Rolling Music Writers' Thread

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

There are plenty of exceptions! Tom Ewing's blog project It Took Seconds alone justifies the place.

WordPress = blahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblah

Tumblr = funny picture

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

MY BLOG

cant believe you dont have my tumblr in your google reader

There are plenty of exceptions! Tom Ewing's blog project It Took Seconds alone justifies the place.

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?

good thing you google proofed hipster puppies or that dude might start boarding here

max, is yr blog the best thing on Tumblr?

uh you moved hipster puppies talk to 77, so i thought i'd gproof the name just in case but whatever dude

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.

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.)

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.

haha yes, it's basically like if blogging had sex with a message board. it's like my compromise between ILX and "productive" writing

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.

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.

whats the group take on this ?

http://issuu.com/

of value to an aspiring writer or group of ?

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.

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.

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.)

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...

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.

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

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

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

:-D

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

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.

thank u dude :)

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/

http://www.popmatters.com/pm/blogs/crazed-by-the-music

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?

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.

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.

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.

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

i like the piece a lot, but that still made me giggle

SEO makes me sad

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

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

<3

NED RAGGETT (freelance gadabout)

Makes me think of
http://gawker.com/5325119/meet-john-munson-self+proclaimed-gadabout

I couldn't think of anything else to call myself! Seems accurate enough!

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.

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.

O_O

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.)

Do you need to "learn to cook" to make a meal out of chickpeas and frozen spinach?

a can of chickpeas, and some frozen spinach

I actually eat stuff like this all the time for full meals. Bean + veggie!

Do you need to "learn to cook" to make a meal out of chickpeas and frozen spinach?

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...