If you haven’t heard Chris Weingarten’s speech on the way music journalism is being squashed by maths, it’s well worth a listen. Warning: lots of swears, and a horrid hat. Thanks to Everett True for the link.
If you haven’t heard Chris Weingarten’s speech on the way music journalism is being squashed by maths, it’s well worth a listen. Warning: lots of swears, and a horrid hat. Thanks to Everett True for the link.
4 Responses to “Good writing dies at the hands of Search Engine Optimisation”
I’m sorry, but when was there ever good journalism
in music critics. Take away all the dugs, payola, and pretensions to fame, and maybe they could learn to be good journalists.
Ha! — I guess “dugs” is a sarcastic allusion to those halcyon days when “we” were still on the record companies’ collective teat. I believe that went dry for me sometime in the late ’80s . . .
Timely rant, from my POV, since I just set these thoughts down for a journalism student who requested my 50-year-old perspective:
I think we are at the end of a golden age of “Rock”, and thus in a sense at the end of the age of rock writing. I believe it all began to change in the ’80s, when music journalism became more subservient to the industry – and less about autonomous critical opinion and tastemaking. It also became more ubiquitous, with every broadsheet and tabloid covering rock and pop. The underground “shock” value of rebellious amplified music was diluted to the point where attitude became a mere commodity. Kurt Cobain’s suicide may have been the last shocking rock event, just as he was in a sense the last rock star – the epilogue to Elvis’ prologue.
In the new digital age of the internet, younger music fans don’t need to – or choose not to – follow “rock critics” because they can access both audio and video so immediately and seamlessly. They either make their own purchasing choices or bend to peer (or simply algorithmic) pressure in terms of what is currently cool. As they get older, however, the need increases for filtering based on recommendation and analysis: there is such an explosion of availability online that we all need a little steering in order to decide how to spend our money – or just our time.
There are maverick, iconoclastic voices out there, writing/blogging on rock and other genres, but it isn’t quite clear if anyone is reading or following them. In a sense, the cultural crisis is a larger, global one wherein consumption has swamped absorption and discussion: people are so busy consuming, they lack the time to reflect on what it is they’re consuming. But if we don’t have intelligent critical voices making sense, not just of music but of art in general, then the culture begins to lose any meaning. The medium – the internet, particularly as manifested in social networking – has become the message.
At the end of the day, all writers must write for themselves, to “ex-press” the issues that burn inside them. Whether anyone takes the time to hear them is almost a separate matter. We can only trust that the art of music criticism – as opposed to 150-word star-rated synopses of recorded product – doesn’t die out altogether.
Have just come across this thread. Good points, Barney.
I think the reduced attention span of most young people now – exacerbated by the rapidity with which they can flick through different media, access videos and music clips on the net and so on – means most young people won’t have the patience to read the kind of long, in-depth reviews we were writing in the NME etc in the ’80s. Is the solution to write shorter, snappier reviews? Or is that unacceptable dumbing down? Should writers tailor reviews for the ADD generation by making them amusing and entertaining, thus seducing readers? As an example I would point to Caitlin Moran’s TV reviews in The Times, which are always perceptive and intelligent but also hilarious, thereby giving the illusion that you’re not actually reading anything heavy duty. I don’t have that talent; I have to admit I find writing short, punchy reviews next to impossible. Perhaps more people would read my book reviews if they were a quarter as long as they are, or tongue-in-cheek/witty. Maybe it’s a skill modern journalists should cultivate. But should we have to change our writing to appeal to our audience, or is it acceptable to write the way we’ve always written in the hope that a small proportion of readers will have the interest and concentration to read them?