14 August 2009 15:52 (3 years ago) Permalink
sorry man.
i'll try to think of some advice.
oh, wait, here's a chestnut: don't delete your article from your email system's "sent messages" queue (or your hard drive) until it's seen print. why? because your editor could inadvertantly delete it.
this sounds like common sense, but i lost some stuff forever because i was young and foolish.
― I'M IN MIAMI, TRICK-OR-TREAT (Beatrix Kiddo), Friday, 14 August 2009 15:55 (3 years ago) Permalink
if we're going to talk about it, better to focus on how (and if) it is possible to get printed reviews back on track.
i still buy magazines from time to time, but there's nothing to really get my teeth into on the news stand these days. i either feel that i'm being patronised by feeble indie weeklies (NME) trying to force things down my neck, being reminded how great old music is (MOJO, Uncut etc), or am subject to amateurish attempts at hip design values cabled together with very dry reportage (Artrocker, Notion whatever other upstart rag'll end up collapsing within a couple of months) that purposefully avoids the yellow-journalism of the aforementioned indie weeklies by avoiding all humour and interesting points.
Select was my bag back in the day, and I felt they got everything right - knowledge, subject matter, humour, diverse content, subjectivity etc.
― dog latin, Friday, 14 August 2009 16:01 (3 years ago) Permalink
xpost :-) cheers
― dog latin, Friday, 14 August 2009 16:02 (3 years ago) Permalink
I don't buy magazines, either. At this point, I'd only buy the Wire, but it's just way too expensive, so I read it in the tsore then leave.
― I'M IN MIAMI, TRICK-OR-TREAT (Beatrix Kiddo), Friday, 14 August 2009 16:05 (3 years ago) Permalink
bea, who are you? i've been gone too long to keep up with the namehopping.
― strongohulkingtonsghost, Friday, 14 August 2009 16:14 (3 years ago) Permalink
ray cummings
― I'M IN MIAMI, TRICK-OR-TREAT (Beatrix Kiddo), Friday, 14 August 2009 16:23 (3 years ago) Permalink
Didn't pitch my first thing at the Voice, or at Creem many years ago, for that matter. Just sent them in. xhuxk told me he probably couldn't use it. I forgot about it. A bit later he e-mailed back and asked me to resend it but I deleted it. At the time, my e-mailer was one which didn't stash a copy of everything sent.
Anyway, stopped pitching in music for two reasons: The pitches were getting half as long to as long as the paragraph reviews. Got tired of the quid pro quo required to get review copies in a timely manner.
― Gorge, Friday, 14 August 2009 16:23 (3 years ago) Permalink
"Got tired of the quid pro quo required to get review copies in a timely manner."
i actually wrote a few reviews for a mag a year or two ago, then stopped, because the editor a) wouldn't send review copies and b) wouldn't pay me.(which is to say he just stopped writing back to me. i called and left some messages, no dice.)
which sucks because i no longer have copies of the reviews - which i was really proud of - in my email and flat out refuse to subsidize the mag by buying it.
― I'M IN MIAMI, TRICK-OR-TREAT (Beatrix Kiddo), Friday, 14 August 2009 16:28 (3 years ago) Permalink
anyway, that's more hatorade, and i should chip in with advice, right?
here's a basic one: spell-check your copy. when you're swamped and in a hurry, it's easy to not do this. i'm guilty of it myself. but if you do it, that's less work for your editor, and your editor will appreciate it. (probably.)
― I'M IN MIAMI, TRICK-OR-TREAT (Beatrix Kiddo), Friday, 14 August 2009 16:30 (3 years ago) Permalink
when people were talking about pitching mags and papers i got a shiver when i thought about the only time i actually sent e-mails and letters to people (i was a baby daddy at the time and not working so i thought i would have more time to write) in order to get more work. the only magazine that got back to me was magnet. the less said about the stuff i wrote for them the better. oh, and blender contacted me and asked me to send them more stuff and i did and then i never heard from them again. (for which i am eternally grateful) anyway, i realized then and there that i could never hack it as a freelancer. and that i was much better off not worrying about and writing for fun. or occasionally writing for people i liked if they asked me. mostly ilxors! (i got my job thru the ilx!) it was hard then and now i imagine it is a LOT harder. i mean, it's hard for everyone in the print biz now. my advice - i have advice! - to anyone with a, um, burning desire to write about music is to d.i.y. as much as possible. get together with like-minded people and start your own website. put out your own books with an e-press and hawk them on the street. or whatever. use the cheap and easy tech available. if it's good stuff, maybe someone will notice. or maybe they won't. in any case, try and have fun with it. start a zine! zines are on the rise! no, really. cuz there is almost NOTHING good on newsstands these days. NOTHING. when i think of a perfect world where i could write for a cool magazine - other than the cool magazine i write for every month - i draw a blank. if mojo or the wire called me up and asked me to do something, i would. i like them. that's about it. for real. so, there IS definitely room for something cool out there if you are willing to work it.
― scott seward, Friday, 14 August 2009 16:51 (3 years ago) Permalink
The tricky part is getting people to buy it. For reasons which escape me, Mojo and Classic Rock can exist in the UK. But stuff like that fails here, discounting the fact that they work as imports at urban bookstore mag racks.
Well, maybe they don't really escape me. I'd guess the audience for Mojo and Classic Rock is older and still familiar with the idea of paying for stuff. Kind of like the base for Guitar Player.
― Gorge, Friday, 14 August 2009 17:11 (3 years ago) Permalink
xp Yeah, George was definitely an exception in the pitching (or even assigning) department -- He pretty much sent everything to me on Spec, and I wound up printing most everything he sent eventually. Thing is, George had an extremely good grasp of wordcounts (he sent lots of sidebar-length reviews I could use to plug in holes on pages), my sense of humor, my musical tastes, subjects other writers wouldn't be writing about and could be fairly evergreen (in other words, the records were so otherwise unnoticed that nobody else would notice if I ran the reviews five months after he sent them.) I wouldn't necessarily recommend that anybody follow his lead -- certainly not now; in fact, I have no idea where you could get away with it now, with alt-weekly editors seemingly operating under limitations I never had to deal with.
― xhuxk, Friday, 14 August 2009 17:13 (3 years ago) Permalink
Scott may have sent stuff on Spec now and then too, come to think of it -- Or maybe we'd at least exchange emails about it first? Maybe he remembers.
― xhuxk, Friday, 14 August 2009 17:15 (3 years ago) Permalink
it has always amazed me that those magazines exist. when i see one of those special uncut issues devoted to one band especially. the things are massive! on really nice paper! they are as handsome as books.
but when i said do it yourself, i meant the real deal of olden tymes. handmade. hand stapled. an old xerox machine! if you put out a cool rock zine you could sell it to every smelly record store on the planet. there is almost nothing to choose from these days.
xhuxk-post
― scott seward, Friday, 14 August 2009 17:15 (3 years ago) Permalink
Actually, I had a similar experience with you, Chuck - everything I sent on spec got printed, while everything I pitched got rejected.
― unperson, Friday, 14 August 2009 17:15 (3 years ago) Permalink
Maybe Dave Queen sent stuff on Spec, too? But those guys are weirdos. (And George, especially, is a really fast writer; he can churn stuff out in his sleep.)
― xhuxk, Friday, 14 August 2009 17:17 (3 years ago) Permalink
One thing related to Beatrix's posts: Use Google Docs. that's what we use at XLR8R, and it works like a charm-- not only can you share with editors easily, you can also go back to previous drafts of things to do comparisons, etc. i've been using the Docs system since it was in beta, i guess, and it has saved my ass numerous times.
― nice! he have the balls to say the truth! (the table is the table), Friday, 14 August 2009 17:17 (3 years ago) Permalink
I think I'll download that program, table! Was just reading about it in Chris Anderson's new book, had never known it existed.
― I'M IN MIAMI, TRICK-OR-TREAT (Beatrix Kiddo), Friday, 14 August 2009 17:18 (3 years ago) Permalink
also, i am gonna rep for xlr8r here and say that it does a better job that 95% of the music magazines that i read.
― nice! he have the balls to say the truth! (the table is the table), Friday, 14 August 2009 17:19 (3 years ago) Permalink
you don't download it! you just use it on the web-- easy uploads, too, so you can write something sans internet and then just zip it on up when yr connect is together.
― nice! he have the balls to say the truth! (the table is the table), Friday, 14 August 2009 17:20 (3 years ago) Permalink
He pretty much sent everything to me on Spec, and I wound up printing most everything he sent eventually
Very true, but everything else I wrote for the mag -- and in toto I wrote for every section except movie reviews, including a cover piece -- I pitched. And that was quite a lot.
― Gorge, Friday, 14 August 2009 17:21 (3 years ago) Permalink
The other good thing was being able to invoice the Voice for the CDs if they weren't review copies. Which took the publicists and the quid pro quo arrangement right out of the loop, very good things.
― Gorge, Friday, 14 August 2009 17:22 (3 years ago) Permalink
the first one or two things I wrote the voice were done on spec, but that was seven years ago and i dunno how many places are looking for reviews that aren't mega timely now
― da croupier, Friday, 14 August 2009 17:23 (3 years ago) Permalink
the demise of pop music criticism reflects the general decline of print media overall and as Gorge says the disinclination to "pay for stuff" w/r/t music
not just downloading and filesharing but streaming leaks and previews -- all the ways legal and ill that people can access music now has radically changed the role of critic as gatekeeper and tastemaker. getting an advance copy of a new release no longer gives writers a leg-up on consumers. and in the internet age I think music aficionados actually read MORE about music but they do so from a variety of sources rather than one trusted outlet like a magazine or alt weekly or authoritative critic. pardon the cliche but the playing field has been leveled. and over-run with people publishing their own opionions theories rants and discourse on blogs messageboards online publications what have you. scott is right: at this point you have take in your own hands and DIY. figure out something people want to read about and give it to them. the money will come eventually, maybe. better that then making a million compromises and getting your copy shred to ribbons and then getting stiffed just so you can say you're published. it's meaningless.
― m coleman, Friday, 14 August 2009 17:26 (3 years ago) Permalink
yeah if I was a young person determined to make a concerted effort to "break into" what's left of rockcrit, I'd just blog a lot, interact with other blogs/forums and send out specs that, if rejected, could easily be worked into my DIY stuff. that infamous ying yang twins piece i did for the voice was originally going to be a blog post until i decided to throw it chuck's way just in case.
― da croupier, Friday, 14 August 2009 17:32 (3 years ago) Permalink
xp Yeah, as Anthony says, the timeliness factor ("pegging" everything to release dates, or maybe local shows in the case of alt-weeklies -- in a bogus attempt to be "newsworthy" when really it usually just means kissing music biz butt) is something else I didn't have to worry about much at the Voice.
― xhuxk, Friday, 14 August 2009 17:39 (3 years ago) Permalink
"Music Biz" in this case meaning "record labels who want publicity on the day a record is released" and "local clubs who advertise in your paper."
― xhuxk, Friday, 14 August 2009 17:41 (3 years ago) Permalink
I'm kinda amazed that the sinking-ship record companies would have that kind of clout anymore; you'd think publications would be freed up to run reviews when they want.
fifteen years ago in my nightmare final few months at R0lling $t0ne I nearly got fired for suggesting reviews not be tied to release dates and daring to run a review of a three-month-old album that had belatedly surfaced near the top of the charts.
― m coleman, Friday, 14 August 2009 17:49 (3 years ago) Permalink
i think i've just convinced myself to put out a zine. anyone want to write for it? for free? i'll put out a hundred copies. or more, if needed. i know a cool guy at forced exposure. maybe they can sell it. the aquarius guy is really nice too. maybe he could sell it too. i need a new fun project. um, aside from the new fun record store that i just opened.
― scott seward, Friday, 14 August 2009 17:57 (3 years ago) Permalink
scott, i'll write for your zine if you promise to send me a copy.
― I'M IN MIAMI, TRICK-OR-TREAT (Beatrix Kiddo), Friday, 14 August 2009 17:58 (3 years ago) Permalink
seriously!
xpWell, for years (in pre-Entertainment Weekly days, so through the end of the '80s at least) running reviews of albums weeks after their release was more common than not -- especially if, say, the album was ignored on release and now had a couple hit singles. Some albums have to be lived with a while to sink in. Nobody thought twice about doing it then, because it was the sane way to do things. And I'm guessing that, now, it's not so much that the companies have clout as that the practice became commonplace when they did have clout, so suddenly editors (and their bosses) started worrying about being "scooped" if everybody else reviewed an album first, and nobody wants to go against the grain, especially since lots of editors haven't been around long enough to remember when it was any other way. (As if reviewing an album first has anything to do with scooping; as if reviews are even "news.")
― xhuxk, Friday, 14 August 2009 17:59 (3 years ago) Permalink
scott, if you do do that, i would be happy to cover some weirdo new music/electronic stuff.
― nice! he have the balls to say the truth! (the table is the table), Friday, 14 August 2009 18:18 (3 years ago) Permalink
this thread kinda makes me want to do some music writing, y'alls professional woes sound kinda fun
― ❊❁❄❆❇❃✴❈plaxico❈✴❃❇❆❄❁❊ (I know, right?), Friday, 14 August 2009 18:30 (3 years ago) Permalink
eating ramen noodles is not fun
― Whiney G. Weingarten, Friday, 14 August 2009 19:11 (3 years ago) Permalink
what about tweeting about ramen noodles?
― some dude, Friday, 14 August 2009 19:12 (3 years ago) Permalink
"eating ramen noodles is not fun"even though you probably don't literally mean that, them's fightin words!
― Philip Nunez, Friday, 14 August 2009 19:13 (3 years ago) Permalink
xpost to some dude
I set you up for a subway gag and you bring that? ^^^
― Whiney G. Weingarten, Friday, 14 August 2009 19:13 (3 years ago) Permalink
if i'm gonna bring it i'm not gonna bring subway gags
― some dude, Friday, 14 August 2009 19:14 (3 years ago) Permalink
hey i keep my ass in cheesesteaks well enough.
― strongohulkingtonsghost, Friday, 14 August 2009 19:22 (3 years ago) Permalink
― strongohulkingtonsghost, Friday, 14 August 2009 19:23 (3 years ago) Permalink
I Love Style is over here
― it's like i have a couple worked up vadges under my arms (HI DERE), Friday, 14 August 2009 19:24 (3 years ago) Permalink
I'm guessing that, now, it's not so much that the companies have clout as that the practice became commonplace when they did have clout, so suddenly editors (and their bosses) started worrying about being "scooped" if everybody else reviewed an album first, and nobody wants to go against the grain, especially since lots of editors haven't been around long enough to remember when it was any other way. (As if reviewing an album first has anything to do with scooping; as if reviews are even "news.")
the result, invariably: a whole lot of reviews that have the exact same sets of impressions that anyone would have from a few early listens. (my own writing certainly included.)
― Matos W.K., Friday, 14 August 2009 19:26 (3 years ago) Permalink
Aww, I can't believe I missed conversation about the odd overconstructions that sometimes have to go into the journalistic "there is no I" POV thing -- for whatever reason I find it charming when a piece says "at 4pm a reporter arrived at his house" and we all know pretty precisely who that reporter is. (And I actually do find it profitable, to be honest, because the introduction of an "I" into an article really is a major thing that brings forth expectations; there's an actual benefit to avoiding it that's not just rule-based. If Kelefa says "I arrived at Savage's place" you are more immediately led into the frame of thinking okay, what did you, Kelefa, think of him, which is not the article you're reading.)
― nabisco, Friday, 14 August 2009 19:27 (3 years ago) Permalink
Totally Different Subject xpost - the opposite problem = late-breaking reviews that seem to mostly be responding to the conventional wisdom / response of earlier reviews and public reception
― nabisco, Friday, 14 August 2009 19:28 (3 years ago) Permalink
i use I in my record reviews all the time, it is I who is listening, right. fuck the reader.
― Ludo, Friday, 14 August 2009 19:29 (3 years ago) Permalink
is that a problem, per se, nabisco? to me it seems like the same thing as the first-person thing: good writing is good writing no matter what pov it takes.
― Matos W.K., Friday, 14 August 2009 19:30 (3 years ago) Permalink
classy
thx. (i don't get paid for it either) ;)
― Ludo, Friday, 14 August 2009 19:32 (3 years ago) Permalink
I kept trying to read that sentence like Ludo is in full on "I and I" rasta speak
― some dude, Friday, 14 August 2009 19:33 (3 years ago) Permalink
lol.
― Ludo, Friday, 14 August 2009 19:34 (3 years ago) Permalink
haha I think understand what ludo means though; my worst writing usually comes when I try to "put myself in a fan's shoes" or something like that.
― Matos W.K., Friday, 14 August 2009 19:34 (3 years ago) Permalink
i think that in the post internet age, ppl probably read more reviews for things they have heard, and really want longer expanded bloggy reviews that help parse a record or pinpoint what it is they like about it. I mean, I enjoy reading a review that just gets something 'right' for that flash of recognition, but if i read a review as a buyer guide, I'm just skimming for words that will pull me in and once i've seen enough i'll myspace/youtube/rar depending on my interest and if I like it buy it.
― ❊❁❄❆❇❃✴❈plaxico❈✴❃❇❆❄❁❊ (I know, right?), Friday, 14 August 2009 19:35 (3 years ago) Permalink
that's true...in the 90s i would devour these big review sections full of albums i still have not to this day heard, now i tend not to read reviews of anything i'm not either already listening to or planning to get.
― some dude, Friday, 14 August 2009 19:37 (3 years ago) Permalink
maybe a good writer can avoid using "I" and still write personal reviews, but often those fake objectivie reviews lead to newspaper men praising a hiphop/world music/techno record while you can easily read between the lines that they don't even like the genre.
― Ludo, Friday, 14 August 2009 19:37 (3 years ago) Permalink
I'd wager that it's more about liking records that reviewers, be they newspapermen or whomever, don't have a ton of context for. (Again speaking from experience.)
― Matos W.K., Friday, 14 August 2009 19:39 (3 years ago) Permalink
Wait, I'm not sure which thing you mean, Matos. The late-breaking review thing? I don't mind reviews that have interesting things to say about how a record's been received, so long as they acknowledge that's what they're about. I'm usually less hot on reviews that sorta purport to be about the record but are actually really reactive, like they're really more opinions about reception of the record, and not the thing itself.
(Or the POV thing? I agree that writing's good from whichever perspective, but sometimes the difference between those perspectives is huge, so it makes sense to completely separate them -- like "Kelefa Sanneh writes a journalistic NYer piece about Savage" is surely violently different from "Kelefa Sanneh writes a personal narrative about his interaction with and opinions of Savage.")
― nabisco, Friday, 14 August 2009 19:40 (3 years ago) Permalink
could be true.
anyway, i do enjoy reading reviews, but moreso when i actually already heard the record or saw the movie. if not it's more like a fast check to see if i should get this thing on my "to download"-list heh.
record reviews are tough, for example a lot of bands always complain about being compared to artist x and genre y, and when i review a record and drop like 10 different artist names it even bores me. on the other hand if it does sound like the entire bunch and a reader might actually check this album because i mention that it sounds like (god this gets confusing) blablaba.
i guess a good review is a combination of all kinds of thing, comparisons, maybe a little personal feeling and a description of the music. (the latter would be true objectivism i guess)
― Ludo, Friday, 14 August 2009 19:43 (3 years ago) Permalink
I've gotten a lot more diligent over the years at not saying anything in print that I can't somehow back up if asked about, by an editor or via email or in real life. I delete endless amounts of stuff that might read well or be interesting or provocative, if I realize I'm just saying it to say it, or just because it sounds good or whatever. I try very hard not to do it, and it drives me nuts when I see other people do it. The opposite tendency is just as bad--taking the easy way out, being nice just for the sake of not unnecessarily ruffling feathers. That's the Midwesterner in me, and I delete tons of that shit too. And my favorite writing tends to takes chances and goes for the jugular; I want to do that too (not that I get near it even 10% of the time) but I want it to be as real as I can make it, and that takes a lot of work. I'm not complaining about this at all: I think I'm a much better writer than I used to be and this is the reason why. But when I'm writing about an area I'm less familiar with it can be a hurdle, definitely.
― Matos W.K., Friday, 14 August 2009 19:46 (3 years ago) Permalink
Nabisco: we're on exactly the same page here.
― Matos W.K., Friday, 14 August 2009 19:47 (3 years ago) Permalink
some key words have lost all meaning so if some band gets described as a noise band I'm not gonna really know what they sound like, so i'm looking for Lightning Bolt or No Age or Giffoni or Excepter or Wolf Eyes all of whom sound completely different and that clarifies a lot of the other descriptions
― ❊❁❄❆❇❃✴❈plaxico❈✴❃❇❆❄❁❊ (I know, right?), Friday, 14 August 2009 19:47 (3 years ago) Permalink
I've gotten a lot more diligent over the years at not saying anything in print that I can't somehow back up if asked about, by an editor or via email or in real life. I delete endless amounts of stuff that might read well or be interesting or provocative, if I realize I'm just saying it to say it, or just because it sounds good or whatever. I try very hard not to do it, and it drives me nuts when I see other people do it.
Yeah, I totally go through this same thought process. I think I have such an aversion to quippy reviews and clever angles that it probably makes my copy a little too dry sometimes, but at the same time bending the truth (or my honest opinion) for the sake of a cute one-liner can come out pretty awful.
― some dude, Friday, 14 August 2009 19:52 (3 years ago) Permalink
"in the 90s i would devour these big review sections full of albums i still have not to this day heard"
me too! and i was happy not to hear them. a lot of times i just wanted to read good reviews. SPIN used to be great for this, if, you know, i wanted to know what Mikael Wood thought about some overhyped indie BS. that guy is amazing. i can never say it enough.
― I'M IN MIAMI, TRICK-OR-TREAT (Beatrix Kiddo), Friday, 14 August 2009 19:55 (3 years ago) Permalink
i like pitchfork reviews
― mo radalj, Friday, 14 August 2009 19:58 (3 years ago) Permalink
What do all yall music writers think of gina arnold re: injecting oneself into the review.
― Philip Nunez, Friday, 14 August 2009 19:58 (3 years ago) Permalink
i kind of miss zany/showy/creative writing exercise pfork reviews sometimes
― I'M IN MIAMI, TRICK-OR-TREAT (Beatrix Kiddo), Friday, 14 August 2009 19:59 (3 years ago) Permalink
Matos is way OTM about something there -- it's funny how writing well sometimes asks you to be both (a) confident enough in what you're saying to put out frank opinions, and (b) open-minded and curious and fair. Those things are by no means mutually exclusive; the whole point is they go well together (and often it's fun and exciting to see someone just do one, so long as they're honest about it). But sometimes, especially with criticism, the stuff that allows you to do one of them can be on a pretty fine and confusing line with not doing the other. Personally I think I often err toward the latter and don't do enough of the former.
― nabisco, Friday, 14 August 2009 20:00 (3 years ago) Permalink
anyway, i do enjoy reading reviews, but moreso when i actually already heard the record or saw the movie.
I think that's universal, and it's also a reason there's less and less of an audience for music criticism, or so it seems: fewer widely shared experiences. It isn't that music all sucks now; film seems to suck a lot more than music does these days but there's a lot fewer of them, which makes it easier to talk about. And people get mad if you're covering something they're not likely to encounter without seeking it out--they think you're trying to pull a fast one. It's disheartening, especially when, as I've experienced, your bosses basically think this as well.
― Matos W.K., Friday, 14 August 2009 20:01 (3 years ago) Permalink
I always thought Gina Arnold was a better writer than her detractors thought, a worse writer than her champions thought, and way too romantic about rock generally, but I wish I still had my copy of Route 666. (Kiss This isn't very good, though.)
― Matos W.K., Friday, 14 August 2009 20:03 (3 years ago) Permalink
I am ending my self-imposed retirement from music writing (except for Singles Jukebox) this weekend. I got disgusted with my own bullshit for too long, but I just have too much to say and no one to say it to.
I don't think I'm the best writer nor do I have the best taste in music but I do okay on both fronts. I know I'll never make money writing again but I'm fine with that now, plus I like getting discs in the mail from strange places so there you have it.
― Cave17Matt, Friday, 14 August 2009 20:04 (3 years ago) Permalink
Matos OTM upthread about supply/demand
ILX had some huge argument of whether a 6-graf Clark review was any good because [the argument was] that it was just an extended metaphor. And I was just thinking today, how i'd be more likely to read it/care about it if it was a 6-graf metaphor about Green Day or Animal Collective or something that more than 4 people on the earth care about.
― Whiney G. Weingarten, Friday, 14 August 2009 20:06 (3 years ago) Permalink
which is generally why I think the Voice runs the best extended music reviews.
― Whiney G. Weingarten, Friday, 14 August 2009 20:07 (3 years ago) Permalink
whiney, can you hook up a PTW best-of book?
or is that wishful thinking on my part
― I'M IN MIAMI, TRICK-OR-TREAT (Beatrix Kiddo), Friday, 14 August 2009 20:10 (3 years ago) Permalink
haha I mean, one reason I've been enjoying my Stranger singles column more is that I feel less obligated to go long or even longish on everything; say what you've gotta say and get out (but hopefully not to the point where it's just hieroglyphics). (column archives, if anyone cares: http://www.thestranger.com/seattle/Author?oid=1708&category=247534. end of plug.)
― Matos W.K., Friday, 14 August 2009 20:10 (3 years ago) Permalink
like, before I figured I should try to be substantive with each one. now I'm a lot more relaxed about it and I think that shows up.
― Matos W.K., Friday, 14 August 2009 20:12 (3 years ago) Permalink
speaking of columns - one reason i love doing 5ingles in the Minn City Pages every week is because it gives me license (not very much given that i have a space limit but some) to write about all kinds of things, to riffle through the zillions of promos and downloads and zero in on stuff that's great or ok or outright terrible. i mean, if i didn't have that column, i don't know where i would write about all of this music.
and i can sorta veer from being serious to being dismissive to making up dumb stories to offering horrible prescriptive advice.
― I'M IN MIAMI, TRICK-OR-TREAT (Beatrix Kiddo), Friday, 14 August 2009 20:14 (3 years ago) Permalink
x to ray
I don't know how much demand there will be for an omnibus of stuff that happened in 2006-2007.
I was planning on waiting 20 years and seeing if i could package it all on a nostalgia thing, but I highly doubt we'll be that well remembered by then
I was thinking about a "So Tell Me A Story" book curated by Jessica, Kory and myself--maybe even pitched to a book company. But I doubt I could get anything beyond lifehacker/kickstarter pay-to-play bs, and that isn't worth the time of a bunch of 30 year olds already struggling to stay afloat, imo afiac
― Whiney G. Weingarten, Friday, 14 August 2009 20:16 (3 years ago) Permalink
what i love about writing for pitchfork is that it is the most popular outlet for long form music writing with relatively good editorial freedom
― butthurt (deej), Saturday, 15 August 2009 01:01 (3 years ago) Permalink
meaning that i feel like im writing for a large audience, which i like because i want to communicate with lots of people & think my ideas about music are worthwhile. this is probably pretty egotistical, but i think in order to be good at criticism in general you have to be at some level
― butthurt (deej), Saturday, 15 August 2009 01:02 (3 years ago) Permalink
i want to communicate with lots of people & think my ideas about music are worthwhile.
fwiw, the problem is that pretty much everyone in the world from age 17-35 REALLY TRULY believes this and have since flooded the earth with their shit writing
― Whiney G. Weingarten, Saturday, 15 August 2009 01:13 (3 years ago) Permalink
you can also replace that with "I think my band is worthwhile," I think my photography is worthwhile," "I think my DJ skills are worthwhile" and "I think my opinions on food are worthwhile"
― Whiney G. Weingarten, Saturday, 15 August 2009 01:14 (3 years ago) Permalink
thank god you pointed out this brand new phenomenon
― Matos W.K., Saturday, 15 August 2009 01:24 (3 years ago) Permalink
i think my twitter is worthwhile
― max, Saturday, 15 August 2009 02:00 (3 years ago) Permalink
i dont care for whiney's twitter personally
― butthurt (deej), Saturday, 15 August 2009 07:47 (3 years ago) Permalink
devastated to hear that a guy who posts Gucci Mane lyrics to twitter 20 times a day doesn't like my writing
― Whiney G. Weingarten, Saturday, 15 August 2009 14:14 (3 years ago) Permalink
some people think their bands are worthwhile, deej thinks gucci manes lyrics are worthwhile
― max, Saturday, 15 August 2009 14:15 (3 years ago) Permalink
clearly, since you "deigned" to reply
― Matos W.K., Saturday, 15 August 2009 14:56 (3 years ago) Permalink
matos, your steady stream of "WELL ACTUALLY" zings on ILX are like an eighth grader who just discovered sarcasm.
― Whiney G. Weingarten, Saturday, 15 August 2009 15:13 (3 years ago) Permalink
LOL
― Matos W.K., Saturday, 15 August 2009 15:24 (3 years ago) Permalink
What are the responses of everyone else who clowns you around these parts like, then?
― Matos W.K., Saturday, 15 August 2009 15:28 (3 years ago) Permalink
Usually about sandwiches
― Whiney G. Weingarten, Saturday, 15 August 2009 15:31 (3 years ago) Permalink
Actual Question Time: What is the longest you have sat there staring into the abyss of a piece you knew would be fun to write when you pitched it and then found out it was exactly the opposite? I'm going on four days on one right now, and it's interrupted almost everything else in my life. Ugh.
― Matos W.K., Saturday, 15 August 2009 15:52 (3 years ago) Permalink
Well, I've been working on my 33 1/3 book for about two years...
― Whiney G. Weingarten, Saturday, 15 August 2009 16:16 (3 years ago) Permalink
I'd imagine that's every book, yeah.
― Matos W.K., Saturday, 15 August 2009 16:17 (3 years ago) Permalink
Usually when there's an article/review that I realize I DON'T want to do, I clear my schedule, chug a coffee, sign off AIM and try to burn through it and put it behind me... Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't
― Whiney G. Weingarten, Saturday, 15 August 2009 16:17 (3 years ago) Permalink
I can't drink coffee most of the time--it really screws my nervous system up--but yesterday and the day before I'd gotten so little sleep I had to resort to it or else pass out mid-afternoon. (Up late trying to finish w/no luck, get up early a.m. to try again.) It helped with bursts of plow-through-it, which is usually enough; once I get a bead on something it can be pretty easy to follow through to the end. Not this time.
A lot of times I'll work on other, smaller stuff as a break from whatever's giving me trouble, and I got a few things done I needed to, so that's been nice. But this is pretty ill-timed: I have more assignments right now that I have in a while, which is a relief, or would be if this roadblock weren't in the way.
― Matos W.K., Saturday, 15 August 2009 16:23 (3 years ago) Permalink
i don't think i've ever met a writer who doesn't leave the writing until the last possible minute. i know i need the deadline to focus my thoughts, whether its a 150 word album review, or a 160,000 word book.
― She's big on the mental illness scene (stevie), Saturday, 15 August 2009 17:26 (3 years ago) Permalink
Ever since I went fulltime freelance that shit ended fast. Now I just bang out shit as fast as possible in hopes of having time to pitch more stuff..
― the goon and antarctica (Whiney G. Weingarten), Saturday, 15 August 2009 18:29 (3 years ago) Permalink
Yeah, fuck that hanging around waiting on the muse bullshit. This is work. Get it done, and start the next thing.
― unperson, Saturday, 15 August 2009 19:17 (3 years ago) Permalink
― scott seward, Saturday, 15 August 2009 20:01 (3 years ago) Permalink
― m coleman, Saturday, 15 August 2009 20:48 (3 years ago) Permalink
i need the deadline to focus my thoughts, whether its a 150 word album review, or a 160,000 word book.
a 160,000 word book? jesus that's 600 pages! i couldn't even review a 600 page book at the last minute.
― m coleman, Saturday, 15 August 2009 20:53 (3 years ago) Permalink
xp Yeah, I've never comprehended the wait until the last minute thing. That'd drive me into the crazy house to work that way (and as an editor, writers working that way drove me even more nuts, usually because they tended to go way past the last minute.)
― xhuxk, Saturday, 15 August 2009 21:06 (3 years ago) Permalink
Actually, that's the reason editors work up fake deadlines, without telling writers they're fake.
― xhuxk, Saturday, 15 August 2009 21:07 (3 years ago) Permalink
have recently returned to freelancing after a few yrs off, and have recently clued in that my longest-term editor has been feeding me fake deadlines for a few months. But I have been actually meeting them, so I'm not going to tell him I'm hip.what xhuxk said "I came up covering zoning boards and sewage commissions, where objective detachment is strived for", likewise (sorta). Objective detachment is practically a survival technique in that environment.Also, writing mostly in a newsy-style, record reviews used to be great no-one's-looking chances to play around with different writing ideas/styles/whatevers. Y'know, 150-300 wds once a week with which to play.
― there's a better way to browse (Dr. Superman), Saturday, 15 August 2009 22:01 (3 years ago) Permalink
i've been on both sides of this equation. found that fake deadline usually don't work from either direction. writers can sense where the real deadline is. but it does help focus the mind.
― flying squid attack (tipsy mothra), Saturday, 15 August 2009 22:05 (3 years ago) Permalink
(i think of it as sort like keeping my clock 10 or 15 minutes fast. i know it's not the real time, but it still reminds me that the real time is coming up soon.)
― flying squid attack (tipsy mothra), Saturday, 15 August 2009 22:06 (3 years ago) Permalink
probably biggest part of my hitting deadlines is less editor faking me out, more maturity/concerted effort
― there's a better way to browse (Dr. Superman), Saturday, 15 August 2009 22:10 (3 years ago) Permalink
by the last minute, i mean of course the last month or two of an 18 month project! though last time i had loads of interview sources holding out on me and meaning i *couldn't get started any earlier...
― 'dude, hydroponic uterus' (stevie), Sunday, 16 August 2009 09:42 (3 years ago) Permalink
this is so much easier said than done. i wish i could be one of those writers who could just sit down and bang words out, but...no :(
― lex pretend, Sunday, 16 August 2009 09:46 (3 years ago) Permalink
yeah... i'm not revelling in my slothfulness, i wish i could be more 'professional' too - but have been full time freelance for eleven or so years now, and this is just the way i work, so.
― 'dude, hydroponic uterus' (stevie), Sunday, 16 August 2009 10:02 (3 years ago) Permalink
BTW, who said anything about waiting for the muse until Phil brought it up?
― Matos W.K., Sunday, 16 August 2009 14:15 (3 years ago) Permalink
I'm just not the type to wait until the last minute. Depending the length of the piece, I'll usually have started three days to a week before, in large part because I allow myself time for revision. The number of assignments I'm working at once is another factor.
― Anatomy of a Morbius (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Sunday, 16 August 2009 14:22 (3 years ago) Permalink
Music writing shouldn't be about crimping the stuff out but it is for a lot of people and you can always tell. That said ^^ it is a job; so if I get stuck on one thing I move immediately to something else. So if I've always got a list of ten or more things to be writing there's no need to stop.
It was hard to train myself to stop downing tools the second I couldn't think of anything to say about Marillion. Just move on to something else; it's not an open invitation to have half an E and play guitar hero for the rest of the afternoon.
― Doran, Sunday, 16 August 2009 15:30 (3 years ago) Permalink
What Alfred said actually made me curious about how other people handle revising their own work, before sending it in. Give or take certain haiku-length reviews for Rhapsody or wherever, or if I have very very very tight deadline (which I usually find ways to avoid) I almost never file copy the day I finish it. I generally prefer to sleep on it overnight -- or, for longer pieces, maybe over a weekend -- before making final tweaks/overhauls/ massages to it and sending it in (which tends to be the first thing I concentrate on the next morning, before moving on to other work). How common is that? I honestly have no idea how others handle this. (As an editor, though, I got the impression that certain writers even more neurotic than myself had a tendency to worry and overthink pieces into oblivion and missed deadlines. I really hated that.)
― xhuxk, Sunday, 16 August 2009 16:29 (3 years ago) Permalink
yeah, i always, always, always finish at least one day before; sleep on it; look at it with new eyes; revise and turn in.
― The Velvet Undergrowl And Beako (Whiney G. Weingarten), Sunday, 16 August 2009 16:32 (3 years ago) Permalink
writing a bi-weekly record review column in the early 90s I established a pattern of waking up around 5:00 AM on deadline day and pulling together all my rough drafts and notes into finished copy and sending it off by early afternoon. otherwise I tried to follow xhuxk's method of sleeping on a finished piece and doing some revisions/tweaking on deadline day. of course this often didn't happen and I rushed to finish at the last minute.
the last few years I've been reviewing books (non-fiction/not on music) and for me it's a completely different process, more time-consuming and labor intensive, perhaps because I'm less experienced in this arena. i need to finish a 1000 word book piece days before deadline and do several rounds of revision/tweaking before sending it off.
― m coleman, Sunday, 16 August 2009 16:47 (3 years ago) Permalink
i think this must varies w/the type of book you're writing and I certainly didn't mean to cast aspersions on yr work habits. clearly it worked for you! and yeah, for a reported book you are at the mercy of your subjects to some extent and as we all know, looming deadlines are merciless.
― m coleman, Sunday, 16 August 2009 16:53 (3 years ago) Permalink
sometimes i work way ahead of schedule, sometimes right on it, occasionally a little behind. usually my secret blessing is if i know i'm going to be busy or not home much in the coming days, and get a lot of stuff done early and then have time to actually go over and revise and nitpick a few times, which is a luxury i don't give myself a lot anymore.
― some dude, Sunday, 16 August 2009 16:57 (3 years ago) Permalink
of course, my schedule is also a product of what and where i write -- sometimes i do concert reviews and movie reviews where i have a window of a couple days to write after seeing the subject, so it's not like i can do those early eithert way. and sometimes if i have a big piece on my plate but don't feel ready to give it the concentration it needs, i'll knock out a couple short blog posts instead.
― some dude, Sunday, 16 August 2009 17:03 (3 years ago) Permalink
Almost all of my gig reviews have a deadline of 6:00 am the following morning, so I have to write them as soon as I get home. As a natural procrastinator, I find this concentrates the mind wonderfully. (It also means that none of them are written stone cold sober, but I found my optimum level of consumption quite early on.)
― mike t-diva, Sunday, 16 August 2009 17:39 (3 years ago) Permalink
yeah, i used to do gig reviews for a daily paper, with a 3am the next morning deadline, which i actually really loved - it focused my mind, and meant i didn't have any 'homework' hanging over me.
otherwise, though, i think i spend the time between 'finishing' a piece of work and the deadline just honing and fiddling with every detail. i had a relatively quiet week last week, and spent five straight days polishing every line of a 1000 word blog piece for MOJO - but i was aiming for being 'funny', which i don't do terribly often, and whcih, for me, is always a matter of swapping a dozen possible jokes in and out of every line.
― 'dude, hydroponic uterus' (stevie), Sunday, 16 August 2009 17:47 (3 years ago) Permalink
xp Actually, that raises another question. Somebody just mentioned to me last month that they write for a publication where the policy is that critics are not allowed to consume alcohol at the concerts they're covering. There's some logic to that rule, I guess, but I'd honestly never heard of it before. (And it's hard to think of a show I've been to, including ones I've reviewed, where beer was available that I haven't had some. Also, since it's likely that most people don't watch shows entirely sober, I'm wondering whether not drinking might unfairly skew opinions about the music.) Anyway, I wonder how rare this policy is.
― xhuxk, Sunday, 16 August 2009 17:51 (3 years ago) Permalink
can someone email maura@idolator dot com and tell her what publication that is?
― The Velvet Undergrowl And Beako (Whiney G. Weingarten), Sunday, 16 August 2009 17:52 (3 years ago) Permalink
Wow, that's unimaginably harsh! For me, the right amount of booze helps rather than hinders the review - easing me over the initial hump, so that the words start flowing more freely. My regular intake: two pints of ordinary lager. Not a drop more, not a drop less. I've become quite superstitious about it.
There's been one recent change, which for me has worked out very well: about a year ago, my newspaper lifted the word count restriction for the web versions of gig reviews, retaining it just for the print versions. So we're now asked to "write freely" for the web version, and to submit an edited print version at the same time. This has improved my whole attitude to the editing process.
― mike t-diva, Sunday, 16 August 2009 18:00 (3 years ago) Permalink
the number of offices i've worked in where intoxicants much stronger than alcohol seemed to fuel the entire production team...
― 'dude, hydroponic uterus' (stevie), Sunday, 16 August 2009 18:06 (3 years ago) Permalink
Somebody just mentioned to me last month that they write for a publication where the policy is that critics are not allowed to consume alcohol at the concerts they're covering.
I would think sports writers would find the idea of such a 'restriction' hysterical.
And how does one enforce it, other than having a snitch who know what you look like and is near you at the show?
Now I'm curious. The name of the pub needs publishing so that we can be supercilious with those willing to work for a fifteen dollar or less review and be teetotal.
― Gorge, Sunday, 16 August 2009 18:14 (3 years ago) Permalink
Let's just say it's a daily in Texas. Don't want to get any more specific than that without actually verifying the rule first-hand -- sounds really far-fetched to me, and I'm still kind of incredulous.
― xhuxk, Sunday, 16 August 2009 19:04 (3 years ago) Permalink
And yeah, apparently the theory is, if you drink at a show, a friend of your boss's might see you there.
― xhuxk, Sunday, 16 August 2009 19:06 (3 years ago) Permalink
Let's just say it's a daily in Texas.
Now you know -- in Texas (!?), of all places -- that is just wrong and anti-'Mercan. How would anyone survive during college football season?
― Gorge, Sunday, 16 August 2009 19:15 (3 years ago) Permalink
concert reviewing: the last bastion of socially accepted drinking on the job (bartending excluded)?
― there's a better way to browse (Dr. Superman), Sunday, 16 August 2009 19:47 (3 years ago) Permalink
I don't drink, so I get a few editors assigning me for festival coverage because they like how I have the energy to stay on my feet and watch bands for 10 hrs at a time
― Whiney G. Weingarten, Sunday, 16 August 2009 19:50 (3 years ago) Permalink
I don't drink either, and I find it can occasionally make concert reviewing difficult, because most acts don't have a solid 75 minutes in 'em, frankly, so by around a half hour into the headliner's set I'm usually thinking, "get me the fuck out of here already," and maybe if I was slightly drunk I wouldn't feel that way.
― unperson, Sunday, 16 August 2009 20:29 (3 years ago) Permalink
Nah, you'd feel that way anyway. Or at least I probably would. But then, that's part of why I've never done many live reviews.
― xhuxk, Sunday, 16 August 2009 20:33 (3 years ago) Permalink
Actually, one of the few times I got chewed out by my bosses in my decade at the Voice was when a writer said in a Sound Of The City review that they'd left the show they were reviewing before the encore. Seemed like a valid response to me, if the band was sucking, but my bosses thought otherwise.
― xhuxk, Sunday, 16 August 2009 20:41 (3 years ago) Permalink
what if you bailed early from one of those zoning-board meetings you covered as a cub reporter? what if something HAPPENS during the encore. doesn't a reviewer have some responsibility toward the readers or is all about yr vaunted tastes & opinions.
at least r. meltzer making things up in a concert review represents some attempt at, you know, being entertaining. writing that you left a show early because the band sucked is pretty fucking arrogant IMO. yr bosses were correct.
― m coleman, Sunday, 16 August 2009 21:14 (3 years ago) Permalink
It depends on the show. I walked out of an Eagles concert I reviewed in 2003 when the band showed no inclination to stop playing after two encores and three hours.
― Anatomy of a Morbius (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Sunday, 16 August 2009 21:21 (3 years ago) Permalink
meanwhile every Pearl Jam concert I've attended has pulled out some weird, unexpected shit in the last third (the first time I reviewed them though was when Sleater Kinney opened for them).
― Anatomy of a Morbius (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Sunday, 16 August 2009 21:22 (3 years ago) Permalink
Well, I'm not really saying my bosses were wrong, in retrospect. Just saying what my thoughts had been when reading/editing the review (in which the leaving-of-show was entertaining, until I got called out on it.) (For what it's worth, I've never personally left a concert I was reviewing before it was done, no matter how much I hated it. And I'm pretty sure I've never reviewed an album for publication that I hadn't actually listened to all the way through -- though there's a Nirvana album in my metal book I didn't have a copy of on hand when I wrote the review. But I've definitely written show previews of bands based on just a few songs.)
― xhuxk, Sunday, 16 August 2009 21:25 (3 years ago) Permalink
didn't mean to come off like moses up there. an embarrassing number of albums i reviewed in the old RS record guide got only a cursory listen or two. a classic case of biting more than you can chew. previews or listings are exempt from review standards.
― m coleman, Sunday, 16 August 2009 22:02 (3 years ago) Permalink
I've walked out early from two shows that I've reviewed (from a total of around 150), because a) I already had all the information I needed and b) I couldn't stand to be there a second longer. One was Seasick Steve, and the other was (to my surprise) Manu Chao.
― mike t-diva, Sunday, 16 August 2009 22:07 (3 years ago) Permalink
you have to be some sort of wizard to get me to read a review of a live show. so, hats off to the people who have to write them. (i can think of maybe one in the last decade that was actually memorable. greg tate's springsteen show thing in the voice.)
(but then my gold standard might actually be bukowski's stones review in creem: http://beatpatrol.wordpress.com/2009/07/28/charles-bukowski-jaggernaut-wild-horse-on-a-plastic-phallus-1975/)
― scott seward, Sunday, 16 August 2009 22:16 (3 years ago) Permalink
i always stay till the end of a show. what if someone died?? also, i like concerts.
― 'dude, hydroponic uterus' (stevie), Sunday, 16 August 2009 22:20 (3 years ago) Permalink
Well, there must be daily papers that still, at least on occasion, run reviews the morning after certain "important" shows, right? Which might well mean pages close early enough to require reviewers to file before shows end. (The dailies I read most seem to stick to the two-or-even-three-days-after rule, but I get the idea that that's a convention that's evolved over time. I could be way off on that, though; never tracked it very closely.)
And Scott is right -- of all the kinds of music criticism, live reviews are probably the most boring to read, and almost definitely the most boring to write (and to edit, which is why I delegated Sound of the City to sub-editors when they were available.)
― xhuxk, Sunday, 16 August 2009 22:21 (3 years ago) Permalink
Well, in the Lehigh Valley they didn't sell beer at the big venues, so you could maybe have a soda. Since many of these had to be filed for publication in the morning newspaper, and they occured at night, they often mandated that the reporter had to leave the venue -before- the show was over.
This was before well before you could have a laptop with you and file wireless. Hard to imagine, but yes, lots and lots of people did it this way.
Anyway, the small clubs in the area were fairly dire. Most of the time the newspaper was interested in reviews of locals for special section on Saturday which would publish an anthology of reviews from the seven days +1 previous. Then you could always stay until the bitter end. This led to many situations in which having a beer was one way to get through the night. I recall one time being assigned to cover stand-up comedians performing at a local club, one in which the promoter had neglected to inform them was gay. One of the comedians, who was rather inobservant, had a routine based on gay slurs and homophobia.
It takes little imagination to realize ordering a drink in such a situation is the human and rational thing to do.
― Gorge, Sunday, 16 August 2009 22:24 (3 years ago) Permalink
xhuxk you've blown my mind with this no-alcohol policy.
― BIG HOOS's wacky crack variety hour (BIG HOOS aka the steendriver), Sunday, 16 August 2009 22:27 (3 years ago) Permalink
xpost: I mostly write for a regional "evening" daily (which actually appears around 10am), and we run all live reviews - no matter how big or small - on the website the morning after. Until around 6 months ago they also ran in print the day after, but that's now slipped back a day. And, um, live reviews are easily my favourite to write!
― mike t-diva, Sunday, 16 August 2009 22:29 (3 years ago) Permalink
is this something you've been told or something you're guessing?
― Matos W.K., Sunday, 16 August 2009 23:21 (3 years ago) Permalink
or maybe a little of each (probably the correct answer)
― Matos W.K., Sunday, 16 August 2009 23:25 (3 years ago) Permalink
i wanted to revive this, but perhaps kind of ironically, i don't know what to write...
well i guess that's a fair enough question - when you're deciding to pitch an idea, how do you decide what to cover? if it's reviews etc, do you just have a look at what you've been sent that month from the flacks and pitch those, or do something else?
― the next grozart, Tuesday, 1 September 2009 18:46 (3 years ago) Permalink
That's usually how it goes, or I call an editor and threaten to kidnap his cocker spaniel if he won't publish me.
― post-contrarian meta-challop 2009 (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Tuesday, 1 September 2009 18:47 (3 years ago) Permalink
music writers (especially for free weeklies), what is the worst pun-based headline you/your colleagues/your editors have committed to print?
― Philip Nunez, Tuesday, 1 September 2009 18:49 (3 years ago) Permalink
another question please: how many listens to an album in average before writing a review?
― Zeno, Tuesday, 1 September 2009 18:51 (3 years ago) Permalink
oh god i've cranked out so many weak headlines -- don't know if any were particularly outrageous puns but i've had some dogs to be sure
― some dude, Tuesday, 1 September 2009 18:52 (3 years ago) Permalink
Ha -- I just wrote a single review after listening to 1:30 of the song.
― post-contrarian meta-challop 2009 (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Tuesday, 1 September 2009 18:53 (3 years ago) Permalink
it's probably pretty shitty ?!
― Zeno, Tuesday, 1 September 2009 18:53 (3 years ago) Permalink
Zeno - for me it really depends on how much I like the album to be honest. If I've got, say 5 albums to review and 2 of them are awesome, one is just fine and 2 of them are shit then it's only normal that I listen to them as I'd listen to CDs normally. Biased? Maybe so. But I always always try to give even the most awful stuff at least two full listens. That said, if the PR company can't be arsed to send me the CD until a day before deadline then that's just tough.
― the next grozart, Tuesday, 1 September 2009 18:54 (3 years ago) Permalink
but there are lots of albums where it takes a number of listenning to figure out if you like them or not.it's probably very hard on a deadline (and with a potential of regreting what you wrote later on)
― Zeno, Tuesday, 1 September 2009 18:59 (3 years ago) Permalink
I'm not a big 'repeat listener' as a music fan in general -- putting something on more than once in a week is considered heavy duty listening by my standards. With a tight deadline I might listen to it a couple times in the space of a day, if I have a week or more it'll be at least 3.
― some dude, Tuesday, 1 September 2009 19:00 (3 years ago) Permalink
lol weezer
― post-contrarian meta-challop 2009 (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Tuesday, 1 September 2009 19:06 (3 years ago) Permalink
related to puns, but how about using lyrics from other bands (or even other genres) to headline a feature story -- like say "the kids are alright" for Kriss Kross or Smoosh? any confessions?
― Philip Nunez, Tuesday, 1 September 2009 19:07 (3 years ago) Permalink
if i was writing reviews i would probably regret at least a little of them because of those traps:Holy Crap, this is amazing! Actually, no hold on.. it's shite!vs. the opposite
― Zeno, Tuesday, 1 September 2009 19:07 (3 years ago) Permalink
i have used lyric-based puns more often than i care to admit
― strongohulkingtonsghost, Tuesday, 1 September 2009 19:08 (3 years ago) Permalink
haha since so many of them post here i almost feel like asking my former stable of writers to chime in on the worst punning headline i ever inflicted upon them.
lol i'll have a look and let you know if i find anything
― some dude, Tuesday, 1 September 2009 19:20 (3 years ago) Permalink
i wrote one a bit back that is so stupid: Poker Flat Lets the Chips Fall .
god. headsmack.
― my bach penises and their contrapuntal technique (the table is the table), Tuesday, 1 September 2009 19:31 (3 years ago) Permalink
Pun-wise, probably my review of A Grand Don't Come for Free: "Whither Thou?"
― if I don't see more dissent, I'm going to have to check myself in (Matos W.K.), Tuesday, 1 September 2009 20:00 (3 years ago) Permalink
yeah, this tends to follow how often I'd listen to the album anyway. You can recognise a really terrible record in a few songs, so I once reviewed an album based on two half-listens (because I couldn't bear to get through the whole thing / the second half-listen was for specifics while I wrote). I'll want to keep listening to a good record anyway, and the time it takes me to get bored of it is relevant to "how good" it is. Usually 4-6 times for a decent record, 8+ times for a really good one.
― bakerstreetsaxsolo, Tuesday, 1 September 2009 22:52 (3 years ago) Permalink
I've got a techy question... I'm going to be conducting a phone interview soon. What are the ideal ways to go about recording the intervew? I've heard some people use Skype, others use adapters to hook up a recorder to a phone (I only have a cell phone... is there such an adapter?).
― scott pgwp (pgwp), Thursday, 3 September 2009 14:18 (3 years ago) Permalink
I do it real low tech holding the tape recorder up to my cell on speaker -- not the best way to do it (and you get that weird clicky noise that happens anytime a cell phone's near a recording device), but in a pinch it works.
― some dude, Thursday, 3 September 2009 14:35 (3 years ago) Permalink
i have a device which is similar to this - does the job perfectly
― lex pretend, Thursday, 3 September 2009 14:42 (3 years ago) Permalink
depends on the album, on the deadline, on when the PR deigns to send it to me. ideally, until i feel i have a handle on it.
― lex pretend, Thursday, 3 September 2009 14:43 (3 years ago) Permalink
Lex, thanks for the suggestion.
― scott pgwp (pgwp), Thursday, 3 September 2009 20:12 (3 years ago) Permalink
Does that Voice Memos thing on the latest iPhone software allow for this to be done easily? (This = recording phone interviews)
― Ned Raggett, Thursday, 3 September 2009 20:18 (3 years ago) Permalink
there's some conference call services that let you call in and they save the conversation to an mp3 or wav -- i'll bet one of them must be free somehow. (if you're technically nerdy and got a lot of free time, you can jerry-rig one up on your own computer for free.)
― Philip Nunez, Thursday, 3 September 2009 20:29 (3 years ago) Permalink
Do any of you who are paid for your music writing have any general writing advice for people who want to get better at the craft? How did you go from sucking to excellence? I'm not a music writer, but I do write and am looking to improve. Thanks everybody!
― kshighway1, Saturday, 10 October 2009 05:19 (3 years ago) Permalink
And by "the craft" I mean writing as such, not writing about music necessarily.
Writing often and having people call your shit awful.
― Roman Polanski now sleeps in prison. (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Saturday, 10 October 2009 05:27 (3 years ago) Permalink
^^this
― it takes a nation of 51 to hold us back (J0rdan S.), Saturday, 10 October 2009 05:45 (3 years ago) Permalink
or, write often and re-read the writing two months later and make sure that you think it's shit
― it takes a nation of 51 to hold us back (J0rdan S.), Saturday, 10 October 2009 05:46 (3 years ago) Permalink
Don't get too wrapped up in reading crit, but read enough to work out your likes and dislikes about other writers and what you want or don't want to read, put yourself in the shoes of your own reader.
― some dude, Saturday, 10 October 2009 05:48 (3 years ago) Permalink
I would go farther and say you need to take a look at the crit that you like and really try to figure out what makes it tick...try to analyze and isolate those elements which really make your motor churn. then try and figure out how to incorporate it into your own writing without being called a biter.
― dyao, Saturday, 10 October 2009 05:55 (3 years ago) Permalink
Write when very drunk, very late at night. Then, after a few years, write when very sober, very early in the morning.
― Sickamous (Scik Mouthy), Saturday, 10 October 2009 06:10 (3 years ago) Permalink
wrote a really shitty review of some crumby 8-bit ironic post-IDM game music thing, along with a bunch of others. they got published, the bad one didn't - are people finding that mags less likely to publish bad (as in low-marks) reviews these days? i noticed the album had been given impartial column space in the news section of said mag, so maybe this had something to do with it?
― dog latin, Thursday, 10 December 2009 17:10 (3 years ago) Permalink
I had an editor specifically request a positive review of something last week. Fortunately, I was able to deliver one honestly.
― neither good nor bad, just a kid like you (unperson), Thursday, 10 December 2009 17:23 (3 years ago) Permalink
dog latin, i've noticed a sort of imperative to play nice w/r/t reviews and live previews over the last little while.
― LAMBDA LAMBDA LANDA (Beatrix Kiddo), Thursday, 10 December 2009 17:58 (3 years ago) Permalink
not EVERYWHERE, per se. but in some places it's like "let's just review stuff that's good"
― LAMBDA LAMBDA LANDA (Beatrix Kiddo), Thursday, 10 December 2009 17:59 (3 years ago) Permalink
"if you can't say anything nice, don't say anything at all"
― LAMBDA LAMBDA LANDA (Beatrix Kiddo), Thursday, 10 December 2009 18:08 (3 years ago) Permalink
I once had a review changed from ultra-negative upon submission to oddly positive in print. I complained, but it was allegedly a genuine subbing error... still felt queasy about the whole thing though.
― m the g, Thursday, 10 December 2009 18:31 (3 years ago) Permalink
ads be hard to come by these days
― Drama Mama's and Papa's too! (forksclovetofu), Thursday, 10 December 2009 18:42 (3 years ago) Permalink
Pubs are so desperate for readers these days that I can imagine a desire to cut down on the negativity and snark. After all, no one likes to be told their favorite band sucks.
― Josh in Chicago, Thursday, 10 December 2009 18:46 (3 years ago) Permalink
I can actually understand a publication's wish to only run positive (or at least thoughtfully negative) reviews. But that's harder on the editor, who must do a much more meticulous job of pairing writer and subject. If you're willing to run raves and teardowns more or less in equal measure, you can almost assign anything to anyone.
― neither good nor bad, just a kid like you (unperson), Thursday, 10 December 2009 19:16 (3 years ago) Permalink
Too bad pubs (and blogs, too) fail to understand that it's the negative reviews (or the balance of positive/negative, more accurately) that build their reputations as trustworthy sources.
xpost
― scott pgwp (pgwp), Thursday, 10 December 2009 19:18 (3 years ago) Permalink
Yeah, but the only way to stay alive now is to be a niche publication, and niche publications' readers want their tastes validated, not challenged.
― neither good nor bad, just a kid like you (unperson), Thursday, 10 December 2009 19:21 (3 years ago) Permalink
otm
― my adrian langs a ton (Whiney G. Weingarten), Thursday, 10 December 2009 19:51 (3 years ago) Permalink
Which I don't have the slightest problem with, btw; I've always been a big believer in critics being experts on one or two things rather than trying to be generalists who know a little bit about "everything" ("everything" being its own kind of parochialism anyfuckinway; it always boils down to liking mainstream pop, hip-hop/R&B and half-assedly nodding in the direction of country, metal, etc.).
― neither good nor bad, just a kid like you (unperson), Thursday, 10 December 2009 20:02 (3 years ago) Permalink
I think there are a few different scenarios being swept together as one here: a publication pushing for positive reviews of particular albums (maybe because they're high profile or advertisers or just a favorite of the editor/publication) vs. a publication wanting to keep it positive as much as possible and have a more "up" tone vs. a publication dealing with limited review space and preferring to use it to recommend good stuff instead of trashing bad stuff
― some dude, Thursday, 10 December 2009 20:02 (3 years ago) Permalink
If you wanna see the utter valuelessness of the "generalist" approach, check out Slate's music writers' roundtable that's happening this week and count all the different types of music that are being totally ignored.
― neither good nor bad, just a kid like you (unperson), Thursday, 10 December 2009 20:06 (3 years ago) Permalink
I'm having a hard time seeing the utter value in keeping a bingo card w/ genre names on it at hand every time I read anything about music.
― some dude, Thursday, 10 December 2009 20:09 (3 years ago) Permalink
the older i get, the less i feel the desire to generalize. doing so feels so insincere, you know? because unless one is omnicient it's impossible to know EVERYTHING about stuff happening in EVERY genre.
at this point i write about noise, experimental, indie, some rap, and some pop. and i don't even feel like i've giot a handle on all of that a lot of the time.
― LAMBDA LAMBDA LANDA (Beatrix Kiddo), Thursday, 10 December 2009 20:11 (3 years ago) Permalink
Please don't use Jonah Weiner as an example of what it means to be a generalist.
― uninspired girls rejoice!!! (Hoot Smalley), Thursday, 10 December 2009 20:14 (3 years ago) Permalink
generalist/specialist isn't an either/or, most writers are situated somewhere on that spectrum and can play generalist or specialist as appropriate
― lex pretend, Thursday, 10 December 2009 20:14 (3 years ago) Permalink
totally
― some dude, Thursday, 10 December 2009 20:16 (3 years ago) Permalink
and notwithstanding the (very few) critics who can pull these extremes off, i don't think there's anything particularly appealing about either a) pretending to be "above" genre and refusing to acknowledge different cultures' values and traditions, or b) immersing yourself so far in a scene that you stop being able to see the wood for the trees
― lex pretend, Thursday, 10 December 2009 20:20 (3 years ago) Permalink
The problem with genre experts is that they often focus on things that aren't necessarily of concern to me as a "casual" listener.
― uninspired girls rejoice!!! (Hoot Smalley), Thursday, 10 December 2009 20:20 (3 years ago) Permalink
or alternatively, genre experts sometimes point out things that i wouldn't have noticed as someone not attuned to that particular style, which i find tremendously valuable in finding my way into enjoying it
― lex pretend, Thursday, 10 December 2009 20:21 (3 years ago) Permalink
Oh, to be sure. I guess it only becomes a problem for me when they get hung up on a set of internal rules for what makes their genre work.
― uninspired girls rejoice!!! (Hoot Smalley), Thursday, 10 December 2009 20:23 (3 years ago) Permalink
I couldn't even skim that Slate thing, btw. My brain just glazed over.
― uninspired girls rejoice!!! (Hoot Smalley), Thursday, 10 December 2009 20:24 (3 years ago) Permalink
Why not? (Genuine curiosity.)
― neither good nor bad, just a kid like you (unperson), Thursday, 10 December 2009 20:31 (3 years ago) Permalink
I just hate his writing, that's all.
― uninspired girls rejoice!!! (Hoot Smalley), Thursday, 10 December 2009 20:35 (3 years ago) Permalink
Ah, OK; I was thinking the exact opposite, that you thought he was somehow better than a mere "pop critic" or something like that.
― neither good nor bad, just a kid like you (unperson), Thursday, 10 December 2009 20:43 (3 years ago) Permalink
No, if anyone is a mere pop critic, it's him!
― uninspired girls rejoice!!! (Hoot Smalley), Thursday, 10 December 2009 20:51 (3 years ago) Permalink
In generalist publications, the problem with specialist writers is that they can start to cheerlead for their genres, sometimes regardless of the quality of the record they are reviewing. And one reason why you tend to read more good reviews than negative ones is that there is so much released that any title reviewing fewer than 150 titles a month will see its editor think: "I have 25 slots this month. There are 10 albums that have to be reviewed. There are 10 that my writers are desperate to write about. So the other five ... shall I just select some crap to take down, or maybe try and steer readers to something I rate?" Doesn't seem an unreasonable impulse. Better to review, I dunno, Cold Cave than just rip on a Def Leppard album for the sake of it. Your review will not change anyone's opinion about Def Leppard, but it might make someone check out Cold Cave.
― ithappens, Thursday, 10 December 2009 22:01 (3 years ago) Permalink
I used to notice a pattern with 'in-house' mags such as Tower Pulse! where each issue they'd do a harsh takedown of a hot new release that was destined to sell bazillions anyway; it almost seemed like a deliberate 'see? This mag is an organ of a retailer but we're impartial!' kind of thing.
I wonder if that's still a thing, aiming all a mag's darts at things that can't be hurt anyway while keeping it positive re: vulnerable 'sprout' artists?
(Sorry if I'm not supposed to post here-- I'm not a music writer but I am a writer. Just found the subject rather interesting).
― vadnais heights is cougartown (Jon Lewis), Thursday, 10 December 2009 22:15 (3 years ago) Permalink
We don't seem to have 'done' http://ripfork.com/ yet so this seemed like the best place to put it
The purpose of RipFork is to hold music critics to the same level of snarky, loquacious abuse that they dole out to the artists actually making the music. My ultimate goal is to uncover how and why we allowed music writing and the keys to aspiring bands’ futures to be dictated by these critics in the first place. To those writers I criticize on the site: this is meant to be a humbling experience. Take from it what you will.
To everyone else: Have a good time.
It's just all a bit tragic really, even when I agree w/ him I just feel bad that he's gone to this much effort for something of such scant significance (and that's before you get to his whole 'thinking too hard gives you wrinkles' steez or his refusal to accept that niche music reviews are sometimes written with niche music fans in mind)
― Ferry Aid was a popular appeal and it still is (DJ Mencap), Monday, 4 January 2010 11:39 (3 years ago) Permalink
Whitest Words: cloying, oeuvre, orthodoxy, affectation, ubiquity, overwrought, incongruence, authorial, Sapphic, relegated, mimicry
fuck this dude for real
― condaleeza spice (The Reverend), Monday, 4 January 2010 11:54 (3 years ago) Permalink
hoo boy I missed that he has a "whitest words" category!!
― Ferry Aid was a popular appeal and it still is (DJ Mencap), Monday, 4 January 2010 11:57 (3 years ago) Permalink
:o
― lex pretend, Monday, 4 January 2010 12:00 (3 years ago) Permalink
I don't know whether to laugh or cry at the thought of someone not from the UK (no bio so I dunno where he's from but he has never heard "amongst" and wonders if it's a UKism) poring through drownedinsound daily and going "you know, this writing is not always very good"
"there's a tendency for music writers to write about dub and its endless sub-genres as if more than 0.00001% of the internet-cruising world knows what the hell they're talking about"
Yeah, I think this might be more than 0.00001% of the people who go to music review sites, never mind click on dub(step)-related reviews.
(Oh, dub is so obscure! Is that the same as all this wobblestep-wonkwave-core that the kids like? I don't know, I tell you garage is where I PARK MY CAR amirite, next it will all be "living room" and "conservatory" ho ho.)
― brett favre vs bernard fevre, fite (a passing spacecadet), Monday, 4 January 2010 12:23 (3 years ago) Permalink
Some of the entries are just incredible - his 'deconstructions' actually are like Mr Logic from Viz. It tips over into heartbreaking pretty quickly :(
― Ferry Aid was a popular appeal and it still is (DJ Mencap), Monday, 4 January 2010 13:22 (3 years ago) Permalink
problem is that anyone who really was a good enough writer to provide the kind of takedown that landfill criticism sites like DiS or p4k require would not actually be bothered to do so
― Karen Tregaskin, Monday, 4 January 2010 13:41 (3 years ago) Permalink
im not sure that they require a "takedown" so much as this guy requires "a sense of perspective" and "a cure for butthurt"
― max, Monday, 4 January 2010 13:47 (3 years ago) Permalink
This was much better when it was just Brian May ranting uncontrollably about DiS hacks on his blog.
― Space Battle Rothko (Matt DC), Monday, 4 January 2010 13:48 (3 years ago) Permalink
Yeah but that was better than nearly everything
― Ferry Aid was a popular appeal and it still is (DJ Mencap), Monday, 4 January 2010 13:55 (3 years ago) Permalink
landfill criticism sites like DiS or p4k
DiS is totally a landfill site but p4k isn't, I've read dozens of great reviews on that site
― anagram, Monday, 4 January 2010 14:53 (3 years ago) Permalink
What print publications do people here contribute to? I much prefer seeing my writing in a print magazine to on the web.
― anagram, Friday, 8 January 2010 12:53 (3 years ago) Permalink
I thought I'd ask a staple question that I think may have been toiled over before on ILX, regarding use of the first person in gig and LP reviews. Is this generally considered unacceptable in anything less than the most stylistic circumstances? Or does it really not matter too much?
I'm going to try a different tack: Suppose you are an aspiring musician, and the question is the use of guitars in creating musical recordings. Is this generally considered unacceptable in anything less than the most stylistic circumstances? Or does it really not matter too much? Well, those would be the wrong questions. The question I'd pose to you first would be: Do you like music that has guitars? Obviously, you'll like some and dislike others. But is there some guitar playing that inspires you to want to play guitar yourself? Who is making such music? What guitar techniques are they using and, most important, to what effect? That last question - to what effect? - is crucial because what might happen is that you'll discover that the effect they got with guitars isn't the effect that you're getting with guitars, whereas when you switch over to trumpets or keyboards or jew's harps, well then - blam! - that's where you've got it. But you'll start with guitar, seeing what you can do with guitars.
Same is true with any literary device: irony, alliteration, first person, subordinate clauses, etc. You use them because you've learned them from models you admire, and if they help you say what you want to say, you keep using them.
This is a long-winded way of saying that no editor knows in advance whether you should use the first-person singular until he or she has seen how you use it. There are a few publications where you might find it outright forbidden, but we're not likely to be welcome at those pubs anyway. The important thing is having something interesting to say.
― Frank Kogan, Sunday, 10 January 2010 08:33 (3 years ago) Permalink
Xhuxk's forgotten that most of what I wrote for him was on spec too; same with what I wrote for Levy or Simmons. This is mainly because I was too scared to pitch things that I didn't know in advance I'd do well, and of course you can't know in advance, so the way to find out is to sit down and write it in the first place.
Of course, I'm not a good model for how to earn a living.
― Frank Kogan, Sunday, 10 January 2010 08:44 (3 years ago) Permalink
DiS isn't 'totally' a landfill site. Or at least it wasn't a couple of years ago when I used to read it regularly. No site that had Kev Kharas, Mike Diver and, dare I say it, the charmless but occasionally brilliant Dom Passantino writing for it amongst others could be considered so.
― Doran, Sunday, 10 January 2010 10:04 (3 years ago) Permalink
To elaborate on what I said above: I doubt that someone who hasn't "earned" the right to use the first person has earned the write to bore us with adjectives and genre designations either. Someone who falls asleep at my use of the first person isn't interested in my ideas anyway, whether I'm in the first person or not. To go back to my analogy, the phrase "guitar band" is a red flag for me these days, indicating that I'm likely to dislike what I hear. But the problem isn't with guitars themselves; guitars don't kill music, musicians kill music, and if you had the same guys playing keyboards or xylophones they'd probably be just as dreary. "Electric guitar" meant electric excitement in '66, it means drudgery now. But there's plenty of electric guitar excitement in music today - great stuttering Keith Richards-style guitar chords at the start of Martina McBride's "Wrong Baby Wrong Baby Wrong," for instance - it just doesn't usually come packaged with "guitar band" on the label.
The first person is a red flag for Chris because he associates it with a style of wandering P4k writing c. 2000 that I never paid much attention to anyway. But that's not an inherent problem with the first person. Any reader who sees the name "Kool Moe Dee" in the kicker and sees Kool Moe Dee's picture at the top of a review is gonna know that the piece will get around to Kool Moe Dee even though the lead is "I transport myself into rage a lot." And editors who think that "Kool Moe Dee transports himself into rage a lot" would be as good an opening as "I transport myself into rage a lot" probably should re-evaluate their career choice. But then, which opening to use depends on the piece as a whole; by starting it the way I did I put the rage closer to the reader than if I'd assigned the rage only to Kool Moe Dee. But then, I wanted to put the rage close to the reader. If I hadn't, I'd have started the piece differently. Doing what I did, I was immediately able to call my record player a rage machine and put Kool Moe Dee in the context of other performers on my rage machine (Stones, Stooges, Sex Pistols, Big Youth, Spoonie Gee), so the piece isn't about these misogynist black youth out there in hip-hop with their rage, but about something basic in a lot of music that - problematically - attracts me and potentially the reader too. But it wouldn't be as problematic as I want if it isn't the writer's and the prose's rage that is at issue, and potentially the reader's, not just that of the guy I'm writing the review about. (And if you don't want reviews that read like that, why in the hell would you listen to music that sounds like that, either?)
By the way, my use of the first person back then was heavily influenced by Mick Jagger's use of it in "Under My Thumb" and "Back Street Girl" and "Street Fighting Man" and so on, the way he made himself problematic. But I wasn't sitting down and going, "Oh, I'll use the first person in the way that Jagger does." I just was someone who'd analyzed a lot of Jagger and then wrote the way I wrote.
― Frank Kogan, Sunday, 10 January 2010 15:48 (3 years ago) Permalink
"Earned the write"
(But I haven't earned the right to proofread my own writing, even if I'm pretty good proofreading others'.)
― Frank Kogan, Sunday, 10 January 2010 16:02 (3 years ago) Permalink
i actually wondered if that was intentional coz i thought it were a funny pun
― Richard D JAMMs muthafuckas! (Karen Tregaskin), Sunday, 10 January 2010 16:07 (3 years ago) Permalink
Sometimes my unconscious pulls off some expressive bloopers that I end up keeping, but this one has more to do with senility. As I get older, more and more I'm typing in sound-alike words for the words I mean.
― Frank Kogan, Sunday, 10 January 2010 16:15 (3 years ago) Permalink
By the way, Chris actually allowed all sorts of shenanigans at PTW. E.g. this.
― Frank Kogan, Sunday, 10 January 2010 16:30 (3 years ago) Permalink
The unwritten rule at PTW was that no one was allowed first person unless they had a book published, so I def let Frank and xhuxks first person narratives roam free in the wild while I cracked down on others!
― steady mmmobyn (Whiney G. Weingarten), Sunday, 10 January 2010 18:41 (3 years ago) Permalink
Here's a music writing question for all yall.
Is there a reliable alternative to doing phone interviews on anything besides a landline? I'm currently paying appx $40 a month to keep a landline (which, to be fair, is actually really cheap compared to, say, five years ago) so I can continue to do phone interviews at my house.
So far the alternatives I see area) Cell Phones - Which, as anyone who uses AT&T knows, are subject to dropped calls, bed reception, and sketchy changes depending on fluctuations in the weather. The cell phone coverage in my part of Brooklyn isn't the best in the world to begin with, and even in the best neighborhoods, I would rarely describe ANY cell phone call I get as "crystal clear" enough to make me want to trust phone interviews that make up my livelihood
b) Skype/Web phones - "The future" as it were, but subject to sketchy wireless internet farts (which are less predictable that even cellphones in my experience), but the possiblity of your computer freezing, corrupting, or simply crapping out and losing the entire interview you just recorded.
― steady mmmobyn (Whiney G. Weingarten), Sunday, 10 January 2010 18:49 (3 years ago) Permalink
god knows i'm wary of the vagaries of technology crapping out at the most inopportune times, but phone interviews via mobile/skype have always been fine for me. w/the former, plant yourself in an area of good coverage. the latter are pretty rare, only done one skype interview...iirc, it screwed up the first time (either the artist's or the pr's end), we arranged, it went smoothly the second time).
i record phone/skype interviews w/the usual dictaphone so there's no more risk of the i/v being lost than usual. wouldn't know how else to record them tbh.
― لوووووووووووووووووووول (lex pretend), Sunday, 10 January 2010 18:57 (3 years ago) Permalink
I use AT&T and I don't have a problem, so that might be an area issue. Over the last few months of doing cell phone interviews I've only dropped one call (the person was very understanding and called me right back). And if you jailbreak it, you can record the phone conversation with an app, which fixes the problem I have of trying to transcribe phone interviews -- on my old cellphone I'd have to put it on speaker phone and hold a recorder to it.
― Mordy, Sunday, 10 January 2010 18:57 (3 years ago) Permalink
(And if you jailbreak an iPhone, that is.)
― Mordy, Sunday, 10 January 2010 18:58 (3 years ago) Permalink
i was hoping this wouldn't turn in "my cell phone sounds awesome wtf is wrong with u" because cellphones never sound awesome to me, even when i use someone elses
― steady mmmobyn (Whiney G. Weingarten), Sunday, 10 January 2010 19:01 (3 years ago) Permalink
I've been interviewed three times in the last two weeks, and all our conversations (3 hours at a time) took place on my cell phone. I thought I was going to ask him to call my land line (which I still pay for and love), but the reception was first-rate.
― Hell is other people. In an ILE film forum. (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Sunday, 10 January 2010 19:02 (3 years ago) Permalink
It could be that I haven't used a landline in so long that I forget how superior they sound. At this point tho cell phone works well enough for me.
― Mordy, Sunday, 10 January 2010 19:03 (3 years ago) Permalink
as far as first-person goes, I'm more comfortable using it now (better than the first person plural or second person at any rate). Hell, I may even have used it for one of my PTW reviews.
― Hell is other people. In an ILE film forum. (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Sunday, 10 January 2010 19:04 (3 years ago) Permalink
mobile phones don't sound particularly worse than landlines to me? more than good enough anyway, it's always more of an issue doing face-to-face i/vs which end up having to be done in some noisy public space
― لوووووووووووووووووووول (lex pretend), Sunday, 10 January 2010 19:12 (3 years ago) Permalink
I do the majority of my phoners via cell these days - I put the cell phone on speaker and plop my Olympus DM-20 digital recorder right next to it on the couch. I have perfectly sufficient reception and excellent recordings. Sometimes if the artist is calling me, I'll do it on my land line, but more and more it's cell phone speaker into recorder. Recently I thought I was gonna have to do a Skype interview w/a guy who lived in Berlin but we wound up doing it by email instead (cleared this in advance with my editor).
― neither good nor bad, just a kid like you (unperson), Sunday, 10 January 2010 19:19 (3 years ago) Permalink
ugh speaker phone is the worst, you people are savages!
― steady mmmobyn (Whiney G. Weingarten), Sunday, 10 January 2010 19:33 (3 years ago) Permalink
In regards to first person discussion, I use it when it seems that my personal experience in the matter will carry some weight. I write a lot of music previews in Portland, OR and I've become known as an authority on metal around here. Since I play music, promote shows and festivals, and write about it, I know that there's a local audience that trusts my words to some degree. So even though I haven't published a book (yet), I feel no guilt in using first person voice when it actually lends something of use to the writing.
I am all ears about more good interview recording solutions though. Sounds like I should jailbreak my iPhone. I like that solution best so far.
― Nate Carson, Sunday, 10 January 2010 23:00 (3 years ago) Permalink
I'm more curious about others' steps AFTER recording, especially transcribing in the mp3 age.
Here's my process at the moment:
1. Do interviews on a land line, mainly because that's what I have a jack for. Record on an Olympus digital voice recorder DS-330, which my brother gave me. I should probably upgrade.2. Download to my Mac using DSS Player, which I have set to automatically make an AIFF copy.3. Take the AIFF and plop it into Switch, then convert it to an mp3.4. Label and plop the mp3 into iTunes for safekeeping (and make sure it's set to actually import to iTunes).5. Put the DSS and AIFF "originals" in a folder for backup.6. Plop a copy of the mp3 in ExpressScribe for transcription. ExpressScribe lets you slow down recordings, but it's still nowhere near as handy or as good-sounding as a manual cassette tape recorder.
The only good thing about digital transcription is fast-forwarding and rewinding, but I have yet to figure out "hot keys" or buy anything like a foot pedal or whatever, which sucks because I'm planning on doing 100s of interviews this year...
― Pete Scholtes, Monday, 11 January 2010 04:48 (3 years ago) Permalink
just make stuff up.
― strongohulkingtonsghost, Monday, 11 January 2010 04:59 (3 years ago) Permalink
i mean, i still do my shit on TAPE and still am fighting the move to go digital.
The way I see it, your interviews are the most valuable part of your job, and if I get hit by a car or drop my recorder in a puddle or whatever, that tape is gonna survive. I've heard too many stories about digital recordings just "corrupting" with no rhyme or reason.
When I interviewed Negativland they told me a story of a friend who went to mexico and did a weeks worth of digital recording and then the whole thing just crumbled into corrupted digi-dust
Sometimes artists laugh when I pull out my big cassette recorder, but I've been doing this 10 years and have had exactly one mishap, which was with a wire, not the recorder.
go analog!
― ke$nan (Whiney G. Weingarten), Monday, 11 January 2010 05:06 (3 years ago) Permalink
I still use cassettes as well, I swear by it. Has never let me down.
― A. Begrand, Monday, 11 January 2010 05:31 (3 years ago) Permalink
Used Skype a few times now and it has worked very well, recording to computer HD. It's a little scary because it's not as easy to trust as tape, but as long as you see the VU meters going, it's recording. Helps to have a headset, the sound quality is outstanding, much better than any phone. Right after I make a copy of the file on another drive. Recording cell phone conversations sucks, period, and I never figured out how to do it with an iPhone.
― Mark, Monday, 11 January 2010 05:44 (3 years ago) Permalink
I helped someone on my student magazine's staff run an interview last year, and we just put her cell on speaker and recorded the whole thing using GarageBand. It went fine, but there were a lot of ways it could have easily went wrong, and I could totally see why people would feel safer using a tape recorder or something like that.
― kshighway (ksh), Monday, 11 January 2010 05:47 (3 years ago) Permalink
It's true, cassettes are hardy. But I don't do more than one interview on a digital recorder before ripping it to the computer and my external hard drive. And the convenience of organization, searchability, and space is considerable.
― Pete Scholtes, Monday, 11 January 2010 06:24 (3 years ago) Permalink
I just archived all my old interviews on cassette into digital format -- but I haven't gotten rid of the tapes because, well, why? Might as well keep the ultimate backup.
― Ned Raggett, Monday, 11 January 2010 06:32 (3 years ago) Permalink
still pete, if anything happens from the time you record that interview to the time you get it on your computer...
especially since sometimes you do interviews on the road or at shows and not always at home!
― ke$nan (Whiney G. Weingarten), Monday, 11 January 2010 07:06 (3 years ago) Permalink
6. Plop a copy of the mp3 in ExpressScribe for transcription. ExpressScribe lets you slow down recordings, but it's still nowhere near as handy or as good-sounding as a manual cassette tape recorder.
not sure if its the same on mac, pete, but on pc the espress scribe hotkeys are f4 for stop, f9/10 to restart, f7 rewind and f8 ffw... lovelovelove that program...
― most notably, the bendable (stevie), Monday, 11 January 2010 08:51 (3 years ago) Permalink
sound quality of digital over analogue is an incredible improvement, tbh, and while my minidisk was scarily unreliable, my cheap mp3 recorder has never let me down yet...
― most notably, the bendable (stevie), Monday, 11 January 2010 08:52 (3 years ago) Permalink
i can't believe we're having a digital vs analogue debate in 2010. even a massive luddite like myself has long gone digital.
anything could happen to anything! tapes get chewed up inexplicably! someone could step on them! i could be run over by a bus! digital dictaphone puts my mind to rest re: clarity of recording and relative ease of transcribing. if bad things happen i'll deal.
― لوووووووووووووووووووول (lex pretend), Monday, 11 January 2010 09:42 (3 years ago) Permalink
I use a horse to get to jobs. There's just too much that can go wrong with the combustion engine.
― Doran, Monday, 11 January 2010 09:50 (3 years ago) Permalink
I transcribe my interviews straight from the recorder - don't even import 'em into the computer anymore. And when they're transcribed, I erase the original recording.
― neither good nor bad, just a kid like you (unperson), Monday, 11 January 2010 13:12 (3 years ago) Permalink
Speakerphone + Garageband works a treat for me. Just export to Itunes so it's easier to pause and go back.
― Stew, Monday, 11 January 2010 14:00 (3 years ago) Permalink
tapes get chewed up inexplicably! someone could step on them! i could be run over by a bus!
Yeah, you joke, but seriously digital recordings can just "go away", if a tape gets chewed up or stepped on you can still salvage it.
― ke$nan (Whiney G. Weingarten), Monday, 11 January 2010 14:27 (3 years ago) Permalink
I remember when U2 recorded their last album. They finished, tried to play it back and it had just 'gone away'. Bummer.
― Disco Stfu (Raw Patrick), Monday, 11 January 2010 14:31 (3 years ago) Permalink
Just make sure to keep those tapes in their cases. Who knows who's out there roving for binders filled with your interviews!!
― kshighway (ksh), Monday, 11 January 2010 14:32 (3 years ago) Permalink
or maybe you can't. analogue tape is a hella vulnerable medium, and i can ruefully say i've lost interview cassettes on tourbuses, had them doused in liquid and left em in my car on a rilly hot day before, and that's pretty much been the end of that.
is harder to misplace a file on a digital recorder i'd protect with my life anyway.
― most notably, the bendable (stevie), Monday, 11 January 2010 14:49 (3 years ago) Permalink
I love my digital recorder. Done a few interviews in noisy restaurants--seriously, at one point someone started vacuuming in front of our table--and I was shocked to find that the audio was perfectly discernible.
I too just transcribe straight from the recorder - use the playback function where the speed is slowed down a little bit (though it always makes me sound like a pothead) and it works pretty swimmingly.
― scott pgwp (pgwp), Monday, 11 January 2010 22:32 (3 years ago) Permalink
yeah, i do have to say the one real drawback to my cassette tape system is that the audio is often a lil wonky
― touch me i'm acoleuthic (Whiney G. Weingarten), Monday, 11 January 2010 22:33 (3 years ago) Permalink
Done a few interviews in noisy restaurants--seriously, at one point someone started vacuuming in front of our table--and I was shocked to find that the audio was perfectly discernible.
I interviewed the DJ at a bull riding competition on Friday night while a band was playing in the center of the arena and his voice was perfectly clear.
― neither good nor bad, just a kid like you (unperson), Monday, 11 January 2010 22:43 (3 years ago) Permalink
So what model digital recorders are you all using?
― Nate Carson, Monday, 11 January 2010 23:44 (3 years ago) Permalink
...not a music writer, but have somewhat similar purposes - I use a Sony PCM-D50.
― nothingleft (gravydan), Monday, 11 January 2010 23:57 (3 years ago) Permalink
Olympus DM-20.
― neither good nor bad, just a kid like you (unperson), Tuesday, 12 January 2010 00:02 (3 years ago) Permalink
olympus ws-210s
― لوووووووووووووووووووول (lex pretend), Tuesday, 12 January 2010 00:04 (3 years ago) Permalink
Olympus WS-100
― mike t-diva, Tuesday, 12 January 2010 00:05 (3 years ago) Permalink
Sony ICD-UX71 - I really like it. I've also used the Sony ICD-B510F (low end model) which does the job but has a few less features (like background noise reduction and slow playback) that feel essential now that I have the UX71.
― scott pgwp (pgwp), Tuesday, 12 January 2010 00:44 (3 years ago) Permalink
I erase the original recording.
I forget what the statute of limitations is on libel, but I'd wait that out. And people might be interested in your actual audio someday (or now!).
― Pete Scholtes, Tuesday, 12 January 2010 01:25 (3 years ago) Permalink
olympus vn-3100pc. it works fine but it was a panic purchase from radio shack, when i arrived in LA with two weeks worth of interviews booked, and discovered that my minidisk recorder hadn't survived the flight.
― shart in a bag, light it on fire (stevie), Tuesday, 12 January 2010 09:48 (3 years ago) Permalink
I use Olympus WS210s at work.
― exploding angel vagina (Scik Mouthy), Tuesday, 12 January 2010 11:06 (3 years ago) Permalink
tapes get chewed up inexplicably! someone could step on them! i could be run over by a bus!Yeah, you joke, but seriously digital recordings can just "go away", if a tape gets chewed up or stepped on you can still salvage it.― ke$nan (Whiney G. Weingarten), Monday, 11 January 2010 14:27
― ke$nan (Whiney G. Weingarten), Monday, 11 January 2010 14:27
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^this, sadly. Over the weekend my PC arbitrarily decided to "lose" the first 20 minutes of my 40-minute St3phin M3rritt interview. Gutted ain't the half of it - every other interview I've ever conducted has been recorded on cassette and is still in immaculate condition, and the moment I switch to Audacity...
― Background Zombie (CharlieNo4), Tuesday, 12 January 2010 11:16 (3 years ago) Permalink
I recorded a little less than a half hour of audio on Audacity about five years back and I thought it was going to blow up. So much can go wrong between pressing record and hitting save without the user even doing anything wrong.
― kshighway (ksh), Tuesday, 12 January 2010 13:55 (3 years ago) Permalink
Audacity is an amazing program, but it is buggy freeware-- not something I would trust to record an interview. Plus its real strength is multi-tracking.
― Mark, Tuesday, 12 January 2010 14:08 (3 years ago) Permalink
Exactly.
― kshighway (ksh), Tuesday, 12 January 2010 14:09 (3 years ago) Permalink
i have an olympus 960, which i guess is practically ancient now. (i've had it i think 4 or 5 years.) it works great, i've never had a problem. i'm very aware of the potential to easily erase or lose data, but so far i've avoided that -- which puts it ahead of the various problems i've had in the past with cassettes and microcassettes.
and here's a question on transcription: do most people really transcribe their entire interviews? i almost never do that. i generally know the parts i'm interested in, so i transcribe those first. then if it turns out there's more stuff i think i need i'll go back and pick and choose. the average 60 minutes of conversation has about 5 minutes of really good quotes, maybe 10 minutes if you're talking to somebody especially smart and articulate, and anyway you're only going to have room for a handful of direct quotes as it is.
― hellzapoppa (tipsy mothra), Tuesday, 12 January 2010 14:45 (3 years ago) Permalink
(the obvious exception is q&a's. which is one reason i really don't like q&a's.)
― hellzapoppa (tipsy mothra), Tuesday, 12 January 2010 14:46 (3 years ago) Permalink
i usually transcribe "the good parts" and pick and choose from there
― touch me i'm acoleuthic (Whiney G. Weingarten), Tuesday, 12 January 2010 14:56 (3 years ago) Permalink
ditto, who on earth transcribes the WHOLE THING? the process is distressing enough as it is
― لوووووووووووووووووووول (lex pretend), Tuesday, 12 January 2010 15:02 (3 years ago) Permalink
man do i hate transcribing
― touch me i'm acoleuthic (Whiney G. Weingarten), Tuesday, 12 January 2010 15:03 (3 years ago) Permalink
yeah that's the only way that makes sense to me. i've had some friends and colleagues who for whatever reason feel compelled to transcribe everything before actually getting down to writing -- i guess maybe it helps them to hear it all again -- but that's just so time consuming, especially if it's a full-bore feature story where you've talked to a bunch of different people. i keep pretty good notes while i'm interviewing, so that i can use them as sort of an outline of what's on the recording. (plus i'll write down especially good quotes as i go, if possible, as a backup against something happening to the recorder.)
― hellzapoppa (tipsy mothra), Tuesday, 12 January 2010 15:04 (3 years ago) Permalink
We have this argument all the time in the newsroom – that's why notebooks will never go out of fashion. Better to jot down pithy phrases than to waste time rewinding and fast forwarding.
― Hell is other people. In an ILE film forum. (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Tuesday, 12 January 2010 15:07 (3 years ago) Permalink
i do LISTEN to the whole tape again, but certainly dont write anything down
― touch me i'm acoleuthic (Whiney G. Weingarten), Tuesday, 12 January 2010 15:07 (3 years ago) Permalink
I transcribe everything, or damn close to it, but I use a lot of quotes in my features. I like to let the artist speak for themselves a lot and only throw in bits of narrative and/or interpretation between, rather than unloading some huge personal thesis and scattering a few quotes on top to support what I'm trying to put across.
― neither good nor bad, just a kid like you (unperson), Tuesday, 12 January 2010 15:08 (3 years ago) Permalink
I do both. Depends on the interviewee.
― scott pgwp (pgwp), Tuesday, 12 January 2010 15:15 (3 years ago) Permalink
We have this argument all the time in the newsroom – that's why notebooks will never go out of fashion.
when i was a daily beat reporter, i almost never taped anything. just notepad and pen. when you're writing short news articles you can get everything you need that way, and it's a lot faster. but when i started writing longer-form stuff, especially profiles where you really want to give a sense of a person's voice, how they talk and think, i eventually realized i really needed recordings. and one thing i've found is that no matter how good you are at note-taking, you very rarely get direct quotes accurate at anything past about two sentences. you can get the meaning of them right -- and as long as you do that, almost nobody will complain about being misquoted -- but you're going to lose or change some words. (i guess i should say "i" instead of "you," because some people are probably better at word-for-word recall than me. but i bet most people can't accurately write down more than a few sentences at a time while also conducting an interview.)
― hellzapoppa (tipsy mothra), Tuesday, 12 January 2010 15:24 (3 years ago) Permalink
That's all true. We've had the other extreme here, though: students walking into offices, plunking down a tape recorder in front of a source, and sitting back, not taking a single note. Tape recorders work best when used as an archive or quasi-database, from which you can pluck information as needed.
― Hell is other people. In an ILE film forum. (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Tuesday, 12 January 2010 15:27 (3 years ago) Permalink
i bet most people can't accurately write down more than a few sentences at a time while also conducting an interview
well exactly - i'm sure i'd be capable of it but to get the best interview i pretty much want to be wholly focused on what the interviewee's saying, listening out for interesting hooks or details that i can pick up on, and if half my mind and one of my hands is concerned with transcribing accurately and legibly, that's not going to happen. an interview should be like a conversation, and taking notes during one would be the equivalent of fiddling with your blackberry while talking to a friend.
― لوووووووووووووووووووول (lex pretend), Tuesday, 12 January 2010 15:38 (3 years ago) Permalink
i mean i already get the whole "fuck's sake why didn't i pick up on that" feeling when listening back enough as it is, can't imagine that being less focused would improve on that
Taping is the only way to get the true flavor of the way somebody speaks, and the amazing thing is that it's never exactly how you remember. I think the little differences matter.
But yeah, for news stories, where what someone says is more important than how they say it, notes are way better, especially, in my case, if it's over the phone and I'm typing. I stopped writing in cursive at a young age and never learned shorthand.
― Pete Scholtes, Tuesday, 12 January 2010 15:47 (3 years ago) Permalink
my new year's resolution is to learn how to type :/
― touch me i'm acoleuthic (Whiney G. Weingarten), Tuesday, 12 January 2010 15:51 (3 years ago) Permalink
I'm one of the psychos that usually transcribes everything -- although more and more I tend to cherrypick out the stuff I know I might use, especially if I'm pressed for time, but if the whole thing is less than one 45-minute side of a tape I like to get it all down, if only to have a complete transcript in my files.
I got a nice digital recorder for my birthday last year and I've been still using my cassette recorder and putting off making the big switch ever since, mainly because I'm a slow learner with new technology and the thing intimidates me. You guys are making me even more scared, but I really do want to start using it still.
― some dude, Tuesday, 12 January 2010 15:51 (3 years ago) Permalink
x-post -- I am eternally glad for the typing class I took in high school.
― Ned Raggett, Tuesday, 12 January 2010 15:51 (3 years ago) Permalink
this is absolutely positively otm. if I was ever an interviewee and someone sat down in front of me with a notebook and no recording device I'd be totally certain of being misquoted and would instantly lose a lot of faith in the writer.
― some dude, Tuesday, 12 January 2010 15:53 (3 years ago) Permalink
I used to type 80 words a minute, but my keyboard promiscuity (three or four different Mac keyboards around the office, a PC laptop at home) has destroyed my speed. The keyboard really does make a difference.
― Hell is other people. In an ILE film forum. (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Tuesday, 12 January 2010 15:53 (3 years ago) Permalink
I am eternally glad for the typing class I took in high school.
Eighth grade for me. I can't imagine doing this for a living and not being able to type like 80 wpm (which is about where I'm at).
― neither good nor bad, just a kid like you (unperson), Tuesday, 12 January 2010 15:54 (3 years ago) Permalink
I actually think I sped up a lot... by transcribing a lot.
― Pete Scholtes, Tuesday, 12 January 2010 16:06 (3 years ago) Permalink
I taught myself to touch type in 1996.
Mind you I lived in Harlow in Essex. There wasn't much else to do.
I transcribe everything and save it as a raw text file on my PC and back it all up once or twice a year onto a portable hard drive. It's pretty anal but I guess you never know when you'll need that quote from so-and-so about that seemingly trivial subject - until you really need it.
I email most of the raw text files to myself as well so that wherever I am I can access them. Just in case, like.
― Doran, Tuesday, 12 January 2010 16:09 (3 years ago) Permalink
ditto, who on earth transcribes the WHOLE THING?
unless i'm in a hurry i try to - the times i haven't, i've usually regretted it and gone back to the tape to hear what i've missed, in case there's some game-changing morsel on there
― shart in a bag, light it on fire (stevie), Tuesday, 12 January 2010 16:13 (3 years ago) Permalink
i also transcribe every (laughs) in there too, tho sometimes that's just so i can console myself that they laughed at my lame joke
― shart in a bag, light it on fire (stevie), Tuesday, 12 January 2010 16:14 (3 years ago) Permalink
One of my writers bollocked me for taking loads of their [laughs] out of the piece that they'd filed. It didn't, they told me, reflect the general levels of hilarity that had taken place in the interview.
― Doran, Tuesday, 12 January 2010 16:18 (3 years ago) Permalink
ill transcribe a whole interview if im still feeling kind of lost about how to write the piece. usually i know my angle by the time the interview is done so ill just cherrypick.
― max, Tuesday, 12 January 2010 16:20 (3 years ago) Permalink
this was literally the only class my parents insisted i take in high school, and i've thanked them for it many times.
back on transcribing/listening to interviews: is there anyone who doesn't hate listening to themselves conducting an interview? if so i envy you. there's the "sound of my own voice" part, which is annoying and awkward, but there's also just all the little things i do or say to keep people talking or to try to draw them out on one thing or another, some of which inevitably end up in dead ends or nonsequiturs. and even though i understand what i'm doing, the strategies of trying to adapt to the personality or whatever of the person i'm talking to, i just tend to think i sound like an idiot.
― hellzapoppa (tipsy mothra), Tuesday, 12 January 2010 16:21 (3 years ago) Permalink
back on transcribing/listening to interviews: is there anyone who doesn't hate listening to themselves conducting an interview?
i think it has seriously damaged my self esteem, no lie. i sound like a huge putz, and also a toady, and also sometimes i don't know EVERYTHING about the person i'm interviewing and they get mad.
― shart in a bag, light it on fire (stevie), Tuesday, 12 January 2010 16:25 (3 years ago) Permalink
It didn't, they told me, reflect the general levels of hilarity that had taken place in the interview.
"Sure it was about how the mysterious death of his entire family due to throwing themselves backwards on forks inspired him to write a despairing three CD masterwork but it was REALLY funny!"
― Ned Raggett, Tuesday, 12 January 2010 16:26 (3 years ago) Permalink
is there anyone who doesn't hate listening to themselves conducting an interview?
Hahah, having dug out those old cassettes I'd mentioned and relistened to them over the past month: eurgh.
― Ned Raggett, Tuesday, 12 January 2010 16:27 (3 years ago) Permalink
Love the one you're with.
― Pete Scholtes, Tuesday, 12 January 2010 16:41 (3 years ago) Permalink
I tried to quote Ron Mael saying I was a smart guy in an interview once but the editor was having none of it
in retrospect he was probably mocking my eagerness to prove I "got" his band anyway
― MPx4A, Tuesday, 12 January 2010 16:44 (3 years ago) Permalink
"ournalists who try to spell an interviewee's laugh"
― Inspiration for the sex robot sprang from the September 11 attacks (acoleuthic), Tuesday, 12 January 2010 16:50 (3 years ago) Permalink
Read that as 'onanists' and thought "Well..."
― Ned Raggett, Tuesday, 12 January 2010 16:52 (3 years ago) Permalink
haha i'd misquoted and edited the j out with the preceding a...i'll never make a music-writer
― Inspiration for the sex robot sprang from the September 11 attacks (acoleuthic), Tuesday, 12 January 2010 16:52 (3 years ago) Permalink
i like how when someone says, "nobody's ever asked me that before," it can either mean, "huh, that's a good question" or "jesus you're an idiot" depending on their tone and inflection.
― hellzapoppa (tipsy mothra), Tuesday, 12 January 2010 16:53 (3 years ago) Permalink
(i inferred the latter from a sighing iris dement.)
― hellzapoppa (tipsy mothra), Tuesday, 12 January 2010 16:54 (3 years ago) Permalink
Probably shouldn't have asked her "So what do you think of the Goo Goo Dolls song about you?"
― Ned Raggett, Tuesday, 12 January 2010 16:56 (3 years ago) Permalink
Yeah, I tried to sneak Mark E Smith saying "They were alright guys. Cool guys like you John" past some subs but to no avail.
I mean journalism has broken my body and come close to snapping my mind. All I wanted was a quote of The Fall lead singer saying I was cool in print - even if he said it because he was pissed and I'd just bought him two pints of San Miguel - but would they grant me that one indulgence? Would they fuck.
Transcribing is the fucking bane of my life. I've only ever said "LOL" out loud once. And that was to Polly Harvey. You can almost *hear* her looking at my like I've just beamed down from planet Daft Cunt.
― Doran, Tuesday, 12 January 2010 17:04 (3 years ago) Permalink
One of the worst mistakes I ever made was agreeing to surrender the audio of one of my interviews to The Wire, who posted it on their site.
― neither good nor bad, just a kid like you (unperson), Tuesday, 12 January 2010 17:13 (3 years ago) Permalink
the weird thing about interviewing - given that pretty much all of mine have been one-on-one - is that you never quite know whether you're good at it or not* - no one ever listens in or grades you or is able to give you specific tips for improvement
*re: the actual interviewing process, not the ability to write up a good feature based on the material you managed to get
― لوووووووووووووووووووول (lex pretend), Tuesday, 12 January 2010 17:16 (3 years ago) Permalink
I used to take "That's a great question" at face value and feel really flattered until I realised it was a hedging tactic and often meant nothing of the sort.
I was, however, chuffed beyond measure when Lemmy said, "I enjoyed that. Good questions. Not like most of these idiots." Thing is, they were the kind of fairly basic questions that most people would ask Lemmy so maybe it was the Jack Daniel's talking.
― Dorian (Dorianlynskey), Tuesday, 12 January 2010 17:37 (3 years ago) Permalink
has anyone ever had a musician record a song dissing them after giving a negative review?
― free the charmless but occasionally brilliant Dom Passantino (history mayne), Tuesday, 12 January 2010 17:42 (3 years ago) Permalink
Lemmy's a straight shooter. I think you can take him at face value.
― Doran, Tuesday, 12 January 2010 17:47 (3 years ago) Permalink
Lex: Isn't it the case that it depends quite a lot on the other person. Like you, I see a good interview as being more like a conversation. If you get stuck with some passive aggressive/hates doing interviews idiot, no ammount of 'skill' at your job is going to rescue the piece.
That said there are some notable exceptions where this becomes part of the game. Lou Reed. J Mascis. Kevin Shields etc.
― Doran, Tuesday, 12 January 2010 17:50 (3 years ago) Permalink
interviewed Mascis twice - the first time was a nightmare, for-reals five minute gaps of silence between question and monosyllabic answer. interviewed him again a few years later, with really specific questions, for a MOJO piece on Dinosaur, and he was great, talked at length about stuff, was endearingly un-self-conscious (and certainly didn't strive to make himself look like a nice guy re: how he treated Lous bitd). i now wonder if, a la Andrew WK, it was actually an impostor J.
― shart in a bag, light it on fire (stevie), Tuesday, 12 January 2010 18:16 (3 years ago) Permalink
people, especially creative types like musicians, are ALWAYS the same in every single situation. even if they've been drinking, if they're high, if they're jet lagged, if they're having a bad day or a shitty soundcheck has just blasted out their hearing or if their girlfriend has just dumped them. every experience of that same musician will always be the same. always
not being challops, but if interviewee is the same every time i'd suggest that's the robot imposter not the dude who's grumpy and monosyllabic one time and chatty and friendly another time
― Karen Tregaskin, Tuesday, 12 January 2010 18:22 (3 years ago) Permalink
sorry i hould have typed LOL at the end of my sentence to signify i wasn't being entirely serious i guess
― shart in a bag, light it on fire (stevie), Tuesday, 12 January 2010 18:24 (3 years ago) Permalink
no i know yr joking
but maybe there should be a special rolling musicians hating on being interviewed/critiqued thread
so we can bitch and be all 'omg i just stepped off a plane in vancouver jet lagged out of my mind and couldn't find any weed and some interviewer dude asking me really obvious questions straight out of the press kit and i can't keep my eyes open yet he gives me beef coz i'm monosyllabic' as a companion thread to this one
i haven't done an interview in a couple of years and always prefer email over f2f but sheesh this thread. brings back bad memories ya know
― Karen Tregaskin, Tuesday, 12 January 2010 18:29 (3 years ago) Permalink
XP: There are ways and means of getting shit out of monosyllabic people in most situations but not all.
I had the lack of humility to presume that I'd be the one to break Lou Reed. That I was so well researched he'd just take to me. He'd break down in tears and end up sobbing on my shoulder and tell me everything. I had the fucking chops to get anyone talking. Fucking bawling. Spilling the fucking beans.
There, there Lou. You can tell me.
On listening back to the tape it wasn't as transcendentally unpleasant as it seemed during the actual experience - when I wanted a black hole to suck me out of existence to safety beyond the event horizon - and we even had a pretty funny exchange about tinitus and listening to music in the bath but it was still useless and the piece got spiked.
That was my only one where I felt like I'd failed to get 'the piece' or 'the story' however.
There are ways and means of making sure that even with people that act like they hate you, you can come away with enough to cover the basis of a feature/news story.
― Doran, Tuesday, 12 January 2010 18:32 (3 years ago) Permalink
But the people we're talking about on this thread have longstanding reputations for being difficult. Interviewees who are monosyllabic or outright hostile year after year, with interviewer after interviewer, can't really pull the stupid-questions/jetlag excuse.
Email interviews are usually horrible - dry and stilted and too easy to evade or fudge questions. What's so hard about a face-to-face conversation?
― Dorian (Dorianlynskey), Tuesday, 12 January 2010 18:34 (3 years ago) Permalink
i like it when you click with someone and have a legitimately pleasant conversation. it's more enjoyable and you get better quotes. but i also just try to keep in mind that it doesn't matter whether or not they like me or think i'm smart or clever or any of that shit -- as long as i can get some reasonably interesting things from them on the record, that's all i need. in most cases i'll never talk to them again, and if i do they almost certainly won't remember me. we're both just doing our jobs.
― hellzapoppa (tipsy mothra), Tuesday, 12 January 2010 18:37 (3 years ago) Permalink
That's very admirable. But if I found out that, say, David Bowie, liked me, I'd be made up, despite it being a silly thing to worry about.
Part and parcel of me being a music fan. Although this would only really count with about six or seven people.
― Doran, Tuesday, 12 January 2010 18:39 (3 years ago) Permalink
i'd definitely love to hear about what it's like from the other perspective, not least because it'd probably help me be better at doing the interviewing...
i'm generally pretty respectful and well-researched, even though i know i might be able to get better results froma different approach. winning their trust is often my aim, though, and i never want it to be a destructive experience. "difficult" subjects often mellow if you show 'em you know nearly as much about their group as they do, and you're genuinely curious about the rest.
xp yeah lou seems like the exception to pretty much every rule, john!
― shart in a bag, light it on fire (stevie), Tuesday, 12 January 2010 18:40 (3 years ago) Permalink
But if I found out that, say, David Bowie, liked me, I'd be made up, despite it being a silly thing to worry about.
i fall into this trap far too often, i fear.
XP: to Mothra. What I mean is: you're creating a false binary about professionalism and enjoyment. They're not mutually exclusive.
― Doran, Tuesday, 12 January 2010 18:41 (3 years ago) Permalink
I'm having flashbacks to my horrendous interview with Eric B. and Rakim years ago where they wouldn't respond at all with full sentences, and Rakim just kept saying in a montone voice "I want to encourage our fans not to do drugs," while he looked glassy-eyed and on something himself.
― curmudgeon, Tuesday, 12 January 2010 18:43 (3 years ago) Permalink
yeah point taken dorian but for those people why bother doing interviews at all? it's not like lou reed needs to do interviews at this point why go through the motions?
obv i can't speak for all interviewees but i'm not a verbal person. if i had good conversational skills i probably wouldn't make music at all but that's another story. i often feel very put on the spot if i'm f2f. if i'd had media training maybe i'd know how to field questions and have prepared answers for those dog-and-pony-show interviews but i put that shit in the press release coz i don't wanna talk about it any more
what's a worse interview for you guys? monosyllabic coz someone hasn't prepared & doesn't wanna be there or dog-and-pony media training standard answers?
― Karen Tregaskin, Tuesday, 12 January 2010 18:44 (3 years ago) Permalink
xp to Doran - The problem with coming away from an interview with the idea that the artist personally likes you is that you're set up for the disappointment of meeting them again somewhere down the line and realising they have no idea who you are and having to remind them that you've met and then they go, "oh yeah" and smile weakly and then you wish you'd never said anything. Goddam these celebrities. You open yourself up and then they break your heart.
For this reason I've always liked the prostitute comparison - you meet in a hotel room for an hour and pretend you know each other better than you do. Although obviously with a prostitute nobody's expected to transcribe the tape afterwards.
xp to curmudgeon - Rappers are the best for this kind of stuff. Prince Paul once fell asleep on me during a Gravediggaz interview (but was lovely on the phone years later so maybe it was just lethal jetlag) and Jay-Z conducted a whole interview (fluent, friendly) while watching TV over my shoulder.
xp to Karen - That's Hobson's Choice. I guess I'd still rather someone showed the courtesy of coming up with some kind of answer, however generic, rather than making the interviewer feel like a prick. It's basic politeness. I think artists sometimes forget that the journalist could be doing other things with their time, and might have flown some distance themselves, and merits a little civility. But tbh, this is kind of the reason I was glad to leave the dance press - no more interviews with people who plainly didn't want to talk about their music.
― Dorian (Dorianlynskey), Tuesday, 12 January 2010 18:51 (3 years ago) Permalink
i had a memorable interview with can ox's vast aire where he kept up a fascinating spiel while flicking through a copy of the bible, a copy of the sunday mirror and a copy of Hustler's Hottest Teens (page open to a tres graphic blowjob scene), while keeping one eye trained on a TV news bulletin covering the opening salvo of the Iraq war
― shart in a bag, light it on fire (stevie), Tuesday, 12 January 2010 18:55 (3 years ago) Permalink
XP: I know what you're saying Dorian and it always feels like you're doing the wrong thing by either ignoring the person again or bounding up to them enthusiastically. I made the executive decision never to go backstage at a gig or a festival or to go to an awards ceremony or an aftershow party or to any kind of event where I know that these sorts hang out unless I was doing paid work and now the problem never raises it's ugly head.
I've got a signed copy of Raining Blood and my photo with Chuck D and that is enough for me. As much as I detest Almost Famous, the "they're not your friends" line should be tattooed on all aspirant music writers.
"Media training" is ok, because most of the time it's easy to get people out of that mode. Alright, they might not answer 'that question' but I feel you should be going in with multiple angles or possible objectives.
If someone is a passive aggressive, hates-the-press-but-doesn't-have-the-fucking-balls-to-tell-his (because it's always a bloke) record-label-that-they're-not-doing-any-more-interviews wanker, then there's little you can do.
I've tried the tactic of saying this straight out to people: "You haven't got the fucking nerve to tell your label's PR dept. that you're not doing press and now I've come here all the way from X to talk to you and you've just wasted everyone's time. You cunt."
And it has had a wide range of results. Some of them unpleasant. However it's always given me something to write about.
― Doran, Tuesday, 12 January 2010 18:56 (3 years ago) Permalink
xp to Karen - I should say that, not being a musician, I have no idea how bad some interviewers can be. I'm sure some of them can drive you to distraction.
― Dorian (Dorianlynskey), Tuesday, 12 January 2010 18:57 (3 years ago) Permalink
Doran, who have you actually said that to? I've often wanted to but never quite found the right moment.
― Dorian (Dorianlynskey), Tuesday, 12 January 2010 18:58 (3 years ago) Permalink
it's usually the publicist who forces you to do interviews and they're almost always wimmins
― Karen Tregaskin, Tuesday, 12 January 2010 18:58 (3 years ago) Permalink
Reign In Blood I mean.
― Doran, Tuesday, 12 January 2010 18:59 (3 years ago) Permalink
Mainly metal bands. Killswitch Engage - they suddenly became very charming. Machinehead. One of them punched me. Then we got on really well. Mogwai. But I said it as a joke and they took it as a joke and we got on pretty well after that. Minus. One of them later attacked me with a pair of scissors. Something a bit more toned down to Editors. No discernible change whatsoever. (I was so desperate not to let this band make me turn in a boring feature I reinterviewed them twice and ended up saying off record: Look, you're putting me in a position where I will have to make you look like a fucking cunt and I really don't want to but you're refusing to answer any of my questions properly. Again with no change whatsoever. There's something almost psychopathic and sado masochistic in the way their front man deals with the press.)
The two guys from the Yeah Yeah Yeahs. My first band interview as an adult. They made me feel like fucking shit. They were fucking horrible. And I came out of it thinking 'What have I done? I'm terrible at this.' But then I heard the interviewer after me punched one of them so I think they were having a not-getting-on-with-the-press day.
I said it to them and then walked out. It was like a year or two later than I realised that by saying it earlier in the interview I might shake the 'dynamic' of the meeting a bit in order to get some better results. I'm a slow thinker like that.
I should say that a lot of people I know are appalled by this story (including some who post here) and say that I must have got them on a bad day as they're generally really nice people.
― Doran, Tuesday, 12 January 2010 19:07 (3 years ago) Permalink
I saw Reign In Blood on that Quietus flyer last Friday and had to be reminded who it was by heh
― mdskltr (blueski), Tuesday, 12 January 2010 19:08 (3 years ago) Permalink
One of them later attacked me with a pair of scissors.
Holy shit.
― kshighway (ksh), Tuesday, 12 January 2010 19:12 (3 years ago) Permalink
I can't believe shit like that really happens in the context of a music interview.
― kshighway (ksh), Tuesday, 12 January 2010 19:13 (3 years ago) Permalink
appalled on your behalf though john!
― shart in a bag, light it on fire (stevie), Tuesday, 12 January 2010 19:13 (3 years ago) Permalink
friend of mine and sometime ilx lurker has just reminded me of the following: http://thequietus.com/articles/00104-black-sky-thinking-kanye-west-sensitive-soul
XD
john can you please be installed as ilm's official uncle and tell more stories
― Do the english boil pizza? (acoleuthic), Tuesday, 12 January 2010 19:16 (3 years ago) Permalink
I made the executive decision never to go backstage at a gig or a festival or to go to an awards ceremony or an aftershow party or to any kind of event where I know that these sorts hang out unless I was doing paid work ... I've got a signed copy of Raining Blood and my photo with Chuck D and that is enough for me.
I admit it; I've had my picture taken with three artists: Lemmy, Rob Halford and Ozzy. Oh, and a couple of the guys from Amon Amarth, but that was actually for a story in Metal Edge, not out of gushing fanboyism.
― neither good nor bad, just a kid like you (unperson), Tuesday, 12 January 2010 19:17 (3 years ago) Permalink
XP: Kshighway. I was on tour with a small band who have or had well documented drink and drug problems. I'm talking the story up a little. We ended up wrestling. Then fighting. He was holding a pair of scissors. I got cut. It was only a small cut but I bled quite a lot so it probably looked worse than it was.
Unperson: do I know you? I've got Kerry King, Frank Black, Chuck D, Julian Cope and Sonic Youth which is pretty good I reckon!
― Doran, Tuesday, 12 January 2010 19:18 (3 years ago) Permalink
Oh man. Still!
― kshighway (ksh), Tuesday, 12 January 2010 19:21 (3 years ago) Permalink
First of all I have to sign forms saying I will mention various mobile phones in whatever I write about it.
delete kanye west
― Do the english boil pizza? (acoleuthic), Tuesday, 12 January 2010 19:21 (3 years ago) Permalink
We've never met so far as I know. My real name is Phil Freeman and I'm the former EIC of Metal Edge and I write and have written a whole bunch of other stuff for a whole bunch of other outlets. I blog here.
― neither good nor bad, just a kid like you (unperson), Tuesday, 12 January 2010 19:22 (3 years ago) Permalink
Ah, I was wondering who you were! There aren't too many metallers writing for WIRE. Pleased to virtually meet you.
― Doran, Tuesday, 12 January 2010 19:25 (3 years ago) Permalink
so getting back to the nerdy tools talk, t-mobile has a wifi calling service now, which means if you have a wifi connection in your apartment (or anywhere else), you can make phone calls over it. quality is crystal clear, and a bonus is that it counts as a local call even if you are phoning mongolia to interview kongar-ool ondar.
verizon is signal king, it's not just marketing hype.
― 鬼の手 (Edward III), Tuesday, 12 January 2010 20:10 (3 years ago) Permalink
oh yeah, i'm fairly confident that most interviews i've done have been pretty good in the sense that, you know, they worked and i got my quotes and a decent angle and weren't horribly awkward experiences, it's just that odd sensation of having done these things for years without any formal training and with no idea of what my peers think of as the basics in interviewing.
the first one by SO much. (though it's rarely the interviewee who need to "prepare"!) at the end of the day i don't care how unpleasant or fake or unhelpful or bitchy the musician is - just GIMME MY QUOTES and i can do the rest. anyone with a bit of imagination should be able to deal with the most media-trained, give-nothing away pop star tbh: i actually enjoy this ones for several reasons. a) no pressure on you whatsoever, b) a challenge to see what individuality you can prod out of them - and you ALWAYS CAN, c) thinking about it those super-positive i-am-blessed media-trained pop stars aren't actually boring at all, they're completely mental.
the absolute worst are the interviewees who are super-nice, super-friendly, charming and polite - and monosyllabic. if they're brats or cunts, that's the story even if they just grunt at you. if they smile and nod and then just say "yes!", AAARGH.
― لوووووووووووووووووووول (lex pretend), Tuesday, 12 January 2010 21:56 (3 years ago) Permalink
lex...have you ever done any guerilla type interviewing where they didn't know you were conducting one. 'hit and run', say the stupidest shit perhaps as an obsessive fanboy to get a quote ?
― Its all about face, Tuesday, 12 January 2010 22:01 (3 years ago) Permalink
nope, though i have remembered and used quotes/info from conversations surrounding an interview
― لوووووووووووووووووووول (lex pretend), Tuesday, 12 January 2010 22:19 (3 years ago) Permalink
The John Leland/"Don't Believe the Hype" gold standard!
Sadly, not to my knowledge, though a Queens/Minneapolis rapper, Trama, had a line in one track, "stop askin' if I got beef with Pete Scholtes."
― Pete Scholtes, Tuesday, 12 January 2010 22:34 (3 years ago) Permalink
But then I heard the interviewer after me punched one of them
Speaking of guerilla criticism!
― Pete Scholtes, Tuesday, 12 January 2010 22:38 (3 years ago) Permalink
many many xposts, but ...
What I mean is: you're creating a false binary about professionalism and enjoyment. They're not mutually exclusive.
yeah no, i much prefer an enjoyable conversation. those are by far my favorite interviews. but i just mean that i try not to get hung up on that, or on having them "like" me, because like lex says ...
i don't care how unpleasant or fake or unhelpful or bitchy the musician is - just GIMME MY QUOTES and i can do the rest.
― hellzapoppa (tipsy mothra), Tuesday, 12 January 2010 23:06 (3 years ago) Permalink
that's why second-favorite type of interview -- after the actually-enjoyable-conversation type -- is the quote-machine type, people who you barely have to nudge and they just start telling you all sorts of entertaining things. david byrne was one of those. robyn hitchcock. robbie fulks.
― hellzapoppa (tipsy mothra), Tuesday, 12 January 2010 23:09 (3 years ago) Permalink
dâm-funk was just like that! and i was so torn because i had such limited time but he was so interesting :(
― لوووووووووووووووووووول (lex pretend), Tuesday, 12 January 2010 23:16 (3 years ago) Permalink
"x-post -- I am eternally glad for the typing class I took in high school."
Absolutely the most valuable class I had in high school. I got lucky because for most it was a Freshman class. I opted to take it my Sophomore year so I didn't know or care about the kids around me. While they chatted and passed notes and goofed off, I learned to type 75+ wpm. Has kept me out of food service and manual labor my entire life.
"There aren't too many metallers writing for WIRE."
Too true! Help a brother out. That would be my first choice of outlets to break into. :)
― Nate Carson, Tuesday, 12 January 2010 23:43 (3 years ago) Permalink
My business/typing teacher also advised me to meditate. I wish I'd taken more of his advice.
― Pete Scholtes, Wednesday, 13 January 2010 00:07 (3 years ago) Permalink
My typing teacher was a sports coach who was forced to also teach easy classes like Keyboarding and Personal Finance. He had married his high school sweetheart, divorced her, married an old woman, divorced her, and was going for round 3 with a former student he'd gotten pregnant. Total winner.
― Nate Carson, Wednesday, 13 January 2010 06:59 (3 years ago) Permalink
And there was a betting pool for whether the kid would be a boy or a girl that resulted in extra credit. I figured that was beyond ridiculous so I made him promise to give me an A if it was born with 666 on his forehead. It wasn't :(
robyn hitchcock
FANTASTIC interviewee. so very charming and friendly, and very funny too.
― shart in a bag, light it on fire (stevie), Wednesday, 13 January 2010 08:21 (3 years ago) Permalink
I'd like to interview Nate Carson's typing teacher.
― Doran, Wednesday, 13 January 2010 09:42 (3 years ago) Permalink
obv he'd had some bad shit and was trying to warn the kids off that experience
― Kate Sinclair (sic), Wednesday, 13 January 2010 12:13 (3 years ago) Permalink
Ha. But yeah, I felt relieved later reading that he was known for often being a tough interviewee who never provided much in answers back then. So it wasn't just me.
― curmudgeon, Wednesday, 13 January 2010 13:27 (3 years ago) Permalink
Now I'm kinda glad The Wire didn't take me up on an Invisible Jukebox interview with him. That could have been horrific.
― neither good nor bad, just a kid like you (unperson), Wednesday, 13 January 2010 14:22 (3 years ago) Permalink
Okay, so I'm looking to do some more stuff now. Anyone need some writing work? Don't care too much about pay, just want to get typing again.
― dog latin, Thursday, 4 February 2010 00:57 (3 years ago) Permalink
Drop me a line. pdfreeman at gmail dot com.
― neither good nor bad, just a kid like you (unperson), Thursday, 4 February 2010 01:03 (3 years ago) Permalink
Send a cut and a list of interestests to John at The Quietus dot com.
― Doran, Thursday, 4 February 2010 11:11 (3 years ago) Permalink
lol
http://spacemountain.tumblr.com/post/380178404/this-man-pictured-above-just-wrote-an-article
― you don't mess with the zooeyfan (Whiney G. Weingarten), Tuesday, 9 February 2010 17:30 (3 years ago) Permalink
looool. presumably he means that shitty article in the guardian
*rummages for link*
― pro bono publico (history mayne), Tuesday, 9 February 2010 17:31 (3 years ago) Permalink
Britisher music writers - are you familiar with these guys at all? I just got an email from them which was intriguing but, um, maybe bears more investigation shall we say (and yeah their website is not messively helping their case)
― the light hearted poster for light hearted ilxors (DJ Mencap), Wednesday, 10 February 2010 14:34 (3 years ago) Permalink
yikes that looks garbage. PRs do more than just post music to journalists.
― ANIMUS HOUSE (stevie), Wednesday, 10 February 2010 14:56 (3 years ago) Permalink
lol "messively" = inspired typo from me there
Well anyway, you know the 'your reactions to this track/single/whatever' forms that you are sometimes asked to fill in (now generally done online, as you'd expect, and still seems to mainly be the preserve of dance mailing lists)? It's one of them, but they say they'll pay me for my reactions - a small sum, but enough for the amount of effort you'd have to put in. These don't get uploaded anywhere or even shown to the band. The only catch I've figured out *so far* is that I can't imagine anyone decent associating themselves with these guys, so the 12th time you tell them that this song is generic and boring they might start getting less keen to use my exciting opinions
― the light hearted poster for light hearted ilxors (DJ Mencap), Wednesday, 10 February 2010 15:10 (3 years ago) Permalink
tbh if they pay with cheques that can be cashed i might be up for it
― ANIMUS HOUSE (stevie), Wednesday, 10 February 2010 15:11 (3 years ago) Permalink
Yeah me too, I just can't figure out how it would be sustainable, or beneficial to their hypothetical clients
― the light hearted poster for light hearted ilxors (DJ Mencap), Wednesday, 10 February 2010 15:15 (3 years ago) Permalink
if their clients are clueless then the service doesn't need to be beneficial to them to make a bit of cash in the short run
― ANIMUS HOUSE (stevie), Wednesday, 10 February 2010 15:29 (3 years ago) Permalink
So why pay £1000's every month (plus expenses) to music PR companies for your campaign when it only need cost you a tiny tiny fraction of that!!! We are not like traditional old school PR companies.. with us there's No postage costs, No CD replication costs and No telephone charges or any other additional expenses!
Yet I'm pleased to see they've maintained the same high-level of syntax.
― dog latin, Wednesday, 10 February 2010 15:32 (3 years ago) Permalink
Who is Mr Beach Ball Party?
― Doran, Wednesday, 10 February 2010 17:34 (3 years ago) Permalink
Anyone hear about this new transcription tool?
http://www.macspeech.com/extensions/store/product.php?pID=1137
― Pete Scholtes, Friday, 12 February 2010 15:31 (3 years ago) Permalink
I bought this, feeling desperate about the amount of interviews I have to do this year, and I'll apply it to a long interview I just did with Mr. McFeely from Mister Rogers, but it's not looking promising so far. I think I wasted my $150 but will report back.
― Pete Scholtes, Friday, 12 February 2010 21:45 (3 years ago) Permalink
transcribing is agony but i don't think i could ever trust technology to do it for me sadly...
― ANIMUS HOUSE (stevie), Friday, 12 February 2010 21:48 (3 years ago) Permalink
i think this kind of technology, when it's good enough might serve a purpose as a kind of first draft transcript generator. obviously, you'll have to read whatever text it produces over again to make sure it's accurate, but as long as it's "good enough," it will have saved you a lot of unnecessary typing.
― ksh, Friday, 12 February 2010 22:05 (3 years ago) Permalink
A friend was telling me about this the other night; he said it worked great. (He's also a programmer and I wonder if the difference between his experience and Pete's might differ because of technical issues.)
― if I don't see more dissent, I'm going to have to check myself in (Matos W.K.), Sunday, 14 February 2010 09:38 (3 years ago) Permalink
was this on ilm already? he's a cheeky monkey:
How to Review Music - a 10-step Guide Step One: is the band any good? Say so.Step Two: does the band have an interesting back story? Ignore it.Step Three: is the band male? Probably not worth listening to.Step Four: does the band sound like 1,000 other bands? Really? Are you sure? Don't believe you.Step Five: what sort of music does the band play? Worked it out yet? Good, ignore it.Step Six: is the band in favour with any of the sites/mags currently in vogue? Yes? Time to get out the scissors.Step Seven: does the band claim that "It's all about the music and if anyone else likes it, it's a bonus?" Bin them.Step Eight: does the band sound like Radiohead? Bin them.Step Nine: does the band look like Radiohead? Bin them.Step Ten: is the band Radiohead? Bin them.Steps 11-50,000: is the band any good? Say so.
http://everetttrue.blogspot.com/
― scott seward, Monday, 15 February 2010 17:49 (3 years ago) Permalink
http://www.popmatters.com/pm/special/section/whats-the-write-word/
Going to read this now. Thoughts?
― ksh, Friday, 21 May 2010 19:29 (2 years ago) Permalink
happy reading? good luck? best wishes?
― scott seward, Friday, 21 May 2010 20:10 (2 years ago) Permalink
I was wondering when this would run. I'll be in part 3 or 4 when it runs, I guess.
― Ned Raggett, Friday, 21 May 2010 20:12 (2 years ago) Permalink
lol scott
― ksh, Friday, 21 May 2010 21:29 (2 years ago) Permalink
Caramanica so so so so so OTM.
― Mexico, camp, horns, Zappa, Mr. Bungle (Matos W.K.), Friday, 21 May 2010 22:21 (2 years ago) Permalink
my long-suffering wife of 30 years has managed to keep herself employed in a manner that I have never had to. So my real advice is this—if you really and truly want to write about only those things that move you, marry above your station.
probably the only truly practical advice given ;-)
― are we human or are we dancer (m coleman), Saturday, 22 May 2010 12:12 (2 years ago) Permalink
Part II is up: http://www.popmatters.com/pm/feature/125994-part-2-kris-ex-to-chuck-klosterman/
― ksh, Tuesday, 25 May 2010 13:56 (2 years ago) Permalink
You'll notice they didn't ask me for my advice. (Unless they sent me an email, and I didn't notice it, which I guess is possible. Or maybe they're waiting til I've been doing this for 40 years, or something.)
― xhuxk, Tuesday, 25 May 2010 14:03 (2 years ago) Permalink
http://www.najp.org/articles/2010/05/the-rockwrite-word.html Christgau mentions it here. You can also find Christgau critically analyzing Wall Street Journal jazz, dance and more writer Terry Teachout in another post here.
― curmudgeon, Tuesday, 25 May 2010 16:21 (2 years ago) Permalink
I didn't get asked, either, and I've contributed to Perfect Sound Forever a few times. I think he thinks I'm angry with him about something, but I have no idea what.
― Born In A Test Tube, Raised In A Cage (unperson), Tuesday, 25 May 2010 16:56 (2 years ago) Permalink
have only started reading pt. ii, but the series so far is the same stuff again and again punctuated by that occasional really really good entry. would have liked to see xhuxk & unperson in there, too
― ksh, Tuesday, 25 May 2010 17:25 (2 years ago) Permalink
ksh did they ask you
― mr. milquetoast (J0rdan S.), Tuesday, 25 May 2010 17:27 (2 years ago) Permalink
yeah, but i had to turn them down b/c i have a three-thousand word, animated gif-laced piece on The National i'm trying to finish up so i can offer it up to My Old Gorilla Vegan O_O
― ksh, Tuesday, 25 May 2010 17:32 (2 years ago) Permalink
Klosterman's ten points is one of the best parts of this feature so far
― ksh, Tuesday, 25 May 2010 20:18 (2 years ago) Permalink
Klosterman's #1 took the words right out of my mouth as I went through this. The most common thing I disagree with among these is the idea that you need to be obsessed with something to be good at it. What nonsense!
― Pete Scholtes, Tuesday, 25 May 2010 21:05 (2 years ago) Permalink
you need to be obsessed with something to be good at it
I actually wanted to ask everyone here what they thought about the idea of "obsession" that kept creeping up in a lot of people's comments in the first two parts of this series. I think it's a given that you should be pretty obsessed w/ music if you're going to be a music writer, but what is it that turns a music obsessive into a music critic?
― ksh, Tuesday, 25 May 2010 21:10 (2 years ago) Permalink
You start writing sentences in your head and you can't wait to share your thoughts with people.
― Filmmaker, Author, Radio Host Stephen Baldwin (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Tuesday, 25 May 2010 21:11 (2 years ago) Permalink
Or, in a more personal register, what made any of you who are music critics want to channel your obsession w/ music into criticism?
― ksh, Tuesday, 25 May 2010 21:12 (2 years ago) Permalink
― ksh, Tuesday, 25 May 2010 21:13 (2 years ago) Permalink
I've mostly skimmed this but I'm not reading "you have to be obsessed with music to write about it well" in it so much as "you have to be obsessive in order to try to make a living at it, especially now."
― Mexico, camp, horns, Zappa, Mr. Bungle (Matos W.K.), Tuesday, 25 May 2010 21:50 (2 years ago) Permalink
Okay, I'll ask the question (for Pete and others): Can you name some examples of people who are not obsessed with music, yet write well about it? (I might have a couple in mind -- people who, say, know how to work writing about music into the course of writing about other stuff -- though I'm not sure they're music critics, per se'. And of course, being obsessed with music doesn't preclude obsession with other things as well.) In general, though, I'd say being obsessed helps a lot; it's hard to write with a strong voice about something you don't care about. Curious why Pete would think that's such a crazy idea.
― xhuxk, Tuesday, 25 May 2010 22:00 (2 years ago) Permalink
And maybe that goes along with what Matos just wrote: I can name individual, isolated pieces about music that I love, written by people who only have a casual relationship to music. But it's hard to think of people who have made a career out of it, and who consistently made me care about their writing, who didn't seem like they had to be writing about music, and would be doing it even if nobody paid them.
― xhuxk, Tuesday, 25 May 2010 22:05 (2 years ago) Permalink
Some of my favorite music writers are friends who, while they don't see themselves self-consciously *as* music writers, nevertheless write very well and perceptively -- they turn their own appreciation of music and its impact into something that is meant for private communication and discussion rather than the public sphere (none of them are employed as writers in any capacity). This said, I'd guess this doesn't reflect a difference in music obsession so much as it does a difference in how to channel it.
― Ned Raggett, Tuesday, 25 May 2010 22:19 (2 years ago) Permalink
"but what is it that turns a music obsessive into a music critic?"
chuck made me do it.
― scott seward, Tuesday, 25 May 2010 22:21 (2 years ago) Permalink
re :interviews...surely in the blogging age, the hard and fast rules don't apply anymore ?
I like the idea of a conversation between equals rather than a third person distancing of the writer and the pedestaling of the subject ?
or is that part of maintaining the mystique, the symbiotic relationship between music makers and music press, the smoke and mirrors of trad writing/hype ?
― beat boy damager, power 2 the people (Its all about face), Tuesday, 25 May 2010 23:23 (2 years ago) Permalink
Too true.
― Ned Raggett, Wednesday, 26 May 2010 00:46 (2 years ago) Permalink
Fuck the "mystique" of an artist... they're just a person who makes music, good or bad. I never try to put the artists I interview on a pedestal. I will admit some don't like that — some want to be thought of as cooler, more interesting, more mysterious than you — but I don't care.
― rennavate, Wednesday, 26 May 2010 03:52 (2 years ago) Permalink
xpost: I meant you don't have to be obsessed with writing, or writing about music, to be good at it or enjoy it. I interviewed Christopher Hitchens 18-odd years ago, and he said something to the effect that you should write because you have to, not because you want to. I never felt that way.
― Pete Scholtes, Wednesday, 26 May 2010 16:56 (2 years ago) Permalink
Or maybe I just write enough that I never go through withdrawal.
― Pete Scholtes, Wednesday, 26 May 2010 19:53 (2 years ago) Permalink
Guess I'm not really grasping Hitchins's point there; seems ambiguous to me -- by "because you have to" does he mean "to pay the bills" or "because you're compulsive about getting your thoughts out there"?
― xhuxk, Wednesday, 26 May 2010 19:55 (2 years ago) Permalink
he means that you were BORN TO WRITE. that you would die if you couldn't write.
― scott seward, Wednesday, 26 May 2010 19:58 (2 years ago) Permalink
Well, it's very possible I didn't skim them closely enough, but weren't most of those critics in that piece more recommending being obsessed with music (and your thoughts about it) than being obsessed with writing per se'?
― xhuxk, Wednesday, 26 May 2010 19:59 (2 years ago) Permalink
kinda like when people say: if i weren't doing x y or z for a living i don't know what i would have done. become a serial killer or something. (don't know who was the first person to say if they couldn't write/paint/be in a band/whatever that they would have become a serial killer. but it got a lot of mileage)
― scott seward, Wednesday, 26 May 2010 20:02 (2 years ago) Permalink
I think it was bix beiderbecke who said it first.
― minor thread (Jon Lewis), Wednesday, 26 May 2010 20:34 (2 years ago) Permalink
probably.
― scott seward, Wednesday, 26 May 2010 20:35 (2 years ago) Permalink
Pete, did your father write the song "They'll Know We Are Christians By Our Love"?
probably an unrelated Peter Scholtes...
― scott seward, Wednesday, 26 May 2010 20:46 (2 years ago) Permalink
This, to me, is basically the reason why there is so much bad music writing out there. You need to as obsessed with writing (and reading! and not just about music!) as you are with music. Otherwise you're just a superfan.
― scott pgwp (pgwp), Wednesday, 26 May 2010 23:59 (2 years ago) Permalink
one thing that always perplexed me as an magazine editor was the relatively large number of music writers who weren't remotely interested in writing or reading as anything other than a means to an end.
― you're either part of the problem or part of the solution (m coleman), Thursday, 27 May 2010 00:34 (2 years ago) Permalink
Agreed; guess I'm just not clear on how being "obsessed" with writing is the same as being good at it, or developing a personal voice or whatever. I was an editor for years, obviously, and some people say a pretty good one, but writing isn't something I really spend time thinking about. At least not consciously.
― xhuxk, Thursday, 27 May 2010 00:46 (2 years ago) Permalink
ray romano TOTALLY never read a book on everyone loves raymond. he was like anti-books.
― scott seward, Thursday, 27 May 2010 00:47 (2 years ago) Permalink
what about musicians who don't listen to a lot of music. i used to think that was strange, but i guess it makes sense. you make your own, what more do you need?
― scott seward, Thursday, 27 May 2010 00:48 (2 years ago) Permalink
I'm sorry, to me it's weird that someone can say they like writing but doesn't read.
― Filmmaker, Author, Radio Host Stephen Baldwin (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Thursday, 27 May 2010 00:52 (2 years ago) Permalink
xhuxk you think about writing when you're doing it which is more than I can say for some people I worked with. being obsessed w/craft is how you develop a voice, IME anyway.
― you're either part of the problem or part of the solution (m coleman), Thursday, 27 May 2010 00:53 (2 years ago) Permalink
i guess it could be like, some writers don't like reading reviews or whatever of an album that they're gonna review before they write their own review -- maybe it's sort of the same thing for musicians, don't want their own ideas to get infected or w/e
― J0rdan S., Thursday, 27 May 2010 00:53 (2 years ago) Permalink
so many of my favorite critics aren't even music writers. They're not even critics.
― Filmmaker, Author, Radio Host Stephen Baldwin (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Thursday, 27 May 2010 00:54 (2 years ago) Permalink
i remember reading that book (of columns) that whatshisface from the new york times wrote where he interviews jazz musicians about their favorite songs/albums (still my all-time fave nyt feature) and so many of them said that they didn't listen to much music at all. especially new music. but a lot of them had been making music tirelessly for decades, so, again, it seemed understandable. everyone except pat metheny. he listens to everything.
― scott seward, Thursday, 27 May 2010 00:58 (2 years ago) Permalink
i almost always prefer reading a musician on music. rather than a critic.
― scott seward, Thursday, 27 May 2010 00:59 (2 years ago) Permalink
critics on musicians > musicians on critics
― J0rdan S., Thursday, 27 May 2010 01:01 (2 years ago) Permalink
truth bomb
― ksh, Thursday, 27 May 2010 01:01 (2 years ago) Permalink
I guess the thing I'm really interested in -- and I was struggling to formulate this clearly upthread -- is finding out exactly what it is that drives critics to want to be critics. Because, at least it seems to me, that both critics and huge fans of music share the appetite for consuming a lot of music, but there's something about the first group of people that makes them want to try to grapple with the music in words, whereas the second group is content to listen without engaging with what they're listening to in that way.
― ksh, Thursday, 27 May 2010 01:06 (2 years ago) Permalink
A lot of us post here and like to talk at least somewhat critically about music, but aren't necessarily critics. So there's also some in between space between someone who just listens to music and someone who produces professional reviews, interviews, features, etc.
― ksh, Thursday, 27 May 2010 01:08 (2 years ago) Permalink
Well, in my case, I was a writer and journalist first (or on my way to being one anyway), writing about all sorts of other stuff, before I was a music fan, much less a critic. So when I started being obsessed about music, writing about it was inevitable.
― xhuxk, Thursday, 27 May 2010 01:09 (2 years ago) Permalink
And somehow, music criticism is where I really found my voice. If I'd found a distinctive voice writing about, say, sports or local zoning commissions or whatever, my career path might have changed drastically.
― xhuxk, Thursday, 27 May 2010 01:12 (2 years ago) Permalink
Like most things, passion separates the dabblers from the pros. I've freelanced for more than ten years and served as an editor for an online zine yet have published less in the last eighteen months as magazines shut down and weeklies change standards; but I recognize that had I wanted to make a serious go of it -- devoting myself entirely to publishing -- in 1998 I could have done it. I'm too attracted to material comforts to want to live in honorable poverty though. Now I pay a mortgage.
Material comfort is a sinecure too.
― Filmmaker, Author, Radio Host Stephen Baldwin (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Thursday, 27 May 2010 01:13 (2 years ago) Permalink
interesting. the music obsession and vague urge to write came to me at exactly the same time, right around age 12. I was obsessed w/books as soon as I could read.
― you're either part of the problem or part of the solution (m coleman), Thursday, 27 May 2010 01:13 (2 years ago) Permalink
Also: like a lot of people music and film writing were always sidelines for me. I write fiction yet the stuff I wrote, so to speak, with my left hand got published first.
― Filmmaker, Author, Radio Host Stephen Baldwin (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Thursday, 27 May 2010 01:14 (2 years ago) Permalink
I was obsessed w/books as soon as I could read.
Yeah, except I was also obsessed with writing as soon as I could read.
That makes total sense, xhuxk.
Like most things, passion separates the dabblers from the pros.
Could you expand on that a bit, Alfred? It seems like some pros, at least, don't really have a passion for the writing, whereas some amateurs do. Not that that's true in most cases, obviously, but.
― ksh, Thursday, 27 May 2010 01:20 (2 years ago) Permalink
"Determination," "stubbornness," or "not minding a certain constriction of your standard" of living" are more accurate.
― Filmmaker, Author, Radio Host Stephen Baldwin (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Thursday, 27 May 2010 01:24 (2 years ago) Permalink
Makes total sense. Thanks.
― ksh, Thursday, 27 May 2010 01:25 (2 years ago) Permalink
i was always kind of obsessed with art AND artists. even as a little kid. i loved reading about painters and writers and musicians, etc. how people created things was as fascinating to me as what they created. seemed like magic to me. and i always wanted to know more about it.
― scott seward, Thursday, 27 May 2010 01:26 (2 years ago) Permalink
I was a writer and journalist first (or on my way to being one anyway)
It was easier for me to be a general interest newspaper journalist because it was easier cultivating professional relationships with local newspaper editors than it was trying to pitch to music editors when I started. The work allowed for a lot more production and development just through getting things done on a daily basis. Plus, the newspaper people I worked for largely thought very poorly of rock critics. Deserved or not.
However, a lot of that experience was a complete waste, or completely wasted, with regards to free-lance music journalism. And as far as I can tell, in anyone it would be totally wasted now.
― Gorge, Thursday, 27 May 2010 01:37 (2 years ago) Permalink
I would also argue against the notion that you have write compulsively to be successful. Sure, I'm obsessed with music. But I have always spent at least as much time making music, and reading about music (among myriad other topics), as actually writing about it. I've become a part time critic (not a word I tend to use) because over the years I've accrued a lot of experience and knowledge that I like to share. I genuinely want interested readers to know about great music (and occasionally want to help them avoid lousy music). And along with that practice has come a confident voice (supported by real English education, back when public schools used to offer it). Apparently I also like commas and parenthesis. And emoticons ;)
Anyway, I love to write, but no way could I spend all day doing it and hope to pay my bills in this economy. If I'm going to starve myself for art, it's going to be while recording and performing, or ultimately writing some fiction out of my own head instead of spending all my days waxing poetic about the careers of others.
― Nate Carson, Thursday, 27 May 2010 02:17 (2 years ago) Permalink
BTW, here's one of the best pieces of music writing I've encountered in a while. It's by Aesop Dekker who writes for the excellent Cosmic Hearse blog but is in this instance moonlighting at another.
Dear editors, please scoop this guy up and give him some paying work. He's brilliant.
http://icoulddietomorrow.blogspot.com/2010/01/france-gall-baby-pop.html
― Nate Carson, Thursday, 27 May 2010 02:19 (2 years ago) Permalink
he had me at "boner-inducing chanson".
― scott seward, Thursday, 27 May 2010 02:23 (2 years ago) Permalink
I've been writing since I was about twelve (well, younger than that, much younger, really, but I became earnest and self-aware about it, decided it was The Thing I Wanted To Do, in more or less the seventh grade). I never tried to write about anything else (zoning commission meetings or sports, to recycle Chuck's examples) because I never loved anything else as much as I loved listening to records. I had a Walkman on constantly in school; I'd walk out of class and turn the music on just for the two or three minutes we were allotted to walk from one classroom to the next. I had, like, an entire small bag of cassettes I carried with me because I could never decide on just one or two to bring with me that day. At one point I had one of those fishing vests with all the pockets, and they were all stuffed with tapes. So it was obvious that I was gonna write about music if I could. In addition to writing fiction, which I've been doing for twenty years though nobody, not even my agent, seems to want to read a word of it (my characters are unlikable, apparently, and the journeys they go on are unrewarding to the reader).
I am somewhat compulsive about writing, because I have ideas constantly - not just ideas for stories and novels, but ideas for books about music, books about other stuff, screenplays, blah blah blah. If I'm awake, the laptop's on, and I'm typing. I tend to quickly discard ideas that I don't think will be salable, though. I'm a whore in that respect - I'm passionate about writing, I love the act of creation, but I'm also very much interested in getting paid for it. And when a pitch is rejected, I move on to a new pitch, I don't polish it slightly and try a different editor or agent or whatever.
― Born In A Test Tube, Raised In A Cage (unperson), Thursday, 27 May 2010 03:06 (2 years ago) Permalink
As the Joker says, "If you're good at something, never do it for free."
― X-Wing fighter in hand, "Godzilla" cranked on the stereo (J3ff T.), Thursday, 27 May 2010 03:19 (2 years ago) Permalink
Yeah. I have invitations to write for some pretty cool outlets (pro bono), and yet I seem to always prioritize even $10 listings before those.
― Nate Carson, Thursday, 27 May 2010 05:59 (2 years ago) Permalink
some writers don't like reading reviews or whatever of an album that they're gonna review before they write their own review
yeah otm, i always try not to do that
i think more specific than being obsessed with reading, which i always have been, is being obsessed with language and etymology and how words work.
― لوووووووووووووووووووول (lex pretend), Thursday, 27 May 2010 08:14 (2 years ago) Permalink
(i don't mean in the sense of being remotely interested in that meta-gawker shitstorm that frankly repulses me, the whole thing, and i'm so glad i was offline that week)
― لوووووووووووووووووووول (lex pretend), Thursday, 27 May 2010 08:15 (2 years ago) Permalink
At my last job there was a big spirit of enforced volunteerism; environmentally themed events that the whole office was expected to pitch in and staff, things like that. I always did the absolute minimum necessary to keep my job; as I told the one guy there who agreed with me (out loud at least), "I'll do almost anything for money, and almost nothing for free."
― Born In A Test Tube, Raised In A Cage (unperson), Thursday, 27 May 2010 12:17 (2 years ago) Permalink
You need to as obsessed with writing (and reading! and not just about music!) as you are with music. Otherwise you're just a superfan.the second group is content to listen without engaging with what they're listening to in that way.A lot of us post here and like to talk at least somewhat critically about music, but aren't necessarily critics. So there's also some in between space between someone who just listens to music and someone who produces professional reviews, interviews, features, etc.I love to write, but no way could I spend all day doing it and hope to pay my bills in this economy.
the second group is content to listen without engaging with what they're listening to in that way.
I love to write, but no way could I spend all day doing it and hope to pay my bills in this economy.
^^^^^^^ story of my life.
I've explored writing for a few different places but in the end, never really found any ship worth sailing on. I'm pretty content to be an "armchair critic" just posting my thoughts and lols on ILM here and there, and listening to whatever catches my ears at a particular moment. Maybe I spend enough time listening to music, and enough money paying for it, that I don't also feel a need to extend music into another sector of my life (i.e., career)...? Who knows...
― I just wish he hadn't adopted the "ilxor" moniker (ilxor), Thursday, 27 May 2010 13:58 (2 years ago) Permalink
It was easier for me to be a general interest newspaper journalist because it was easier cultivating professional relationships with local newspaper editors than it was trying to pitch to music editors when I started. The work allowed for a lot more production and development just through getting things done on a daily basis... a lot of that experience was a complete waste, or completely wasted, with regards to free-lance music journalism. And as far as I can tell, in anyone it would be totally wasted now.
There's a good chance you're right. But I definitely put my journalism school/newspaper experience both to work as an editor, both at the Voice and Billboard. Still, I should hedge what I said above about it being "inevitable" that I'd wind up writing about music for a living -- because in a different place and time, even if I'd become such an obsessive music listener, that really might never have happened. When I got out of the Army, I actually assumed I'd go back to doing reporting work for suburban weeklies in Michigan, and maybe climb up through that world, beome a big fish in a small pond. But, because of any number of circumstances, I lucked out, and several magazines (and then a couple book publishing companies) were asking me to write about music, often before I even considered pitching them. Since big national publications like those tend to pay better than small local publications (or did then anyway), there was actual some financial advantage to me writing about music; also didn't hurt that my wife was initially making more than me. Obviously, that confluence of circumstances hardly ever happens, to anyone, and I assume it happens less and less as time goes on. And though I'm still basically doing this fulltime, freelance, lots of what I've been paid for in the past couple years (editing Billboard pieces from home, programming artist-specific web radio stations for Clear Channel, data and asset entry for Rhapsody) isn't music criticism, or even writing at all, per se'. 25 years ago, I was writing way more, for more outlets, than I am now.
― xhuxk, Thursday, 27 May 2010 14:19 (2 years ago) Permalink
An indirect comment but a relevant one from a writer who I think is one of the truly consistently *great* writers, on many subjects, in English these days, Ta-Nehisi Coates (the piece linked regards sports journalism):
... there's what my label-mate Andrew calls, "journalism dirty secret." The dirty secret is this--perhaps more than any other "profession" journalism's barriers to entry are really artificial. It does take a special person to be a great journalist. Curiosity in the extreme is important. A strong desire to see, and thus think, clearly is important. But neither of these can really be taught in a crude classroom environment. Journalism can't be absorbed through a series of lectures and assigned readings. It must be done. No one can teach you how to go up to strangers and ask rude questions. You just have to do it. Repeatedly.In point of fact, many of the journalists whom we regularly see exhibit neither great curiosity nor clear thinking. It's much like acting--there are many great actors, but many of the ones you see regularly are not. Thus the sense is that the perch which journalists enjoy is undeserved. A journalist is not, say, like a chemist, or an ophthalmologist. When we watch sports analysts loudly proclaiming who's going to win, and who isn't, we look at them and think, "Why is this guy on TV? I can do that."Indeed you could--and many more of you should. And not just in sports. Some of the best, and most informed, commentary I read happens underneath posts like these. Indeed the comments sometimes exceed the post to the extent that I end up having to reverse myself. Forgive the circle-jerk. But sometimes I read some of you and wonder why you're here. You should be out there with guns. We need soldiers.
In point of fact, many of the journalists whom we regularly see exhibit neither great curiosity nor clear thinking. It's much like acting--there are many great actors, but many of the ones you see regularly are not. Thus the sense is that the perch which journalists enjoy is undeserved. A journalist is not, say, like a chemist, or an ophthalmologist. When we watch sports analysts loudly proclaiming who's going to win, and who isn't, we look at them and think, "Why is this guy on TV? I can do that."
Indeed you could--and many more of you should. And not just in sports. Some of the best, and most informed, commentary I read happens underneath posts like these. Indeed the comments sometimes exceed the post to the extent that I end up having to reverse myself. Forgive the circle-jerk. But sometimes I read some of you and wonder why you're here. You should be out there with guns. We need soldiers.
― Ned Raggett, Thursday, 27 May 2010 14:25 (2 years ago) Permalink
It must be done. No one can teach you how to go up to strangers and ask rude questions. You just have to do it. Repeatedly.
In point of fact, many of the journalists whom we regularly see exhibit neither great curiosity nor clear thinking.
You should be out there with guns. We need soldiers.
He forgets to add the part that lots of 'soldiers' have been shut out and chased off systemically. And that's true of journalism in a general sense, where it's become professional practice to avoid annoying the uppers while spending time afflicting the afflicted and praising rascals. It's not new, either.
The assistant managing editors at the mid-size parochial newspaper I worked for hated getting telephone calls the day after pieces ran. And if you're asking rude questions and putting such unpleasantness into print, you'll generate phone calls, yelling and veiled threats.
So where are the soldiers at the New Yorker and the Atlantic, other than Jane Mayer and/or Seymour Hersh? I'm sure there are others. But considering the price, regard and resources of the real estate, they're in much lesser abundance than we might expect.
But I definitely put my journalism school/newspaper experience both to work as an editor, both at the Voice and Billboard
You don't have to prove it to me. Many editors I have worked with, including you, were very good. But my aim was to get into print on a regular and reliable basis and that meant not having to rely on someone deluged with free-lance queries on music, occasionally throwing out a bone on some band.
― Gorge, Thursday, 27 May 2010 16:53 (2 years ago) Permalink
all i ever wanted out of the writing thing after i'd done it for a while was a little spot of my own. which is a lot to ask for these days. i have a small spot at decibel and i'm happy with that. i'll ride it as long as they let me. one of the only times i did something for spin magazine i said to whoever was editing then: you know, you should just give me my own column. (cuz i was cheeky like that) and they said: why is it always people like you who ask for their own column?
― scott seward, Thursday, 27 May 2010 17:46 (2 years ago) Permalink
(Scott: Pete's father did write "Christians." http://blogs.citypages.com/pscholtes/2005/09/an_interview_with_peter_r_scho.php)
― Mexico, camp, horns, Zappa, Mr. Bungle (Matos W.K.), Thursday, 27 May 2010 19:31 (2 years ago) Permalink
In point of fact, many of the journalists whom we regularly see exhibit neither great curiosity nor clear thinking. It's much like acting--there are many great actors, but many of the ones you see regularly are not.
it should also be noted that ALL of the journalists that 99.9 percent of us see are television journalists, which is a very different thing than being any other kind of journalist. different medium, different needs. it's more than "much like" acting. it IS acting. that's what the medium requires.
― fact checking cuz, Thursday, 27 May 2010 20:59 (2 years ago) Permalink
said to whoever was editing then: you know, you should just give me my own column. (cuz i was cheeky like that) and they said: why is it always people like you who ask for their own column?
geez no harm in asking - what an assholey response. "people like you" = people w/their own ideas rather than sycophants
― you're either part of the problem or part of the solution (m coleman), Thursday, 27 May 2010 21:22 (2 years ago) Permalink
"people like you" = people who can write, but waste too much time listening to metal/noise/prog?
― Nate Carson, Friday, 28 May 2010 03:08 (2 years ago) Permalink
Also, I really want to see a vintage pic of Phil in his fishing vest full of tapes. Please?
― Nate Carson, Friday, 28 May 2010 03:53 (2 years ago) Permalink
A strong desire to see, and thus think, clearly is important. But neither of these can really be taught in a crude classroom environment. Journalism can't be absorbed through a series of lectures and assigned readings. It must be done. No one can teach you how to go up to strangers and ask rude questions. You just have to do it. Repeatedly.
I love Coates, but is the state of education really so bad that he thinks classrooms are only places where you absorb lectures? Of course these things can be taught. I was teaching them to a bunch of high-schoolers just a few weeks ago. You practice, scaffold, role-play, then have them go out and try it themselves.
xp: Scott, yeah, that was my dad.
xp: Xhuxk, yeah, "have to" as in compulsion. I'm sure I'm taking "obsess" more literally than others on this thread: Of course I deeply care about and love writing and music, and think about both every day, but is that obsession? These streams of advice are really about the nature of learning, but the thing is, you can know a lot about music or writing, and know very little about how people learn.
― Pete Scholtes, Friday, 28 May 2010 23:03 (2 years ago) Permalink
http://www.popmatters.com/pm/feature/126317-whats-the-write-word-part-3-greg-kot-to-ann-powers
― ksh, Tuesday, 1 June 2010 15:32 (2 years ago) Permalink
Amy Phillips: "Pithy one-liners and jokes just make you sound like an asshole. And nobody wants to work with an asshole."
u_u
― exxon valdeej (Whiney G. Weingarten), Tuesday, 1 June 2010 16:09 (2 years ago) Permalink
Amy Philips: "At the same time, don’t be a breathless, gushing fangirl/fanboy."
http://pitchfork.com/news/27770-new-radiohead-album-aaaaaaahhh/
― ksh, Tuesday, 1 June 2010 16:15 (2 years ago) Permalink
To be fair, at the time I posted:
This is the best thing ever.Atease thread: http://www.ateaseweb.com/mb/index.php?showtopic=235019104― three handclaps, Sunday, September 30, 2007 7:50 PM (2 years ago)
Atease thread: http://www.ateaseweb.com/mb/index.php?showtopic=235019104
― three handclaps, Sunday, September 30, 2007 7:50 PM (2 years ago)
― ksh, Tuesday, 1 June 2010 16:20 (2 years ago) Permalink
before i read meltzer's thing i wondered what kind of shit job he would say to get instead of being a writer. it was burger king.
― scott seward, Tuesday, 1 June 2010 16:26 (2 years ago) Permalink
Johan Kugelberg: "Don’t post shit-talk on forums."
― ksh, Tuesday, 1 June 2010 16:28 (2 years ago) Permalink
Oh man, scott, it's worth quoting Meltzer in full:
Here is my advice: don’t. Don’t be a music journalist. All you will become in doing so is a shill. On the other hand, if you wish to be a genuwine actual WRITER, whatever the hell that might entail anymore in a functional “real world” sense (now that nobody reads; now that writing as a full-time “occupation” no longer exists), be prepared to eat shit for the rest of your life. Period. Better to change the grease, or mop floors, at Burger King.
― ksh, Tuesday, 1 June 2010 16:49 (2 years ago) Permalink
Amy Philips: "At the same time, don’t be a breathless, gushing fangirl/fanboy."http://pitchfork.com/news/27770-new-radiohead-album-aaaaaaahhh/
loooooooooooooooool
― I just wish he hadn't adopted the "ilxor" moniker (ilxor), Tuesday, 1 June 2010 16:57 (2 years ago) Permalink
:-)
Andrew Philips is right with this, I think:
The key is listening. I can tell the difference between a writer that’s heard 2000 albums in their life and one that’s banked 20,000+ (so can readers, even if they don’t know why). The intangible is this: Once you’ve listened to every kind of music imaginable (even if you hated a lot of it), you understand where things fit in the larger sphere. You see associations. You have context. You have a relative sense of what an album or musician actually means. Even if that understanding isn’t made explicit in your writing, it is there, and it makes a difference. You don’t overreact; you don’t fall prey to half-assed analysis or over-aggrandizing. You have to feed your (hopefully inherent) need to understand everything. The best writer in the world isn’t worth anything in this business if they’re not in search of that kind of understanding. There’s no faking it. We’re at war with algorithms and to win we have to understand music in ways that computers can’t. You have to sit down and obsessively, methodically listen, listen, listen, listen.
― ksh, Tuesday, 1 June 2010 17:20 (2 years ago) Permalink
Did someone pay Amy Phillips for that Sonic Youth "Murray Street" review?
― grandavis, Tuesday, 1 June 2010 17:20 (2 years ago) Permalink
xpost And then gimme an idea of what it actually sounds like or gtfo
― it takes a lot to laugh, it takes a crane shot to 'NOOOOOO' (Jon Lewis), Tuesday, 1 June 2010 17:22 (2 years ago) Permalink
Ann Powers also massively OTM here:
Expertise in your chosen field will come naturally, as you fulfill your lust for information about and experiences of whatever fascinates you.
― ksh, Tuesday, 1 June 2010 17:24 (2 years ago) Permalink
Jon: it sounds like a metaphor crunching into a simile while exaltations rain down courtesy of some obscure half-referenced singer now getting a reissue. Plus, whales.
― Ned Raggett, Tuesday, 1 June 2010 17:24 (2 years ago) Permalink
WHALES?!?!?!
Ordered.
― it takes a lot to laugh, it takes a crane shot to 'NOOOOOO' (Jon Lewis), Tuesday, 1 June 2010 17:25 (2 years ago) Permalink
I'm sorry, these kind of whales:
― Ned Raggett, Tuesday, 1 June 2010 17:25 (2 years ago) Permalink
That was after the record company rejected the original demos.
― Ned Raggett, Tuesday, 1 June 2010 17:26 (2 years ago) Permalink
As long as the cetacean explosion was recorded with a single judiciously placed binaural mic, I'm in. I like a realistic concert hall perspective.
― it takes a lot to laugh, it takes a crane shot to 'NOOOOOO' (Jon Lewis), Tuesday, 1 June 2010 17:41 (2 years ago) Permalink
wait, what if you have heard 20,000+ records, but are REALLY fond of half-assed analysis and over-aggrandizing.
― scott seward, Tuesday, 1 June 2010 18:07 (2 years ago) Permalink
cuz that about sums me up in a friggin' nutshell.
― scott seward, Tuesday, 1 June 2010 18:08 (2 years ago) Permalink
:-D
― ksh, Tuesday, 1 June 2010 18:10 (2 years ago) Permalink
I sympathize with Whiney here:
http://twitter.com/1000TimesYes/status/15195228274
― Ned Raggett, Tuesday, 1 June 2010 18:26 (2 years ago) Permalink
xpost - Thanks for the Oregon shout-out Ned! That whale footage is classic.
― Nate Carson, Tuesday, 1 June 2010 18:49 (2 years ago) Permalink
Real talk: do y'all writer types find value in using Twitter? i don't currently have an account -- just manually type in the URLs of some feeds i like to check in on -- but i'm thinking of joining
― ksh, Tuesday, 1 June 2010 18:50 (2 years ago) Permalink
As someone who basically used Twitter to review the Bottled Smoke fest this weekend, yes, I do find value in it.
― Ned Raggett, Tuesday, 1 June 2010 18:56 (2 years ago) Permalink
I never use Facebook or my blog for quips, so Twitter is beyond me now; besides, I don't want any more chances to waste time online.
― Filmmaker, Author, Radio Host Stephen Baldwin (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Tuesday, 1 June 2010 18:57 (2 years ago) Permalink
genuinely, yes
― لوووووووووووووووووووول (lex pretend), Tuesday, 1 June 2010 18:58 (2 years ago) Permalink
I do find Twitter valuable. I don't live-tweet events, but I exchange ideas with people and find links to interesting things.
― Born In A Test Tube, Raised In A Cage (unperson), Tuesday, 1 June 2010 19:03 (2 years ago) Permalink
I don't want any more chances to waste time online.
^^^^^^^^^^
― I just wish he hadn't adopted the "ilxor" moniker (ilxor), Tuesday, 1 June 2010 19:03 (2 years ago) Permalink
My official stance on Twitter is that I think it's very important that everyone use ONE social networking tool, be it Facebook, MySpace, tumblr, blog or Twitter. But this constant pressure to use ALL OF THEM is complete and total bullshit and a waste of time.
― truffleupagus (Whiney G. Weingarten), Tuesday, 1 June 2010 19:12 (2 years ago) Permalink
I don't use any of them. Honestly don't get what I'm missing, either.
― xhuxk, Tuesday, 1 June 2010 19:14 (2 years ago) Permalink
With Whiney there. At this point for me it's pretty much Facebook and Twitter with Tumblr as this adjunct I'm porting stuff from the blog over to -- but if I tried to keep up with all the talk on there to, uh, no.
― Ned Raggett, Tuesday, 1 June 2010 19:14 (2 years ago) Permalink
you're on this social networking site now, aren't you chuck?
what i like about twitter is that it doesn't feel like a compulsive timesink in the way most of the others (like ilx lol) do. it putters away like background chatter that you can join in or not as you wish, and if you miss something it doesn't feel, like, important.
― لوووووووووووووووووووول (lex pretend), Tuesday, 1 June 2010 19:16 (2 years ago) Permalink
I exchange ideas with people and find links to interesting things.
― Born In A Test Tube, Raised In A Cage (unperson), Tuesday, June 1, 2010 7:03 PM (12 minutes ago) Bookmark
^^this basically. and with so many journalists and writers in/near my field on it, it's extremely valuable for making connections as well.
― لوووووووووووووووووووول (lex pretend), Tuesday, 1 June 2010 19:17 (2 years ago) Permalink
My brother doesn't use social networking. And he has the same argument as xhuxk for not having a cell phone. Doesn't see what he's missing.
I felt the same way about both cell phones and Myspace/Facebook, until I started using them.
Yes, you can go through life without learning to drive a car too, if you want. But I get more out of life because I open myself up to these things. And I don't consider my use of them as wastes of time. It's actually improving my ability to do my job, interface with my friends, and learn and share information.*
*(now somebody from Facebook should cut me a royalty check.)
― Nate Carson, Tuesday, 1 June 2010 19:21 (2 years ago) Permalink
Yes, you can go through life without learning to drive a car too, if you want.
Hi there!
― Ned Raggett, Tuesday, 1 June 2010 19:22 (2 years ago) Permalink
Yep. This is why blogs and Facebook never clicked with me. I pretty much do everything on twitter. About once a week someone tells me i'm "ruining my brand" by not being on Facebook, but I think I'm doing just fine tbh
― truffleupagus (Whiney G. Weingarten), Tuesday, 1 June 2010 19:22 (2 years ago) Permalink
xp Yeah, I guess if this counts, I'm sort of here. And at Singles Jukebox. And other places. And I sort of do a quasi/not-really "blog" at Rhapsody. And I post comments on other people's livejournal blogs etc; guess I technically have an "account" there, even my own "page", though I've never used it. People have asked me to do Facebook, Twitter, etc. My problem is the same as Alfred's I think -- I have enough places (ILX for one) to use to procrastinate already; I can't imagine adding more to my plate without getting sucked in to them whole-hog. I tend to get obsessive-compulsive about such things.
But I do have a cellphone now! No landline, though, since moving to Austin.
― xhuxk, Tuesday, 1 June 2010 19:25 (2 years ago) Permalink
I tend to get obsessive-compulsive about such things.
So true on this end too. You have to know where to draw a line for yourself.
― Ned Raggett, Tuesday, 1 June 2010 19:26 (2 years ago) Permalink
I also drive a car again, since moving down here!
― xhuxk, Tuesday, 1 June 2010 19:27 (2 years ago) Permalink
Hahah well there you go. Been twenty-two years in LA then OC without one for me.
― Ned Raggett, Tuesday, 1 June 2010 19:28 (2 years ago) Permalink
i have a facebook account - i think that much is important, people who don't have my email address are much more likely to contact me there with actual offers of paid work - though these days i only really use fbook as a diary, rarely log in and kind of hate it. but i think it's important to have it.
― لوووووووووووووووووووول (lex pretend), Tuesday, 1 June 2010 19:29 (2 years ago) Permalink
Ned, come to Portland. I will drive you all over the place :)
― Nate Carson, Tuesday, 1 June 2010 19:35 (2 years ago) Permalink
yeah, I'm thinking of joining Twitter again mostly just to read other people's feeds -- don't have much interest in posting there too often myself
if i were to ever join Tumblr again, i'd be doing so primarily to use it as a publishing platform. as of right now, i've just added the couple tumblelogs I'm interested in to my Google Reader. pretty much try to use Google Reader to follow whatever sites I'm interested in following b/c having everything in one place that only tells me when sites add new stuff is extremely convenient
― ksh, Tuesday, 1 June 2010 19:42 (2 years ago) Permalink
as far as choosing which social services to join, though, i'd just recommend that people join whatever ones actually add value to their lives. for some, this might be none, for others this might mean several. but, at least in the spirit of what Whiney said, you really probably don't need to join them all. or even most of them
― ksh, Tuesday, 1 June 2010 19:44 (2 years ago) Permalink
I'm kind of a Twitter asshole. I only use it once or twice a week to post about my events and I never check other people's tweets. Maybe I'm using it wrong?
― Nate Carson, Tuesday, 1 June 2010 19:44 (2 years ago) Permalink
I will say that both Myspace and Facebook have actually gotten me laid though. So that is a "value add".
― Nate Carson, Tuesday, 1 June 2010 19:45 (2 years ago) Permalink
Too kind, but you already have good mass transit up there! I am thinking about a visit to friends and family there in fall, in any event.
― Ned Raggett, Tuesday, 1 June 2010 19:53 (2 years ago) Permalink
Also, based on your post just now, um.
― Ned Raggett, Tuesday, 1 June 2010 19:54 (2 years ago) Permalink
ILX, on the other hand... :'(
― I just wish he hadn't adopted the "ilxor" moniker (ilxor), Tuesday, 1 June 2010 19:58 (2 years ago) Permalink
(amirite?)
I don't get Tumblr.
― Born In A Test Tube, Raised In A Cage (unperson), Tuesday, 1 June 2010 20:06 (2 years ago) Permalink
it's like blogspot with a tan
― truffleupagus (Whiney G. Weingarten), Tuesday, 1 June 2010 20:12 (2 years ago) Permalink
problem w/ Tumblr for me is that most of the stuff ppl tend to post there isn't interesting or valuable in any way
― ksh, Tuesday, 1 June 2010 20:14 (2 years ago) Permalink
has anyone here actually found the "community" aspect of it to be worthwhile? or even many tumblelogs? i think i have four or five in my Google Reader
― ksh, Tuesday, 1 June 2010 20:15 (2 years ago) Permalink
i "get" tumblr but just can't be arsed tbh
― لوووووووووووووووووووول (lex pretend), Tuesday, 1 June 2010 20:16 (2 years ago) Permalink
i mean, it's a handy occasional platform if i want to get something longer-form down or as a repository for stuff but as a social interaction thing i just don't have the tyyyyyme
― لوووووووووووووووووووول (lex pretend), Tuesday, 1 June 2010 20:17 (2 years ago) Permalink
I guess what I don't get about it is what it offers that other, already extant blogging platforms (Blogger, Wordpress) don't. How is it different?
― Born In A Test Tube, Raised In A Cage (unperson), Tuesday, 1 June 2010 20:43 (2 years ago) Permalink
A friend who basically reps for it every chance he gets -- sometimes irritatingly so, the first time he did the hard sell I was resisting hitting him even though I was a continent away at the time -- says he likes it because (and I'm totally paraphrasing here) it provides a better chance for immediate reaction, commentary, etc. because it can be shared and 'liked' and commented upon in a way similar to Facebook while not being a closed system.
I should say I don't ignore it entirely but neither am I living there nor do I care to -- I enjoy doing the group blog stuff at Chain of Knives as I can, but that's not a front and center priority for me and can't be at this point.
― Ned Raggett, Tuesday, 1 June 2010 20:46 (2 years ago) Permalink
Tumblr is just simpler. It's like the Mac of blogging. Its means you can just up the random video, audio and quotes REALLY FAST instead of dicking around all day with coding.
I like it way more than blogging
― truffleupagus (Whiney G. Weingarten), Tuesday, 1 June 2010 20:48 (2 years ago) Permalink
What's really fast, though? Honestly it takes me about the same speed there as on Wordpress, so I think it's all down to comfort level rather than actual speed across the board.
― Ned Raggett, Tuesday, 1 June 2010 20:52 (2 years ago) Permalink
the thing w/ Tumblr, though, is that ppl mainly seem to just post boring, ephemeral stuff or poorly thought out pseudo blog posts instead of doing anything interesting w/ the format. as always, there are exceptions
― ksh, Tuesday, 1 June 2010 20:53 (2 years ago) Permalink
There are plenty of exceptions! Tom Ewing's blog project It Took Seconds alone justifies the place.
― Ned Raggett, Tuesday, 1 June 2010 20:54 (2 years ago) Permalink
WordPress = blahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblah
Tumblr = funny picture
― truffleupagus (Whiney G. Weingarten), Tuesday, 1 June 2010 20:55 (2 years ago) Permalink
in Google Reader, i have, like nabisco's blog, H1pster Pupp1es, http://kungfugrippe.com, http://blog.instapaper.com, and that might be it but I'm not sure
― ksh, Tuesday, 1 June 2010 20:58 (2 years ago) Permalink
MY BLOG
― max, Tuesday, 1 June 2010 21:01 (2 years ago) Permalink
cant believe you dont have my tumblr in your google reader
Agreed, but don't see how Tom's project couldn't be hosted equally well on any number of other blogging sites. What's the difference with regards to Tumblr?
― I just wish he hadn't adopted the "ilxor" moniker (ilxor), Tuesday, 1 June 2010 21:03 (2 years ago) Permalink
good thing you google proofed hipster puppies or that dude might start boarding here
― truffleupagus (Whiney G. Weingarten), Tuesday, 1 June 2010 21:04 (2 years ago) Permalink
max, is yr blog the best thing on Tumblr?
― ksh, Tuesday, 1 June 2010 21:04 (2 years ago) Permalink
uh you moved hipster puppies talk to 77, so i thought i'd gproof the name just in case but whatever dude
― ksh, Tuesday, 1 June 2010 21:05 (2 years ago) Permalink
I never kept a blog before I started on Tumblr, so the "what makes it better" questions are sort of abstract to me -- I just know that it certainly doesn't seem worse, and if you to go my URL you don't see anything different than what you'd see on any other blog host.
And then beyond that there are a bunch of elements that appeal to me personally, but probably wouldn't be worth anyone actually migrating for: ease of use, built-in uploading of streaming tracks (because I don't want to get into downloads), a background feed where conversations can develop, and a good amount of built-in info/feedback about who's reading, what they think, etc.
That last part also makes it really easy to get started. Obviously any kind of blogging leads people to link back and forth to each other, but the social bits of Tumblr bulk that up. Follow people you know, they follow you back, eventually you repost each other or talk back and forth, and people who read them start reading you, etc. (Same with Twitter, but you know I'm long-winded and whatnot.) Write something particularly interesting, and the format makes it really easy for it to float around and get in front of different people. And for me personally, it's way more comfortable to slip into the conversation that way than actually have to try and develop or spread the word about your blog.
A lot of stuff on there is just pictures or short comments or private conversations, but I don't see any reason you can't think of it as outward-facing -- directed at non-Tumblr readers who come straight to your URL -- instead of (or in addition to) looking at your feed as an internal conversation.
― oɔsıqɐu (nabisco), Tuesday, 1 June 2010 21:35 (2 years ago) Permalink
Obviously any kind of blogging leads people to link back and forth to each other, but the social bits of Tumblr bulk that up
and also make it super-confusing to work out who's said what in reply to whom and when. and ALSO bring annoying people who you wouldn't ever follow directly into your purview, repeatedly, when people reblog them. DNW. (when people retweet annoying people on twitter at least it only lasts for a second, as opposed to being a huge long thing integrated into the debate that you have to take into account if you want to partake.) (even then, the side effect of following r&b divas being a fuckton of inane @revrunwisdom tweets = dud dud dud.) (still luv u lesley electrik red.)
― لوووووووووووووووووووول (lex pretend), Tuesday, 1 June 2010 21:51 (2 years ago) Permalink
OK, well, thanks for all the input. Given that my current blog dates back to 2004, though, I don't think I'll be making the changeover.
― Born In A Test Tube, Raised In A Cage (unperson), Tuesday, 1 June 2010 21:54 (2 years ago) Permalink
haha yes, it's basically like if blogging had sex with a message board. it's like my compromise between ILX and "productive" writing
― oɔsıqɐu (nabisco), Tuesday, 1 June 2010 21:56 (2 years ago) Permalink
yeah i have a weird jealousy/resentment of Tumblr right now because i've been on Blogspot, where it can be like pulling teeth to even get the friends and people you know are reading to comment or respond, for 6 years, and i'm really loathe to just pick up and move my shit every couple years to whatever format people seem to like the most at the moment, but it's really tempting because, as said upthread, it's much easier to get a real dialogue happening over there.
― Truollmas (some dude), Tuesday, 1 June 2010 21:56 (2 years ago) Permalink
make it super-confusing to work out who's said what in reply to whom and when.
OTM. I hate this about reading, uh, Tumbles compared to most other blogs. Makes it totally user-unfriendly for the reader, as far as I can tell -- I always feel I'm missing some kinda inside information, like a flow-chart or whatever, to decipher who's saying what.
Also should mention that not personally Tweeting or Tumbling doesn't prevent me from reading other people's (like, say, Whiney's or whoever). Twittering would be impossible for me, though, for the reason Nabisco mentioned; I'd find it aggravating to impossible, constantly editing 100 word posts down to 140 characters all the time. It would really seem like work to me -- I don't think in 140 characters.
― xhuxk, Tuesday, 1 June 2010 22:01 (2 years ago) Permalink
whats the group take on this ?
http://issuu.com/
of value to an aspiring writer or group of ?
― beat boy damager, power 2 the people (Its all about face), Tuesday, 1 June 2010 22:06 (2 years ago) Permalink
twitter teaches concision and i like that. i genuinely think it's improved my writing.
rule of thumb is that if your argument is so complex that it goes over two tweets max, best not to bother. but what i like is that it mimics the flow of IRL conversation - when i discuss shit w/friends i don't speak to them in paragraphs, and that's what twitter is.
― لوووووووووووووووووووول (lex pretend), Tuesday, 1 June 2010 22:10 (2 years ago) Permalink
Concision's no problem at all for me, if I'm getting paid for it -- I was writing haiku-length Entertainment Weekly reviews almost 20 years ago, and Rhapsody album reviews still run 600 characters, tops. Was pretty good at chopping down other people's rambling as an editor, too. But damned if I'm going to concern myself with it in my spare time.
― xhuxk, Tuesday, 1 June 2010 22:13 (2 years ago) Permalink
xpost -- well see this is what I mean about ignoring private conversations. I guess I don't get how they make Tumblr "worse" than any other service -- to me it's more like just another thing I can ignore, the same way I already ignore blogs I don't like.
It's kinda interesting to me, because a lot of the most "successful" people on Tumblr are obviously the ones who don't re-blog or have conversations at all -- they put their stuff up, they benefit from all the social aspects, and for all we know they don't even look at their feeds from other people. You could use the service the same way you'd use any other host, and let everyone else be social about reading. I feel like it's pretty easy to fill your feed with people who mostly do that, and post your own stuff in a way that's not all internal-conversation; if you don't, very few people outside Tumblr are going to bother reading. You can kinda tell who's aiming for what. (Also I'm pretty sure you can post something privately, like an inside-Tumblr post, and not have it face out to everyone else.)
― oɔsıqɐu (nabisco), Tuesday, 1 June 2010 22:14 (2 years ago) Permalink
Al's post about the weird resentment/jealousy of Tumblr speaks to me pretty directly, I admit. I do get a slight sense -- slight, and possibly ill conceived at heart -- that I don't get as much response on my Not Just the Ticket blog series because it's not native to Tumblr, though I've long since set up a separate Tumblr to link to all those posts given that it makes for a shorter URL. Of course I'm dealing with a project of personal retrospection and analysis rather than of the moment news, and there is the minor fact that maybe my writing there isn't as interesting as I thought! At the same time I get a feeling of "Oh you're doing that? That's nice ANYWAY let me reblog this bit etc etc." as a result a lot of the time, and per Al and others again I am tired of the every-two-years cycle that seems to have settled in of places one *has* to be, somehow. There is a sense of implied obligation I am not fond of.
Still, partially for some of those reasons I'm thinking of making my next blog project this summer native to Tumblr, but that's also because it will have an audio element to it and as noted by Nabs the streaming nature of the audio setup is v helpful. As it is I wasn't going to be uploading any songs or the like but more about that later...
― Ned Raggett, Tuesday, 1 June 2010 23:31 (2 years ago) Permalink
issuu is a great tool. Realistically it doesn't relate to the "value to an aspiring writer or group of". It's just a publishing tool. If you're an aspiring writer there are plenty of established publications that will employ. If you're an aspiring writer then, by and large, it's useless. If you're intending in setting up a print publication with a limited run then issuu could be useful.
Perhaps, it could be used to produce a digital portfolio but that's about it, imho.
― BM, Tuesday, 1 June 2010 23:43 (2 years ago) Permalink
the problem with any major blog project gaining any traction is that there's so media out there competing for people's attention that it's really going to have to be exactly the kind of thing someone's super into if there's even a chance of it gaining real traction as a part of that person's daily media consumption habits
― ksh, Wednesday, 2 June 2010 00:41 (2 years ago) Permalink
i mean, even on FB, i'm *much* more likely to get a comment on a one-sentence jokey status update than, say, a link to an awesome 45-minute lecture about something genuinely compelling
― ksh, Wednesday, 2 June 2010 00:42 (2 years ago) Permalink
i mean, even on FB, i'm *much* more likely to get a comment on a one-sentence jokey status update than, say, a link to an awesome
tl;dr
― Mexico, camp, horns, Zappa, Mr. Bungle (Matos W.K.), Wednesday, 2 June 2010 05:07 (2 years ago) Permalink
― ksh, Wednesday, 2 June 2010 05:11 (2 years ago) Permalink
or, :-
discussion of post-print music writing on this thread >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> advice from old-school writers linked, both as er practical information and something interesting to read
― chairman of the bored (m coleman), Wednesday, 2 June 2010 12:29 (2 years ago) Permalink
I agree. Also, this thread got me to look at again for the first time in awhile (I shamefully admit) the government names blog where I read about that ilxer & blogger's efforts to fundraise for his planned self-published book on Baltimore club music. Impressive. An interesting approach.
― curmudgeon, Wednesday, 2 June 2010 16:46 (2 years ago) Permalink
thank u dude :)
― some dude, Wednesday, 2 June 2010 17:01 (2 years ago) Permalink
I rather amused to see after my reblog crack above that Wordpress has gone ahead and enabled just that:
http://en.blog.wordpress.com/2010/06/01/we-all-like-to-reblog/
― Ned Raggett, Wednesday, 2 June 2010 17:03 (2 years ago) Permalink
http://www.popmatters.com/pm/blogs/crazed-by-the-music
― ksh, Saturday, 5 June 2010 20:26 (2 years ago) Permalink
But at some point, editors (or their bosses) started worrying about being “scooped” if everybody else reviewed an album first, and now nobody wants to go against the grain, especially since lots of editors haven’t been around long enough to remember when it was any other way. (As if reviewing an album first has anything to do with scooping; as if reviews are “news.”) Mostly the change had to do with national publications kissing asses of record labels, who thrive on publicity geared to release dates. Local papers “pegging” reviews to live shows to appease clubs and promoters? Same thing. Nothing wrong with doing it sometimes. But making a practice of it isn’t criticism, or journalism; it’s advertising. That said, you will probably have no choice but to live with it anyway – So before you pitch something, know release dates and show dates. Or better yet, do what I do, and keep a file of them on your laptop.
xhuxk is so otm on this timing issue - part of what killed me off as a pro music writer/editor. that said, given the decline of big rec co's and instant availability of music online, I wonder if release dates matter much anymore?
― waffle stomper (m coleman), Saturday, 5 June 2010 20:53 (2 years ago) Permalink
Lots of that writeup came from stuff I'd first written on this thread, by the way. (I forgot to include "be sure to re-use things you've said on line, but clean them up" in my advice. I do it all the time, though.)
Apparently Jason had invited me to contribute a while ago, along with everybody else, but I never noticed because it went right into my Spam folder. But when I emailed him, he asked me if I could still pull something off. So I pieced that inerminable spiel together 2 nights ago.
― xhuxk, Saturday, 5 June 2010 21:01 (2 years ago) Permalink
I wonder if release dates matter much anymore?
They may matter (to the magazines and labels) more, since with leaks lots of music is already deemed old by the time it's officially available. But labels hate it if you review their product early, too. At any rate, I haven't noticed publications starting to pay less attention to release dates. I'd be curious if anybody else has, though.
― xhuxk, Saturday, 5 June 2010 21:05 (2 years ago) Permalink
xxpost: It's also what's made EVERY SINGLE REVIEW read the same, because everyone is working with the same info-sets (whether they come from PR or friends-talking-to-friends or what's-in-the-air or whatever) and ends up writing about the same basic stuff, rather than seeing where the music goes and writing about that. Which still happens, but readers have been brainwashed into thinking advertising = truth anyway, to a frightening degree. Like the guy who got indignant when I wrote a potted history of "Ice Ice Baby" tied to the Jedward version because--gasp!--Jedward were no longer on the label. Yes, and therefore their version of the song clearly NO LONGER EXISTS and thus isn't up for discussion anymore. Or the one that insisted that people are obligated not to turn off their ad filters while looking at Pitchfork because, hey, those reviews wouldn't be there if the site hadn't sold ads. Have fun being led around by the nose ring for the rest of your life, dude.
― Mexico, camp, horns, Zappa, Mr. Bungle (Matos W.K.), Saturday, 5 June 2010 21:06 (2 years ago) Permalink
someone just pointed out to me the kind of hilarious irony of a site that doesnt pay writers doing a piece giving advice to music writers
― unfunperson (Whiney G. Weingarten), Saturday, 5 June 2010 21:10 (2 years ago) Permalink
i like the piece a lot, but that still made me giggle
SEO makes me sad
― ksh, Saturday, 5 June 2010 21:13 (2 years ago) Permalink
So the final part is up and thanks to the accident of alphabetical order and where they split this up...
http://www.popmatters.com/pm/feature/126347-whats-the-write-word-part-4-ned-raggett-to-bill-wyman
― Ned Raggett, Tuesday, 8 June 2010 12:41 (2 years ago) Permalink
If some kid were to ask for advice about this, I’d also ask him to look at what he’s feeling and ask himself if maybe he wouldn’t be better off taking a more active role in the music business. If he’s looking to become a writer, rock writing is a very bad idea, but if his passion’s really for music… shit, there are loads of things he can do that will help out, even a little bit—even becoming a publicist.
see all of the other depressed-sounding guys going "don't even think about doing this you idiot", I was feeling at least something they said but this is ridiculous... I mean however bad the music writing landscape gets I feel like being a PR person or working some other grunt job in 'the biz' is going to be a lot quicker train to the town of total disengagement with music
― I wonder if heaven got a Netto (DJ Mencap), Tuesday, 8 June 2010 13:34 (2 years ago) Permalink
<3
NED RAGGETT (freelance gadabout)
― ლ support our troops ლ (Whiney G. Weingarten), Tuesday, 8 June 2010 13:54 (2 years ago) Permalink
Makes me think ofhttp://gawker.com/5325119/meet-john-munson-self+proclaimed-gadabout
― jaymc, Tuesday, 8 June 2010 14:00 (2 years ago) Permalink
I couldn't think of anything else to call myself! Seems accurate enough!
― Ned Raggett, Tuesday, 8 June 2010 14:15 (2 years ago) Permalink
Excerpt:
ED WARD (rock and roll historian; broadcaster—Fresh Air with Terry Gross)My answer is: Why would you want to do this? Who are you thinking of writing for? Are you aware that you can’t make a living doing this, and that you’ll be held in very low regard by every other kind of journalist, writer, and critic in the field? Do you realize that once you get stuck with the label “music journalist” or “rock critic” that it’s almost impossible to shake? Aren’t you aware that we’re in the middle of a bogus “citizen journalist” revolution where everyone’s opinion is supposedly equal to everyone else’s opinion? That you’re supposed to give your content away and sell t-shirts on tour or something?I would do everything in my power to talk someone out of doing this. It was fun once, but it irreparably damaged my ability to move away from it and I basically feel like I’ve wasted my life so far. It’s taken nearly all the enjoyment out of listening to music to the point where if I play an album every couple of days that’s plenty. I almost never go see live music anymore unless I’m familiar with the act; making a new discovery brings me no pleasure, and the chances of doing so approaches zero. Someone starting out today is wandering into a field overpopulated by mediocrity writing about performers who have no idea what they’re doing or why. If you have writing talent, for heaven’s sakes, use it for something worthwhile. Not that you’ll make a lot of money that way either, but you stand a far greater chance of contributing something to the world.
My answer is: Why would you want to do this? Who are you thinking of writing for? Are you aware that you can’t make a living doing this, and that you’ll be held in very low regard by every other kind of journalist, writer, and critic in the field? Do you realize that once you get stuck with the label “music journalist” or “rock critic” that it’s almost impossible to shake? Aren’t you aware that we’re in the middle of a bogus “citizen journalist” revolution where everyone’s opinion is supposedly equal to everyone else’s opinion? That you’re supposed to give your content away and sell t-shirts on tour or something?
I would do everything in my power to talk someone out of doing this. It was fun once, but it irreparably damaged my ability to move away from it and I basically feel like I’ve wasted my life so far. It’s taken nearly all the enjoyment out of listening to music to the point where if I play an album every couple of days that’s plenty. I almost never go see live music anymore unless I’m familiar with the act; making a new discovery brings me no pleasure, and the chances of doing so approaches zero. Someone starting out today is wandering into a field overpopulated by mediocrity writing about performers who have no idea what they’re doing or why. If you have writing talent, for heaven’s sakes, use it for something worthwhile. Not that you’ll make a lot of money that way either, but you stand a far greater chance of contributing something to the world.
― ksh, Tuesday, 8 June 2010 16:06 (2 years ago) Permalink
And learn to cook, so that if you find yourself, as I do today, with 70 cents, a can of chickpeas, and some frozen spinach, with no money on the horizon and no work, you can at least feed yourself.But basically, don’t do it.
But basically, don’t do it.
O_O
― ksh, Tuesday, 8 June 2010 16:07 (2 years ago) Permalink
other people have probably said this, but it bears repeating, and chuck's thing reminded me of it: if you are quick and your copy is clean, you'll get more work. duh. simple, really, but if you send your stuff before deadline and an editor has extra holes to fill, its a good bet that they'll ask you to fill some of them. and, in general, if someone needs something quick and they know you are reliable that's a big plus. (i'm guessing most good editors started out as writers who were quick and clean.)
― scott seward, Tuesday, 8 June 2010 16:14 (2 years ago) Permalink
Do you need to "learn to cook" to make a meal out of chickpeas and frozen spinach?
― I wonder if heaven got a Netto (DJ Mencap), Tuesday, 8 June 2010 16:19 (2 years ago) Permalink
a can of chickpeas, and some frozen spinach
I actually eat stuff like this all the time for full meals. Bean + veggie!
― I just wish he hadn't adopted the "ilxor" moniker (ilxor), Tuesday, 8 June 2010 16:22 (2 years ago) Permalink
Well, it does help to have perhaps some olive or coconut oil on hand, maybe some garlic and fresh spices and black peppercorns, and some form of citrus... then it could be delicious. Otherwise you're likely just eating a heap of microwaved spinach...
― I just wish he hadn't adopted the "ilxor" moniker (ilxor), Tuesday, 8 June 2010 16:23 (2 years ago) Permalink
I digress.
Ed Ward's paragraph just visited me like the Ghost of Christmas Future
― ლ support our troops ლ (Whiney G. Weingarten), Tuesday, 8 June 2010 16:26 (2 years ago) Permalink
Whiney, could you explain why you meant by: "If you were in the slightest bit interesting to me, you’d probably be in a band. And if you were any good at playing music you probably wouldn’t be writing about it. "
Genuinely curious!
― ksh, Tuesday, 8 June 2010 16:27 (2 years ago) Permalink
(Hope you don't mind my pasting that here...)
music critics who are also musicians
how many of the ILM critics are frustrated/failed musicians?
Writers who became writers after their music careers failed.
Anyway, Scott is right. Editors tend to like writers who will make their jobs easier. Not that hard to figure out, but lots of writers never do.
― xhuxk, Tuesday, 8 June 2010 16:35 (2 years ago) Permalink
Yeah, I've seen threads like that. I was just thinking that some people probably genuinely do prefer to write about music than to play it.
― ksh, Tuesday, 8 June 2010 16:38 (2 years ago) Permalink
I usually play it first. Then I write about it.
― xhuxk, Tuesday, 8 June 2010 16:43 (2 years ago) Permalink
oh i have no fucking time for this hand-wringing, doom-saying shit - as someone who started full-time freelancing at the end of 08 (just when the recession started to hit - gr8 timing there) i haven't had to resort to eating on 70p a day or whatever yet. nowhere near. it's a grind, you have to get your hustle on, there are fallow periods that can be immensely dispiriting, but the idea that you'll live out your days growing increasingly bitter about music while scrabbling around for coins in the gutter is just ridiculous (as is the idea that you can't diversify out of music journalism, completely ludicrous).
― لوووووووووووووووووووول (lex pretend), Tuesday, 8 June 2010 16:45 (2 years ago) Permalink
loooooool
― ksh, Tuesday, 8 June 2010 16:45 (2 years ago) Permalink
Lex, with respect you haven't been doing this for very long. Look at the experience of most music writers and it's hard to argue with the point about being pigeonholed. You have to work very hard, and get very lucky, to break out of that. Ed Ward overplays the gloom but it's good that somebody's pointing out the pitfalls.
― Haunted Clocks For Sale (Dorianlynskey), Tuesday, 8 June 2010 16:53 (2 years ago) Permalink
ksh, the number of music writers who are failed musicians is staggering. I count myself among them.
― ლ support our troops ლ (Whiney G. Weingarten), Tuesday, 8 June 2010 16:55 (2 years ago) Permalink
cf. the number of publicists who are failed music writers
― ლ support our troops ლ (Whiney G. Weingarten), Tuesday, 8 June 2010 16:56 (2 years ago) Permalink
Yeah, that makes sense! It just seems like, as many of the writers in that series said, you'd have to really want to be a music writer in order to have any sort of a successful career in it. So, if someone was in the game just because they couldn't pull off a career in actually playing music, they probably wouldn't make it as a writer.
― ksh, Tuesday, 8 June 2010 16:59 (2 years ago) Permalink
Not that someone couldn't be passionate about both playing and writing about music, but it seems like most people wouldn't love to do both equally.
― ksh, Tuesday, 8 June 2010 17:00 (2 years ago) Permalink
whiney, do you consider yourself a "failed musician" because you didn't make a living doing it? because i mean...
― emotional radiohead whatever (Jordan), Tuesday, 8 June 2010 17:01 (2 years ago) Permalink
(sorry xposts) But are you a music writer because you're a failed musician? In an ideal world, would you have preferred to be a musician?
I ask as someone who's done both, neither to any great extent, but I was always more covetous of a career as a writer.
― jaymc, Tuesday, 8 June 2010 17:02 (2 years ago) Permalink
xp Also, I get the idea most music writers do grow increasingly bitter about music! I wouldn't say it's inevitable, but it's definitely more common than not. It's hard not to, to some extent. Like I said in my essay, I still hear a couple hundred records I like enough to hang onto every year. But I'm kind of bitter about music anyway! From my observation of the Pazz & Jop electorate at the Voice, I'd say the real hump writers have trouble getting over, for some reason, comes in their early 30s. That's when lots of music crits seem to pack it in. (I know, for me, that's when I thought most everything I heard sucked. Of course, in my case, my early 30s coincided with the early '90s, when most everything did suck. But that wasn't my fault.)
Also, I've said it before, on other threads, but if anything, I'm way more a frustrated DJ (in my head) than a frustrated musician. (But then again, I don't need to be a musician, since I married one.)
― xhuxk, Tuesday, 8 June 2010 17:04 (2 years ago) Permalink
I'm way more a frustrated DJ (in my head) than a frustrated musician
haha yeah, this rings way more true
― لوووووووووووووووووووول (lex pretend), Tuesday, 8 June 2010 17:06 (2 years ago) Permalink
"If you were in the slightest bit interesting to me, you’d probably be in a band. And if you were any good at playing music you probably wouldn’t be writing about it. "
I take it Whiney's not really a fan of Saint Etienne, Yo La Tengo, etc.?
― I just wish he hadn't adopted the "ilxor" moniker (ilxor), Tuesday, 8 June 2010 17:11 (2 years ago) Permalink
That is exactly what I mean.
But are you a music writer because you're a failed musician?
I was a struggling music writer and a struggling musician for many, many years and I just slowly leaned more and more into the one that kept giving me steady paychecks.
In an ideal world, would you have preferred to be a musician?
Absolutely.
― ლ support our troops ლ (Whiney G. Weingarten), Tuesday, 8 June 2010 17:23 (2 years ago) Permalink
Not to sound sorry for myself! I basically wanted to live in a pipe dream and I just traded down for a more realistic pipe dream!
― ლ support our troops ლ (Whiney G. Weingarten), Tuesday, 8 June 2010 17:24 (2 years ago) Permalink
Everyone I know, in good bands and mediocre, loses money playing in bands. Often quite a lof of money.
― grandavis, Tuesday, 8 June 2010 17:25 (2 years ago) Permalink
yeah i don't know if making money is a good gauge of whether or not you are a successful musician. a working musician, i guess, would be the better term. and, man, that is a hard hustle just like any other hustle.
― scott seward, Tuesday, 8 June 2010 17:45 (2 years ago) Permalink
i'd seriously love to get all hippy-dippy about it, but making money is a good gauge of how you pay your rent, as the last time I checked my landlord does not accept "indie cred" and "cool travel experiences" as payment
― ლ support our troops ლ (Whiney G. Weingarten), Tuesday, 8 June 2010 17:47 (2 years ago) Permalink
i'm sure if you wanted to, you could have made a similar living as a working musician but it would probably would have involved teaching, playing music you might not be that into and that certainly doesn't involve indie cred, etc.
not criticizing, everyone's ideas of success are different, etc.
― emotional radiohead whatever (Jordan), Tuesday, 8 June 2010 17:50 (2 years ago) Permalink
When was the last time you checked?
xp
― I just wish he hadn't adopted the "ilxor" moniker (ilxor), Tuesday, 8 June 2010 17:50 (2 years ago) Permalink
right, just saying you aren't a FAILURE if you don't make money at it.
x-post
― scott seward, Tuesday, 8 June 2010 17:51 (2 years ago) Permalink
i mean yeah, the word FAILURE is a little hyprbolicm but on the most basic level, i think most people go into music with the dream of it being their life's work and then fail to realize it
― ლ support our troops ლ (Whiney G. Weingarten), Tuesday, 8 June 2010 17:56 (2 years ago) Permalink
way to project
― congratulations (n/a), Tuesday, 8 June 2010 17:59 (2 years ago) Permalink
I got drunk a few nights ago and sang a song into the recording thing on my cell phone before I fell asleep
― puff puff post (uh oh I'm having a fantasy), Tuesday, 8 June 2010 18:00 (2 years ago) Permalink
xpostuh, i straight up admitted it up thread, but nice "zing"
― ლ support our troops ლ (Whiney G. Weingarten), Tuesday, 8 June 2010 18:01 (2 years ago) Permalink
when I heard it later I realized that I am a musician
― puff puff post (uh oh I'm having a fantasy), Tuesday, 8 June 2010 18:01 (2 years ago) Permalink
Sorry, better things to do than read entire thread! xp
― I just wish he hadn't adopted the "ilxor" moniker (ilxor), Tuesday, 8 June 2010 18:04 (2 years ago) Permalink
show all messages (757 of them)
― I just wish he hadn't adopted the "ilxor" moniker (ilxor), Tuesday, 8 June 2010 18:05 (2 years ago) Permalink
Know who you're writing for ?...and who exactly is that ?...other writers seems to be who, as they are the only ones reading about music ?...yeah or nah ?
The rest of us just listen to it, having been quietly put off reading about it by tastemaker journo types of the past amping shit up or tearing shit down, which when you check out the actual music, you think...WTF ? that was meh or conversely, that was ace.
I tend to just hear the music on a tune by tune basis. No albums, no artists, no genres. I guess i'm not a fan of them and i'm defintely not a writer.
Very little music or artists would inspire me to want to write about them. So yeah...dance about architecture while the band plays on and on and on...
― beat boy damager, power 2 the people (Its all about face), Wednesday, 9 June 2010 00:29 (2 years ago) Permalink
"Know who you're writing for ?...and who exactly is that ?...other writers seems to be who, as they are the only ones reading about music ?...yeah or nah ?"
nah.
― scott seward, Wednesday, 9 June 2010 01:20 (2 years ago) Permalink
I like -- or should I say I relate to -- parts of both Ed Ward's and Richard Meltzer's blurbs in that feature -- they're mining similar territory, emotionally speaking -- but they both lose me by turning their kvetching entirely outward, blaming their bitterness on the genre of music writing itself, refusing to hold themselves at least somewhat culpable for their own inability/failure/whatever to carry on. I feel their mood in those pieces 100% right now, but they both kind of collapse under the weight of their own bullshit, Meltzer with his Burger King reference, Ward saying "If you have writing talent, for heaven’s sakes, use it for something worthwhile." (Well, what the fuck do you consider "worthwhile"? You want to write articles about feeding the hungry? Go for it!) (Meltzer, as I've said elsewhere on many occasions, is such a monumental figure to me, he can say anything he likes in print -- especially about music or writing -- and I'll always dig it. But I still think he's evading something here.) When I say I loathe the very idea of music writing, which I do right now -- and no, I'm not pretending to place myself in the esteemed company of Meltzer, Ward, et al -- what I'm really saying is, I loathe parts of myself. I loathe the world too, sometimes, but that's such a pat answer in a way.
― sw00ds, Wednesday, 9 June 2010 03:51 (2 years ago) Permalink
If you don't mind my asking, why do you "loathe the very idea of music writing," at least "right now"? Genuinely curious.
― ksh, Wednesday, 9 June 2010 03:53 (2 years ago) Permalink
I loathe the act of doing it and rarely enjoying the results of it, I loathe the fact of speaking into a void, most of all I loathe the fact that I can't seem to shed it as an interest and a genuine passion despite having made a real effort to drop it. It's fucking weird, it really is in my bloodstream -- a transfusion is maybe the best way to go, I figure. (I dunno if I've answered the question. I'm bitter as fuck about wasting years of effort for naught, and not exercising other muscles, so to speak, to make adjusting to the real world a little easier.)
― sw00ds, Wednesday, 9 June 2010 04:00 (2 years ago) Permalink
I loathe the fact that I will surely regret just having posted both of those when I wake up tomorrow!
― sw00ds, Wednesday, 9 June 2010 04:13 (2 years ago) Permalink
I'm just surprised, I guess! At the same time, though, I've been wanting to read less rock criticism for the past three years and haven't stopped. \(O_o)/
I barely even really listen to music anymore -- always half paying attention to everything.
― ksh, Wednesday, 9 June 2010 04:14 (2 years ago) Permalink
Seemed like back in the day y'all wrote for genre specific print magazines and the fans. Now, there is a dearth of magazines and fans have equal access to the music as much as the writers, so can form their own opinions.
It's like you're on a hiding to nothing in trying to build up a fanbase of readership who admire your style and respect your opinion.
Do y'all writers know who you're writing for anymore or is it pure folly and you're just doing it for yourselves because you must ?
It parallels musicians who make music that continues a tradition knowing most of the music has been done before and usually so much better that theres nothing original about what they try to do anymore.
one day you come to the realization that it's all been for naught ?
― beat boy damager, power 2 the people (Its all about face), Wednesday, 9 June 2010 04:42 (2 years ago) Permalink
I think xhuxk is dead on re there being a hump to get over in your early 30s. That is when I was very close to packing it in, and I probably would have if I hadn't started writing a column then.
― Mark, Wednesday, 9 June 2010 04:43 (2 years ago) Permalink
xhuxk said something similar to me in private email some years back in my own early thirties -- pretty perceptive, I realized!
― Ned Raggett, Wednesday, 9 June 2010 04:46 (2 years ago) Permalink
fans have equal access to the music as much as the writers
you mean that 800 lb gorilla on the couch over there? just ignore him
― johnny la rue's pajama party (m coleman), Wednesday, 9 June 2010 09:45 (2 years ago) Permalink
Ian MacKaye once said that his goal with any band was to play one show. I think that's a pretty good standard of success. Lord Scotch once said real hip-hoppers have a day job. I don't agree with that notion of realness, but I sympathize. The idea that the market is the only measure of your worth, or even of actual demand, is absurd.
― Pete Scholtes, Wednesday, 9 June 2010 16:46 (2 years ago) Permalink
the vast majority of people making metal have other jobs. probably same goes for folk musicians, jazz musicians, bluegrass musicians, punk musicians, and experimental horse music makers.
― scott seward, Wednesday, 9 June 2010 17:05 (2 years ago) Permalink
experimental horse music O_O
― ksh, Wednesday, 9 June 2010 17:16 (2 years ago) Permalink
*whinny* *snare snare* *guitar feedback*
I just got the following email blast from one of my editors, which he said was sent to him by his boss:
"is there any way to get word out to freelancers that nobody gives a shit about record-company stuff? it's way boring stuff that nobody but music snobs care about. while we're at it, can we also let writers know that readers don't care what pitchfork or anybody else has to say about a band? if they wanted to know, they'd read them. we're supposed to be authoritative critics with our own opinions. leave those references to other publications out of stories."
― Born In A Test Tube, Raised In A Cage (unperson), Wednesday, 9 June 2010 17:21 (2 years ago) Permalink
... way boring etc ...
Inspirational, that.
― Gorge, Thursday, 10 June 2010 04:31 (2 years ago) Permalink
That's pretty mean-spirited calling someone a failed musician (or a failed anything). The guy put out records and toured, after all. Its all about face wants to instigate some existential crises, huh.
― bamcquern, Thursday, 10 June 2010 05:23 (2 years ago) Permalink
Do not mistake this for a conversation. We deliver our opinions from a very high rock on which none are allowed to coexist.
― Brad Nelson (BradNelson), Thursday, 10 June 2010 06:15 (2 years ago) Permalink
Its all about face wants to instigate some existential crises, huh.
As far as I can tell he only really came to ILX to bait [dubstep journo turned producer] Martin Clark so I think we can just assume he has 'issues'
― I wonder if heaven got a Netto (DJ Mencap), Thursday, 10 June 2010 08:11 (2 years ago) Permalink
Know who you're writing for ?...and who exactly is that ?...other writers seems to be who, as they are the only ones reading about music ?...yeah or nah ?The rest of us just listen to it, having been quietly put off reading about it by tastemaker journo types of the past amping shit up or tearing shit down, which when you check out the actual music, you think...WTF ? that was meh or conversely, that was ace.I tend to just hear the music on a tune by tune basis. No albums, no artists, no genres. I guess i'm not a fan of them and i'm defintely not a writer.
You can say that last bit again.
You say the rest of us as if we're all complicit and in agreement but you only have to look at stats for blogs, big ISPs like MSN, music websites as well as the print press to see that your argument is false. What you actually mean is, I'm a bit dim witted, therefore I have no need to discuss music other than on a very superficial, what-does-it-sound-like level - which there's nothing wrong with per se - your kind of music consumer has always existed and will always be in the majority.
The question really seems to be: if this is your attitude towards discussing music, what are you doing hanging round on a music message board of this nature?
Back once again with the shrill behaviour indeed.
― Duran (Doran), Thursday, 10 June 2010 08:28 (2 years ago) Permalink
what are you doing hanging round on a music message board of this nature?
sifting.
so Doran, have you got stats on how many people have been put off music journos cos they wrote some fluff/hate piece only for their readers to realize how wrong they got it ?
BTW, you written about anything worth checking out lately ? A tune, an album, an artist, a blog ? anybody else want to pimp their shit..yeah, nah ?
seriously...humour me, inspire me, enlighten me, convert me, make me believe in you !!!
And have any of y'all been to Blackdown's arts council funded folly and want to write a review ? I see uncarved did and well hmmm...
― beat boy damager, power 2 the people (Its all about face), Thursday, 10 June 2010 20:56 (2 years ago) Permalink
I don't use this place to spam (as much as it is sometimes a temptation), just to discuss what's coming out.
I'm not sure if I can but I do know I'm now going to go and listen to some Patti Jo and some Curtis Mayfield.
― Duran (Doran), Thursday, 10 June 2010 21:29 (2 years ago) Permalink
This is slightly off-topic and probably doesn't need to be said, but does it strike anyone else as a little sad, how much we now link playing and writing music with wanting to make a living or get attention from doing it? I understand it -- we're surrounded by enough recorded artifacts that we're losing the "need" for people to play -- but for a whole lot of human history it has been pretty normal for people to play music just because it's fun, and something to do, and they love it, and maybe now and then their friends or kids or grandkids will want to hear a tune.
Which is rather like a lot of reasons people write, or talk about things they're interested in, or whatever. Maybe some people have plans they're disappointed never panned out, but I work from the assumption that a lot of people just really like music, and they'll play it, talk about it, write about it, make films about it, whatever -- maybe they'll find a role that pays them to do one of these things, maybe not. If not, they'll do some other job and talk about music on a blog, or with their friends, or play guitar in the back room, or enjoy being involved with music some other way.
Sorry if this is a total hippie post, but that strikes me as a nicer way of thinking about it.
― oɔsıqɐu (nabisco), Thursday, 10 June 2010 22:03 (2 years ago) Permalink
I think that drive was waaaaaaaaaaaaaaay bigger in the 70s and 80s and
― akontenderizer (Whiney G. Weingarten), Thursday, 10 June 2010 22:07 (2 years ago) Permalink
not everyone is trying to be famous pitchfork stars like bear in heaven and brent dicrescenzo, nabisco. I think most people with recording and blogging software are doing funny YouTube mashups and diary entries for their friends
― akontenderizer (Whiney G. Weingarten), Thursday, 10 June 2010 22:11 (2 years ago) Permalink
for a whole lot of human history it has been pretty normal for people to play music just because it's fun, and something to do, and they love it, and maybe now and then their friends or kids or grandkids will want to hear a tune.
historians tell us that the advent of recording in the early 20th century killed off a lot (not all) of amateur music-making: gathering around the family piano, local marching bands, barbershop quartets etc. interesting that the internet's leveling effect on the record business might bring it all back home.
― johnny la rue's pajama party (m coleman), Thursday, 10 June 2010 22:28 (2 years ago) Permalink
whiney, isn't that what I just now said??
― oɔsıqɐu (nabisco), Thursday, 10 June 2010 22:44 (2 years ago) Permalink
sorry, maybe the first paragraph was misleading -- I'm saying it seems disappointing how often we assume the point is to accomplish something, or joke about how people aren't going to get anywhere with what they're doing, instead of considering that someone home-recording dubstep might be like someone's grandfather playing a little guitar on the porch (i.e., just part of a lifelong relationship with music)
― oɔsıqɐu (nabisco), Thursday, 10 June 2010 22:49 (2 years ago) Permalink
Well, I mean, when I write x intended for an audience, isn't it...normal to assume we're "accomplishing" something? Not being flippant, just confused by your terms, nabisco.
― Filmmaker, Author, Radio Host Stephen Baldwin (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Thursday, 10 June 2010 22:51 (2 years ago) Permalink
"interesting that the internet's leveling effect on the record business might bring it all back home."
yeah! this is what i find exciting! i see this where i am. people just putting on a show for their friends/town/family and they don't really care if it goes beyond that. it's just fun. i think this is a great side-effect. i'm all for yokelism.
― scott seward, Thursday, 10 June 2010 22:55 (2 years ago) Permalink
as for writing, remember what Dr. Johnson said: "No man but a blockhead ever wrote, except for money."
― johnny la rue's pajama party (m coleman), Thursday, 10 June 2010 22:57 (2 years ago) Permalink
(saw this where i used to live too. but that was an actual island and community sings had never gone out of style there. my wife's great-aunt still played her edison cylinders on sunday afternoons! people knew the lyrics to stephen foster songs!)
― scott seward, Thursday, 10 June 2010 22:57 (2 years ago) Permalink
I don't use this place to spam (as much as it is sometimes a temptation)
pity.
what you got to lose...respect among peers ?
and uh...where do you go to spam then ?
― beat boy damager, power 2 the people (Its all about face), Thursday, 10 June 2010 23:00 (2 years ago) Permalink
xpost - Ha, I must just be making this sound needlessly complicated.
I'm referring to the idea of "failed musicians" (or, hell, "failed" lots of things), and the way people occasionally pick on that -- almost as if they believe it's silly to even try anything unless it's going to work out for you, and make you a "real"/professional version of whatever you do.
But of course if you happen to love something, like music, it makes perfect sense that you'd enjoy playing it, writing it, talking about it, writing about it, etc. Not because you're staking your life on "succeeding"(though maybe you'd really like to!), but just because you love and enjoy it. Maybe you find some success, or maybe you just sing in your church choir or write a little blog, but either way it's part of your ongoing relationship with music. So the idea of "failing" at it is a little tricky to project onto anyone.
― oɔsıqɐu (nabisco), Thursday, 10 June 2010 23:07 (2 years ago) Permalink
(Plus I don't know how you judge. I record stuff at home, for fun, and I doubt strangers would want to hear much of it, but I'm not a "failed musician," right? Because I'm not trying. And yet if I got a band together, recorded and released a record, got good reviews, toured, sold several thousand copies, and then people stopped liking us and we broke up and I went back to my current job and recording for fun in my bedroom, I'd be a "failed musician." Even if I had loads of fun and wasn't expecting anything more than that.)
― oɔsıqɐu (nabisco), Thursday, 10 June 2010 23:14 (2 years ago) Permalink
yeah, i get you. this is america, unfortunately. i don't know about the rest of the world.
― scott seward, Thursday, 10 June 2010 23:18 (2 years ago) Permalink
americans have weird ideas about "doing things".
― scott seward, Thursday, 10 June 2010 23:20 (2 years ago) Permalink
As the first person to use the word "failed musician" in this convo, I would like to clarify that I DID mean it in the sense of people who think they can eke out a living playing music and certainly not some dude playing dubstep in his backyard
― akontenderizer (Whiney G. Weingarten), Thursday, 10 June 2010 23:21 (2 years ago) Permalink
like a failed business owner.
― scott seward, Thursday, 10 June 2010 23:23 (2 years ago) Permalink
I know, I know, not trying to argue with you -- I think people are weird about that in a larger way, though
― oɔsıqɐu (nabisco), Thursday, 10 June 2010 23:24 (2 years ago) Permalink
― Born In A Test Tube, Raised In A Cage (unperson), Wednesday, June 9, 2010 1:21 PM (Yesterday) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink
this is awesome, wish i worked for whoever said that
― some dude, Thursday, 10 June 2010 23:31 (2 years ago) Permalink
I wish more music writers had a blog or a Twitter feed where they just linked to everything they wrote, because there are some people, especially freelancers, who write for a bunch of venues and it'd be so much more convenient for me as a fan of their writing instead of a fan of publication X to follow their work.
― ksh, Friday, 11 June 2010 20:03 (2 years ago) Permalink
(Sidebars on blogs don't really count, because there's no solid way to be notified when new stuff goes up.)
― ksh, Friday, 11 June 2010 20:05 (2 years ago) Permalink
WERD..ksh
even if they linked to their 'whatever' off the pseudonym profile here at ilx.
more than some pithy popmatters good advice survey, i'd like to read something more stylistic and substantial.
a digital issuu portfolio maybe ?
― beat boy damager, power 2 the people (Its all about face), Friday, 11 June 2010 22:01 (2 years ago) Permalink
yeah i do that and i'm always surprised more writers don't -- pretty much the main reason i HAVE a blog is to link to my freelance work and as a place to throw stuff i feel like writing but don't have a freelance outlet for
― some dude, Friday, 11 June 2010 22:24 (2 years ago) Permalink
^got linky ?
― beat boy damager, power 2 the people (Its all about face), Friday, 11 June 2010 22:34 (2 years ago) Permalink
I tried having a blog to link to my various writings but updating it was pretty tedious and boring after, like, a week
― akontenderizer (Whiney G. Weingarten), Friday, 11 June 2010 22:37 (2 years ago) Permalink
well, you write a LOT
mine is here btw
― some dude, Friday, 11 June 2010 22:41 (2 years ago) Permalink
shot !
― beat boy damager, power 2 the people (Its all about face), Friday, 11 June 2010 22:47 (2 years ago) Permalink
"so these reviews are really smart and well-written but can you rewrite them to make them funnier and lighter"
no FUCK YOU
seriously
i don't do jokes or humour in writing. can't do em. no idea where to start. LIVE WITH IT.
― لوووووووووووووووووووول (lex pretend), Monday, 2 August 2010 14:33 (2 years ago) Permalink
hmm
― just to guetta rep (Whiney G. Weingarten), Monday, 2 August 2010 14:38 (2 years ago) Permalink
Is that a verbatim transcript of your reply Lex?
― Haunted Clocks For Sale (Dorianlynskey), Monday, 2 August 2010 14:47 (2 years ago) Permalink
not yet
in about 5 minutes maybe
― لوووووووووووووووووووول (lex pretend), Monday, 2 August 2010 14:49 (2 years ago) Permalink
i know it seems like 75% of writers out there do nothing but try to chase down every last pun and laboured witticism out of life but that's just not me
― لوووووووووووووووووووول (lex pretend), Monday, 2 August 2010 14:51 (2 years ago) Permalink
Sure, but just because you don't do funny don't run down those who do. It's not just about puns and strained gags. Most of the best critics in any artform (Anthony Lane, Clive James, Kenneth Tynan) have humour in their writing.
― Haunted Clocks For Sale (Dorianlynskey), Monday, 2 August 2010 14:55 (2 years ago) Permalink
oh there are some hilarious writers out there but the ratio of genuinely funny writers to writers who think they're funny but don't really progress beyond snide and sarcastic = roughly 1 : 10000. it's pretty telling that the closest i get to funny is when writing about something i hate or don't care about - there's no way i can be be funny about something i love, none at all.
― لوووووووووووووووووووول (lex pretend), Monday, 2 August 2010 14:58 (2 years ago) Permalink
lex, two questions before you send that email:
1) Are you getting paid for this review?2) Does this mag/site specialize in light-hearted, witty commentary (ie, like a Blender or Complex or Vice) or is it something that can usually be a little dry?
― just to guetta rep (Whiney G. Weingarten), Monday, 2 August 2010 15:15 (2 years ago) Permalink
1) yes2) hmm it might like to think it does but i don't think i've ever laughed at it. and it's not like my copy is totally dry and humourless, it's quite casual, just without any snide, obvious, mocking jokes.
what pisses me off most is that they acknowledged that it's smart and well-written but they'd rather have lame, stupid humour.
― لوووووووووووووووووووول (lex pretend), Monday, 2 August 2010 15:21 (2 years ago) Permalink
I avoid puns & laboured witticisms as well but there's nothing wrong w/a little light irony or sarcasm imo. just something like an off-the-wall simile helps the reader get an idea of where you're at with the review.
― margana (anagram), Monday, 2 August 2010 15:23 (2 years ago) Permalink
Well if you're getting paid, I say suck it up and write the way your editor and his or her audience wants.
In this case I don't think it means putting in a bunch of bad puns, maybe just making it read a little more breezy and casual and conversational
― just to guetta rep (Whiney G. Weingarten), Monday, 2 August 2010 15:24 (2 years ago) Permalink
no offense man but fuck this. stick to yr guns, lex.
― sexual intercourse began in 1963 (m coleman), Monday, 2 August 2010 15:37 (2 years ago) Permalink
Yeah, editor sounds like a dipshit. I've edited the hell out of people, but I don't think "add more jokes" was ever what I asked for. And I'm somebody who's probably used irony, sarcasm, and bad puns a lot in my writing over the decades (sure they work, sometimes), but I'm kind of with Lex here anyway -- have always hated when I was told to be funny. Sorry, moron, but that's now how humor works, unless you want it to come out sounding really, really forced and stupid. (Which isn't to say that I wouldn't give in and give it a shot, sometimes, because I need a paycheck. Just wouldn't respect myself in the morning, if I did.)
― xhuxk, Monday, 2 August 2010 15:44 (2 years ago) Permalink
solution: i am adding one sentence, to make a really lame joke about an artist's twitter account. that's all i got for them in terms of humour.
re: "conversational", my writing pretty much IS how i converse, minus the ums and ers and swearing. i could put the swearing back in if they want.
― لوووووووووووووووووووول (lex pretend), Monday, 2 August 2010 16:32 (2 years ago) Permalink
that would help i'm guessing
― just to guetta rep (Whiney G. Weingarten), Monday, 2 August 2010 16:38 (2 years ago) Permalink
nah it wouldn't fly, i've had swears taken out before, even mild ones like "bullshit", also that time i tried to call la roux a cunt in print ;_;
― لوووووووووووووووووووول (lex pretend), Monday, 2 August 2010 16:40 (2 years ago) Permalink
are you sure you're not a laff riot?
― just to guetta rep (Whiney G. Weingarten), Monday, 2 August 2010 16:45 (2 years ago) Permalink
xp meant "that's not how humor works...." etc.
Fwiw, I probably suggested specific jokes or puns or sarcastic lines for certain writers I was editing, but only if I thought it would fit into their personal voice. Why you'd want to add them to a writer who clearly didn't have a use for them is beyond me. ("Hey Gary Giddins -- you could really liven up this week's column on Roy Haynes and Max Roach with a couple poop jokes, don't you think?")
― xhuxk, Monday, 2 August 2010 16:47 (2 years ago) Permalink
weirdly i'm pretty confident about my ability to make people laugh IRL, but just have no clue about how on earth to translate that to writing.
― لوووووووووووووووووووول (lex pretend), Monday, 2 August 2010 16:53 (2 years ago) Permalink
"Hey Gary Giddins -- you could really liven up this week's column on Roy Haynes and Max Roach with a couple poop jokes, don't you think?"
actual LOLs
― Mexico, camp, horns, Zappa, Mr. Bungle (Matos W.K.), Monday, 2 August 2010 16:55 (2 years ago) Permalink
dear any young cats who get all up-in-arms when you're asked to rewrite: the sooner you learn not to take it personally, the happier you're be and the better you'll write
when I think about the ok-at-best shit I used to go to bat for, I cringe
― gross rainbow of haerosmith (underrated aerosmith albums I have loved), Monday, 2 August 2010 17:02 (2 years ago) Permalink
oh i am absolutely not one of those people who's precious about my writing, am happy to take on board actual worthwhile and specific suggestions, and 90% of the time don't care about subbing changes (which can backfire when i get so blasé that i don't check, and it turns out they've totally changed the meaning of something). being asked to be funny or light or humorous is just the one thing that raises my hackles. partly cuz i see so much LAZY "light" writing and it's infuriating to see editors still wanting to focus on that style.
― لوووووووووووووووووووول (lex pretend), Monday, 2 August 2010 17:07 (2 years ago) Permalink
in general getting up-in-arms over being asked to rewrite IS precious - nothing worse from an editor's (or reader's) POV than some greil marcus jr writing a record review that reads like finnegan's wake, hell it's bad enough when the real greil marcus does it. the point I want to make here is that some music writing in the wake of rob sheffield and blender has a "humorous" tone that sounds forced and phony IMHO - like an editor instructed the writer in the way the lex experienced. feel free to consider me humorless old geezer.
― sexual intercourse began in 1963 (m coleman), Monday, 2 August 2010 17:17 (2 years ago) Permalink
as sympathetic as i am to general hatred of forced breeziness i dont really see why my feelings should enter into what is essentially a business transaction
― max, Monday, 2 August 2010 20:53 (2 years ago) Permalink
i mean i "see" why but i dont really "see"
― max, Monday, 2 August 2010 20:54 (2 years ago) Permalink
max, this is art of pretend disingenuousness here
― strongohulkingtonsghost, Monday, 2 August 2010 20:58 (2 years ago) Permalink
yeah yeah yeah
this is something i think about a lot, obviously. my feelings about my own 'integrity' w/r/t the things i write on a regular basis. so i am trying to see it all in a very businesslike way. so i can sleep at night.
― max, Monday, 2 August 2010 20:59 (2 years ago) Permalink
I'm almost afraid to ask, but what on earth is "the art of pretend disingenuousness"
― sexual intercourse began in 1963 (m coleman), Monday, 2 August 2010 22:01 (2 years ago) Permalink
anyone have any thoughts on yesterday's Awl piece on freelancing? are things usually really that bad?
http://www.theawl.com/2010/08/seven-years-as-a-freelance-writer-or-how-to-make-vitamin-soup
― markers, Tuesday, 3 August 2010 15:49 (2 years ago) Permalink
yes.
― strongohulkingtonsghost, Tuesday, 3 August 2010 15:52 (2 years ago) Permalink
worse, in fact.
As a professional freelancer myself, I have no idea how some dude who clearly takes lots of high-paying, high-profile gigs is so perpetually close to financial ruin. I don't have a single outlet nearly as well paying as that guy; AND I pay a higher rent. And still have enough money to go on vacation and buy records and eat at nice restaurants.
No idea where all his money is going.
― markers welby, S.B. (Whiney G. Weingarten), Tuesday, 3 August 2010 15:54 (2 years ago) Permalink
yeah i was wondering that too! he seemed to kind of elide the chronology of a lot of stuff--like, was he dirt poor the first couple years? or was he dirt poor last year while he was a contributing writer to the nyt magazine and stuff?
― max, Tuesday, 3 August 2010 15:56 (2 years ago) Permalink
haha actually yeah having read it now, i've got some decent/well-known publication names in the old clips file, but anyone with names like playboy on his resume needs to stfu.
― strongohulkingtonsghost, Tuesday, 3 August 2010 15:59 (2 years ago) Permalink
I once got paid $100 a word.
Pls give details.
― Haunted Clocks For Sale (Dorianlynskey), Tuesday, 3 August 2010 16:09 (2 years ago) Permalink
I once got paid $100 a word
that's where his "freinds w/benefits" metaphor kicks in
― sexual intercourse began in 1963 (m coleman), Tuesday, 3 August 2010 16:14 (2 years ago) Permalink
freelancing means..writing shamelessly sycophantic letters to editors and not being embarrassed
Once, when I was 5, I met Big Bird. He wasn't so big in real life. But I was still glad to meet him. Grown-up to grown-up, I think I’d fare far better with you.
― sexual intercourse began in 1963 (m coleman), Tuesday, 3 August 2010 16:15 (2 years ago) Permalink
yeah, he made it seem like you're pretty much gonna be poor if you decide to go the freelancing route
― markers, Tuesday, 3 August 2010 16:25 (2 years ago) Permalink
Even before I attended the Graduate School of Journalism at Columbia University, I was writing features for Details that were being debated on “The O’Reilly Factor.” I wrote one of the rare freelanced cover stories for the New York Daily News —a school scandal I had pitched to the New York Times only to be told never ever to use the word “scandal” in my pitch (they ended up chasing the story the next day; it took two reporters to re-report my story). I went to the Turkish countryside to write about a 600-year-old Turkish olive-oil wrestling tournament for ESPN. I lived at a research station in the Alaskan Arctic for the Times. I went to Peru for National Geographic. I went to keggers at New York magazine and went to parties with Sigur Rós and the cast of “Saturday Night Live.”
if he parties with the current cast of SNL and Sigur Ros no wonder no one returns his calls.
― Gucci Mane hermeneuticist (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Tuesday, 3 August 2010 16:28 (2 years ago) Permalink
"You won't believe where I'm calling you from!"
― Ned Raggett, Tuesday, 3 August 2010 16:32 (2 years ago) Permalink
"Waddup, guys. Here we are coolin it at Chili's with Sigur Ros. The tortilla chip dip is teh awesomez!"
― Gucci Mane hermeneuticist (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Tuesday, 3 August 2010 16:35 (2 years ago) Permalink
Conceptual reviews - C/D?
Do you like it when people subvert the music review, playing around with its form or trying to entertain the reader with more than the old "sounds like Joy Division/angular guitars" dreck, or is this all a load of meandering Pitchfork-circa-2001 bollocks?
Also - how do you keep your writing fresh and interesting to read? Especially if you're reviewing a lot of releases at a time?
― Bernard V. O'Hare (dog latin), Tuesday, 25 January 2011 15:53 (2 years ago) Permalink
On the latter front -- try and (if possible) limit your formal reviews to one a day. Reduces stress and allows you to concentrate on just that one thing. (Obviously if you have a larger workload than I allow myself then...)
― Ned Raggett, Tuesday, 25 January 2011 15:54 (2 years ago) Permalink
just don't
― lextasy refix (lex pretend), Tuesday, 25 January 2011 15:55 (2 years ago) Permalink
just don't even try
― lextasy refix (lex pretend), Tuesday, 25 January 2011 15:56 (2 years ago) Permalink
1% of conceptual reviews may work but THAT MEANS 99% DON'T AND ARE THOROUGHLY WORTHLESS.
so don't.
but sometimes its the only way for me to write about a viking metal album. and have fun.
― scott seward, Tuesday, 25 January 2011 16:08 (2 years ago) Permalink
Do you like it when people subvert the music review, playing around with its form or trying to entertain the reader
If the "people" is Scott Seward (or a few other people), then yes, almost all the time. (But if it's other other people, not so much.)
― xhuxk, Tuesday, 25 January 2011 16:19 (2 years ago) Permalink
I hate conceptual reviews. Wouldn't run 'em as an editor, and will never write one.
― that's not funny. (unperson), Tuesday, 25 January 2011 16:32 (2 years ago) Permalink
Actually, I don't even really know what "conceptual" means, in this context. You can do all sorts of things, and write about all sorts of things, in the course of a music review. And if you're an interesting writer, you will. And you'll write about the music, too, and if the non-music stuff sticks out like a sore thumb, a good editor will let you know. (If you're not an interesting writer, your review will probably be boring, regardless.)
― xhuxk, Tuesday, 25 January 2011 16:39 (2 years ago) Permalink
The trouble with a lot of "conceptual" reviews is that they can be an elaborate displacement activity for engaging with, and reporting back on, the actual music.
― mike t-diva, Tuesday, 25 January 2011 16:45 (2 years ago) Permalink
Sure. But that doesn't mean that writers with interesting things to say about the actual music should avoid them -- or rather, that the "conceptual" vs., uh, "regular" review battle isn't a false dichotomy in the first place. (Truth is, I almost never read Pitchfork back in the old days, and still don't now. I tend to gravitate toward critics I actually like, many of whom are capable of walking and chewing gum at the same time. So my stance on this issue might be shaded by that fact.)
― xhuxk, Tuesday, 25 January 2011 16:50 (2 years ago) Permalink
xhuxk, I know I've mentioned this to you before, but your willingness, even eagerness (as I saw it) to publish format-busting reviews in the Voice actually kept me from pitching you for years, because I had the impression that it was "house style" and that anything I wrote would be re-edited until it was like that.
― that's not funny. (unperson), Tuesday, 25 January 2011 16:53 (2 years ago) Permalink
That, and the fact that I didn't see you publishing anyone interested in treating metal as anything but a punch line.
― that's not funny. (unperson), Tuesday, 25 January 2011 16:54 (2 years ago) Permalink
You obviously didn't look close enough (both for the non-funny metal writing -- Erik Davis comes to mind, right off the top of my head, but there was plenty, and being funny is hardly always the same as making fun of the music anyway -- and for writers who wrote more "straight" (including jazz guys, Gary Giddins for starters.) Actually, I got some complaints (from Sasha Frere-Jones, for one) that my section covered metal too much. And I sure as hell wasn't going to edit out all of, say, Scott's and George's jokes. But that doesn't mean they don't take loud rock seriously, either. (And so do I. But sorry, it's also funny, a lot of the time.)
― xhuxk, Tuesday, 25 January 2011 17:00 (2 years ago) Permalink
In other words, it's the "anything but" that you're really wrong about. I have no idea who that would apply to. Scott and George and Dave Q never treated metal as only a punchline. They treated it as music worth taking apart and figuring out and analyzing, too. (Frank Kogan, on those occasions when he wrote about metal, probably didn't even joke very much; that's not really his style. And I'm sure if I went back and looked through seven years of Voice issues, I could come up with plenty of other examples.)
― xhuxk, Tuesday, 25 January 2011 17:06 (2 years ago) Permalink
Well, this was a decade ago - I'd only been writing about music for money since '96, and I took myself and metal much more seriously.
― that's not funny. (unperson), Tuesday, 25 January 2011 17:38 (2 years ago) Permalink
"Music Journalism Faces Shake-Ups, Shake-Downs and High Tech Show-Downs in 2010" by Jason Gross
http://www.popmatters.com/pm/tools/print/135739
haven't read this yet, but i will
― markers, Sunday, 13 February 2011 01:23 (2 years ago) Permalink
"addenda": http://www.popmatters.com/pm/post/135835-/
― markers, Sunday, 13 February 2011 01:24 (2 years ago) Permalink
Music Journalism Faces Shake-Ups, Shake-Downs and High Tech Show-Downs in 2001
― Rich Lolwry (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Sunday, 13 February 2011 03:32 (2 years ago) Permalink
i still wanna put out a zine! i said that on here. i'm getting to it! there just don't seem to be enough hours in the day. i can never get enough done.
this is my favorite quote on here:
"Like wow, the Jesus And Mary Chain helped you get through high school. You and America, buddy."
i just love that image of the entire country relying on the jesus and mary chain to get them through high school. in a perfect world...
― scott seward, Sunday, 13 February 2011 05:33 (2 years ago) Permalink
Have any of you writer types taken long breaks where you didn't write at all or very much? If so, did you find that you had trouble getting back to churning out quality copy when you came back?
― NYCNative, Sunday, 13 February 2011 20:15 (2 years ago) Permalink
Does being an editor for nine years count?
― xhuxk, Sunday, 13 February 2011 20:18 (2 years ago) Permalink
I don't think so unless you also stopped writing your own stuff, which certainly wasn't the case when I was an editor...
― NYCNative, Sunday, 13 February 2011 20:55 (2 years ago) Permalink
ha, i love how that popmatters thing has a whole "correction" about my work history / benefits situation, despite both the original and the update coming entirely from someone's imagination.
― oɔsıqɐu (nabisco), Sunday, 13 February 2011 21:05 (2 years ago) Permalink
omg lol
― markers, Sunday, 13 February 2011 21:07 (2 years ago) Permalink
the benefits of fact checking
― markers, Sunday, 13 February 2011 21:08 (2 years ago) Permalink
xp I definitely wrote a whole lot less when I was an editor than before or after (which I now regret, since in those days the Voice would have paid me for individual pieces on top of my salary, and I could have saved the money.) But nah, I've never stopped writing completely.
― xhuxk, Sunday, 13 February 2011 21:58 (2 years ago) Permalink
I took last week off because I was out of the country on assignment, and it's been a little weird getting back into a rhythm. But I've never stopped writing for any serious length of time in the last 15-16 years.
― that's not funny. (unperson), Sunday, 13 February 2011 22:39 (2 years ago) Permalink
Yeah, see, I ask because I have been pretty much retired for several years and tonight I have to review a show for a fairly large outlet and I hope I don't suck.....
― NYCNative, Sunday, 13 February 2011 23:01 (2 years ago) Permalink
Did it. Don't think it sucked but I could be told otherwise.
― NYCNative, Monday, 14 February 2011 19:15 (2 years ago) Permalink
Hey - can anyone point me to some live reviews they've particularly enjoyed? Seems to be a bit of a dark art compared to cd reviews.
― Evil Eau (dog latin), Tuesday, 5 April 2011 12:25 (2 years ago) Permalink
much prefer writing live reviews compared to album reviews, myself.
― Republicans voiced concern about young pages hearing the word uterus (stevie), Tuesday, 5 April 2011 13:20 (2 years ago) Permalink
http://blogs.villagevoice.com/music/2011/02/_lady_gaga_madi.php
http://www.rollingstone.com/culture/blogs/pop-life/highlights-from-all-tomorrows-parties-the-perfect-rock-festival-20100908
― billy childish gambino (Whiney G. Weingarten), Tuesday, 5 April 2011 13:31 (2 years ago) Permalink
Me too. I respond well to the immediacy/urgency of having to file a live review straight after the gig; the pressure energises me.
― mike t-diva, Tuesday, 5 April 2011 14:11 (2 years ago) Permalink
yeah i love writing live reviews, and they present a set of challenges and pleasures totally different from album reviews
― Turn My Slag On (some dude), Tuesday, 5 April 2011 14:19 (2 years ago) Permalink
I've enjoyed live-review-via-Twitter lately, which is much different than a formal review but is a great way to get the impressions together in one place.
― Ned Raggett, Tuesday, 5 April 2011 14:38 (2 years ago) Permalink
I enjoyed writing live reviews although getting them done and going to my dayjob the next day was often tiring. I wish my review of Haitian Sweet Micky for the Washington Post was not hidden in their paid archive now that he just got elected President of Haiti.
― curmudgeon, Tuesday, 5 April 2011 14:46 (2 years ago) Permalink
It's been archived for awhile I should say.
― Ned Raggett, Tuesday, April 5, 2011 10:38 AM (13 minutes ago) Bookmark
lol @ the twitter exchange right after this post
http://twitter.com/#!/NedRaggett/status/55279463725928448
― Turn My Slag On (some dude), Tuesday, 5 April 2011 14:53 (2 years ago) Permalink
Quite so!
― Ned Raggett, Tuesday, 5 April 2011 14:53 (2 years ago) Permalink
Indeedly doodly!
― scott seward, Tuesday, 5 April 2011 14:54 (2 years ago) Permalink
i didn't want to post it in the thread, but there it is.
― billy childish gambino (Whiney G. Weingarten), Tuesday, 5 April 2011 14:55 (2 years ago) Permalink
#shotsfired #raggettseesall
― Turn My Slag On (some dude), Tuesday, 5 April 2011 15:09 (2 years ago) Permalink
― mike t-diva, Tuesday, April 5, 2011 2:11 PM (1 hour ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink
yeah, totally. it's also always nice to rediscover that yeah i can bang out decent words in a short space of time when i have to, absolutely no scope for procrastination or staring at a blank screen for 4 hours. they often come out pretty well too.
― lex pretend, Tuesday, 5 April 2011 15:30 (2 years ago) Permalink
I have never really enjoyed doing them! Guess I'm alone in that. (Then again, I might like going to see live music less than most critics do, too.)
Anyway, I'm pretty sure my favorite live review I ever wrote is also my favorite Live review I ever wrote. (Okay, probably the only one, but still):
http://books.google.com/books?id=I4irI6O3Ko8C&pg=RA1-PA46&dq=Live+Philadelphia+Chuck+Eddy&hl=en&ei=WzObTdbkDdHPgAflwJ2BBw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=2&ved=0CDgQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=Live%20Philadelphia%20Chuck%20Eddy&f=false
― xhuxk, Tuesday, 5 April 2011 15:37 (2 years ago) Permalink
i really dug your south by ssouthwest gig reviews, chuck! totally entertaining. most live reviews are zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz.
― scott seward, Tuesday, 5 April 2011 15:39 (2 years ago) Permalink
Thanks, but yeah, live reviews are the most boring subset of music writing, always have been. I never liked editing them much, either. Really, what always seemed to work better for me is to talk about live shows in the course of longer essay pieces or features about the act in question; I've done that okay a few times in my life, I think.
― xhuxk, Tuesday, 5 April 2011 15:46 (2 years ago) Permalink
greg tate springsteen thing you put out is, like, the most recent review i can even remember that i really enjoyed.
http://www.villagevoice.com/1999-08-10/music/tear-the-roof-off-jungleland/
― scott seward, Tuesday, 5 April 2011 15:52 (2 years ago) Permalink
LIVE review that i really enjoyed.
― scott seward, Tuesday, 5 April 2011 15:53 (2 years ago) Permalink
So, I just moved apartments and I have TONS AND TONS AND TONS of old magazines with my clips in them. If my name was in a mag, I just tossed the mag on a pile in my office. Well, the pile is huge and I'm not really sure I need it.
I keep telling myself I'll go through with an xacto knife and cut out all the whiney pages, but we all know that will never happen. (This is like those people on Hoarders who are like "I can fix all these broken toasters and sell them" When, exactly?)
This is especially complicated because now all those CMJs and SPINs are basically digitally archived on Google Books and Village Voice is pretty good with its digital archiving too. If I need to reference an old article, 100% of the time just go to the site. Should I just throw all these out? Should I keep them in case Google Books or the Voice site dies?
― livin' la vida Moka! (Whiney G. Weingarten), Wednesday, 13 April 2011 15:44 (2 years ago) Permalink
For a while I used to scan all mine, but it soon became a pain in the arse.
― Evil Eau (dog latin), Wednesday, 13 April 2011 15:46 (2 years ago) Permalink
wrong thread, whiney:
The Bragging Thread
― scott seward, Wednesday, 13 April 2011 15:46 (2 years ago) Permalink
hahahaha!
xp: I scan my tearsheets and save 'em to a folder on my desktop. Do you own a scanner?
Note: I don't scan everything, just features, and don't even bother trying to keep track of my online-only stuff.
― that's not funny. (unperson), Wednesday, 13 April 2011 15:47 (2 years ago) Permalink
I don't owcanner. That seems like it would be even more long and boring that just cutting them out witnife!
― livin' la vida Moka! (Whiney G. Weingarten), Wednesday, 13 April 2011 15:53 (2 years ago) Permalink
whoa
n as
I don't owcanner
― livin' la vida Moka! (Whiney G. Weingarten), Wednesday, 13 April 2011 15:54 (2 years ago) Permalink
I do rueview site:
http://listology.com/user/109704/content
Writing these is definitely harder thahought they'd be, obviouslnow fuck all about writing, but this is pretty fun to do
― frogbs, Wednesday, 13 April 2011 15:55 (2 years ago) Permalink
nas?
― ban drake (the rapper) (max), Wednesday, 13 April 2011 15:55 (2 years ago) Permalink
― ban drake (the rapper) (max), Wednesday, 13 April 2011 15:56 (2 years ago) Permalink
Caice pie
― Mark G, Wednesday, 13 April 2011 15:56 (2 years ago) Permalink
― livin' la vida Moka! (Whiney G. Weingarten), Wednesday, 13 April 2011 15:56 (2 years ago) Permalink
what the fuck?
― Evil Eau (dog latin), Wednesday, 13 April 2011 15:57 (2 years ago) Permalink
a n n he-ey -eh good-bye
atishooo!
― Mark G, Wednesday, 13 April 2011 15:58 (2 years ago) Permalink
d'oh
― frogbs, Wednesday, 13 April 2011 16:00 (2 years ago) Permalink
wow i'm trippin'
― scott seward, Wednesday, 13 April 2011 16:00 (2 years ago) Permalink
― lex pretend, Wednesday, 13 April 2011 16:02 (2 years ago) Permalink
WHOA
Up to maybe 2000 (around the time I started edited at the Voice), I painstakingly kept hard copies of everything I wrote, and filed them according to years (and often according to publication, if there were enough in one year to justify an individual file folder.) I've still got all those -- they take up one drawer of a file cabinet -- though as I pull old articles out for reference, they more and more just wind up back in a increasingly expanding "to be filed" folder of stuff that will probably never be re-filed. Starting in 2000, though -- maybe because I was writing less when I started editing, but also because I figured it was mostly all on the Internet anyway, and because at the Voice I was surrounded by hard copies that I could get to if I needed to -- I stopped making a point of keeping copies of most of what I wrote. Meanwhile, publications more and more stopped sending out comp copies of issues to writers (giving free subscriptions, whatever), and I am too cheap to pay for subscriptions myself or (99 times out of 100) buy issues at a newsstand. So, even since returning to freelancing. I have copies of almost nothing I wrote for, say, Spin or Blender or Rolling Stone, unless a copy of an issue just fell into my lap somehow. (For longer Voice pieces, a few of which I did per year for Harvilla, he sent copies of the issues when I asked, which was great of him, so I do have most of those.) So anyway...what was the question again? (I guess I don't see the point of scanning if you already have hard copies of the articles in question in your hand, especially if the article is findable on line already, but maybe I misunderstood that part. My wife, who does have a scanner, did scan some old articles for me when I was putting together my anthology book.)
― xhuxk, Wednesday, 13 April 2011 16:03 (2 years ago) Permalink
n a sn a sn a sn a sn a sn a sn a sn a sn a sn a sn a sn a sn a sn a sn a sn a sn a sn a sn a sn a sn a sn a sn a sn a sn a sn a sn a sn a sn a sn a sn a sn a sn a sn a sn a sn a sn a sn a sn a sn a sn a sn a sn a sn a sn a sn a sn a sn a sn a sn a sn a sn a sn a sn a sn a sn a sn a sn a sn a sn a sn a sn a sn a sn a sn a sn a sn a sn a sn a s
― lex pretend, Wednesday, 13 April 2011 16:04 (2 years ago) Permalink
oh what, it didn't work that time?!
n a s
― livin' la vida Moka! (Whiney G. Weingarten), Wednesday, 13 April 2011 16:05 (2 years ago) Permalink
n a s s t a n s
― livin' la vida Moka! (Whiney G. Weingarten), Wednesday, 13 April 2011 16:06 (2 years ago) Permalink
What the hell? I'm confused.
xp But also, with the miniature kind of haiku-reviews most publications assign these days, keeping hard copies seems kind of pointless to me anyway, just not worth the trouble. Those longer Voice pieces, obviously, were an exception to that.
― xhuxk, Wednesday, 13 April 2011 16:07 (2 years ago) Permalink
whatever it was it got taken out, sigh thats' what i get for trying to plug my shit lol
― frogbs, Wednesday, 13 April 2011 16:09 (2 years ago) Permalink
nas
― markers, Wednesday, 13 April 2011 16:15 (2 years ago) Permalink
still, anyway.
― Mark G, Wednesday, 13 April 2011 16:18 (2 years ago) Permalink
I do own a scanner
― Future Debts Collector (Le Bateau Ivre), Wednesday, 13 April 2011 16:45 (2 years ago) Permalink
wtf
OK AARGH.
Got a rather attractive commission at the end of Aug, both in terms of "a new place I want to write for" and "a subject i want to write about".
It hasn't happened yet partly because of technological issues on the editor's side (didn't see my reply accepting it for 2 weeks) then because I've been covering the UK party conferences for 3 weeks with no spare time at all. And now I have a US press trip from Mon-Thu next week so that's out as well, because the piece would involve research and ringing round UK organisations for quotes - I'd basically have to get those by the end of the working day today, which is in three hours. Plus, I'm not 100% sure of the line of argument of the commission, I don't think it quite works.
So I already know that I'm going to say I can't meet a deadline of next Thu which is really unfortunate. What I want to know is, from an editorial perspective, does this make me look really flaky? Because this will be the second time I've had to email back asking for the piece to be pushed back. And I keep thinking, y'know, don't news journalists get features complete with quotes turned round in less than an afternoon? I think I could cobble something together quote easily today but it just wouldn't be as strong as it should be.
tl;dr I could've done with some of this work coming to me when I was having a fallow period with nothing to do earlier in the year rather than when I have LITERALLY NO SPARE TIME and had been looking forward to some actual sleep :(
― lex pretend, Friday, 7 October 2011 12:39 (1 year ago) Permalink
When was the commission agreed on both sides? That's the crucial thing. If you both knew you were doing the piece even two weeks ago, then saying now you can't do it for next week isn't going to look madly impressive. Sorry.
― Viva Brother Beyond (ithappens), Friday, 7 October 2011 13:02 (1 year ago) Permalink
I agreed at the end of Aug, was only given deadline/wordcount/full commission mid-Sep, at which point I said that I couldn't do it then b/c of the conferences and could we hold off a few weeks. I guess it's the sudden US trip throwing a spanner in the works now, which is a bit #firstworldproblems really. Agh this is literally the only 4-week period in the whole year when I'm away so much. I'll think of this in two months when I haven't left the house in a week and work has dried up.
― lex pretend, Friday, 7 October 2011 13:10 (1 year ago) Permalink
Sorry Lex, it looks bad if you knew about this mid-Sep and didn't start making calls in and around the conference commitments. If the full commission had only come in today you'd be well within your rights to say you couldn't do it until the end of next week.
― Science, you guys. Science. (DL), Friday, 7 October 2011 13:21 (1 year ago) Permalink
yup, there is no "in and around conference commitments" during this period, which is why I don't typically take on work this big during it and had a bad feeling the minute she got back to me just before it started. HATE that freelancing thing of not knowing when to say no.
though weirdly it looks like it might be able to happen thanks to people actually coming through!
― lex pretend, Friday, 7 October 2011 13:39 (1 year ago) Permalink
Have just emailed you Lex.
― Viva Brother Beyond (ithappens), Friday, 7 October 2011 13:40 (1 year ago) Permalink
xp Fantastic news. Good luck.
― Science, you guys. Science. (DL), Friday, 7 October 2011 13:41 (1 year ago) Permalink
Hello again, this thread.
I'm in a bit of a rut at the moment. My much of my spare time in 2011 was spent honing my writing skills, but even then I was conscious that I was only able to put out a piece maybe once every 6 weeks due to other commitments. Despite wishing to break out and maybe pitch a few more publications (with a mind to hopefully doing a bit of paid work), 2012's going really slowly - 1 review (published), an interview (submitted, awaiting feedback) and an opinion piece (in desperate need of a redraft) so far and it's already April. I have a house move soon, I'm still putting on live shows which takes up a bit of time too, and of course my day-to-day bits like doing the washing-up and stuff. Work is breathing down my neck, so I've had to cut down on surfing at work (so now I feel very out of the loop compared to last year).
I guess my question is to those who write part-time: Do you have any tips on making the most of your time when it comes to writing? How do you balance your writing life with your day job? I hope I'm not the only one who struggles with this, particularly when my daytime is spent slaving over a hot computer monitor as it is, let alone having to spend the nights doing it.
― Scary Move 4 (dog latin), Monday, 16 April 2012 12:41 (1 year ago) Permalink
It's not exactly stunning advice but i find it useful to get up early at the weekend, cut myself off from distractions and just write. Even if you don't think you're getting anything usable out of it, there may be the germ of a good idea you can go back to later. It's really easy to think 'i'll write when i feel inspired' but that makes it easy to just put off. A certain amount of scheduled graft is necessary sometimes.
― Une semaine de Bunty (ShariVari), Monday, 16 April 2012 13:22 (1 year ago) Permalink
I feel inspired by deadlines, mostly.
When the deadlines fall during the week I find waking up early before work more effective than trying to write at night, when mostly I just want to drink myself into a stupor.
I think another thing is to recognise that you can "feel inspired" all the time. Basically all of my music listening involves a stream of thought bubbles, ways of framing the music's charms or shortfalls and making connections with other things - if you can train yourself to record those as they arrive then by the time you sit down to "write the article" the work's half done.
― Tim F, Monday, 16 April 2012 13:27 (1 year ago) Permalink
hahaha yes totally. ditto on recording stray thoughts too.
iirc when i worked full-time i did most of my writing at the weekend (which i...still do, actually). i occasionally do editing shifts and maybe i've just got too used to the freelance life but in those office-based weeks i'm astounded that anyone can cope with a proper job at all - i worked for four days last week and felt like i had ME by the end of it, just utter exhaustion.
but the thing is if you have to do it then you just do it and it's remarkable what you actually can do. after much wrangling re: date, my big cher lloyd interview last year happened to land during a week i was working in kensington. i had to do the interview in my lunch break, then go back to work and finish editing a section, then file by the following morning. i stayed in the office til 8.30pm transcribing, home by 9.30pm, stayed up til 5am writing, filed, back in the office by 10am and i didn't die or fuck up in any way. anything is possible!
― liberté, égalité, beyoncé (lex pretend), Monday, 16 April 2012 13:37 (1 year ago) Permalink
has anyone else felt that after a certain point they have no more words left to say about instrumental dance music? these days i genuinely find it easier to write 8000 words about nicki minaj than to somehow extract 50 words of interest from some cosmic disco album.
― liberté, égalité, beyoncé (lex pretend), Monday, 16 April 2012 13:39 (1 year ago) Permalink
xpost what surprises me most is the fact that I don't think the writing quality really suffers as a result of that kind of "forcing", at least not if you've allowed enough time for the ideas to germinate and/or know the topic.
― Tim F, Monday, 16 April 2012 13:40 (1 year ago) Permalink
haha nicki might be an unfair example!
― Tim F, Monday, 16 April 2012 13:43 (1 year ago) Permalink
I'll work on bits at my job if I have enough time. Deadlines work by giving me more time: if I have a review due, say, on a Friday, I'll start the first draft by Monday or Tuesday so that I can have something to revise early Thursday night.
But that's just the way I do things. I've never stayed up all night writing anything.
― Exile in lolville (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Monday, 16 April 2012 13:46 (1 year ago) Permalink
actually, I'd be curious to know how many of you besides lex write until dawn or whatever
I've never stayed up all night writing anything.
^^^^
In any context. I think the latest would be 2.30am or so and that was law exam study, or (very occasionally) for work.
― Tim F, Monday, 16 April 2012 13:49 (1 year ago) Permalink
I don't think the writing quality really suffers as a result of that kind of "forcing"
haha i was going over which pieces from last year i was most proud of and was looking at them in facebook for some reason and had to go o_0 as i realised the situations i'd written them in (sitting in a hospital waiting room with a fucked-up ankle, unable to walk and waiting to be treated; coming down with a huge fever; aforementioned abandonment of the concept of sleep for cher lloyd)
ha yeah but still. i was trying to write about a new cosmic disco release recently and just ended up thinking, i have literally nothing to say about this apart from "i like it, it works"
― liberté, égalité, beyoncé (lex pretend), Monday, 16 April 2012 13:50 (1 year ago) Permalink
until fairly recently literally EVERYTHING i'd ever written - university essays, published journalism - was done between 4-6am, the morning of the deadline. i really try to avoid that nowadays b/c lack of sleep fucks me up worse than any amount of anything else but time management has never been a forte :(
― liberté, égalité, beyoncé (lex pretend), Monday, 16 April 2012 13:52 (1 year ago) Permalink
I don't think I've ever cared about anything enough to live like that! It'd kill me.
― Tim F, Monday, 16 April 2012 13:54 (1 year ago) Permalink
Exactly. Plus, denying myself sleep would affect the writing.
― Exile in lolville (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Monday, 16 April 2012 13:55 (1 year ago) Permalink
it's not so much caring about it as panicking about the deadline that's RIGHT THERE
― liberté, égalité, beyoncé (lex pretend), Monday, 16 April 2012 13:56 (1 year ago) Permalink
i can honestly say there is no qualitative difference between the writing i file after staying up all night vs the writing i do at sensible daytime hours - in fact the former might be a bit better, and if my body clock wasn't so goddamn inflexible these days i'd still happily work like that
― liberté, égalité, beyoncé (lex pretend), Monday, 16 April 2012 13:57 (1 year ago) Permalink
When I used to do concert reviews for the local daily paper and had to review weekday shows and get the reviews in by the next morning, I was up late writing, would try to get 4 hours or more of sleep, then I would review my own writing and edit it and then head to my dayjob and drink a lot of coffee. With a dayjob, parenting and writing it's hard for me to get some pieces written no matter how organized one is (and I'm not the most organized).
― curmudgeon, Monday, 16 April 2012 14:13 (1 year ago) Permalink
I used to, until i moved in with my gf... certain sections of my last couple of books were done in overnight shifts, but it happens rarely now, and I think my writing's better for it.
― I accidentally sonned your dome (stevie), Monday, 16 April 2012 14:26 (1 year ago) Permalink
This subject came up recently at home! Namely, my sweetie was forthright about saying how working later -- not till dawn or anything, more midnight -- was really not helpful. That might not seem like much except I get up for work each morning at 5:30, so. With that in mind I'm aiming to work no later than ten if I must.
― Ned Raggett, Monday, 16 April 2012 14:41 (1 year ago) Permalink
This year I've had 5:30 wakeup calls every morning so I sympathize.
― Exile in lolville (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Monday, 16 April 2012 14:42 (1 year ago) Permalink
dayjob, downtime, exercise, dinner, boring cleaning up stuff, and writing, getting up early, reading ilx...Where does all the time go?
― curmudgeon, Monday, 16 April 2012 14:44 (1 year ago) Permalink
xp Instrumental dance music is the hardest. So few people (thought Tim F is among them) can do it well. That's why when someone like Burial comes along with an instant word cloud of associations critics end up writing very similar things.
― And I have been called "The Appetite" (DL), Monday, 16 April 2012 14:46 (1 year ago) Permalink
I've never tried writing in the morning. Who knows, maybe I'd be secretly good at it. Mind you, I have to get up and get ready for work about 7.30am and there's no way I'm getting up earlier than that. I get home about 6:30pm and then I have to have an hour at the very least where I do very little other than chill/eat/chat with my gf. Even 8pm feels like I'm getting back on the computer-horse a bit quickly. Maybe I need to get a job that doesn't involve chaining myself to a computer all day.
― Scary Move 4 (dog latin), Monday, 16 April 2012 14:49 (1 year ago) Permalink
I never thought I could write in the early morning. Then my paper scrapped its 6am deadline for gig reviews from the night before. So I gave it a go. Well, what a revelation! It's now my second best time of the day for writing. (Best time of all: 5pm to 7pm.)
― mike t-diva, Monday, 16 April 2012 16:28 (1 year ago) Permalink
until fairly recently literally EVERYTHING i'd ever written - university essays, published journalism - was done between 4-6am, the morning of the deadline.
still the way i operate unfortunately, but most of the work i've been doing lately is concert reviews which encourage that behavior
― Whiney vs. (BradNelson), Monday, 16 April 2012 16:46 (1 year ago) Permalink
when i wrote my EMP paper on house music in march i closed my store for a day and basically didn't leave the store for two days. slept on the couch. ate candy bars. smoked a lot of cigarettes in the basement. read it to a crowd at NYU two days later. it was fun! i don't write a lot. made me wish i had more excuses to do something like that.
― scott seward, Monday, 16 April 2012 16:50 (1 year ago) Permalink
I've done my share of late-night/last-minute writing. Worst was for a book of film writing I did. It was just too big a project for me to try to handle in my customary wait-to-get-motivated way. Especially since I was working 8 hours a day 5-6 days a week and taking care of my then 3-year-old son about 3-4 hours every morning. That left late nights as the only available writing time. Last few weeks of it were brutal. I literally fell asleep in the middle of sentences. And of course the quality of the writing suffered.
Now that I'm out of journalism for the first time in my life, I'm trying to figure out how to schedule some writing time away from the office. It's tricky, especially since the things I want to write are mostly just projects of my own, not deadline-driven. We'll see how it goes...
― something of an astrological coup (tipsy mothra), Monday, 16 April 2012 16:59 (1 year ago) Permalink
i've probably only stayed up late, like past midnight or 1am, working on something a couple times in the last few years. part of that's that when you have a kid and you have to be up with your wits about you every morning no matter what, i'm not gonna sacrifice sleep for ANYTHING, part of that's just that i've gotten pretty good at budgeting my time and thinking ahead, so usually i only get caught under the gun with tight deadlines if something comes up last night, or my schedule gets unexpectedly crazy. i don't think i function very well when i'm tired anyway, my copy comes out pretty sloppy.
― some dude, Monday, 16 April 2012 17:28 (1 year ago) Permalink
i'm not gonna sacrifice sleep for ANYTHING, part of that's just that i've gotten pretty good at budgeting my time and thinking ahead,
^^^ this is key
― Exile in lolville (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Monday, 16 April 2012 17:42 (1 year ago) Permalink
whatever my flaws or strengths as a writer may be, i'm pretty proud of the fact that i've never totally blown a deadline (not counting canceled interviews and things beyond my control), never called out of a day job to meet a deadline, and have become kind of a badass at transcribing and writing up interview features within 24 hours of the actual interview. those are things that all come with time, though, as dog latin probably knows everything becomes easier and more attainable with consistent practice.
― some dude, Monday, 16 April 2012 17:47 (1 year ago) Permalink
These days I tend to write up Then Play Long entries late Saturday night/early Sunday morning. The rhythm seems to work for me and I can write undisturbed. There has been a preponderance of fairly lengthy entries of late, which sometimes means staying up past 2am to post the piece, do all the links, etc., but that's mostly been down to gargantuan 20-track/40-track best ofs and/or Classic Rock Classics (TM).
The daft thing is that this is all for the sake of a blog, rather than paid writing/journalism, but I like to approach blogging in the same manner - you set yourself a deadline and you try your best to meet it. Of course the most important thing is that I still enjoy doing it - if it became a chore rather than a pleasure I'd stop it straight away, or at least take a long break. But I do feel that the blog is where the real "me" gets to say something. Plus I get to have a lovely lie-in when I finally get to bed, ahem...and on Sunday morning there's the nice feeling that I've actually accomplished something when I look at how many people have already read it (surprisingly quite a lot, even for the less well-known records).
― Here he is with the classic "Poème Électronique." Good track (Marcello Carlin), Tuesday, 17 April 2012 18:07 (1 year ago) Permalink
dude, marcello, your blog is insane and awesome, and i have no doubt that some version of it will be a book. an epic task.
― scott seward, Tuesday, 17 April 2012 18:25 (1 year ago) Permalink
I feel this link should go here:
http://myphonecallssuck.tumblr.com/
In brief -- a music publicist I know vents his frustrations with the types of calls he receives.
― Ned Raggett, Wednesday, 18 April 2012 14:34 (1 year ago) Permalink
http://myphonecallssuck.tumblr.com/post/20791495251/at-the-car-wash-attendant-your-car-muscle-car
A+
― r|t|c, Wednesday, 18 April 2012 14:51 (1 year ago) Permalink
it amazes me that some PRs are still trying to send post to the former address of a company i stopped working for in 2008
― liberté, égalité, beyoncé (lex pretend), Wednesday, 18 April 2012 15:52 (1 year ago) Permalink
Whiney and another editor got me away from "I", came to prefer it, esp. conveying my take via sneaky description.Which imposes its own test: later for the passing zings, make your case (but don't cram it too full, as I've been known to do). I don't see too much "I" these days; "we" and "you" are much more problematic: "When we hear, it we're amazed", "you're amazed." I am?
― dow, Wednesday, 18 April 2012 16:04 (1 year ago) Permalink
I avoid the first person on dates too.
― Exile in lolville (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Wednesday, 18 April 2012 16:04 (1 year ago) Permalink
"so, what do you think about getting some thai food?"
"ONE MIGHT ENJOY THAT. ONE MIGHT ALSO ENJOY SOME SUSHI."
― scott seward, Wednesday, 18 April 2012 16:19 (1 year ago) Permalink
i am pro-one
― liberté, égalité, beyoncé (lex pretend), Wednesday, 18 April 2012 16:20 (1 year ago) Permalink
I can understand why "I" might have been a bad idea in print media, but in this day and age, who am I/you/we/one kidding? I don't mind "I" if necessary.
― Scary Move 4 (dog latin), Wednesday, 18 April 2012 16:23 (1 year ago) Permalink
I'd much, much rather see (and OMG use) "I" than "one." But that "we" and esp. "you", yeesh.
― dow, Wednesday, 18 April 2012 16:33 (1 year ago) Permalink
I use "I" a bit but sparingly, I think most commonly when I want to imply "YMMV" to the entire audience.
― Tim F, Wednesday, 18 April 2012 20:31 (1 year ago) Permalink
You Made Me Vrealize. What?
― Ned Raggett, Wednesday, 18 April 2012 20:32 (1 year ago) Permalink
one hates to continuously look up "ymmv" for one's edification.
― Exile in lolville (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Wednesday, 18 April 2012 20:33 (1 year ago) Permalink
We think "ymmv" is a fine acronym, and we know you will too.
― Tim F, Wednesday, 18 April 2012 20:35 (1 year ago) Permalink
i always forget "ymmv" too. it's just not a phrase one ever says in real life, is the thing
― liberté, égalité, beyoncé (lex pretend), Wednesday, 18 April 2012 20:40 (1 year ago) Permalink
yeah "mileage may vary" is a pretty obscure phrase compared to "kissing my teeth"
― some former lust object you've shamefully forgotten (some dude), Wednesday, 18 April 2012 20:43 (1 year ago) Permalink
― man down (D-40), Wednesday, 18 April 2012 20:50 (1 year ago) Permalink
isk how many times i have to explain that kmt is a thing in the uk
― liberté, égalité, beyoncé (lex pretend), Wednesday, 18 April 2012 20:55 (1 year ago) Permalink
*isdk
oh my god
*idk
thread fubar
― Exile in lolville (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Wednesday, 18 April 2012 20:55 (1 year ago) Permalink
"Chups" will always be better than "kissing my teeth".
― Une semaine de Bunty (ShariVari), Wednesday, 18 April 2012 20:58 (1 year ago) Permalink
KMT isn't really a thing in the UK though is it?
― Scary Move 4 (dog latin), Thursday, 19 April 2012 09:32 (1 year ago) Permalink
https://twitter.com/#!/search/realtime/kmt
― liberté, égalité, beyoncé (lex pretend), Thursday, 19 April 2012 09:46 (1 year ago) Permalink
proves nothing
― Scary Move 4 (dog latin), Thursday, 19 April 2012 09:54 (1 year ago) Permalink
it proves that a lot of people in the UK are right now using the commonly understood abbreviation kmt
― liberté, égalité, beyoncé (lex pretend), Thursday, 19 April 2012 10:00 (1 year ago) Permalink
btw lex I noticed your new name and love it
― Exile in lolville (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Thursday, 19 April 2012 10:08 (1 year ago) Permalink
apparently there were protesters in france recently wearing that slogan on their T-shirts. i want one
― liberté, égalité, beyoncé (lex pretend), Thursday, 19 April 2012 10:38 (1 year ago) Permalink
Used to think I wrote best at night, with a bottle of wine, when I was young and stupid and angry. Then I thought I wrote best early on weekend mornings, when it was quiet. Now I'd rather go for a bike ride on early weekend mornings. I write, in one form or another, all day at work. if I'm blogging or reviewing for someone, which is very rare these days, I do it in the evening, after tea, generally, and try and do it quickly. Revisions? Unlikely.
― Sick Mouthy (Scik Mouthy), Thursday, 19 April 2012 10:47 (1 year ago) Permalink
I dream of writing quickly. On ILX I'm extremely slapdash, and basically type faster than I speak, but outside of that I can spend quarter-hours deliberating over the placement of a comma or agonising over a sentence structure. It's shit because once I've re-read and re-structured a paragraph for the umpteenth time it stops making sense to me, and later when it's published it just sounds wooden.
― Scary Move 4 (dog latin), Thursday, 19 April 2012 11:06 (1 year ago) Permalink
From this thread: Writing Reviews: How do YOU do it?
Writing Reviews: How do YOU do it?Disclaimer: I've been writing reviews for a few years now and have got some cool work from it as a result, but I don't think I'm very good at it and I certainly don't think I've improved hugely since I began, so this thread is kinda selfish on my part. Sorry.― Blue Collar Retail Assistant (Dwight Yorke), Friday, 27 April 2012 09:27 (1 hour ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink
Disclaimer: I've been writing reviews for a few years now and have got some cool work from it as a result, but I don't think I'm very good at it and I certainly don't think I've improved hugely since I began, so this thread is kinda selfish on my part. Sorry.
― Blue Collar Retail Assistant (Dwight Yorke), Friday, 27 April 2012 09:27 (1 hour ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink
Where do you write?
What do you about tight turn-arounds?
Do you try and listen to only the album under review as much as possible or do you let your listening habits remain relatively unchanged?
How many drafts should you do?
How much biographical information is necessary?
Basically just tell us your methods and practices, there's so many great writers on here and it'd be awesome to get a peek into the creative process.
So, basically I find the easiest way to go about writing a review is to imagine you're describing the album to a mate. Often if I'm working on something and a friend asks me about what I'm reviewing, I find I can summarise my feelings fairly well to them. That's your opening paragraph, and then it's on from there. I'm not a big fan of going through the whole album track by track, listing highlights and lowlights, I'd rather write about as though I were writing about a person - so rather than talking about the shape of that person's right hand, I'd describe their personality, the way they comport themselves etc...
― Scary Move 4 (dog latin), Friday, 27 April 2012 10:19 (1 year ago) Permalink
"imagine you're describing the album to a mate."
That's the best advice about most forms of journalism. I always say that to young writers when discussing use of language: you're telling the reader what is happening. Works well for news. You wouldn't say: "The rain came down in black sheets as the maroon Volvo slid across the greasy surface to a cataclysmic halt in the front door of 67 Office Street." You'd say: "A car crashed into the front door of our office. It skidded on the road because of heavy rain."
― Manfred Mann meets Man Parrish (ithappens), Friday, 27 April 2012 10:46 (1 year ago) Permalink
Yes, but a record isn't a news item (well it might be sometimes but generally it isn't) and I've never much liked the restaurant waiter approach to record reviewing ("I'm afraid the new Jack White is slightly off, sir, but the new Rufus Wainwright is a dish to savour").*
*Note: I have not yet sat down and listened properly to Blunderbuss which for all I know may well be a visionary work of genius, but you get the idea.
― Here he is with the classic "Poème Électronique." Good track (Marcello Carlin), Friday, 27 April 2012 10:52 (1 year ago) Permalink
I'd want a second source on the heavy rain explanation
― TracerHandVEVO (Tracer Hand), Friday, 27 April 2012 10:52 (1 year ago) Permalink
You might be able to claim on insurance so it's well worth verifying.
― Here he is with the classic "Poème Électronique." Good track (Marcello Carlin), Friday, 27 April 2012 10:54 (1 year ago) Permalink
"Black sheets of rain" are a specific exclusion.
― Mark G, Friday, 27 April 2012 11:01 (1 year ago) Permalink
That's the best advice about most forms of journalism.
i repeat this to my students so damned much. more than any other type of journalism, music journalism seems to be about nailing that tone.
― Bad Company's Drummer's Daughter (stevie), Friday, 27 April 2012 11:13 (1 year ago) Permalink
i don't really have "rules" as such cuz it's dependent on the album, the artist, my word count etc, but i was talking to another ilxor writer y'day about how writing generally feels a bit like stitching to me (not that i've ever stitched anything but yeah). jotting down phrases or words i want to use, or ideas i want to cover, either on my phone or in a document, then kind of knitting them together when i come to actually write it.
― liberté, égalité, beyoncé (lex pretend), Friday, 27 April 2012 11:15 (1 year ago) Permalink
i can't stand writers who have contempt for their readers. i think that was one of the greatest sins committed by NME during my era there. xp
― Bad Company's Drummer's Daughter (stevie), Friday, 27 April 2012 11:16 (1 year ago) Permalink
You wouldn't say: "The rain came down in black sheets as the maroon Volvo slid across the greasy surface to a cataclysmic halt in the front door of 67 Office Street."
why wouldn't you?
("cataclysmic halt" is awful and nonsensical, agreed)
― Exile in lolville (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Friday, 27 April 2012 11:20 (1 year ago) Permalink
or are you saying "Don't write as if you're Writing Prose"?
― Exile in lolville (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Friday, 27 April 2012 11:22 (1 year ago) Permalink
for me the ideal is somewhere between bald delivery of facts, and using prose to effectively heighten reality for narrative purposes. it's all a question of balance.
― Bad Company's Drummer's Daughter (stevie), Friday, 27 April 2012 11:22 (1 year ago) Permalink
It's like pentin' you have to know the rules before you're allowed to ignore them.
― Mark G, Friday, 27 April 2012 11:23 (1 year ago) Permalink
"Black sheets of rain" - wasn't that a dodgy Bob Mould solo album?
― Here he is with the classic "Poème Électronique." Good track (Marcello Carlin), Friday, 27 April 2012 11:24 (1 year ago) Permalink
No, it was a fucking awesome Bob Mould album.
― Bad Company's Drummer's Daughter (stevie), Friday, 27 April 2012 11:29 (1 year ago) Permalink
I think it is a little too ready to laden on Heavy Metal guitar thunder to obscure the absence of melodics interests that so distinguished Workbook and Blue Coppers.
― Here he is with the classic "Poème Électronique." Good track (Marcello Carlin), Friday, 27 April 2012 12:40 (1 year ago) Permalink
whereas
would be an awesome single, if only "Pictures of Matchstick Men" didn't exist.
― Mark G, Friday, 27 April 2012 13:00 (1 year ago) Permalink
^^ same here
― rusty_allen, Friday, 27 April 2012 13:20 (1 year ago) Permalink
How do you plan your reviews and articles? Do you write out a structure? use a mindmap? Take notes? Or just start writing and see what comes out?
― This Is... The Police (dog latin), Wednesday, 26 September 2012 09:11 (7 months ago) Permalink
Live reviews: start writing and see what comes out (more or less). When writing for my city newspaper, the first 120-odd characters get auto-tweeted by them with a link and without a headline, so the first sentence has to be a pretty straightforward "please click me" lead-in, containing the name of the act. That gets me over the initial hump.
Features: Once my thoughts come to boiling point, I scribble down a detailed long-hand plan, extremely quickly, trying not to pause if I can possibly help it. That usually gives me around 3 pages of A4. Some bits won't make it into the first draft, other bits might get chopped out later, but the overall structure rarely changes much - as by scribbling at high-speed, I find I can retain the overall shape and flow of the argument. No idea whether this is common practice - it's a self-invented method, but it works for me.
― mike t-diva, Wednesday, 26 September 2012 09:51 (7 months ago) Permalink
I'm trying out different methods. Started writing disparate notes into my phone while listening to the album and doing housework. Then started on a more detailed mindmap with doodles and stuff to get my thoughts in a better order. Now I'm gonna turn that into a structured list and then refer to my original notes to create the finished piece. Probably way more complicated a process than is necessary but it could help in getting the thing to flow together better. Next one I do I'm going to try a stream of conscious "just write as fast as you can without stopping thing and see what happens.
― This Is... The Police (dog latin), Wednesday, 26 September 2012 10:00 (7 months ago) Permalink
Obviously I don't review much anymore, but when I do, generally I'll make short notes about a record (ideally whilst listening to it [in whatever context] but not always), and I'll email these to myself. These might be notes about specific tracks, sounds, references, or wider thoughts about context or whatever.
When I'm ready to write, I'll sit down with the laptop or at the desktop, and gather these into a single Word document. Always put the artist and title at the top first, like putting a harness on a guide dog so it knows it's about to start work. Then I'll flesh out all the individual notes into full sentences, and shift them around the document until they find a sensible order. It's a bit like building a dry stone wall - once you've picked up a stone (or sentence, or thought, or paragraph), you're not a,llowed to put it down until it fits into a space that makes the wall (review) take shape.
― comedy is unnatural and abhorrent (Scik Mouthy), Wednesday, 26 September 2012 10:24 (7 months ago) Permalink
definitely take notes. and a structure can help, but if i write one, i generally junk it along the way. but the initial sketch is enough to get me started and on to the structure it ultimately takes (especially for features/longer pieces)
― Trad., Arrrgh (stevie), Wednesday, 26 September 2012 10:29 (7 months ago) Permalink
Scik's methods and mine are rather similar.
― taking tiger mountain (up the butt) (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Wednesday, 26 September 2012 11:15 (7 months ago) Permalink
So long as I can get some words out, which I can then trash as needed.
― Ned Raggett, Wednesday, 26 September 2012 11:46 (7 months ago) Permalink
Live reviews I write as they come. Album reviews need more thought, but I usually only do capsule ones, so it's not trying.
For features, I generally have a fairly clear idea what I'm going to say before I start writing. I don't plan them out, per se, but I'll have been thinking about the points I want to make between doing the interviews and starting to write. The intro's always the hardest part - the wrong intro might steer you away from the narrative you want - or it might be too similar to other recent intros I've done. Earlier this year, I scrapped a piece 2,300 words in because I realised the intro had taken me in the wrong direction. Once the intro's done, it usually flows easily. You can't start writing a long piece and just see what comes out, though. As an editor – I now do much more writing – I realised that one of the commonest problems for writers is trying to put in too much: they had seven things they were desperate to say, but really there was only room for five, so they'd try to cut all seven down to a form skimpy enough to include them all. Doesn't work. You have to be ruthless in leaving things out if they clutter up the cleanliness of your narrative (I don't mean if they disprove your narrative; if that happens you're telling the wrong story. I mean if it's fascinating but peripheral). And the more work you've put in, the more you'll have to leave out.
I'm lucky, in that I write quickly and cleanly. But I realise not everyone suffers as few agonies over writing as I do. That's not a boast by the way - a decent writer labouring over a piece is more likely to produce sparkling prose than a decent writer whose first draft is fine for publication. But there are advantages to being able to churn out 4,000 words in an afternoon, and have all of them make sense.
― Manfred Mann meets Man Parrish (ithappens), Wednesday, 26 September 2012 12:34 (7 months ago) Permalink
The number of times I've had my reviews sent back with the intro chopped off I couldn't tell you. And almost always it reads better for it. I find my OG intro works more as a springboard for further ideas but ends up being superfluous to the finished piece.
― This Is... The Police (dog latin), Wednesday, 26 September 2012 13:30 (7 months ago) Permalink
Reviews: I listen once, then listen again while typing. Then a third listen while moving sentences around, making adjectives more insulting, adding profanity and ethnic slurs, etc.
Features: I listen to the latest album while thinking about questions I'd like to ask whichever bandmember I'm going to be granted 20 minutes on the phone with. I look the band up on Wikipedia, Allmusic, and maybe metal-archives.com. Then I spend a couple of hours looking up previous interviews online, and thinking of additional questions I haven't seen them asked in those articles. Half the time, the thing I think is most interesting about the band is something no one has ever thought to ask (presumably because the subject wasn't raised in the press release). I email back and forth with my editor, usually trying to argue him out of some gossipy approach that focuses more on the artist's personal life than the music. If I have time, and/or if it's going to be a long feature, I get hold of their previous albums and listen to those. Generally speaking, by the time I actually get on the phone with the person, I have a pretty good idea of the story I'm going to be writing, and can in fact probably write the first 1000 words or so without even speaking to anyone. Then we do the interview, and if I've radically misinterpreted something about their music, or the reason the bassist quit, or whatever, then I transcribe, punch in quotes, and revise my narrative accordingly. Then I let the story sit until the next morning, re-read it, and move stuff around, insert ethnic slurs and profanity, etc., and ship it to the editor. A day or so later, the editor sends it back asking for more gossip about the artist's personal life, or asking me to do a quick phoner with the guy who recently quit the band, so I do that, and send it back. Then I wait for my copy of the issue, and the subsequent check, to hit the mailbox.
― 誤訳侮辱, Wednesday, 26 September 2012 13:35 (7 months ago) Permalink
How do you record it? I still use tapes x speakerphone. Haven't messed me up yet (but I usually do email exchanges). Transcription helps me to focus, pre-edit, kinda fun usually.
― dow, Wednesday, 26 September 2012 19:18 (7 months ago) Permalink
How do I record interviews? I use a digital recorder - an Olympus DM-20, to be exact (which they don't make anymore - mine has served me well for several years). I have a cord so I can patch it directly into the phone line for most phoners; otherwise, I call the person on my cell phone, put them on speaker, and put the recorder down on the table next to the cell phone. This gives me excellent recording quality, believe it or not - it's a pretty sensitive device, but is also very good at cutting out extraneous background noise and preserving voices.
― 誤訳侮辱, Wednesday, 26 September 2012 19:26 (7 months ago) Permalink
I use an inear mic, plugged into my digital recorder. It works fine, though you have to check you've plugged into the mic jack instead of the headphone jack.
In terms of prep for features interviews: I read every interview I can get my hands on, and reputable past reviews. It's not just about seeing what questions have already been asked, but seeing if themes emerged from those pieces that were never properly developed. It's undoubtedly true that the best answers are given to questions that have not previously been asked. I also listen to as much music - not just the latest album - as I can. If you only listen to the latest album, you can't know how things have changed. These days, I often ask on Twitter if anyone has something they want asked - I often get one question I'd never have thought of on my own, and always mention where it came from when I do the interview.
― Manfred Mann meets Man Parrish (ithappens), Thursday, 27 September 2012 10:14 (7 months ago) Permalink
When writing reviews, are you ever tempted to read other people's reviews first?
― This Is... The Police (dog latin), Thursday, 27 September 2012 10:25 (7 months ago) Permalink
Yes. But I try not to. Don't want to be part of a critical hive mind, and don't want to lift their thoughts.
― Manfred Mann meets Man Parrish (ithappens), Thursday, 27 September 2012 10:32 (7 months ago) Permalink
what really bums me out is when i'm reviewing something and, having written it, i check out someone else's review and find that they've happened upon a similar/identical angle and phrase. it feels like i've been cheating, even though i haven't.
― Trad., Arrrgh (stevie), Thursday, 27 September 2012 10:34 (7 months ago) Permalink
yeah i like to either write a review more or less in a vacuum, without having anyone else's opinion effect mine too much, or if i've been surrounded by the discourse around a record then i try to write something that takes all that into account without directly respond to or regurgitating what other people have already said. but if i go out of my way to read reviews while i'm writing one, i feel like i'm just opening myself up to be influenced (either in opinion or how to write about it) so i try to avoid it.
― the definition of fuckshit bird (some dude), Thursday, 27 September 2012 10:41 (7 months ago) Permalink
yeah i never ever read reviews first - partly this is something i've always done, i prefer to consume something myself and THEN gorge on other people's opinions (i do this for films too), and partly to avoid my own writing being overly affected (worst case scenario is subconsciously nicking a turn of phrase aargh).
don't really have a set "plan" for writing - what do you think i am, an organised and professional person? the states in which i have written some stuff that came out well* is LOL - but for reviews, i'll take notes as i listen - words i want to use, any ~insights~ i have, lyrics to note down, basic "this sound is in this song" stuff. for features, i'll work with the transcript below. writing often feels like stitching these disparate phrases/arguments/quotes together.
*my odd future/homophobia piece: written in a north london hospital waiting room, where i had to spend six hungover hours being passed around between doctors the day after fucking up my ankle to the point where i literally couldn't walk at a birthday picnic, which was also the day i'd discovered i had no money left in my bank account (always the large payments that are the most delayed, bah), and i'd spent what i thought was my last tenner on a cab to the hospital. also my amy winehouse obit was written when i had a massive fever and could barely focus on the laptop screen. also at least one piece i've done was written at a house party.
― lex pretend, Thursday, 27 September 2012 10:56 (7 months ago) Permalink
i loved your bit on Dylan btw lex - really well handled considering all things and a lot of fun to read too
― This Is... The Police (dog latin), Thursday, 27 September 2012 11:20 (7 months ago) Permalink
without wishing to pry too much into people's financial personal lives, but how much do you make from reviews/features as an average? I've been writing for magazines for the last few years but it's all been free work, much to my mum's annoyance. How high up the ladder do you have to go to start getting paid?
― Blue Collar Retail Assistant (Dwight Yorke), Thursday, 27 September 2012 11:27 (7 months ago) Permalink
having been paid for exactly one article in my time, i wouldn't know. but my guess is it's all about working one's way up and contributing for bigger publications and sites as you go. this is where being prolific is obviously a boon (i find i can only really spare the time out of my other commitments for one piece per month on average). i know people who started in roughly the same circumstances as me who somehow were able to pump out about 2-3 reviews a week for various publications and are now working full time on it as their work is now well-recognised.
there's nothing wrong with asking for a fee or at least some form of contribution (don't ask, don't get) but as with all things you have to be able to prove your writing is worth the cash and often this helps if you have a strong and varied portfolio.
― This Is... The Police (dog latin), Thursday, 27 September 2012 11:35 (7 months ago) Permalink
Not much money in this, honestly, and the places I've written for the longest have cut their rates over time.
That said, what I make from freelance has supplemented my primary income over the last decade or so to the point that I depend on it, for better or worse. I write for fewer outlets than I did 5 or 6 years ago, whIch is fine because my spare time is increasingly diminished. I'm not really in the hunt for new outlets though if something intriguing (and dare I say better paying) opened up I'd be interested.
(Especally for book reviewing.)
― Raymond Cummings, Thursday, 27 September 2012 11:58 (7 months ago) Permalink
It was easier in the print days to avoid reading other reviews tbh.
― taking tiger mountain (up the butt) (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Thursday, 27 September 2012 12:00 (7 months ago) Permalink
The Guardian's freelance charter is online and has information on fees:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/info/guardian-news-media-freelance-charter#Fees
I'm not sure whether other outlets do the same.
― Temporarily Famous In The Czech Republic (ShariVari), Thursday, 27 September 2012 12:02 (7 months ago) Permalink
I don't write for free anymore (except for Burning Ambulance, of course), but I've been doing this since 1996. The Wire pays 25 pounds a review; All Music Guide pays $15; Alternative Press pays $20; Jazziz pays $40, but that's because they run the reviews in print and online.
I'm lucky in that no other writers are reviewing most of the albums I'm reviewing, so there's really no "critical discourse" to get caught up in.
― 誤訳侮辱, Thursday, 27 September 2012 12:05 (7 months ago) Permalink
without wishing to pry too much into people's financial personal lives, but how much do you make from reviews/features as an average? I've been writing for magazines for the last few years but it's all been free work, much to my mum's annoyance. How high up the ladder do you have to go to start getting paid? --Blue Collar Retail Assistant (Dwight Yorke)
it varies so wildly, from Prefixes fabled $2 a blog post to [non-music magazine's] fabled $2 a word. It's all just balance. I definitely know multiple people who live comfortably in the most expensive city in America solely on freelance music writing. Though I dont really know anyone who's like ballin outta control
― wood grain, chestnut / cody, CHESNUTT (Whiney G. Weingarten), Thursday, 27 September 2012 12:06 (7 months ago) Permalink
Pretty sure I earn more per minute as a writer than as a lawyer actually.
― Tim F, Thursday, 27 September 2012 12:11 (7 months ago) Permalink
OTOH i'd never be able to spend ten hours in a row just writing music reviews without a serious task master.
― Tim F, Thursday, 27 September 2012 12:16 (7 months ago) Permalink
yeah tbh i (currently) live (reasonably) comfortably in the most expensive city in the UK, so. there are peaks and valleys and the particular valley i referred to was more down to a bank mix-up meaning a backlog of money hadn't gone in (obv i am too disorganised to check these things regularly). i don't think any freelancer i know earns their crust solely through writing, and certainly not solely through music writing.
― lex pretend, Thursday, 27 September 2012 12:19 (7 months ago) Permalink
Yeah I think the problem is less dollars per hour than the difficulty of securing enough work LET ALONE being creative all day.
― Tim F, Thursday, 27 September 2012 12:23 (7 months ago) Permalink
oh god yeah, some weeks i end up thinking, if i earned this much every week i'd be BALLING and i'm not even that tired. but instead they are balanced out by the weeks in which one earns peanuts
i mean, i'd still take the freelance lifestyle over everything, regardless of the ££
― lex pretend, Thursday, 27 September 2012 12:26 (7 months ago) Permalink
Freelancing definitely isn't for me, I need structure and security, and good company during the office day. Luckily I work in a relatively creative job with plenty of copywriting and photography and interviewing (academics, who aren't that dissimilar to the types of musician I occasionally interviewed - i.e. smart and locquacious, rather than Oasis) and not too much bureacracy.
I never wrote anything for print that didn't get paid, with one exception. Little of what I did online was paid though. I was useless at pimping myself out; barely ever wrote for anyone who didn't approach me first, which is part laziness, part ego, part insecurity.
― comedy is unnatural and abhorrent (Scik Mouthy), Thursday, 27 September 2012 12:41 (7 months ago) Permalink
locquacious, rather than Oasis
^great unintentional rhyme there
― This Is... The Police (dog latin), Thursday, 27 September 2012 12:42 (7 months ago) Permalink
Intentional! Or I'd have said verbose, or talkative, or etc etc etc.
― comedy is unnatural and abhorrent (Scik Mouthy), Thursday, 27 September 2012 12:54 (7 months ago) Permalink
Honestly officer.
― comedy is unnatural and abhorrent (Scik Mouthy), Thursday, 27 September 2012 12:55 (7 months ago) Permalink
I really don't see writing as a living anymore. It used to be that hustling for assignments and completing assignments added up to something substantial, relatively speaking, but these days the hustle is more intense and the reward for work lower/less. That is, it takes a lot more work to get "enough" work, and "enough" work really isn't very much. That's my experience, at least, The degradation of the print industry and the residual fallout from the tech boom, plus ongoing malaise/recession, has gutted space and budgets. Plenty of opportunities still, but parlaying them into regular work has become an even more rarified ordeal.
As for writing, in many ways I start "writing" the second I get an assignment. That is, I'm already thinking of the final product and gathering ideas about the subject at hand. At shows I sometimes take notes, usually lines and whatnot scattered around, then I juggle those specific ideas with the general ideas that have been floating my head into something (hopefully) pointed and coherent.
Do any of you use Google Voice for interviews? I haven't risked it yet, but it provides the ability to record incoming phone calls with the touch of a button, which conveniently announces to the subject that they are being recording, for the sake of legality.
― Josh in Chicago, Thursday, 27 September 2012 13:00 (7 months ago) Permalink
Does that include thinking time? Because whenever people have said to me "oh £50 for a 120 word review seems quite good" and then you say, "yes, but I maybe wouldn't normally listen to this record, so I have to find time to listen to it, and think about it, and maybe research it, 'sit and type' time might not be much, but..." I'm pretty sure I'm not getting anywhere near dayjob pay, and I'm not paid all that much.
― comedy is unnatural and abhorrent (Scik Mouthy), Thursday, 27 September 2012 13:10 (7 months ago) Permalink
But you're listening to music anyway aren't you? I get the listening done while I'm doing other stuff or, if it's transferrable and not a stream, while I'm walking, and the thinking evolves during the listening process or in the shower, en the school run, etc. By no stretch of the imagination is it great pay but I find the pre-writing bit (unless it's a time-devouring box set) folds into my everyday life quite easily.
― Get wolves (DL), Thursday, 27 September 2012 13:21 (7 months ago) Permalink
xpost Yeah, but I rarely write about stuff I wouldn't listen to and think about anyway, and I think about all music I hear as if I'm writing about it. So at this point it's like monetising breathing.
― Tim F, Thursday, 27 September 2012 13:22 (7 months ago) Permalink
what DL said.
That's fair enough (obviously!). I guess I quite often reviewed music regularly I wouldn't ordinarily otherwise be listening to - these days when I write (which is infrequently) it's only ever about something I'm listening to / thinking about a lot. Over the last couple of years other hobbies (playing sport, essentially) have really encroached into time where I might have been listening to other stuff.
― comedy is unnatural and abhorrent (Scik Mouthy), Thursday, 27 September 2012 13:28 (7 months ago) Permalink
xpost This^ but also I feel like I kind of have to listen to the album if I know I'm gonna write about it, and that involves listening to it in a variety of contexts, maybe even at times when I'm not in the mood for it. This can actually kill my enjoyment of a record that I really like and more often than not, even with albums I write very favourably about, I find it very hard to return to them once I've submitted my work.
― This Is... The Police (dog latin), Thursday, 27 September 2012 13:31 (7 months ago) Permalink
xp That's why I don't play sport. I will die prematurely in the service of album-reviewing.
― Get wolves (DL), Thursday, 27 September 2012 13:33 (7 months ago) Permalink
Played handball at lunchtime, it was awesome. Played ultimate frisbee on Tuesday, that was awesome too. 5-a-side tonight and tomorrow night, Bike ride Saturday morning, then down the allotment. Awesome.
― comedy is unnatural and abhorrent (Scik Mouthy), Thursday, 27 September 2012 13:37 (7 months ago) Permalink
yeah rates vary hugely from one outlet to the next. i try to write for small/new local publications as much as i can to support and contribute to that community, but one thing i've found really unnerving is when some of those places ask ME to give THEM my rates. i mean wtf am i supposed to say? "well, this place paid me $100 for a piece of this length and that place paid me $1,000, take your pick"?
― the definition of fuckshit bird (some dude), Thursday, 27 September 2012 13:47 (7 months ago) Permalink
i can't wait to give up promoting shows and start concentrating on some other stuff. Sicko's freetime sounds awesome compared to me patiently designing (and redesigning) flyers and setting up facebook events only to have to start all over again when a band pulls out.
― This Is... The Police (dog latin), Thursday, 27 September 2012 13:51 (7 months ago) Permalink
By no stretch of the imagination is it great pay but I find the pre-writing bit (unless it's a time-devouring box set) folds into my everyday life quite easily.
Yup.
― Ned Raggett, Thursday, 27 September 2012 13:53 (7 months ago) Permalink
good company during the office day
cold chill down the spine at the idea of this
the occasional realisation that "lustening to music" COUNTS AS WORK is totally amazing for me! i mean, it's not like i'm writing every day. haven't done any "writing for money" today. or yesterday. don't intend to do any tomorrow. but i've been catching up on various bits of music which totally doesn't feel like work but it's definitely part and parcel of what i have to do, even if it doesn't directly lead to £££ in my account. but it's also what i'd just do all the time left to my own devices anyway.
that said there have been a few times where i've just ended up resenting albums that i have to listen to repeatedly to get an angle on and which reveal themselves to have diminishing returns. the really average ones are the worst.
music totally goes with exercise too, i don't listen when i go running but it's ESSENTIAL to working out. DL and i disagree over this but i consider a good work-out album v high praise indeed. WORK ME GODDAMNIT as armand van helden once said.
thankyou btw. it was half written while sunbathing in the hammock in my garden and finished off while watching the us open final.
― lex pretend, Thursday, 27 September 2012 13:54 (7 months ago) Permalink
This happens to me a lot, and it's especially frustrating if it's an album that I was initially excited to hear at first but slowly became a drudge. Suddenly all the interesting things I wanted to throw at it are dribbling down the wall and accumulating in a pasty puddle somewhere near the skirting board. There's something to be said about writing a first draft on the very first listen - something I very rarely do. In fact I'll listen to an album at least 5 times before even beginning to start writing, often finding that what I originally wanted to say has spun completely out of view, like I'm not just observing the album from outside but looking deep inside it and its inner workings, unable to see the proverbial forest for the trees.
― This Is... The Police (dog latin), Thursday, 27 September 2012 14:11 (7 months ago) Permalink
Having been writing professionally for 15 years or so, I've gone through various cycles of heavy wotk followed by fallow periods. But I have noticed that when I lose a regular gig that's kept me pretty busy - an this happens a lot/eventually if you keep at it long enough; publications fold, editors move on, budgets vanish, etc. - the sudden availability of time and concurrent decrease in writing commitments reopens my listening in some incredibly striking/disturbing ways. It gives me a vacation from listening critically, at least for a while, and allows me to listen almost exclusively for pleasure, with no pressure, real or implicit, to formulate a response. It's like having a veil lifted, and in fact completely changes my mood/disposition for the better.
― Josh in Chicago, Thursday, 27 September 2012 14:11 (7 months ago) Permalink
the really average ones are the worst
^^^ this. It's easier to assess an average record in a long blog post or even here than in a publication (which I have to do in a couple days for a certain average new album). I can't suppress the feeling of "Well, if it's an average record, who gives a shit?" Salvage jobs are easier.
― taking tiger mountain (up the butt) (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Thursday, 27 September 2012 14:14 (7 months ago) Permalink
Average records are great for generic word salads. "Let's see, say something about 'reasonably professional'..."
― Ned Raggett, Thursday, 27 September 2012 14:20 (7 months ago) Permalink
― comedy is unnatural and abhorrent (Scik Mouthy), Thursday, 27 September 2012 14:10 (2 hours ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink
I'd bite your arms off for £50 for a 120 word review!
I guess the fact that the print places I write for are free publications is the reason why I'm not making dollar from bashing out reviews of the Daphni LP when I'm hungover at work etc.
Though I am hoping that the magazine I interviewed DJ Harvey for this week will reimburse the 50p the Skype call to LA cost me. It's the front page feature actually...maybe I should ask for a little cash for this? Should I?
― Blue Collar Retail Assistant (Dwight Yorke), Thursday, 27 September 2012 15:45 (7 months ago) Permalink
you can always ask. it's not the end of the world is it? Even if you phrase it in such a way that says you'd like some sort of contribution so that your efforts are at least recognised/remunerated etc..
― This Is... The Police (dog latin), Thursday, 27 September 2012 15:46 (7 months ago) Permalink
the occasional realisation that "lustening to music" COUNTS AS WORK is totally amazing for me!
ha, same, although while I was in my previous job the pace abd atmosphere were such that it sometimes seemed like listening to recorded music was beside the point.
(cough)
― maura, Saturday, 29 September 2012 17:19 (7 months ago) Permalink
It's funny. For years and years I wanted, prayed, for a music editor job. It didn't happen for a variety of reasons, and I was sad, but ultimately now (look back from the age of 35) maybe that was for the best. I still love music but I'm selective about what I spend time with, and actually writing about music as a profession would require me to care about way, way too much awful shit. Also as I get older I'm just not as screaming obsessed about tunes and muso minutiae - I'm more inclined to view what I like through the non-muso lense.
― Raymond Cummings, Saturday, 29 September 2012 19:14 (7 months ago) Permalink
Also, I'd like to play more SPORTS
(no, seriously)
― Raymond Cummings, Saturday, 29 September 2012 19:19 (7 months ago) Permalink
http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/1828132368/uncool
Hmmmm. New online "publication"
We’ll be running exclusively longform writing -- in-depth profiles of fascinating musicians, thoughtful criticism, archaeological discography expeditions, personal essays and much, much more. They'll all have one thing in common: length. Our monthly "cover story" feature will be a minimum of 3,000 words and some might crack 10,000, with our other articles going long as well.
We’re also going to pay our staff. Great journalism is a profession, not a hobby, and that's where we need your help. We’re going to run a single piece a week, not 10 or 20 or 100, which means we'll be able to pay our writers a fair rate for good work.
― curmudgeon, Monday, 24 December 2012 07:08 (4 months ago) Permalink
seems sort of bizarre to discuss this as a viable publication considering they need to raise 45k in the next 9 days
― J0rdan S., Monday, 24 December 2012 07:42 (4 months ago) Permalink
Who says its viable?
― curmudgeon, Monday, 24 December 2012 07:57 (4 months ago) Permalink
Maybe writers could have something like online busking: put a piece out there, and see who tosses something in the PayPal? On Bandcamp, lots of name-your-price (or even set price)downloads can also be streamed for free, h'-m-m... Or offer an excerpt of your literary goodness for free, and for more, make a donation.
― dow, Monday, 24 December 2012 17:22 (4 months ago) Permalink
x-post--
UNCOOL is being edited and run by founders David Greenwald (Billboard, GQ, Rawkblog) and Daniel Siegal (Rolling Stone, Los Angeles Times).
I'm not familiar with these two.
― curmudgeon, Monday, 24 December 2012 18:18 (4 months ago) Permalink
Dow, that's an interesting idea!
― Raymond Cummings, Monday, 24 December 2012 21:33 (4 months ago) Permalink
Toward the end of this piece, about the return of serial fiction via Twitter, there's a success story about offering first taste free; also a way of gauging overall audience response. In this author's case, it's still a way of getting an established publisher, but might work out anyway, depending on the writer's goals: http://www.wired.com/underwire/2012/05/jennifer-egan-black-box-twitter/?utm_source=Contextly&utm_medium=RelatedLinks&utm_campaign=Previous
― dow, Monday, 24 December 2012 22:35 (4 months ago) Permalink
Hey I agree with your opinion on Miguel, here's 50p.
― besides Sunny Real Estate (dog latin), Tuesday, 25 December 2012 04:10 (4 months ago) Permalink
― crüt, Tuesday, 25 December 2012 04:16 (4 months ago) Permalink
let my paypal adorn you
― crüt, Tuesday, 25 December 2012 04:17 (4 months ago) Permalink
"Uncool" failed to get the money they wanted on Kickstarter
― curmudgeon, Thursday, 3 January 2013 15:55 (4 months ago) Permalink
Anyone know what's happening with the Best Music Writing 2012 anthology (which was supposed to cover writing published in 2011)?
― my father will guide me up the stairs to bed (anagram), Thursday, 3 January 2013 15:59 (4 months ago) Permalink
Yeah, I'm still at the point where I just really want to read it, rather than the point at which I'm starting to get a little concerned about where the money I sent them has gone to.
― Public Brooding Closet (cryptosicko), Thursday, 3 January 2013 16:16 (4 months ago) Permalink
http://funboring.com/BMWeditorialboard
Anybody know anyone on their board and ask them?
― curmudgeon, Thursday, 3 January 2013 16:45 (4 months ago) Permalink
This week we launched our new website for Feedback Press, the new home of Best Music Writing. Soon we'll be making it a comprehensive resource for all things music writing, and this March we'll be launching another series. Check it out and stay informed!
http://www.feedbackpress.org/category/best-music-writing/
March...
― curmudgeon, Thursday, 3 January 2013 16:48 (4 months ago) Permalink
One of our writers was informed that they were going to be in the anthology when it comes out. And this was probably only about a month or so ago. They said more information would be forthcoming but nothing as of yet...
― Doran, Thursday, 3 January 2013 17:00 (4 months ago) Permalink
Finally some news!! Thanks folks
― Raymond Cummings, Thursday, 3 January 2013 17:18 (4 months ago) Permalink
Yeah, the writers chosen were informed at least a couple months ago. That's all I know, really.
― katherine, Thursday, 3 January 2013 17:34 (4 months ago) Permalink
good to hear. the BMW twitter account follows me so i sent a DM recently politely asking if there was any news forthcoming and got no response.
― some dude, Thursday, 3 January 2013 17:36 (4 months ago) Permalink
BRAGGIN 2013
― finally rich, fun-packed, fulfilling (Whiney G. Weingarten), Thursday, 3 January 2013 17:56 (4 months ago) Permalink
well it was the big baller move i had to do to placate raymond so he'd stop reviving threads about it
― some dude, Thursday, 3 January 2013 17:58 (4 months ago) Permalink
i know that a certain ilxor is appearing in the new edition, i believe, and very much deservedly too.
― I had such a fontasy (stevie), Friday, 4 January 2013 08:03 (4 months ago) Permalink
Discussion of the failure of "Uncool" web zine and what it represented and whether it was just more white boys writing about Mumford & sons and over on this thread:
This Is Uncool
― curmudgeon, Friday, 4 January 2013 17:19 (4 months ago) Permalink
Pretty good xgau interview--don't agree with every bit of it, but some is prob all too true:http://www.nieman.harvard.edu/reports/article/102822/Concision-and-Clarity.aspx
― dow, Friday, 1 March 2013 21:22 (2 months ago) Permalink
And some is rights on!
The National Arts Journalism Program blog that Christgau has contributed to, has gotten pretty quiet
http://www.najp.org/articles/
― curmudgeon, Friday, 22 March 2013 19:37 (1 month ago) Permalink
That whole site is pretty much dead, actually.
― Loud guitars shit all over "Bette Davis Eyes" (NYCNative), Friday, 22 March 2013 19:59 (1 month ago) Permalink
So once every few years at work a student gets sent to me or finds me and asks how to get into music journalism. I have one such student who I'm meeting on Thursday, who (sensibly) just wants to write as a hobby around a day job. What should I tell him?
― they all are afflicted with a sickness of existence (Scik Mouthy), Monday, 22 April 2013 12:28 (3 weeks ago) Permalink
Tell him the outlets that pay are getting fewer by the day, and pay less by the day.
― If you tolerate Bis, then Kenickie will be next (ithappens), Monday, 22 April 2013 12:35 (3 weeks ago) Permalink
That is kind of top of my list.
― they all are afflicted with a sickness of existence (Scik Mouthy), Monday, 22 April 2013 12:49 (3 weeks ago) Permalink
My local paper no longer has a freelance budget. And yet, every week, features are printed that were written for free.
― mike t-diva, Monday, 22 April 2013 12:54 (3 weeks ago) Permalink
And furthermore, their pool of freelance reviewers is three or four times bigger than three or four years ago.
― mike t-diva, Monday, 22 April 2013 12:59 (3 weeks ago) Permalink
If he wants to do it as a hobby (and make sure he knows it's unlikely to go much further than that), here's what I'd say:
- You're not a writer till you write something. I can't believe how many years I went round thinking 'I'd love to do some music journalism' without actually doing any. If he wants to see his name in print or online, he should have a go at some reviews - live, album, opinion etc and putting them on a blog. With a handful of articles under his belt he should have something he can send to an editor.
- Know the market - which mags and sites cover the kind of music he's interested in. No point in approaching Terrorizer if you don't care about metal.
- Read a lot of music criticism and work out what you like and what you don't.
― pssstttt, Hey you (dog latin), Monday, 22 April 2013 13:00 (3 weeks ago) Permalink
The opportunities to write are greater than ever before. But that means there are more writers than ever before, and it's harder to get noticed by the titles you might want to write for (that's assuming he wants to get as many readers as possible, rather than just writing for the sake of it).
Also - and this is serious – tell him he needs to be reasonably thick skinned, because these days music journalism involves a lot more being told you're a useless wanker than it did before the glorious advent of below-the-line.
And tell him to think about the writing first, the music writing second. He'll be a better music writer if he is able to write about other things. First, it gives you a bigger hinterland. Second, it means you don't automatically think in "sophomore album" music journalese.
― If you tolerate Bis, then Kenickie will be next (ithappens), Monday, 22 April 2013 13:08 (3 weeks ago) Permalink
Thanks for this; all very useful.
Something I always struggled with; how is best, especially these days, to approach a new publication that you'd like to write for?
― they all are afflicted with a sickness of existence (Scik Mouthy), Monday, 22 April 2013 13:13 (3 weeks ago) Permalink
I'm not the one to answer that, but networking and asking around helps. Failing that, writing to the right person and showing enthusiasm while making sure they know you've got your head screwed on properly can't hurt. Worth having some stock ideas for articles at hand so that you can pitch if asked. I guess you're much more likely to get a gig if you can offer something that the other three-dozen writers can't.
― pssstttt, Hey you (dog latin), Monday, 22 April 2013 13:45 (3 weeks ago) Permalink
Also, when approaching a new publication …
Sell yourself. I'm always shocked by people who write to me suggesting they are in some way doing me a favour by sending me a two-line note saying they are willing to write. Are you? You and tons of others, sonny. And make sure there are no errors of spelling or punctuation in your pitch. You are meant to be a writer: don't show you are unable to do the basics when you are asking for work. Ditching people who can't spell (or who won't check their spelling) has always been my first line of weeding. It's the Van Halen brown M&M logic - if you can't be bothered to get that right, what else are you going to get wrong?
― If you tolerate Bis, then Kenickie will be next (ithappens), Monday, 22 April 2013 13:49 (3 weeks ago) Permalink
"Don't."
― paas de la huevo (Whiney G. Weingarten), Monday, 22 April 2013 14:54 (3 weeks ago) Permalink
tell him to post on ilx, worked for a few ppl
― flopson, Monday, 22 April 2013 14:59 (3 weeks ago) Permalink
it's bootcamp for rookie writers, admittedly.
― pssstttt, Hey you (dog latin), Monday, 22 April 2013 15:24 (3 weeks ago) Permalink
Anymore for anymore?
― they all are afflicted with a sickness of existence (Scik Mouthy), Tuesday, 23 April 2013 13:25 (3 weeks ago) Permalink
As dog latin says: Ideas. Single thing most likely to get you a commission. I've commissioned writers I've never read because I thought the idea was so good that it didn't matter if the writing was shit - I can always make writing better, but a good idea is a good idea.
― If you tolerate Bis, then Kenickie will be next (ithappens), Tuesday, 23 April 2013 14:03 (3 weeks ago) Permalink
I sent a long (and ignored) email to one guy about this, but the biggest takeaway from it I'd cite: have favorite writers, not favorite publications. publishing trends will probably only make that better advice.
― katherine, Wednesday, 24 April 2013 00:06 (3 weeks ago) Permalink
xhuckx's advice back in the day was pitches should say a) why this article is worth writing and b) why you're the right person to write the article. also if you're trying to get a foot in the door, you can enquire about writing on spec. even if it gets turned down, you can toss it up in the internet these days on a blog or suchlike as part of your virtual portfolio or whatever.
also yeah don't expect to make a living doing it. even if you can, you probably don't want to.
― Chuck E was a hero to most (s.clover), Wednesday, 24 April 2013 02:35 (3 weeks ago) Permalink
also once you have some clips, even if they're just on like blogs or online pubs or whatever, you can just find the contact info for editors of a pub and contact them saying a) here are my clips, if you are interested b) even if you aren't (they probably won't read them but who knows), i'd like to find out how _you_ like to be pitched and what you are looking for (if you like things on spec, if you're happy to toss a capsule review or show review my way as a trial run, etc).
― Chuck E was a hero to most (s.clover), Wednesday, 24 April 2013 02:38 (3 weeks ago) Permalink
I don't speak from experience, just as an outsider, but the music writing 'scene'/music journalism sounds so horrible.
It seems like you're constantly trying to get the approval of your higher-ups when these people base your ability on their personal taste. But I'd love to be proven wrong.
This is why I agree that it really shouldn't be about the technicalities of writing (grammar, punctuation, etc., except maybe diction) but about the ideas themselves. But really, there seems to be only a handful of music writers with semi-interesting ideas. What I mean is, not everybody is a [insert your favourite music critic here], whether it is people like Barney Hoskyns or Christgau.
But usually, the type of music writing that is done by and large is stuff anybody can do, and not genuinely interesting ideas or ideas that help understand popular culture/music, like McLuhan did, for example. Or maybe all the scholars and intellects are all in hiding!
― c21m50nh3x460n, Wednesday, 24 April 2013 17:40 (3 weeks ago) Permalink
these people base your ability on their personal taste
Not my current editors at the alt-weekly I contribute to. They do not share the same personal taste.
Or maybe all the scholars and intellects are all in hiding!
Some interesting ideas were just expressed by critics and academics at the regional 2013 EMP Pop conference(s)
― curmudgeon, Wednesday, 24 April 2013 18:14 (3 weeks ago) Permalink
there are people right here on the ilm with interesting ideas! and they aren't hiding. maybe they are hiding from their mom cuz they don't won't to clean their room, but they are around. they might not always have the best outlets for their ideas. those EMP conferences i've gone to have really impressed me with the sheer number of people with interesting ideas out there. there are always young/green academic-types at those things who sound like they are going through the motions (like a lot of young blogger/critic types who sound similar), but for every one of those you get a really passionate person who has had a eureka! moment and who is good at sharing that enthusiasm with others. and some of THOSE people are also really good writers. seriously, if you can make the next one, go. your head will be full of fire for months. it helps if you are really fucking obsessed with stuff that most people don't care/know about though. maybe that's a given.
― scott seward, Wednesday, 24 April 2013 18:15 (3 weeks ago) Permalink
the type of music writing that is done by and large is stuff anybody can do
well yeah, if they want to, and practice, and work at it! that's a good thing! why _should_ being able to think about and articulate responses to music, and slot them into appropriate broader understandings of society, and history, and immediate musical and cultural context be something that's only in the domain of a specialized few?
and yeah this is basically never true: "It seems like you're constantly trying to get the approval of your higher-ups when these people base your ability on their personal taste."
the main problem is diminishing paid venues to write for/spaces for longer form criticism, and a lowest-common-denominator pageview driven editorial vision driven by chasing eyeballs/clicks/etc.
but that's not a problem of critical culture. that's a problem of places for it to exist.
― Chuck E was a hero to most (s.clover), Wednesday, 24 April 2013 18:24 (3 weeks ago) Permalink
maybe let the student know that it is the writing that's important, the whole having it be about music part is incidental. Although it's good to have some direction, they'll probably develop faster if they focus on writing whatever they want.
― puff puff post (uh oh I'm having a fantasy), Wednesday, 24 April 2013 18:44 (3 weeks ago) Permalink
to be clear I'm not saying to say don't write about music, just to say that there's no limit to what they can do w/ words if they want to fuck w/ words
― puff puff post (uh oh I'm having a fantasy), Wednesday, 24 April 2013 18:46 (3 weeks ago) Permalink
Lots of useful info on here guys. I had never gone to or heard of EMP, but I will look into it. I would do it for fun, for sure.
I do feel that there are many knowledgeable people on ILX, but they are overshadowed by the really vocal minority of people who take the piss a lot.
Chuck E, with regard to long-form writing, this is one reason I still read the NY Times. They seem to be one of very few popular publications/news sources that still practises it. Of course, there are many other ones, but they are not popular, such as N+1, Guernica, etc.
Also, I guess by 'stuff everyone can do', I mean gathering data and stating facts. (I don't mean to devalue pop critics by any means.) I mean, I hardly read anything that interesting on Pitchfork, for example. I know it's popular to bash them around here. I don't mean to jump on that bandwagon. Every so often you read something interesting, you know, like that Reynolds piece on maximalism was pretty cool, I thought.
― c21m50nh3x460n, Wednesday, 24 April 2013 18:49 (3 weeks ago) Permalink
"I do feel that there are many knowledgeable people on ILX, but they are overshadowed by the really vocal minority of people who take the piss a lot."
the people taking the piss are the knowledgable silent majority.
― Chuck E was a hero to most (s.clover), Wednesday, 24 April 2013 20:28 (3 weeks ago) Permalink
or silent, knowledgeable majority even.
At times I've seen it that way at times, as well. Sounds so meta.
― c21m50nh3x460n, Wednesday, 24 April 2013 20:42 (3 weeks ago) Permalink
"It seems like you're constantly trying to get the approval of your higher-ups when these people base your ability on their personal taste."
-- sorry, s.clover, but yes, this is true to some extent. suppose you like, I dunno, the Lumineers? Or Amanda Palmer. And you pitch a neutral-to-positive piece right now, to a publication that isn't your-blog-dot-blogspot. the best you can probably hope for is to get the controversial punching bag piece. (The dynamics are different for more established writers, or those coming in from other fields, but that's not who we're talking about here.)
― katherine, Wednesday, 24 April 2013 21:31 (3 weeks ago) Permalink
or Imagine Dragons, whose thread here is called "let's never listen to Imagine Dragons." (and yes, I took the piss in there too.) suppose you are an aspiring music writer who likes Imagine Dragons. you better fucking believe that, best case scenario, you're not going to be very successful pitching about them, and worst (and I'm cynical, but likely) case scenario, at least a few people are probably going to use the fact that you like Imagine Dragons as something that reflects upon your writing ability, critical skills or suitability for further work. (Again, established writers can get away with being the contrarian a couple times, but again, we're not talking about them.)
― katherine, Wednesday, 24 April 2013 21:38 (3 weeks ago) Permalink
i think it's important that Imagine Dragons are confined to the realm of the imaginary
― we're up all night to get picky (Noodle Vague), Wednesday, 24 April 2013 21:39 (3 weeks ago) Permalink
which is cool, but you can't claim this is anything other than basing shit on your personal taste.
― katherine, Wednesday, 24 April 2013 21:40 (3 weeks ago) Permalink
well right but if i were an editor i'd sort of have some set of notions similar to that whether or not i myself liked the lumineers or amanda palmer. like there's a certain critical conversation happening about these groups and people not just in the rockwrite world, but at least among the broader set of people who pay some attention to culture (ap's poem got trashed on ontd, lots of ppl roll their eyes at the lumineers, etc.). so you're not some pure outsider voice. if you do a piece on something that's part of a dialogue going on in the world, your piece should somehow acknowledge or relate to that dialogue in some fashion. that's not about your taste -- that's about what it means to be critically engaged!
but in fact honestly if the lumineers dropped a new album i'm sure a zillion outlets