Rock n Roll Press

[shitidiot]

Just wanted to get peoples opinion/feelings on music press. personally I'm not a big fan. music is to personal to me, i find most articles narrow-minded & overly opinionated with lack of any actual musical knowledge. i find the press to quick to praise or ridicule acts with out truly knowing what the act is about. worst of all is the main stream press, rolling stone is a joke, blender is bull shit, NOW is crap and even vice is fallen to sell out hype bullshit.

(this i not meant as personal shot at any one)

Edited October 20, 2006 by Guest

[zero]

I'll agree with most of the latter half of what you've said (Stone, Blender, Vice being shit). Hell I'm no one to defend the mainstream press but I can't really go where you're going. It's all fine and good to load a band in and out of a venue, promote a show, album or tour but a crucial part of that marketing mix is the articles. The artists are just as guilty as the journalists for what makes article's suck. They get asked dumb questions and they recycle their same old dumb answers. They're so used to being asked similar questions that they don't try and do anything with what they're given. That and hell I could say so much here- the majority of groups that get any coverage really don't deserve it. Their publicists or record companies have basically bought it as a quid pro quo for running an ad. It's not the music business it's the little plastic disc business.

I'm really trying to do something totally unique and intensely well documented lately- I'm having some success. It's labour intensive, akin to the work of a craftsman, doesn't pay typically, requires an intense locus of self control, self motivation and assurance. You're probably still going to get shit on or not recognized for being an artist yourself. Basically the same sort of thankless hack attitude you're evincing idiot.

[Esau.]

music is to personal to me

Same. I can't think of any article I've ever read that made me want to go to a show based on what was written. I usually try to find some mp3s to check out & if possible a live recording, thats what usually gets me out to a show.

And I agree with the Rolling Stone comment, its pretty much the MTV of print to me, when somthing gets a poor review it seems I like the stuff & what they priase I usually don't like.

[AD]

I usually like Rolling Stone's feature articles, be they about music, politics, etc.. But their review and gossip doesn't do anything for me.

It's a shame too, whenever I hear David Fricke or other senior writers quoted elsewhere (or for instance in the Wilco movie) they seem intelligent, 'with it', cool people. But the stuff that they stand by in the magazine is just shite most of the time.

Music blogs are the way to go now. There are so many good blogs I read daily, I've heard so much good music, heard so many different opinions rather than cut and dry 'fact' in print... Blogs are really something. Of course there are plenty of shit ones, but at least the person can get their opinion out there and spark some debate or showcase a band that wouldn't see the light of day otherwise.

edit.

an example from today's post on Chromewaves.net, what I'd consider an excellent 'local' (toronto-based) music blog.

It's been over two years since Toronto last had its ass kicked by The Drive-By Truckers and by god, that's way too long. If you ever need to have your faith in the power and the glory of rock and roll, just hit a Truckers show and be healed.

Since their last visit in September '04, they've upgraded digs from the cozy Horseshoe to the spacious Phoenix - an excellent choice if for no other reason than the club has those big-ass floor PA speakers on either side of the stage that can double quite excellently as guitar soloing platforms, if the performer is so inclined. And Mssrs Cooley, Hood and Isbell took full advantage, stepping up and into the crowd for their leads as they tore off numbers from their latest record A Blessing And A Curse. The set began front-loaded with more recent material but as the night went on and the band got looser (and more lubricated), they went reaching further into their catalog, going as far back as Pizza Deliverance, if not farther - there were a few songs in the set list that I couldn't place. The Southern Rock Opera numbers, in particular, were simply scorching.

Whereas last time there was a fair bit of monologuing from Patterson Hood, both because of the Southern mythology inherent to The Dirty South and the then-impending US election (this photo is all you need to know about the Truckers' politics), this time they were intent on cramming as much music into their two-and-a-half-hour set as possible. The show was a non-stop Rocktoberfest celebration with pauses only long enough to pass around the Jack Daniels. It truly boggles my mind that they give so much for so long every night - if you walk out of a Truckers show without a grin on your face and an air guitar in your hand, then by gum there's something wrong with you. And yeah, at one point I was singing backups (with about a dozen others up front) on "Let There Be Rock" - when Patterson Hood sticks a mic in your face, you bloody well sing.

Tourmates and labelmates The Drams, risen from the ashes of Denton, Texas' Slobberbone, set the tone for the evening with their opening set of raw, alcohol-soaked but intensely hooky roots rock. Showcasing material from their debut Jubilee Dive (as well as a cowpunk version of Chris Bell's "I Am The Cosmos"), they rocked and sweat hard and might well have stolen the show if they were playing with anyone else... but no one steals a show from the Truckers. No one.

Just as they split songwriting duties evenly, so also do the Truckers divvy up press duties - Jason Isbell talks to The St Louis Riverfront Times, Mike Cooley to the Cleveland Free Times and Patterson Hood has a quick word with The Lousiville Eccentric Observer.

plenty of other good ones out there. one of many ottawa based blogs is Dial 613 , mostly a show-listing service, but there are samples and some opinion in there too.

Edited October 20, 2006 by Guest

[MarcO]

Rolling Stone is excellent for current affairs coverage. The entertainment side of things, not so much.

I think music journalism is an artform in and of itself, albeit a much abused and maligned one.

I'll never, ever tire of people ragging on their local music journalist for panning a show or a cd they love. It's as predictable as the turn of the seasons, and possibly more entertaining. "Let's write him a letter pointing out the single factual error that slipped through - that hack!" Oh, let's not.

A review is a review is a review. An article is something else. So often, music press just reads like an extension of a bands PR office, unfortunately. The bands have product to sell and the press have issues to sell. I scratch your back, you scratch mine, unfortunately.

Only the independent-minded writer can have any respectability at all, and as Luke has pointed out, that can be a lonely road to travel, with not much material gain.

[Jaimoe]

I've been given some excellent advice from critics in magazines and books, in particular All Music Guide, Guitar Player and Guitar World. I find the reviews in All Music Guide to be generally bang-on and the cross referencing invaluable, especially in the genres I don't know intimately. I'd never know the genius of Luna or Galaxie 500 if it weren't for All Music Guide's amazing cross-referencing tools and useful reviews.

Using Guitar Player as an example, a number of years ago the mag ranked Television's Marquee Moon as the #1 guitar album of 1977. I read the review and it convinced me to buy the album (five or six years ago). I've since never looked at guitar based rock and guitar playing the same. That magazine also gave me a heads-up on The North Mississippi Allstars a month before their first and only good album Shake Hands With Shorty was released.

If you look outside the rock box, there's some damn fine writers out there. Even that fucking pompous Toronto Star dweeb Ben Rayner is a good writer, even when he's not trashing hippies or romanticizing the glory years of the abhorrent shoegazer sub-culture of the late 80's.

[MarcO]

rock journalism was an invaluable tool for me, growing up and trying to find my way through the rock and roll maze.

[shitidiot]

I've also been given some excellent advice from critics in magazines and books but it usually in retrospect like Jamieo said about Televisions Marquee Moon album. I guess my beef is more to do with reviews then actual articles.

I'm with you zero that its an art form and equality as important as any advertising/marketing a band can do. now is it as important as the music i would have to disagree. the music is #1 and everything is second to that. you could write the best article ever but if the band sucks nobody gonna read it.

Edited October 20, 2006 by Guest

[shitidiot]

what record companies do to get around the law of paying press is they higher independent promoter to go and pay the press. these independent promoter are the same ones that pay radio station manager to put records on the radio. this i how a record can debut at #1

all the same questions get asked because the lame reviewer has not do any homework and is only going on what he was given in the band press docket.

Edited October 20, 2006 by Guest

[Jaimoe]

You gotta take all music reviews in context too. We as music fans can immediately find samples of an artist, thus a reviewer's merits can be judged rather quickly.

[lara]

Wow, wish I had more time to respond right now... but Dave just got home from Guelph so its not the time.

So my question and I'll return later.

Who are your favourite rock writers?

[hamilton]

music is to personal to me

I guess my beef is more to do with reviews then actual articles.

Doesn't it follow then, that the experience of the reviewer has been a personal one as well? That he/she didn't like the show/CD/song/artist because of reasons a, b, c or d? And that those reasons might be the exact same ones that made you like the show?

Sure, every reviewer has his or her own prejudices. Ben Rayner probably knows that he isn't going to like the Phish show before he even gets to the gate. But don't most of us do the exact same thing, only with other forms of music? Ewwww, a new Justin Timberlake CD - that's gotta suck! Or deciding that we aren't going to like a band just because [insert name of independent rock magazine/newspaper here] says that this artist is pretty hot shit?

[shitidiot]

Doesn't it follow then, that the experience of the reviewer has been a personal one as well? That he/she didn't like the show/CD/song/artist because of reasons a, b, c or d? And that those reasons might be the exact same ones that made you like the show?

i find the lack of any actual musical knowledge my main beef. yes the review is the critics personal opinion, but if your going to write about music then it would help if you know something about it. and yes some critics are great and i love them but i find most to be full of bullshit talking more about the clothing and atmosphere then the notes or content of the band. this is oh so apparent when an outside the jamband scene writer reviews about the jamband scene. first thing to be said 99% of the time "hippies dancing like there balls are on fire." now some people might like reviews like that but not me. i want to read about how the drop d tuning in said song made it sound dark and heavy.

and i like Justin Timberlake. i like to think of music like Duke Ellington "there's only 2 kinds of music good and bad" and with that in mind i try not to prejudge any music.

Edited October 21, 2006 by Guest

[lara]

shitidiot I think you have some good points.

When I include notes about the crowd, vibe, clothing (which I do) its to frame my notes on the music. So if you weighed it all in, those notes would always be less than 1/4 of the pieces. They 1. give the reader a sense of the atmosphere and 2. demonstrate the effect of the band's music thru the kind of people that enjoy it, the kind of mood that is created etc.

If one wrote about how drop d turning in said song made it sound dark and heavy etc etc without framing the info with interesting details on time/place/vibe it would read like hard news! No one wants to read that.

For instance in my latest piece on Controller.controller I talked about all that stuff and balanced it against less than stellar music to demonstrate that liking Controller.Controller was not about the music, but more about C.C being the latest hip college band (which was said with a touch more tact).

My point is - there is a place for clothes/people/dancing comments, but simply as a frame. Obviously there needs to be substancial music related info TO frame.

[Jaimoe]

Unless the crowd at a concert gets your attention, like a perceived common vibe, look or theme that permeates throughout the venue, I don't find it necessary to mention a crowd other than by tallying a head-count; i.e., "the place was packed" or "the club was surprisingly empty given the band's pedigree" etc...

[Esau.]

Personally, I have no interest in reading about what people (band or aud.) were wearing, how the vibe was at said venue and whether there was or was not dancing. Doesn't matter if the atmosphere was sullen, unfriendly, happy, rowdy etc. That to me talks more about the club & perhaps the fans then the music & really, the music is the only thing that interests me.

But thats me, I realize if I don't like the venue I can usually catch the band somewhere else next time. Also, I have no problems hitting a complete dive with a room full of non-responsive people in attendence, if the music was good, I leave satisfied.

[Jaimoe]

When I was at The MC5 reunion tour last year at The Phoenix, I found the people at the front of the stage antagonistic, constantly egging on guest frontman Evan Dando. Fights almost ensued between the Lemonheads singer, crowd and the remaining members of The MC5. Dando deserved the abuse, but I felt sorry for him because it's obvious that he is not well.

[Jaimoe]

What I'm saying is that sometimes I like reading about the vibe/size of a crowd because it creates a visual for the reader.

[shitidiot]

now if the lead singer gets into a fight with the crowd because he is not clicking with there vibe well that's worth writing about, but if you write about the vibe of the club, the fashion style of the band/fans, the dancing i feel its more a review of the critics night out and i could care less about that.

i totally agree with easu I'll go see a band i like anywhere and i'll appreciate it and leave. example: Mel brown every wednesday at some shit hole blues bar in Guelph, we went and loved it not because the vibe, fashion sense of the patrons but because the music was kick ass. now would you give Mel brown poor review because he plays nasty dive? of course not hes a living legend, so why would it make a difference for any musical act.

[Jaimoe]

now would you give Mel brown poor review because he plays nasty dive? of course not hes a living legend, so why would it make a difference for any musical act.

I don't really get that. I've seen a lot of great and bad bands in dives. Just go to Grossman's on Spadina Ave if you want to see a good band in a dive. Same with The Comfort Zone. The Kool Haus and Guvernment in Toronto, not to mention at times The Opera House, have been known to suck the life out of many bands and their audiences (see Galactic) - it has a lot to do with the venue's acoustics, size and set-up.

[zero]

Who are your favourite rock writers?

Chuck Baudelaire.

Seriously though I thought about that question for a second and not one comes to mind. You know who did come to mind? Knut Hamsun.

Hamsun made his breakthrough in 1890 with SULT (The Hunger), a story about a young writer on his own, unable to find work, starving and homeless in Christiania. Although his clothing, prospects, and health fail, he guards his dignity (often comically) and pencil stubs. The narrator wanders through the streets of the city - "that strange city no one escapes from until it has left its mark on him..." Eventually his high-minded articles - now and then purchased by newspapers - become incomprehensible even to his own fevered thoughts. There is nothing sentimental in his fasting - it is his own more or less nihilistic choice. He sells articles to the local paper, and meets a young woman, who is frightened of his impetuosity. '"Well, I never!" I blurted out. "Just you wait and see!" And I flung my arms lustily around her shoulders. Was the girl out of her mind? Did she take me for a complete greenhorn? Haw-haw, wouldn't I, though, by the living... None should say about me that I was backward on that score. What a little devil! If it was juts a matter of pushing on, then..." Losing his hair in clumps and unable to keep down his hard-won meals, the narrator finally gets a job as a deckhand on a Russian ship bound for England. "He fasts. But not in the way a Christian would fast," wrote Paul Auster in his introduction to Hunger. "He is not denying earthly life in anticipation of heavenly life; he is simply refusing to live the life he has been given." The Hunger expressed similar modernist tendencies as Edvard Munch's famous painting The Cry (1893), which did not derive from nature but from introspection, rejecting the notion of objective reality. As a type the young writer can be seen a predecessor to Charles Chaplin's famous screen character, the invincible vagabond.

Obviously Knut didn't write about rock and roll (his appeal to me is equally obvious - I am literally starving for my art these days). He comes to mind because I'm reading (and living) Hunger these days. David Foster Wallace immediately comes to mind because I'm reading Infinite Jest too - his essays and articles are probably the closest to what I'd like to accomplish. But seriously, well I was being serious, Baudelaire (for poets add Rimbaud, Yves Bonnefoy, Czeslaw Milocz, William Carlos Williams), add a whack of film makers, actors, definitely painters no one specific off the top. I guess it's the Zappa trip of writing about music is like dancing to architecture. I try to write about music with an architectural vocabulary.