Low Fidelity writing
(note: I've already posted a screencap of the movie "High Fidelity" on another post, so I'm not going to beat that concept to death, k?)
I noticed while reading a Gothamist article today that I was just terribly annoyed by everything that they write about music. Most of the articles make me feel like I know nothing about music - and I like music a lot. Coolfer's picks are good, but that's even annoying because I'm so busy often, and I can't justify taking the time or the expense to go out to see a band based on a two sentence description...
But then I sort of realized; I always hated music journalism. Always.
I used to have a subscription to Rolling Stone when I was a teenager. I read it religiously. I would still read it today if someone else were buying the subscription. However, I was always irked by the pretentious overtones of a good half of their recommendations; Radiohead was always accessible, but PJ Harvey? Back then, there were no MP3's, no iPods, and no ClearChannel mega-conglomerates. If you didn't DIG for something in a record store, and if it wasn't on the radio, then you simply never heard it.
Good music has now mostly disappeared from the airwaves, yet it remains in the hearts and minds of music journalists. Now, the problem is that ALL of the good music is inaccessible. Fewer good artists now have pressure to write hit singles because they wouldn't get played anyway. Concert tours are a joke. Hyped bands border on ludicrous. Yet journalists keep yapping on, using ever more colorful language to praise what they think are good bands. You can't hear any of them, but you can marvel at the language being used.
I don't think a music article is useful unless you can hear (at least a sample of) the music. Actually, I don't think any recent music articles are useful at all. Rolling Stone and Spin are good for doing celebrity profiles of hit bands. But they're increasingly poor at getting good music in the hands of hungry ears. No one, it seems, can effectively communicate what they heard while telling people what they love about it. And these are not the days of $5 concert tickets - it's very expensive and troublesome to see live performances. Hence someone like Coolfer spouting out 20 recommended shows a week compels me to do nothing except tune out. My eyes glaze over.
(Besides, in NYC, you CANNOT make impulsive decisions about live entertainment - everything needs a reservation, a set of frenzied phone calls to grab tickets at 9am on a Saturday before they sell out, an investment of $70 per person, and a wait outside the door for 5 hours before the venue opens)
It takes more than words on a page, otherwise they're doing the music an injustice.
Music reviews need to come with sound clips. And the mags should settle for the fact that they're a mouthpiece for liberals and a magnet for teenyboppers. 10 years later, I still don't know what's so fuckin great about PJ Harvey.
(I'm sure she's quite talented, though)
I noticed while reading a Gothamist article today that I was just terribly annoyed by everything that they write about music. Most of the articles make me feel like I know nothing about music - and I like music a lot. Coolfer's picks are good, but that's even annoying because I'm so busy often, and I can't justify taking the time or the expense to go out to see a band based on a two sentence description...
But then I sort of realized; I always hated music journalism. Always.
I used to have a subscription to Rolling Stone when I was a teenager. I read it religiously. I would still read it today if someone else were buying the subscription. However, I was always irked by the pretentious overtones of a good half of their recommendations; Radiohead was always accessible, but PJ Harvey? Back then, there were no MP3's, no iPods, and no ClearChannel mega-conglomerates. If you didn't DIG for something in a record store, and if it wasn't on the radio, then you simply never heard it.
Good music has now mostly disappeared from the airwaves, yet it remains in the hearts and minds of music journalists. Now, the problem is that ALL of the good music is inaccessible. Fewer good artists now have pressure to write hit singles because they wouldn't get played anyway. Concert tours are a joke. Hyped bands border on ludicrous. Yet journalists keep yapping on, using ever more colorful language to praise what they think are good bands. You can't hear any of them, but you can marvel at the language being used.
I don't think a music article is useful unless you can hear (at least a sample of) the music. Actually, I don't think any recent music articles are useful at all. Rolling Stone and Spin are good for doing celebrity profiles of hit bands. But they're increasingly poor at getting good music in the hands of hungry ears. No one, it seems, can effectively communicate what they heard while telling people what they love about it. And these are not the days of $5 concert tickets - it's very expensive and troublesome to see live performances. Hence someone like Coolfer spouting out 20 recommended shows a week compels me to do nothing except tune out. My eyes glaze over.
(Besides, in NYC, you CANNOT make impulsive decisions about live entertainment - everything needs a reservation, a set of frenzied phone calls to grab tickets at 9am on a Saturday before they sell out, an investment of $70 per person, and a wait outside the door for 5 hours before the venue opens)
It takes more than words on a page, otherwise they're doing the music an injustice.
Music reviews need to come with sound clips. And the mags should settle for the fact that they're a mouthpiece for liberals and a magnet for teenyboppers. 10 years later, I still don't know what's so fuckin great about PJ Harvey.
(I'm sure she's quite talented, though)
posted by Brian Van at
10:07 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home