I'm going to divert a little today from the normal "this is what I'm up to" post, because I was linked to the following article by a friend, and I'd love some outside perspective on this:
Spinning in the Grave
Weiner allows for the fact that music journalists do still carry some weight because there's just so much music to shift through, and he definitely seems to think music journalism can still be worth it. But he also makes good points as to why music journalism seems to be falling on really rough times. As this is my profession of choice, I wanna know - do you follow music journalism, and why? I skimmed through the two comments left on the article, and I'll be going back to those to try and pull in as many users' opinions as possible.
I'm trying to brainstorm now - what would be some improvements to make m.j. more appealing? Focus on the interviews/profiles, stay away from reviews? I still like to read a good review when I have time. I definitely think, for my generation, that time is a huge issue. Why read through a bunch of reviews, when (as Weiner points out) I can spend that time listening to the music myself, streaming from MySpace or in 30-second clips on iTunes? I love to read and watch interviews (when they are done well) of my favorite musicians, but time is still an issue there. I'm just more LIKELY to read an interview, I think. Granted, I do feel like some of my colleagues who have recently graduated do have some downtime, but is that time spent reading magazines, or is it more likely to be filled with television programming? I have lots of questions, and I'm definitely lacking in the answers department. Anyway, I just wanted to throw this out there as a general question. What do you think?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I think you're right about focusing on interviews instead of reviews. Not only is it easy to get your hands on the music and decide for yourself, but places like iTunes have a peer review section that lets you get an idea of what people like or don't like about the music.
ReplyDeleteI think the author inadvertently highlights the problem when he points out the fact that Pitchfork's model is working but Rolling Stone can't adopt the same model because it's too big. The problem is flexibility. If Rolling Stone is unwilling to adapt because the don't want to take risks with new strategies, they're in for harder times.
I think you're right that part of the new role of the m.j. is to help sift through all the new bands out there, but that's still a job that social networking sites also facilitate. Journalists still make better sifters than social networking sites in my opinion, but everything is still in flux and that may all change.
Usually, when I read about music it's to gain insight about what the artist meant in their lyrics. I don't think emphasis on lyrics is "tedious" as the article suggests.
Another approach you could take is follow and discuss music in our society. What do people listen to? When? Why? How do the things going on in our society affect the music being produced and (alternately) how does music affect our society?
Those are just some random thoughts I had.
Thanks so much for your thoughts, Abe! They're super helpful:)
ReplyDelete