[Diatribe] The State Of Music Journalism & The Fallacy Of The Cost Of Free

Who is this “Davey Minor” kid anyway?

My previous diatribe, a response to Paste Magazine’s demise, elicited many different reactions and started a bit of a conversation on music journalism, so I thought I would follow it up with something more in-depth on the topic. I only had about an hour to put that piece together at the time, so I want to expound and better explain my points, as well as communicate how I feel about music journalism on the whole. Since Creative Loafing bestowed one of their rare non-advertising print spots to rebut my piece, I’ll start off addressing that first and go from there. My number one fan at CL, Chad Radford, declared that my “arguments are deeply flawed”, but I’d say at worst they lacked clarity. Let me break it down for you.

So of course what has gotten all of the grampas up in arms is my purposefully cavalier and prodding statement, “Old people shouldn’t be in charge of covering music for kids.” What I was getting at was more about mindset than physical age, but I do believe that getting older is a significant handicap in understanding current music trends. Most people tend to solidify around an aesthetic at about college age and the musical styles they enjoy becomes part of that person’s identity. They develop a sense of what they believe to be good and bad music, and after a certain point that doesn’t fundamentally change very often. But the history of music is in a constant flux. Some style comes along, gains popularity, and then another style is birthed as a reaction and repudiation of the current fashion. It’s a never-ending oscillation between trend and counter-trend. The problem is that once someone identifies their personality with a particular trend, it’s difficult for that person to overcome their bias. Abstractly, the way that it usually manifests itself is in a belief that older music is better, which I would argue is virtually never objectively true, and anyone who claims as such is a victim to their own subjective preferences. People, and especially music journalists, tend to believe that the music they enjoy is better than what everyone else listens to, and it’s difficult for anyone to see things outside of that lens.

That’s not to say that it is impossible to overcome this limitation. I did state that there are exceptions, and Radford’s response to my piece name drops a few that I actually had in mind when I myself stated there are exceptions. But in terms of understanding what’s happening right now, even those particular journalists hardly grip the musical climate as well as the prominent new media folks. Let’s take Jim DeRogatis for example. I like him and I read him on occasion because he has an interesting perspective, but when it comes to assessing new music, he is as out of touch as any other print journalist. For example, here’s Hipster Runoff lambasting DeRogatis for being a “bitter, old music critic.” I get such a kick out of how much Animal Collective mystifies and enrages old-school journalists. But to the point here, I would be surprised if more than a tiny sliver of DeRogatis’ audience is young kids looking for new music suggestions. So his audience is old, which is fine, and totally compatible with my statement. I didn’t say that old people shouldn’t be covering music, they just shouldn’t be in charge of targeting and connecting with a young audience when a business is at stake because it’s more difficult for them to do so. With regards to Paste, if you don’t think they were attempting to target younger readers, go read their press kit.

The correlation between growing old and being out of touch is probably bolstered by biology and how the human brain develops over time, but I would postulate that it is mostly psychological. As fun as it is to joke around about old people, the central idea I’m trying convey isn’t really about age, it’s about hubris.

Print-era music journalists are their own worst enemy.

One of the starkest differences between bloggers and people who claim to be music journalists is in terms of tone. Journalists smother every word they write with a sense of authority. They act as though they own a monopoly on knowledge. They painstakingly assemble their own resumes inside reviews to justify their declarations. They are eager to explain to us just how important they are. They’re the experts, they know best, and we would all be lost without them.

Once bloggers came on the scene and began competing against established journalists, most journalists didn’t take bloggers seriously. Journalists believed there was some intrinsic value to what they did that separated them from the amateurs. Then once new media started kicking their asses, instead of simply working harder and doing better work, journalists started concentrating on communicating how much better they were. They looked for excuses instead of looking to improve. They wanted to ride their previous achievements rather than compete on a level playing field.

A great example of a journalist in denial is Chunklet’s Henry Owings. About a year ago, he cried on the shoulder of the LA Times about the state of music journalism:

“My biggest gripe with online journos is their false sense of importance when they’re oftentimes just regurgitating press releases and tour dates. Of course, that mindless mentality is what many labels love. Me? I just find there to be a negligible amount of talent in what passes as a blogger in this modern age. What ever happened to attitude? What ever happened to opinions? What happened to pissing off advertisers? What happened to alienating readers? What happened to having fun? Sadly, I believe that the new boss is the same as the old boss. I just wish and pray somebody would be out there stirring things up instead of following the herd of mindless sheep. But then again, when you have publicists that just needle you all day to write about their clients, it makes a blogger’s job easy.”

This is hilarious to me because I could make that exact claim, word for word, about print journalism.

Now look, I can understand that it would suck to have a cushy job where you could just go through the motions and get paid to write about music, and then all of a sudden there are thousands of kids popping up giving you real competition. But that’s the situation you find yourself in, so instead of complaining, you should be demonstrating why you’re the professional and they’re not.

It’s not the cost of free, it’s the cost of not being the best at your job.

At another point in that LA Times piece above, Mr. Owings states the biggest fallacy in journalism right now, what every journalist falls back on when they get their asses handed to them:

“When presented with quality writing that costs money versus questionable writing that’s free, like most things, the masses go the path of least resistance.”

I’m so tired of professionals using this excuse. First of all, there was free content in journalism long before the Internet. Both Creative Loafing and Stomp And Stammer are free. There have been and still are plenty of free print sources. Secondly, it’s a false dichotomy. Print music journalism isn’t losing to questionable writing, it’s losing to superior writing. Of course when a ton of amateurs get access there is going to be a plethora of horrible content, but with such a large pool of people, there is also going to be much more talent rising to the top. It’s easy to go find a couple of examples of bloggers that suck, but those aren’t the bloggers that the masses are choosing. It isn’t Joe Shmoe’s little blog that gets 30 hits a month that is beating print, it’s Pitchfork. And that’s the biggest hole in this argument. If Pitchfork can make millions of dollars a year dispensing free content, you can’t blame your lack of success on the cost of free.

It’s all about quality and efficiency of content.

One thing that didn’t seem to get across in my Paste piece is I’m not speaking in absolutes. I didn’t mean all old people are uncool. There are plenty of hip oldsters, though rarely are they print music journalists. And I never declared print to be dead. The problem with print isn’t the medium, it’s the people running it. Print will survive in some form for a long time, but that doesn’t mean that hundreds of crappy magazines will survive. With other media options available, demand for print has inevitably decreased, and that demand is further hampered by the level of relevance in most print publications.

In his reaction to my Paste piece, Mr Radford attempts to reveal a paradox in my arguments by paralleling my praise for Pitchfork with me stating that “demand for long-winded, deep-digging album reviews” has diminished. But a lot of the reason that the demand has shrunk is because Pitchfork has cornered that market. Why do I need to read ten different five paragraph reviews for every album when one place does it better than everybody else? Look, I could write a novel on all of the things I don’t like about Pitchfork, but when it comes down to quality, there isn’t a single other music outlet of any sort of media that even comes close. That’s the reason they are rich and everyone else is losing business. And while Pitchfork’s long, flowery album reviews were what established them in the first place, that’s pretty much the only content area they haven’t expanded since coming into prominence. Maybe The Rad One didn’t catch on to the fact that Pitchfork’s latest endeavour is a website featuring the most succinct reviews possible. And honestly, I would love to see what fraction of people actually read all of Pitchfork’s reviews versus who just glances at the number scores and listens to the mp3s. If Pitchfork thought there was more market share to capture out there with “gratuitously in-depth record reviews,” which is their specialty, they would be expanding in that direction, but they’re not. Instead they are putting their efforts in capturing competent and relevant voices, because that’s where the only unmet demand exists.

Mr. Radford’s final stab at my arguments embodies the hubris I mentioned earlier:

“He then adds that “aggregators and torrent site’s top lists do a better job of efficiently communicating the best new music then [sic] 99% of music journalists out there.” What he fails to understand is that just because something is popular does not mean that it’s good.”

Really? You actually think I fail to understand that? You believe I think Katy Perry is good? Wow, you really got me on the one. Way to call me out.

But see, this is the excuse journalists typically fall back on when they become out of touch: If people don’t agree with them, then those people are just stupid. Journalists know best, and they don’t feel they have to prove it in any sort of measurable way. Sure, being popular does not equal being good. But the two aren’t diametrically opposed either. In the past, journalists could get away with praising whatever random, obscure thing they wanted and readers didn’t have the resources to call their bluff, or many other alternatives. But now that there are so many media choices, and previewing records is easy for anyone, journalists can no longer hide behind their title. They have to stand purely on the merits of their words, and that’s where they are losing.

If you can’t attract an audience, maybe you aren’t really a professional.

Journalists get so wrapped up in their own self-importance that they forget their purpose is much more than to simply get a check for being so cool. They claim to be providing a service to the public. If you look at this whole situation from the point of view of the end user, things are better than ever in music journalism. No matter what your taste, you can find what you’re looking for easily. I mean, Pandora is more efficient at giving a random person music suggestions they will enjoy than anyone in the history of music journalism. Between technology advancements and the more relevant voices being featured almost exclusively online, people have discovered that they don’t really need print journalists to learn about music. These journos act like if they didn’t get paid to tell us about some shitty 7″ that only forty people in the whole world care about, the Earth would spin off its axis. If we get to a point where technology and a rotating cast of amateurs can more efficiently serve the public’s music information needs than journalists, is that necessarily a bad thing?

“But there’s still a demand for writing that offers cultural context rather than knee-jerk tantrums written in your “parent’s basement.” The bottom line is that while some music blogging passes as good journalism, blogging and journalism are rarely the same. And where the extinction of print is concerned, we’ve heard the same doom and gloom about analog recording, vinyl records, and even record stores over the last decade, but they’re all still here, so don’t hold your breath.”

What Chaddy Rad “fails to understand” is that a decrease in demand is not the same thing as an absence of demand. I guess economics was left out of his journalism curriculum. Yes, there will always be a place for musical historians. But with such a vast amount of information easily accessible to anyone, how many professional art historians do we really need? There are plenty of people who are out of touch that will enjoy another out of touch voice to echo their thoughts, but beyond that, there just isn’t that much need to explain what was good in music twenty or thirty years ago. It’s easy to go to the Internet and figure that out.

One of the biggest problems for print is that they can’t measure metrics the way digital media can. Creative Loafing can dump as much trash in the front of bars and claim whatever circulation numbers they want, but that doesn’t mean their reach per article is actually that large. Beyond big headlines bumping up circulation, print can’t easily discern which sections and pieces are generating readership, at least not as easily as digital formats. It makes them less nimble to adjust to changes, which is why they are trapped with all of these out of touch voices weighing them down. But even worse for print is this attitude among the journalists that metrics aren’t important. They have this sense of entitlement, yet find it both impossible and bothersome to justify that worth in any empirical sense. I’m sure once this attitude, as well as some of the inefficiencies, get purged from print, it will see a nice resurgence down the line by recruiting more relevant and efficient contributors. While I seriously doubt the demand for print will ever return to pre-Internet levels, some print will surely survive, the institutions that adapt better than the others. Creative Loafing has certainly made an effort to adapt, bringing in fresher voices in recent time who may obviously be lacking in overall musical knowledge, but they at least demonstrate an effort to compete. I mean Spencer Sloan’s “Tracklist” series on Cribnotes is identical to the “Friday Free-Style” and “Monday Mash-Up” posts I used to do here back in ’07 and ’08. If Creative Loafing’s music department is ultimately successful in the end, it’s because they adapted, thus proving that journalism’s fate is in its own hands.

Free content is a viable business model, but sympathy for sucking isn’t.

While I do enjoy being playfully antagonistic, my intention here is not just to bash old people, print, and journalism. I didn’t invent the Internet or blogging, and I wasn’t even on the forefront of those things. I didn’t make people grow out of touch as they grow old. I’m only the messenger. I’m trying to help journalists get their heads out of their asses. I wish we could all sit around and talk about music and get mad paid and never grow old, but that’s not reality. I’m doing you journalists a favour and attempting to wake you up from this slow suicide of mediocrity where you blame your ineptitude on everything outside of yourself. Because I’m not really your competition. To me, no matter what cultural context you put it in, music journalism has always been more about cronyism, corruption, and vanity then anything else. So I have no interest in being identified as a music journalist. As a writer, I couldn’t think of anything more horrifyingly boring than having to write record reviews for the rest of my life. Sooner or later I’ll lose interest in this blog, but someone else will come along to replace me. I’m sure this massive wave of bloggers will eventually recede, but access to an audience will never be as restricted as it once was. So from now on, you’ll have to prove your worth in some sort of measurable way to be successful. And if not, you’ll go the way of Paste.

Be Sociable, Share!

Be Sociable, Share!

29 Responses to “[Diatribe] The State Of Music Journalism & The Fallacy Of The Cost Of Free”
  1. Stafford Says: September 13th, 2010 at 8:04 am

    I don’t know why you wasted so many words responding to creative loafing. They are a bigger joke than Paste.

  2. Taylor Says: September 13th, 2010 at 10:57 am

    That’s a lot of heavy content man, but you made some good points. Music journalism has turned into a system that upholds cronyism, but that’s politics as usual.

    Check out a guy from the UK named Simon Reynolds. He doesn’t print much, but he’s got some profound things to say and stays on the cusp of new music.

  3. you got an f in media Says: September 13th, 2010 at 11:06 am

    i wish i could take you seriously but you pretty much make the same pitfalls you accuse the freebies of doing… you somehow think you’ve got this platform only because you can pay the $90 bucks a year it costs to keep your blog running, and get 30-60 people to visit it every week and can play the guitar…

    you’re part of the ecosystem dude, but you don’t realize that as such, you’ve got a responsibilities to your audience… that’s part of being a good journalist, not some asshole with a digital bullhorn…


  4. You got an F in structuring sentences. Says: September 13th, 2010 at 1:32 pm

    “you somehow think you’ve got this platform only because you can pay the $90 bucks a year it costs to keep your blog running”

    You’re right. The nerve of that asshole Davy paying the 90 bucks a year for this platform he thinks he somehow owns. What a prick to say what he thinks about the current state of music journalism on a website that he owns and operates.

  5. elvis Says: September 13th, 2010 at 3:50 pm

    Good analysis

    Music critics (regardless of medium )are essentially the same as food critics…I just wish the I could somehow get the same kind of free samples from these damned food critics.

    I think the two are not always used by the reader for doing the same things. I might have other things I want to read in a mag. or perhaps I just simply enjoy the aesthetic feel of a magazine. I agree that will always exist. A music blog is often a tool for the reader- the “quick and dirty” for people who don’t have time to weed through the trash garden of stuff just to find a gem or two.

  6. Mojo Says: September 13th, 2010 at 3:52 pm

    This is great! Paste spread itself so thin writing about stuff they obviously had no clue about, and I keep hoping that Creative Loafing will step up, but they seem to be getting worse by the day.

  7. Ana McLendon Says: September 13th, 2010 at 4:38 pm

    That’s good journalism, huh? They started by spelling your name wrong. :)

  8. sara Says: September 13th, 2010 at 5:23 pm

    I’m so glad you clarified the age thing. It is so true, the older we get the more set in our ways we become. Plus everyone wants to think their generation to be the most revolutionary. It’s harder than we want to admit to be able to constantly seek out content with a fresh, non-jaded lens.

    Another extremely good point you make is the measuring of metrics when it comes to digital media. This is something print will always have to go above and beyond at to be able to compete with.

    I thoroughly enjoyed reading both these pieces and would love to see more more more!

  9. Fleurdumal Says: September 13th, 2010 at 6:02 pm

    Creative Loafing does indeed suck, but Chad Radford is one of the few good things about it. He doesn’t have his head up his ass about music journalism, for one. He just writes about good music, trends be damned.

    I like Ohmpark but in no way am I besotted with your publication, and the arrogance you betray in your article is inane. You are doing exactly what you accuse other music journalists of doing.

    Just stick to the music, what doncha.

  10. Fleurdumal Says: September 13th, 2010 at 6:03 pm

    “why doncha” works, too.

  11. Allison Says: September 13th, 2010 at 7:20 pm

    I’m enjoying this. A lot of great points in Minor’s OP-OP-ed I cannot begin to name them all, but here is one –

    ‘The problem with print isn’t the medium, it’s the people running it. Print will survive in some form for a long time, but that doesn’t mean that hundreds of crappy magazines will survive. With other media options available, demand for print has inevitably decreased, and that demand is further hampered by the level of relevance in most print publications. … So from now on, you’ll have to prove your worth in some sort of measurable way to be successful. And if not, you’ll go the way of Paste. ‘

    Minor’s argument predicts why CL’s Radford’s potential response or lack thereof

    ‘Creative Loafing can dump as much trash in the front of bars and claim whatever circulation numbers they want, but that doesn’t mean their reach per article is actually that large. Beyond big headlines bumping up circulation, print can’t easily discern which sections and pieces are generating readership, at least not as easily as digital formats. It makes them less nimble to adjust to changes… ‘

    really, there is nothing else Radford can say to Minor’s response. TKO!

  12. john Says: September 14th, 2010 at 2:42 am

    I thoroughly enjoyed both of your posts Davy I think your absolutely right on this. The fate of those dinosaurs is sealed and they are freaking the fuck out cause they know it.

  13. rb Says: September 14th, 2010 at 8:26 am

    i find it interesting that you wrote this spiel about how the dinosaurs lack quality based on the death of a magazine that was widely regarded as very good and nominated for national magazine awards. your argument seems to be summed up to “quit your bitching and get better,” but there’s more to it than the market simply killing off the weak.

  14. Adam Bruneau Says: September 14th, 2010 at 8:36 am

    This whole thing is basically a reflection, or shadow, of what is happening to the music industry as a whole, with regards to the growing pains brought on by 21st century media. The reviewing of music is being radically democratized in the same manner as the recording and publishing of music.

    No matter what anyone thinks, you can’t stop the future.

  15. Adam Keen Says: September 14th, 2010 at 9:33 am

    I agree with many of your points as well. I would say that in the beginning you are not describing a journalist but rather a music snob…someone who sticks to their idea of music even as they get older and music has completely turned to something else. Those folks never had a chance of surviving but only retaining their peer audience. I do believe its possible to just be a lover of music in general and blog on it. I consider myself open to any and all styles of music and I can usually find something cool about someone in any genre that I can get into. I do truly believe that keeping an open mind on music is the only way to go.

    As to popular but not good. I completely agree but the problem is that music snobs don’t give enough respect to popular. They just tend to call it stupid and the people who like it stupid. You don’t have to like the music but you have to pay respect to anyone that can sell millions of records (Kate Perry).

    I think prints biggest problem is there slow ability to adapt…same thing with the “major” record companies. Everyone could have started their own Itunes or youtube like sites but they failed to put the money into it soon enough and we all know they had plenty of funds to dump into adapting…but they stuck to the ways of the dinosaurs. Any print magazine that hasn’t taken their business online to match the print they put out is just behind. They didn’t build up their online presence fast enough or large enough to stay current and now they are feeling the squeeze. Print can’t show you a video or an interview and kids don’t have the attention spans any longer to read long interviews. VIDEO.

    I could go on and on but maybe I’ll just join the conversation on beatlanta. Good piece; I would agree that at points your article does come off as arrogant and grandiose…much like the folks you are speaking against. But I can I dig it and agree on many points.

    Adam – beatlanta.com

  16. JB Says: September 15th, 2010 at 8:27 am

    I think you’re missing a big point here. The end to Paste’s print edition had nothing to do with the content of the magazine. Nothing. The key factor here was the slowing of print advertising, brought upon by the tightening of budgetary belts in reaction to the economic downturn and loss in popularity of the print medium as a whole. As an example, have you looked at Wired magazine lately They’re mere shells of their former selves in terms of page count, and I’d be hard pressed to find someone who thought Wired’s editorial content was severely flawed. The success/failure of an print medium only has to do with ad revenue, nothing else. Paste’s subscriber base was actually steadily increasing over time.

    I respect your opinion of Paste and you do make some solid points but the correlation between an out-of-touch staff and the ultimate demise of the print edition is simply false.

  17. AguaLinda Says: September 15th, 2010 at 5:35 pm

    Davy you are so right about Paste. Paste’s current music playlist includes the Robert Cray Band, the Indigo Girls, Alejandro Escovedo, and Jimmie Vaughn – not exactly cutting edge music. They are oblivious to trends in youth culture and therefore render themselves irrelevant. I don’t want to learn about the latest Wilco album, I want to learn about music that scares me. I want to read articles from music journalists who support artists who take risks and want to move culture forward not backward. In the past you heard about those artists from zines now you hear about them through blogs. If you hit a nerve with some folks its because they have been too busy curating their own egos to notice they have been left behind. Sad.

  18. Taylor Says: September 16th, 2010 at 10:57 am

    “You don’t have to like the music but you have to pay respect to anyone that can sell millions of records (Kate Perry). ”

    I’m sorry, but I have to pick at this. Adam, you made some great comments about print media and it’s alleged death. Now what are you talking about here? You don’t have to like the music, but you have to respect someone who can sell millions of records? That’s cool, but you used KATY PERRY as an example…Katy Perry selling a million records has very little to do with her talent. Katy Perry (along with several other bubblegum pop artists) is a part of a hype machine. That hype machine is fueled by a major record label that is shelling out thousands of dollars to promote her shit. And that’s not coming from a music snob perspective, that’s understanding the politics of the business. Cause this shit is a business right?

  19. Fleurdumal Says: September 16th, 2010 at 11:17 pm

    I find it sad that quality music like Wilco is dissed just because they don’t take “risks.” Who defines what a true risk is, anyway? I find it far more risky in today’s musical context to sound like Wilco than the next Black Lips, or whoever. I like all sorts of music, including the Black Lips, but I would never limit myself to only the trendy fad-bands. A lot of these bands that are covered in Ohmpark will not be “relevant” in five years. So who gives a shit what relevant is? Bring on the Wilcos, bring on the Deerhunters… but stop denigrating bands based on your perception of whether they are “hip” or not. Hip is lame; quality is enduring.

  20. Fleurdumal Says: September 16th, 2010 at 11:25 pm

    In fact, I find it laughable that someone would even think to type “oblivious to trends in youth culture.” Would that be the lame empty hipster trend where you drink PBR and decorate your entire physique with tattoos in an attempt to differentiate yourself from the crowd, when in fact you blend in anonymously because everyone else is slurping PBR and getting tatted up? Is that the trend that informs “cool” “hip” music? Is it okay to like Indigo Girls or does that render me unhip? Can I like Wilco AND the Balkans, or do I have to choose, and if I make the wrong choice, exile myself from music-loving?

    Again, it’s about quality, not trends.

  21. AguaLinda Says: September 17th, 2010 at 1:31 pm

    Listen to whatever you want fleurdumal. I just personally prefer music with an edge. A lot of people do. Great works of art, literatue, and music have never been safe.

  22. Fleurdumal Says: September 17th, 2010 at 6:05 pm

    Yes, I am aware of that. My point is different. I find denigrating bands who are not “edgy” and “trendy” really very provincial. There are tons of GREAT bands out there – plenty of great edgy bands, and plenty of great more straightforward ones. Many of these edgy bands covered here will NOT endure. They are flash-in-the-pan fads.

    Besides, WHO defines edgy? Back in the late 70s and early 80s, The Cure was considered edgy, then they became part of the mainstream, and no one considers them edgy anymore, even though their music was originally founded on that ethic.

    What is edgy today is straightforward tomorrow.

    Frankly, a lot of what is out there and covered on this site is not really that edgy, by my standards anyway. What do you consider edgy?

    I love edgy music… but I have yet to find a band that is as edgy as everyone thinks they are. They just drink their PBR and wear their trendy glasses and think they are being so edgy and listening to such edgy bands…

  23. Davy Minor Says: September 18th, 2010 at 2:30 am

    Stupid kids with their tattoos, and PBR, and edgy bands. They’re so out of touch.

  24. Fleurdumal Says: September 18th, 2010 at 9:10 am

    I am not saying that many of those bands are not good. I like a lot of the stuff covered here. I am saying that these bands are not half as edgy as they are perceived to be (a), and b), the tats and PBR are just trendy ways to fit in to what is perceived to be an edgy scene. It’s not edgy at all to have tats and sip on PBR.

  25. Fleurdumal Says: September 18th, 2010 at 12:26 pm

    In fact, PBR is the worst beer EVER. Why not drink cat urine instead? I like their artsy ads, though. :-)

  26. Davy Minor Says: September 18th, 2010 at 3:24 pm

    Cat urine is so 2008.

  27. Stickfigure Distribution Says: September 18th, 2010 at 4:31 pm

    In regards to the statement about print advertising declining being the cause of the death of Paste.

    While that is the reason, it is not because of the lack of money at record labels because of the poor economy that advertising in Paste declined, it is more because print advertising is NOT as effective as internet advertising AND print advertising is MORE expensive than internet advertising.

  28. Kristin DiOnne T. Says: October 4th, 2010 at 9:06 am

    I agree with Stickfigure on the semantics of the Paste downfall situation. I will say this however, many points in this article i totally applaud you on because you’ve hit the nail on the head for sure.

    Besides, people get off of Davy’s nuts.
    FACT: Publications get their music information of what’s new and hot from the BLOGOSPHERE
    FACT: Record Labels also determine who music journalists will cover.

    This being said, @fleurdumal how about freeing up webspace and time for new and emerging trends in music?

    How about covering trendy bands because 5 years later, the trendy bands will dominate the airwaves.
    How about covering trends because they are in direct correlation with the job of a music journalist which is to tell what’s going on, or what the masses may not already know about?

    How about that?

  29. Kristin DiOnne T. Says: October 4th, 2010 at 9:07 am



Post a comment.