This comes up a lot here and elsewhere and I have been thinking about it a great deal lately. Several times I have wanted to post something, then thought better of it. But I think there is scope for a little balance.
I just thought I would present some other ways of looking at 'music journalists'. You know, it's actually harder than you think being a 'music journalist'. It can be (frustratingly) political and there are codes and pressures, but some people try to work within or around the industry structures. I think a lot of artists look on us as parasites feeding off their art and as mediocrities, which, sadly, I can understand from their vantage point, but a few of us choose to do this and we are sincere and idealistic and many times we struggle to empathise with and help put across the artist's point of view, or maybe present some different ways of looking at the art which may be valid within a particular cultural context or contexts. I think that this is valid. There is a place for a writer as much as there is for an agent or promoter or publicist; the artist can't exist in a vacuum. We can't all be 'artists', some people's creative talents lie in organising an event, that is providing a platform for the artist, or in writing about their music and bringing it to the people's attention. Maybe I am the only one who feels this, but to me 'music journalism' is one of the most under appreciated modern forms of expression. If, as Jeff Mills says, the DJ/producer is in "the business of presenting", then the writer is in the business of re-presenting (and I think the DJ is, too, at least in the traditional sense), and there is already a shift there of a kind, so I guess it's inevitable that there will be friction, but when there is a connection, a loop of ideas, hey, that's terrific. I know I make mistakes, I mis-read situations and people, that's just an error in communication on one side or both or in the space in between. Believe me, I get really mad at myself and depressed when it happens as I like things to be perfect in life, but if an article generates dialogue, then sometimes that is cool in itself. I figure that in life you are always learning. People - artists, writers and readers - have different expectations of an interview/article/book, too. Maybe some people would value Eshun's book as he is taking the music seriously; some artists like the idea that their work is being intellectualised, others don't. He's trying to be creative in his approach - is that such a bad thing? I agree Reynolds is disrespectful of Detroit, I took an instant dislike to his tone, and I don't like the way he is diminishing the legacy of the city's innovators or dismissing their values and beliefs. Essentially, he fails to empathise. In an interview it can actually be very hard to get people - especially in this music, techno - to really open up about themselves due to the mistrust that exists there. Obviously, techno is not simply a form of 'pop' and those artists don't want to be exploited as such. Techno is deep whichever way you look at it; many of the people behind it and their motivations and beliefs and understanding of it are very complex. The culture of the populist British media has created a lot of problems; it's alienated artists. However, the media culture varies according to the country. The Australian media is quite different from the UK; there is occasionally an 'amateur' element, which can mean that the writers are more sincere, refreshing and untainted or, on the other hand, more naive. I think also that there is always this 'space' between the parties. Most artists - say 80% - I interview never ask my name, even, so it is an impersonal, clinical, business-like exchange from the outset. You can interview an artist a second time and they don't remember you, even after a long conversation on the first occasion. I am not saying this for egotistical reasons, it's just that how can you communicate if you don't even know the name of who you are talking to and where they are coming from? Some journalists let the whole profession down. But artists (and I'm speaking generally here) occasionally have unpure/misguided agendas too when it comes to interviews. That's humanity. Maybe they want to diss a colleague they have fallen out with. I have had this happen, it took me a while to understand the dynamics of these situations, but now I will refuse to print those comments. I won't play a game of divide and conquer. Then again, an artist may want to direct their anger at or expose a label that has ripped them off, which can be legitimate as it gets the word out and may help other artists. Someone like Puff Daddy views his interviews in purely economic terms; he will open up more to Vibe or Rolling Stone than an Australian journalist as those US magazines are very powerful. He will use his potential 'revelations' to land him a cover - which is all part of the promo campaign. So the way around that is not to ask the obvious questions that maybe you are expected to, but to try and circumvent the situation. People talk of music journalists as if they were cloned, not every DJ/artist is the same, nor is every journalist the same; we come from different backgrounds and have different values and motivations. Some people do it for the right reasons (they love music); some for the wrong (the perceive it all as glamour or it's about their ego). Some people just don't get the music, others do. There is no money in this, for freelancers no superannuation or pension money, no benefits if you get sick or hurt yourself, maybe the odd free ticket or record, but that's it. It's a lifestyle, not a nine to five and not a hobby, you work hard every day, birthdays and Christmas, there's a lot of caffeine consumption and sleep deprivation involved and getting money out of people for your work can be a nightmare; you have to be your own agent. And we are not talking big biccies here - street press in Australia pay as little as A$15 an article of 800 - 1000 words. But even then sometimes I will willingly waive my fee if it means that I am giving coverage to someone I really respect or if I am given the opportunity to cover a topic I really want to with free reign. To make a basic income out of this, you have to take on heaps of work and maybe some things you are not entirely into, but that's cool. Personally, my main worry is maintaining quality control (I ideally like to double check all my facts and things like that) and that I just don't have time to produce definitive pieces of writing. The point is this: what you guys may perceive as a 'lazy' article may arise out of these circumstances. Or out of sheer fatigue. If I have just two hours to write a piece, and I have had no sleep, I will sometimes take a different angle or not write in the same depth as I would if I had a day or two, because I will be worried that I haven't had time to reflect on it and my argument or point won't be expressed clearly. You want things to be coherent, first and foremost. Then again you may be asked to write for a 'mainstream' audience, which can mean explaining what 'house' is; what 'techno' is; etc, so the final piece may read as trivial. Usually, I make as much time as I can for the articles that involve more complex artists and leave the poppier, more fluffy ones 'til last. (A readership for a boy group has different expectations than a techno artist's audience and the former is much easier to write for.) Sometimes you hand in an article and it is edited or is given a wack title (writers rarely do the headings) - those things are damn annoying but beyond your control. Actually, the experience of music journalists is not so different to that of an artist dealing with a label. With reviews, these actually involve a more concentrated, focussed style of writing and take quite a bit of time. As with the DJ selection process, I prefer to focus on the best albums that I hear. I like to live with an album for a week or at least play it through a few times. I used to write the tracks down on a piece on paper and as I listened through write down the first few ideas that came into my head; but over time I do it all in my head. I think ideally you should include a little background info on the artist (who he is/who they are, where they are from, previous releases, etc). Then you may use certain reference points to describe the music (comparison to something else or a style, such as 'tech-house'), but these can be fluid and need not be definitive. You may invent a term to be creative, or just to capture the vibe of what it is - like, say, 'future soul' to describe Missy Elliott. If you use adjectives, it's an attempt to describe the essence of the music and also make it entertaining to read. It's great when an album just doesn't fit into a conventional slot, it forces you to work harder to describe the music and grapple with it (eg Innerzone Orchestra). But, you know, the best thing in the world is to get good feedback on something from an artist or readers. Basically I really hate the idea that the relationship between artist and 'journalist' and reader and 'journalist has become so antagonistic. The good thing is that the technology - the Internet - is changing these dynamics. Theoretically anybody can review something and be read (this list) and an artist can communicate directly with his or her audience (Axis Records site) and a journalist can start a magazine of his or her own without the pressures of advertisers and the whole series of exchanges become more fluid and interactive. Cyclone
