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
― ❊❁❄❆❇❃✴❈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?!
― 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.
― 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
one of my personal guidelines is to try not to assume the reader agrees with me, which i feel like a lot of music writing does -- obviously you can start with a baseline of something not too controversial like "the beatles/insert canonical artist here was good/important" but often the first paragraph stakes everything on some loaded premise that not even half the readership is going to be on board with. if you free yourself of that, it becomes a lot easier to express an opinion that isn't conventional wisdom without having to locate yourself on the 'contrarian' (or troll) spectrum.
― some dude, Thursday, 25 April 2013 01:21 (1 month ago) Permalink
i like that advice, some dude
― set the controls for the heart of the sun (VegemiteGrrl), Thursday, 25 April 2013 01:29 (1 month ago) Permalink
If you're going to use "we," make sure you're at least a baron, and always include a mugshot of yourself wearing ermine or gold.
― the little prince of inane false binary hype (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Thursday, 25 April 2013 01:30 (1 month ago) Permalink
Kael showed how to effectively assume the agreement of the reader. e.g.
We generally become interested in movies because we enjoy them and what we enjoy them for has little to do with what we think of as art. The movies we respond to, even in childhood, don’t have the same values as the official culture supported at school and in the middle-class home.
It isn't that she really thinks her readers agree with her, but arrogating that assumption is a nice way of taking a strong tone, saying "You should agree with this."
― lazulum, Thursday, 25 April 2013 01:44 (1 month ago) Permalink
that's a v good point. i most enjoy and respect criticism that clearly articulates a position, a point of view. i generally dislike the pose of reportorial objectivity, preferring criticism that explicitly situate its responses in a specific and personal framework. speaking in terms of "i" is self-isolating, but kael's arrogating (and perhaps arrogant) "we" risks the alienation of those who disagree. she did it well. most do not.
― I have many lovely lacy nightgowns (contenderizer), Thursday, 25 April 2013 02:17 (1 month ago) Permalink
^ ...criticism that situates its responses...
― I have many lovely lacy nightgowns (contenderizer), Thursday, 25 April 2013 02:18 (1 month ago) Permalink
Yeah, most don't, and it might actually be a bit old-fashioned. Maybe we only tolerate it from her because we have double standards about past writers.
― lazulum, Thursday, 25 April 2013 02:30 (1 month ago) Permalink
overuse of the 1st person plural is such a bugbear of mine atm
esp when accompanied by waffle about ~the modern condition~ and, like, laptops
― flamenco drop (lex pretend), Thursday, 25 April 2013 07:31 (1 month ago) Permalink
Alfred: Re Phil Collins? Yes, in the UK, imo. This is a general observation and wouldn't apply to writers who know their stuff like DL or Unperson or whoever but I've heard writers, even relatively recently say, 'LOL rappers/R&B singers like Phil Collins.' Now this is dumb on numerous levels, mainly it's because - Homer Simpson style - they're imagining Timbaland sitting in a jacuzzi singing along to 'You Can't Hurry Love' wearing an 'I <3 Phil Collins' T-shirt and not someone appreciating gated reverb on drums as a great production technique or the really expensive sound of his synth production or the potential for sampling on his records (I'm sure some people in these genres straight up just love Phil Collins jams... and why not, I love 'Mama' for example but I'm sure that's the exception not the rule). The worst thing is, you can't even call this rockism, it's just straight up ignorance because at least a rockist scientist would know that Brand X were a rated fusion band, that Phil Collins played on some amazing albums by Brian Eno and Peter Gabriel (not to mention early Genesis in general). But when you've got a magazine like NME that literally only covers new indie and has rules preventing writers from referencing bands and artists (apart from the obvious Beatles/Stones axis) from before a decade or so earlier where is the impetus for young writers to do research? This knowledge is of no use to them. My biggest bugbear is journalistic laziness though. Collins is probably not what you'd call a nice man, or at least, I certainly wouldn't want to spend any time with him. However, this doesn't necessarily mean that he divorced his wife by fax. Not only is this legal nonsense, any amount of research will show that this story came from the front page of the UK tabloid The Sun - a completely discredited source that should be discounted or mistrusted by anyone with journalistic training. But again when magazines don't care for their writers - they have a duty to give writers without formal journalistic training the tools to do the job properly - then what do you expect? You end up with people repeating two facts about him: divorced his wife by fax and said he'd leave the UK if labour stayed in power - only one of which is true, and precious little knowledge about the stuff they should know about, the music. So yeah, as much as I rail against boomer canonical magazines, at least, some of them, American ones especially, know their history. I don't feel you can criticise this stuff without at least knowing something about it.
― Doran, Thursday, 25 April 2013 07:47 (1 month ago) Permalink
Also, I don't want to state the obvious but if you know a magazine hates Imagine Dragons or Lumineers or whatever and you're cold pitching to them for the first time with positive feature ideas on those bands? This is a really bad strategy as it suggests you don't read the publication. Why not save that for your third or fourth pitch after you've started to get work at the title.
I read all pitches that are sent to me - literally all of them and there are tons of them - and sometimes a contrarian pitch out of nowhere really catches my imagination but most of the time they're not suggesting anything that interesting and in some cases they're noticeably passive aggressive in their hurt tone about my cruel treatment of, say, Foxygen or whatever.
You've got to remember that taking on a new writer is an investment of time for any editor. The person is completely untried, the cutting they've sent in could have been almost completely rewritten by that magazine's editor. There's no real guarantee of quality from someone you don't know so it's a doubly hard sell when they're asking to write about a band that you really don't like.
As several people - who know what they're talking about - have said upthread: come up with good ideas. They're like rocking horse shit. If you hit an editor with good ideas (in my experience) you will be laughing. 'Why Imagine Dragons Are A Great Band' is not a good idea... 'What The Different Styles Cop Show Themes Are Recorded In Tell You About The Programme' or 'A Short History Of Every Song That Has Been Played By An Astronaut In Space' or 'Varg Vikernes' Secret Past As An EPMD Fan' or 'Why Imagine Dragons Were Predicted By Nostradamus' are good feature ideas.
― Doran, Thursday, 25 April 2013 08:04 (1 month ago) Permalink
One thing that very, very rarely works … telling an editor they have to use you because they are old and dead and out of touch and you are young and vibrant and the future. A surprising number of people try it. You have to have written a very funny covering note, and hope the editor is in an extraordinarily good mood, on a day when every single thing has gone right, to have any joy with that.
― If you tolerate Bis, then Kenickie will be next (ithappens), Thursday, 25 April 2013 09:23 (1 month ago) Permalink
I'd like to think no one older than about 17 would ever do that. Though I doubt that's the case.
― they all are afflicted with a sickness of existence (Scik Mouthy), Thursday, 25 April 2013 09:29 (1 month ago) Permalink
if you know a magazine hates Imagine Dragons or Lumineers or whatever and you're cold pitching to them for the first time with positive feature ideas on those bands?
Magazines/websites should not hold party lines on any band (ex. the obv Skrewdriver etc), they should be open to good writing on any band even if they are normally critical whipping boys
― my father will guide me up the stairs to bed (anagram), Thursday, 25 April 2013 09:30 (1 month ago) Permalink
i don't think that's how professional publications work
― we're up all night to get picky (Noodle Vague), Thursday, 25 April 2013 09:33 (1 month ago) Permalink
XP: Yeah, and I should get paid for every piece of writing that I do at a rate per word that's gone up noticeably in the last 25 years but I don't. I just wrote a piece on a feminist Egyptian film maker documenting an underground revolutionary dance scene in Cairo. It's gone up on my site because no one will pay for it. In an extremely abstract way I think this is wrong and that NME or Q should give me a decent amount of money and cover my travel expenses, instead of me having to save up for ages so I can pay to do my own job but I'm not upset about it - it's just the way things are. So you can either deal with what things are like and get work or sit round complaining about what they should be like and not get work. There are enough threads on ILM about how rubbish the music press is, I was under the impression this thread was different and about practical advice.
And, as I said, quite clearly, I am open to good writing on any band but I'd sooner give that kind of work to a trusted scribe. If you are cold calling as a first time writer how do I know you're going to provide good copy? More often than not people sending these kinds of pitches in are indulging in immature passive aggressiveness: "I want to work at your magazine - here's why I don't like it."
― Doran, Thursday, 25 April 2013 09:42 (1 month ago) Permalink
I'd recommend telling them to move to London, meet a few friends who're cooler than yourselves, then bam, you'll end up writing for Vice like me.
I've never been paid for anything, which sucks a bit after doing music writing nearly week in week out for four years now.
― the Shearer of simulated snowsex etc. (Dwight Yorke), Thursday, 25 April 2013 09:45 (1 month ago) Permalink
― the Shearer of simulated snowsex etc. (Dwight Yorke), Thursday, 25 April 2013 09:46 (1 month ago) Permalink
i think it's very important for people to ask themselves why they want to do something, regularly
― we're up all night to get picky (Noodle Vague), Thursday, 25 April 2013 09:46 (1 month ago) Permalink
I don't pitch pieces or hustle but I imagine it's pretty stressful. Writing pieces can be stressful. Sending pieces for review is stressful. Seeing them published and having dozens of people telling you that you are a idiot for liking x, y or z is stressful. It's also fun and rewarding but doing it every day and knowing my financial security depended on it would be too much.
I accidentally wound up writing for money after being approached by a publication whose message board I posted on. It's possibly an underrated way of getting your ideas, tone and style seen by editors.
― хуто-хуторянка (ShariVari), Thursday, 25 April 2013 10:22 (1 month ago) Permalink
xpost A former ILX regular once used that very tactic with me, Nick.
― If you tolerate Bis, then Kenickie will be next (ithappens), Thursday, 25 April 2013 10:26 (1 month ago) Permalink
I can probably guess who.
― they all are afflicted with a sickness of existence (Scik Mouthy), Thursday, 25 April 2013 10:29 (1 month ago) Permalink
― markers, Friday, 26 April 2013 19:02 (4 weeks ago) Permalink
what was it?
― Chuck E was a hero to most (s.clover), Friday, 26 April 2013 19:08 (4 weeks ago) Permalink
(tweets gone now)
aol shut down spinner effective today
― J0rdan S., Friday, 26 April 2013 19:08 (4 weeks ago) Permalink
And AOL Music in general, it seems.
― 誤訳侮辱, Friday, 26 April 2013 19:12 (4 weeks ago) Permalink
Say I have what I think is a good idea for a profile piece. However, I'm an untrusted scribe. If I pitch the idea to an editor and they like it, wouldn't they just say "yes, good idea" and then commission one of their trusted scribes to write it? Alternatively, should I go ahead and write the piece and then submit it in full? If I do that, though, I wouldn't be able to say to the subject of the profile that I was writing about them for such-and-such a magazine.
― my father will guide me up the stairs to bed (anagram), Thursday, 2 May 2013 07:40 (3 weeks ago) Permalink