Same ends, different means.
As more and more people are producing and releasing music, there has been an exponential growth in promotion agencies. What's your perspective on the promo system? In how far is it influencing your choice of articles and topics, in how far is it useful for pre-selection, in how far do you feel it is possibly undermining journalistic freedom?
I have a hard time with promo companies. I hate mass emails. I feel like the company doesn’t give a shit about me and basically all they’re telling me is that a bunch of other random sites might write about their band. But I feel like I’m doing exactly what they’re doing. Part of why I write about records is to help promote artists that might be unknown to most people. I’m not connecting with people individually, I’m just throwing out my opinion and saying “Check this shit out!” Same ends, different means.
With that being said, promotion in general is great. I love when an artist or label emails me telling me they like my site and that they just put out a new record they think I’d be into. I’m much more likely to review a record received that way.
I’m not really sure what “journalistic freedom” means, but I guess I have it because I can do whatever the fuck I want on my site. I have no idea what writing for a bigger news/review site is like or what role promo companies play in that. Not my scene.
How do you see the role of music journalism in the creative process? Should it amplify public taste, distinguish the good from the bad, inform, promote artists, or, as Howard Mandel put it, “illuminate, educate and entertain” readers? Do you feel that, as part of your work, music needs to be explained or should it retain its “inexplicable nature”?
Music journalism exists for music fans. You write about good records and who gives a fuck about the bad records, just ignore ‘em. Then hopefully somebody comes along and says “Hey, I like the records this guy likes,” and then maybe you have a dedicated reader. Music writers are just connecting people with good music, they shouldn’t be thought of as taste-makers, they shouldn’t be shitting on dull records, they shouldn’t claim their opinion is objective. They should just be looking for more people to nerd out with them about that goddamn Superstorms record.
Music journalism has frequently been attacked for merely expressing opinion. On the other hand, it is precisely personal interest in an artist and/or his work which frequently provides for a stimulus to delve into them in more depth. How would you describe the importance of subjectivity for your writing?
Subjectivity’s all I got. I have no education in music, music theory, music history, or music writing. And I don’t make music, so I can barely even talk about the technical aspects of a record. I’m also terrified of being publicly wrong about any of that stuff I don’t know about, so I just stick to my feelings and make it painfully obvious all I’m talking about is how cool a record sounds to me.
In which way does writing and reading about music change the way it is perceived by the public?
I think most people are able to figure out if they like a record just by listening to it themselves. I’d like to believe music writing/reading doesn’t have much of an effect on the public perception of music.
Whom do you feel your obligation to – the artists, the readers, the publication you're writing for? In how much do you feel is music journalism restricted by external factors?
I feel obligated to all three but I know the obligations are self-created. I put pressure on myself to live up to exaggerated expectations. The artists are upset if I don’t write about their record or reply to their email, the readers are bummed when I don’t update in two weeks or when I review the same artist repeatedly, my site deserves more attention than I’m giving it. I’m sure that has more to do with self-esteem/depression shit than anything else, so I doubt most other music writers feel the same type of obligations.
The more a site is affected by external factors, the less respectable it is. They become biased in some way. I think this is more likely to happen with bigger sites, so I tend to stay away from them as a reader. I think the type of obligations I described haven’t made me biased, but that’s probably what every biased person thinks.
Journalism and writing have changed considerably over the past century. What, do you feel, could – or should - be new forms and formats for music journalism?
I have a pretty terrible imagination. I try to stick to the present.
Music-sharing sites and -blogs as well as a flood of releases in general are presenting both listeners and artists with challenging questions. What's your view on the value of music today?
I value music. I pirate music. I buy a ton of music, but I pirate even more, and I know I’m not alone. I think most people, especially in the experimental scene, value music on many levels, including financially. In the grand scheme of things, yeah, the flood of accessible music has devalued music, but I don’t think it’s that recent of a change and I don’t think music sharing sites are the big culprit.
The big problems are how much wider our social circles are and how much we’ve become a culture of consumers. In order to stay in touch with friends, we should be able to participate in conversations about new interests namely, music, and in a consumer culture, there’s always a new interest, but nobody’s pay cheque can continuously keep up with the newest. So we want to contribute but we can’t afford to and it turns music from a financial commodity into a social one. It forces us to compare our place in social circles with Timberlake’s wallet. Currently, enough people still see music as a worthwhile financial investment, but I don’t know if that will last.
Please recommend two magazines or journalists to our readers which you feel deserve their attention.
I don’t really read other music sites.
Please recommend two artists to our readers which you feel deserve their attention.
Witness Justin Snow's super-sonic reviews at antigravitybunny.com
