Rolling Music Writers' Thread

Message Bookmarked
Bookmark Removed
Not all messages are displayed: show all messages (1344 of them)

On second thought:

Maybe 5% of music writing in the first person isn't hacky.

Hoot Smalley, Tuesday, 11 August 2009 15:14 (seven 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 (seven 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 (seven 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 (seven 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 (seven 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 (seven 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 (seven 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 (seven 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 (seven 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 (seven 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 (seven 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 (seven 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 (seven years ago) Permalink

"The first time I saw Spoon..."

wooden shjipley (Whiney G. Weingarten), Tuesday, 11 August 2009 15:49 (seven years ago) Permalink

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 (seven 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 (seven years ago) Permalink

oops yeah

❊❁❄❆❇❃✴❈plaxico❈✴❃❇❆❄❁❊ (I know, right?), Tuesday, 11 August 2009 15:53 (seven years ago) Permalink

If you can write entertainingly, I forgive your first person narrative.

Mark G, Tuesday, 11 August 2009 15:54 (seven years ago) Permalink

xhuxk on point

max, Tuesday, 11 August 2009 15:59 (seven 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 (seven 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 (seven years ago) Permalink

wow that got convoluted

max, Tuesday, 11 August 2009 16:06 (seven years ago) Permalink

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 (seven 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 (seven 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 (seven years ago) Permalink

i'm guessing whiney's not big on fiction as a rule.

strongohulkingtonsghost, Tuesday, 11 August 2009 16:26 (seven 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 (seven 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 (seven 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 (seven years ago) Permalink

hang on, you're not big on reading fiction...at all?!

xp!

lex pretend, Tuesday, 11 August 2009 16:37 (seven 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 (seven 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 (seven 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 (seven 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 (seven 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 (seven 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 (seven 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 (seven years ago) Permalink

I mean I don't read novels almost at all. Gasp!

Matos W.K., Tuesday, 11 August 2009 16:59 (seven 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 (seven years ago) Permalink

haha please tell me you made that KoL quote up Mike

Matos W.K., Tuesday, 11 August 2009 17:02 (seven 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 (seven 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 (seven 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 (seven 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 (seven 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 (seven years ago) Permalink

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."

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 (seven 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 (seven 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 (seven 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 (seven 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 (seven years ago) Permalink

Yup. All the writers pretty much just got let go in a heap.

Ned Raggett, Wednesday, 28 June 2017 21:05 (four weeks ago) Permalink

lol the video pivot. "how can we waste as much money as possible?"

maura, Thursday, 29 June 2017 00:54 (three weeks ago) Permalink

Thank you, no.

Ned Raggett, Thursday, 29 June 2017 01:47 (three weeks ago) Permalink

utterly bizarre that someone —or many people— thought that Grantland should be recreated at MTV.com in the first place.

veronica moser, Thursday, 29 June 2017 02:29 (three weeks ago) Permalink

Maybe so, but a lot of sites were thinking along similar lines, wanting HuffPo, Buzzfeed numbers and deciding OK, let's hire a bunch of writers to write a bunch of tangy articles and put blisteringly clicky headlines all over them.. To work as a model you need a massive volume of articles per month/week/day. I think it can work but the payoff isn't immediate and quality control becomes a real problem

illegal economic migration (Tracer Hand), Thursday, 29 June 2017 06:58 (three weeks ago) Permalink

CLRVYNT is dead. I wrote one article for them - an interview with Kreator's Mille Petrozza, published in January. They never paid me for it.

grawlix (unperson), Thursday, 29 June 2017 11:42 (three weeks ago) Permalink

let's hire a bunch of writers to write a bunch of tangy articles and put blisteringly clicky headlines all over them

that wasn't mtv's or grantland's strategy at all.

fact checking cuz, Thursday, 29 June 2017 16:51 (three weeks ago) Permalink

it was part of mtv's strategy -- the grantland-y stuff (which was always overstated IMO, The Ringer is a better fit) got all the press but a fairly significant part of what they actually published was exactly that

sick, fucking funny, and well tasty (katherine), Thursday, 29 June 2017 17:42 (three weeks ago) Permalink

at least 50% of the actual content was stuff like this (and I realize pretty much every music site operates this way, but): http://www.mtv.com/news/3020995/jersey-shore-team-meatball-snooki-deena-sleepover/

sick, fucking funny, and well tasty (katherine), Thursday, 29 June 2017 17:49 (three weeks ago) Permalink

sorry to go off-current-topic, but i've never read one of those "this album turns 20 today" pieces ... are they usually interviews w/ the artist? personal essays about how great the album is and how it affected the writer? some sort of "let's put this album in the context of 1997" look-back? a combo of these, or something else?

alpine static, Thursday, 29 June 2017 17:56 (three weeks ago) Permalink

the latter two, usually

sick, fucking funny, and well tasty (katherine), Thursday, 29 June 2017 17:56 (three weeks ago) Permalink

it depends on the outlet and the access

maura, Thursday, 29 June 2017 17:57 (three weeks ago) Permalink

I've read good ones and terrible ones, depending on the outlet and writer and, importantly, editor.

the Rain Man of nationalism. (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Thursday, 29 June 2017 18:11 (three weeks ago) Permalink

utterly bizarre that someone —or many people— thought that Grantland should be recreated at MTV.com in the first place.

The stable of writers they assembled was outstanding, but I agree there was always a disconnect between the brand and the content. There was always a sense of "why am I reading a longform personal essay on MTV News?"

It's a shame the whole experiment couldn't have just been ported over to like a Rolling Stone.com, where it would have made more sense, and where the youth and diversity of online writers would have offered a nice corrective to the magazine's historic biases

Evan R, Thursday, 29 June 2017 18:18 (three weeks ago) Permalink

i'd so much rather read an artist (and peripherally involved ppl) talking about a 20-year-old album, plus some writer-provided context of the time ... than the one i put in the middle.

anyway, thanks y'all. appreciate it.

alpine static, Thursday, 29 June 2017 18:31 (three weeks ago) Permalink

mostly I'm just exhausted with the same old "hire 20-22-year-olds, possibly as permalancers, lay them off as 23-24-year-olds" churn being celebrated as a win for youth or social justice or anything like that. conditions are never as rosy as the puff pieces claim -- to take a non-music example, a lot has come out in recent months about the less-than-ideal editorial process and pay rate at Teen Vogue.

sick, fucking funny, and well tasty (katherine), Thursday, 29 June 2017 18:36 (three weeks ago) Permalink

Being a writer sucks. Being a writer has always sucked. My life is defined by two competing quotes:

"No man but a blockhead ever wrote, except for money" - Samuel Johnson
"I write only because I cannot stop" - Heinrich von Kleist

grawlix (unperson), Thursday, 29 June 2017 18:41 (three weeks ago) Permalink

mostly I'm just exhausted with the same old "hire 20-22-year-olds, possibly as permalancers, lay them off as 23-24-year-olds" churn being celebrated as a win for youth or social justice or anything like that. conditions are never as rosy as the puff pieces claim -- to take a non-music example, a lot has come out in recent months about the less-than-ideal editorial process and pay rate at Teen Vogue.

― sick, fucking funny, and well tasty (katherine), Thursday, June 29, 2017 2:36 PM (forty-nine minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

at the very least I hope Lauren Duca is making a decent living for dragging Tucker Carlson.

evol j, Thursday, 29 June 2017 19:29 (three weeks ago) Permalink

anyway, between this and the new york times' copy editors it has been a thoroughly depressing week for media (also known as a week for media)

sick, fucking funny, and well tasty (katherine), Thursday, 29 June 2017 19:41 (three weeks ago) Permalink

this is...... extensive http://www.spin.com/featured/the-mtv-news-experiment/

austinb, Friday, 30 June 2017 01:33 (three weeks ago) Permalink

yeah, from time to time I worry that I am being overly paranoid/anxious about the state of the media, that I'm just projecting my own ~*quarterlife anxieties*~ and then I read things like this

sick, fucking funny, and well tasty (katherine), Friday, 30 June 2017 01:53 (three weeks ago) Permalink

also, I don't know the benefits situation, and I know the timing probably has more to do with the fiscal year than anything -- but if these positions came with any sort of health insurance (some permalance/temp jobs do) it's the icing on the cake to lay everyone off just as the Republican Party is about to get rid of it

sick, fucking funny, and well tasty (katherine), Friday, 30 June 2017 02:06 (three weeks ago) Permalink

“There’s this cycle that happens, that I was a part of. Someone gets the idea that they want editorial, and then a couple editors who all know the other editors are like ‘Come here, the faucet is on’,” Suarez said of the state of the industry. “And everyone runs to that faucet and it attracts the attention of higher-ups who realize there’s too much money coming out and shut it down. Then somebody you bring to your faucet gets their own faucet, and so you run over there.”

otm

illegal economic migration (Tracer Hand), Friday, 30 June 2017 06:57 (three weeks ago) Permalink

yup

maura, Friday, 30 June 2017 12:53 (three weeks ago) Permalink

That Spin article deserves it's own thread.

Loud guitars shit all over "Bette Davis Eyes" (NYCNative), Friday, 30 June 2017 14:12 (three weeks ago) Permalink

just further validates my conviction that Chance is corny af.

evol j, Friday, 30 June 2017 14:16 (three weeks ago) Permalink

spin made me take out a negative sentence i wrote about mtv in a review once. it was the best sentence!

scott seward, Friday, 30 June 2017 15:39 (three weeks ago) Permalink

i should find that column about pitchfork that jessica asked me to write that pitchfork wouldn't publish in their magazine. in retrospect though, i didn't really want to write a column about pitchfork. but, like samuel johnson, i can always use the money.

scott seward, Friday, 30 June 2017 15:42 (three weeks ago) Permalink

is journalistic "freedom" and "integrity" really a thing now though? especially on the internet. i don't really expect it. there are people with money and there is what they want to do with that money.

scott seward, Friday, 30 June 2017 16:05 (three weeks ago) Permalink

a thing that wasn't mentioned in the Spin article (I'm sure a lot wasn't) is how much vitriol MTV News writers got, particularly if a piece leaned progressive or against consensus, and yet Kings of Leon gets to spike a writer's story over "plays like an imprint of the last five years of music—neither a return to Kings of Leon’s svelte roots nor a reinvention worth investing in."

sick, fucking funny, and well tasty (katherine), Friday, 30 June 2017 20:06 (three weeks ago) Permalink

(as far as chance someone on twitter -- david drake maybe? -- had suggested the reason he's "the face of this" so to speak is because of his label situation, or relative lack thereof)

sick, fucking funny, and well tasty (katherine), Friday, 30 June 2017 20:09 (three weeks ago) Permalink

"Similarly, I couldn’t be too upset to hear that the recent “woke” iteration of MTV News was coming to an end, both because, like literally everyone else on the Internets, I had no use for the site, and also because, come to find out, it was wildly corrupt."

https://www.getrevue.co/profile/byroncrawford/issues/i-m-glad-they-re-cleaning-house-at-mtv-news-63286

JB, Friday, 30 June 2017 20:15 (three weeks ago) Permalink

Sargent must not read Infowars.

how is jordan going to recover from this burn

sick, fucking funny, and well tasty (katherine), Friday, 30 June 2017 20:15 (three weeks ago) Permalink

I have a lot I can write about this but i won't because you all know it already. I will say though that I worked for an outfit that frequently found itself trying to square the circle MTV News did; i.e. it fashioned itself an objective voice on music but relied on deep linkages with outlets that basically exist to promote product. So you'd run into situations where an album gets keelhauled in a review and the CMS has badged it "album of the week" or something - just nonsensical for the audience, yet all perfectly rational from an organizational and back-end POV. i can't get mad at musicians, reps, labels etc deciding not to work with an organization that slates them, i mean it's ridiculous. You guys hate my album yet I'm a featured guest on some show of yours? Playing the songs you say you hate? Anyway in my case it was always an uncomfortable fit and in the end that faucet got turned off.

illegal economic migration (Tracer Hand), Friday, 30 June 2017 20:20 (three weeks ago) Permalink


You must be logged in to post. Please either login here, or if you are not registered, you may register here.