Rolling Music Writers' Thread

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?

Tell him the outlets that pay are getting fewer by the day, and pay less by the day.

That is kind of top of my list.

My local paper no longer has a freelance budget. And yet, every week, features are printed that were written for free.

And furthermore, their pool of freelance reviewers is three or four times bigger than three or four years ago.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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?

"Don't."

tell him to post on ilx, worked for a few ppl

it's bootcamp for rookie writers, admittedly.

Anymore for anymore?

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.

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.

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.

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).

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!

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)

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.

x-post

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.

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.

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

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.

"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.

or silent, knowledgeable majority even.

At times I've seen it that way at times, as well. Sounds so meta.

"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.)

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.)

i think it's important that Imagine Dragons are confined to the realm of the imaginary

which is cool, but you can't claim this is anything other than basing shit on your personal taste.

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 would be happy to run neutral-to-positive reviews of them (and ditto AP). especially when we're talking capsule-ish things as opposed to feature stories.

the contrarian article is also a huge genre now, probably moreso than ever in the past (although lots of that is more trollgaze than decent writing). there are a fair number of things that seem increasingly out-of-reach, but being able to find a venue to publish just about any evaluation in itself doesn't seem to be so.

but yeah, your ability to do this also probably depends on your capability as a writer and the amount of trust someone will put in you to take an opinion that they don't necessarily agree with and render it in an interesting fashion.

i dunno i've been out of the game for a while and i was spoiled by fantastic editors when i was in it, so who knows.

(i think the contrarian article thing is 4real tho -- i mean, controversy sells)

but who's buying?

Contrarianism only seems big because the hivemind is so strong, though. And there are acceptable and unacceptable subjects. Try getting a "No, seriously, Beyonce is terrible" story published. No matter how informed and thoughtful it might be, that piece ain't seeing print.

The ability to engage with unfashionable but popular bands in an enthusiastic way without being condescending or contrarian for the sake of it sounds pretty marketable if you are writing for a mainstream audience.

Contrarianism only seems big because the hivemind is so strong, though. And there are acceptable and unacceptable subjects. Try getting a "No, seriously, Beyonce is terrible" story published. No matter how informed and thoughtful it might be, that piece ain't seeing print.

a well informed and thoughtful article with that opinion is not possible. that's like complaining that science journalism won't publish the well informed and thoughtful articles on the moon being made of cheese.

on the other hand there's plenty of mags that'll publish that sort of stuff anyway, or there were five years ago.

(mojo?)

contrarian articles are definitely a thing, but how sustainable long-term is it to publish pieces that put you repeatedly, so to speak, in contempt of the court? especially if you're just some replaceable kid.

as far as the new albums -- there's data. lots of major outlets passed on the AP album. Lumineers probably got more since they are much newer. and yes, there will probably be at least a few critics turning in the "this is OK. just OK." angle when it's new album time. it's just the next stage in the backlash cycle. think "Born to Die."

(xpost -- there are actually plenty of "no, seriously, Beyonce is terrible" pieces published per event cycle. the problem is most of them turn out to be racist.)

I was actually just recently thinking about how the internet is "the greatest engine for contrairianism the world has ever seen" or some such -- endless fast-paced cycles of finding the fresh angle on the fresh angle on the fresh angle, "X is not really about Y, it's about Z" "X really IS about Y, but not for the reasons you think" etc.

"Why the band everyone likes is shit"
"Why the band everyone hates is good"
"Why the band everyone likes to point out that everyone else likes but is actually shit is actually good for different reasons"
"I like the band that everyone likes UNIRONICALLY because I am a POPULIST, but still in a more intelligent way than everyone else"

when I was at Stylus we specialized in these "On Second Thought" "contrarian" pieces. I don't know if they helped or hindered hit counts. It produced some fine writing. I don't know if a market exists for them now though.

The thing with contrarian articles is that I think they have to be view points that are sincerely held in the face of received wisdom. You can usually tell when they aren't. I think we did one cynical one and I wish we hadn't. The one boosting Phil Collins was great though.

The one I really want someone to write for me is the pro-Bob Marley one but he seems to be the ultimate no-no for British music journalists. Presumably because there are too many guilty memories of first year bong sessions to Exodus or whatever while juggling or weaving friendship bracelets or whatever.

is it contrarian to boost Collins?

katherine, you sound cool.

I really don't like contrarian pieces. They break a fundamental rule for me -- they are disingenuous for the most part. I don't think music is a sacred cow, but I'd much rather someone approach a music piece intelligently and coherently than driven by passionate, disjointed drivel. Even the genuine ones don't offer that much insight, but I can at least respect it for what it is, since they usually do away with all the rhetoric. And these I don't consider contrarian; they're just pieces which happen to go against popular thought because there is some substance to their arguments. And by genuine, I don't mean they have to be sincerely held, but more like unobscure and not deliberately going against an idea for the sake of it (forced/contrived/etc.). Those contrarian pieces that are disingenuous tend to end up in straw-man arguments or ad hominem attacks against the writer that reel in so many click-throughs/visits for online publications. The average Joe loves a good fight or nonsensical name-calling and 'discussion'.

This also reminds me of what bands people perceive as 'mainstream'. It's always interesting to me how in different countries, certain bands are played on the radio a lot, yet in somewhere like the US, they are considered non-mainstream. I can't speak for everyone obviously, but in the places I've lived in the US and Canada, there is this desire to listen to music that is not on the radio, and people usually equate that to non-mainstream. It creates a culture based on falsehood, in my humble opinion.

Oh, and don't get me started on this 'culture of irony'....argh.

"the thing with contrarian articles is that I think they have to be view points that are sincerely held in the face of received wisdom."

essentially, yes: the difference between "huh, I guess I'm the contrarian" and "I'm gonna make myself the contrarian." (which is another thing: the worst contrarian pieces are the ones secretly about the writer and how cool/enlightened he is for being so contrarian, damning the sheeple, so forth.)

I mean it seriously, so save your abuse.
I can't understand why someone who considers him/herself a talented writer would want to go into music criticism.
1. From a practical perspective, there's no money in it.
2. Popular music is probably the most subjective and unintellectual of all artforms, and is therefore immune to any kind of rigorous discourse. A song can be great/elegiac/sad/etc. purely on the basis that you heard it first when you were 15 years old. How do you argue with that?
3. What useful things are there to say about music that can't be said in a few lines in a music forum?
4. Most of the music I love, I have no real desire to read about. I have a desire to read about the lives of the people who created it perhaps, or the circumstances in which it was made. But no desire to read musical criticism.

-- bemused (bemuse...), February 5th, 2004. (later)

Answers
Writing about music is fun! And some people do have the desire to read music criticism. so, there ya go.
-- scott seward (skotro...), February 5th, 2004. (later)

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Judging by your lax grammar and syntax, you should be the last person to complain about artforms (sic) being "unintellectual" (sic). Perhaps you were turned down for a job and are therefore using this thread to vent your envy at people more talented than you could ever hope to be, or people whose lives are so much better, qualitatively and quantitatively, than yours will ever be.
Now fuck off.

-- Marcello Carlin (marcellocarli...), February 5th, 2004. (later)

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

well, there's that too.
-- scott seward (skotro...), February 5th, 2004. (later)

I really don't like contrarian pieces. They break a fundamental rule for me -- they are disingenuous for the most part. I don't think music is a sacred cow, but I'd much rather someone approach a music piece intelligently and coherently than driven by passionate, disjointed drivel

Good writing justifies itself. Your second sentence contradicts the first.