Why would anyone want to be a music journalist RATHER than a musician?

See! yr still in a band and yr still a musician. I knew it!

still better than the most of the garbage churned out week in, week out by the music press.

AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAARRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!! Back to what I said... i f you love music and JOURNALISM repeat JOURNALISM, be a bleeding MUSIC JOURNALIST

runs off tearing out hair....

Aw man.

no, steven wells is a schtick.

maybe some people have writing as their first love? If music is your second greatest passion it makes sense to combine the two, no? -- Anna

[I've been creating my own music since I was 16, but I've been writing since I was barely out of the womb. I love doing both, but I can't imagine not writing.]

you don't necessarily get to do the things that you want, but you get to do the things that you are GOOD at -- Kate

[Throughout my life, I've been praised for my writing. I've only really been praised for my music recently, since my band has started playing out -- but I also don't take that praise personally, since we're a fully collaborative six-piece band. For the last few years, I've been hanging my musical aspirations on a genius solo album that I will someday record. But it's entirely conceivable that I'll try that and it will turn out terrible. And so back to writing, because I know I'm good at it. And specifically nonfiction/criticism, because I know I'm better at that than fiction/poetry.]

Other reasons why I might prefer to be a journalist than a musician: 1. I feel like my ideas for things to write are frequently more original than my ideas for music to make. 2. I'm clueless about technology (which doesn't stop me from plunking around on my keyboard, but could stop me from making that killer solo record.)

i.e. music criticism has an explicit referent, a competitive element - R Kelly releases a new single, 100 people write about it - they might be trying to capture its essence, make it mean more (or less) to people, 'conquer' it for themselves or for others - when you do that well it's a thrill, it doesn't feel 'parasitic' or anything.

Another difference - a lot of people create for themselves, or for tiny private audiences. I'm happier having my referent-centred work (journalism) in the public domain, up for discussion, than I am having the creative stuff I do. The question seems a lot less loaded and more two-way when it's about what face you show the world, rather than what you 'are'.

I don't agree that expanding the idea of criticism makes it meaningless, btw.

also note, Lester Bangs was simply used as the most easily identifiable rock critic. He is meant to represent all of us (in this instance only). The other are specifics.

I don't give a shit about "credit"; I don't even know what that means. But not understanding why playing a whole bunch of records in a conscious order can be creative is just idiotic. And what if somebody writes a beautiful piece of music using record players as their instrument? And what if you go to somebody's house and pick up their guitar and start strumming? Who deserves more "credit" then? And is the former more like composing, or more like you going to somebody's house and putting on a record? And what about the latter??

Ah, but that is not what was said. It was 'playing a record player is NO DIFFERENT from playing a guitar.' No mention was made of DJing, nor did I say it wasn't creative. It's just...different.

Re: credit. Chuck, I think I've read about 50 of your posts where you try to give 'credit' to some forgotten 'originator.' This is what's intellectually dishonest: subscribing to certain notions only when they suit your needs.

don't agree that expanding the idea of criticism makes it meaningless, btw.

I think you're responding to something I said. To clarify, it doesn't make criticism meaningless, but focusing on certain similarities between writing about music and making music while ignoring the many differences makes the comparison between the two meaningless.

If you're suggesting that if you sent Frank Kogan to the store to buy a guitar he'd bring home a turntable instead, I seriously doubt you have anything to worry about, oops; I'm sure he *knows* guitars and record players are very different machines. But big deal. You still haven't explained why crediting creativity to one is any different than crediting creativity to the other. (And yes, of course I know what "credit" means in the WORLD; just not sure what it means in the context of your posts here. I'm waiting for you to tell me what it has to do with guitars vs. turntables, or why entertaining one's self or one's peers with one is more valid than doing so with the other.)

You'll be waiting a long, long, long time. I'm not making any value statements. It's the same difference between people who design clothes and stylists, between people who design furniture and interior decorators. One is not inherently more creative than the other. BUT, one is a necessary pre-condition for the other. You can't have stylists without clothes designers. You can't have DJ's without musicians. Someone has to provied the source material. This is what I meant by looking at things only from certain perspectives. On many levels, the two activities are alike. On other levels, they're not. Claiming the two are THE SAME FUCKING THING is dishonest. Two things need not be the same in order for their worth to be equal.

It is??? If you say so...