the usefulness of disliking music, as a writer or as a listener etc.

I should say the smaller version detailed above isn't really an actual thing that happens or affects in the same way. Is probably more subconscious, but the mechanism is similar

And of course there is more reason for me to hear record no 2 than there is say radiohead or metronomy

idk ronan yr whole first post seemed p mean spirited in a thread that acknowledges its failings in it's premise. I guess I can see yr problem with the lex but everyone finds themselves disagreeing with 'consensus' at times

i wasn't mocking the entire thread by any means, just find people talking about "herd mentalities" pretty rich. i mean, it literally is saying other people's taste is based on them following each other like actual animals in a field. other people (and seemingly it was a huge percentage of them) put as much thought into what they like as a cow does when it follows another cow. come on!

anyway to move things on, i come at all this from the position of completely ignoring most current stuff just because i got a bit tired of having to engage with it and have opinions about whatever new thing each week.

i find weirdly if you never read about music and just pursue your own natural habit of an occasional mix here, following up a track you like if it happens, that any sense of hype just disappears really.

i listen to a lot of older stuff like jazz or classical and opera and things at the moment, just because i find it a nice removal from my job which involves processing about 30/40 very pop type pieces of content a day, and it's nice to have something which exists far beyond that.

but equally i do still check beats in space and stuff, oftentimes i'll hear something and really like it and it'll turn out to be someone i've seen friends posting about on facebook, or whatever, and i think "oh okay...that's who that is."

this sometimes reminds me that often hyped things are actually good, if i find myself looking up a track and it turns out to be whoever.

i guess overall what i'm saying that being relatively unconscious of hype about things isn't that different from being really inside the genre and feeling able to rubbish it. the net result is making your own decision.

it's just less angry, there's no need to really be that bothered, some people are hyping a record...very good.

are there people who are somehow beholden to hype or something? i'm quite interested in where choice stops here...pretty sure hyped things are hyped because everyone who likes them genuinely does so.

the funny thing is that what you're saying is what i thought was the baseline of the lex's worldview, but it's like he's pushed so far he's come back around to the other side

i assumed everyone on ilx had a baseline of dismissing talk of "herd mentalities", like as i said, isn't that the most common way people dismiss pop music?

stop attributing "world views" to me! i have never held a consistent or logical position on these things, it seems to me to miss the point somewhat.

btw i was not the first person to start talking about the "herd mentality", and when i do so it's referring to people who work in the music industry rather than ordinary listeners.

i have never held a consistent or logical position on these things, it seems to me to miss the point somewhat.

I identify with this a bit, I think this issue - how affected one is by hype etc. - is one in respect of which it's hard not to have really variable reactions, like one day to be supremely unruffled by it and the next to be filled with righteous indignation.

I guess because ultimately it's less about one's attitude to music than one's relationship with tribes.

It's probably one of the areas of music awareness that gloms onto politics most easily.

Well actually the first part of lex's sentence more than the second at any rate - by virtue of the first part i'm not sure if there's really a 'point' as such to miss.

the point is more to do with how one responds to music? having a rigorous world view misses the point that being a music listener is an unpredictable and messy affair (cf kogan's boney joan rule)

oh okay.

My reading of boney joan (which doesn't at all contradict the above) is that it's about the inadequacy of concepts vis a vis experience, that two voices can both code as being like a babbling brook and that can mean totally different things, because analogies for music can never exhaust it.

But most people (who understandably aren't as rigorous as frank) try to deny the above and fashion their post facto rationalisations of music enjoyment to be as predictable and as neat as possible.

So I don't think it's totally wrong to say e.g. "if you like this then logically you should like that, why don't you?" (or something similar) (rhetorical strategies which presume a certain consistency and orderliness to people's taste and enjoyment) because in general people's experience of their own music enjoyment is that it is self-consistent. Our conversations here tend to assume it as a given, in fact.

I pretty much refuse to do interviews b/c I more times than not I end up getting annoyed with the artist for doing the above plus sounding like dog latin.

i've only had this a couple of times - you just have to avoid the questions that are obviously going to lead to pat answers. i've grown to really enjoy doing interviews tbh.

same, still hate transcribing though

Actually yeah that may be the bigger issue. Basically anything involving set up, preparation, back-end work etc is irritating for me. Whereas reviews are like: sit down, write it in one go, submit.

I never really devoted myself to being a pro music critic sufficiently to get many interesting interviews anyway. One glorious exception was Sabrina from Mis-Teeq - who wasn't pat at all.

i might have said the same, many years ago! i learned to do it b/c you have to do it to make a living as a journalist (not just a music journalist), and in the process learned how rewarding it can be.

tbh - this is not meant personally - i am not wholly down with people swanning in to do the fun stuff and airily going "oh i don't like the rest of the job". though i guess this is kind of like me not understanding why professional journalists hated other people writing for free, back when i did that. then i went freelance and ohhhhh boy do i get it now. (though at the same time if i hadn't written for free then, i wouldn't have this career at all.)

transcription is the absolute worst obv

Is there some ethical imperative to do unenjoyable tasks beyond the usual Protestant one?

Or is it a more general issue with people dabbling in journalism who have other careers?

i think it's more a concern w/ the state of journalism and that it's easy to find people willing to share their thoughts with the world but rare to find people willing to actually tell stories

like, there's a very real value provided by journalism

of course, that doesn't defend 90% of vaguely journalistic puff-piece interviews, but still

I'm not sure that interviewing necessarily equates with storytelling and reviewing necessarily doesn't.

The state of music journalism as a career and the state of music journalism as a body of work are heavily related and mutually interdependent, but they're not the same thing.

In respect of the former, I would think it's more ethical of me not to be stealIng work from poverty line freelancers and then doing a half-assed job of it.

people who work for free undercut people who do this as a profession, basically. re: dabbling, i dunno, i did journalism as a side thing for years while having a proper job and i can't really blame anyone for choosing to actually earn some ££, but i'm sure you can think of an analogous situation in law whereby someone swans in to do the most fun, easy part of the job but airily dismisses the legwork that you do because it's, y'know, your career

I'm not sure that interviewing necessarily equates with storytelling and reviewing necessarily doesn't.

right but there's information that informs the public that can't be obtained through any other means

i guess i was gonna make a point about how being forced to include interviewing as a thing i did actually made me a better writer/journalist/reviewer, even though when i started out it was something i disliked, wasn't comfortable with, thought tedious etc. indeed learning to love it has been as much personal development as career development!

I'm not dismissing interviewing. But if someone told me that they decided not to become a litigator because they cannot stand document discovery I would sympathise.

The above makes absolute sense to me; to be clear, me saying I don't really have the temperament for interviewing was a self-criticism rather than a criticism of journalism or journalists. The same things that I struggle with there are things I struggle with in work.

my point was that i thought i didn't have the temperament for interviewing 5 years ago! but it's funny how wrong we can be about ourselves.

and obv the things i'm most satisfied about are precisely those things i wasn't sure i had the temperament to be able to do - far more satisfaction than filing a good review, which i've always known i can do

I mean all I want to do at work is draft snarky argument-winning correspondence to the other side, which is basically the litigation equivalent of review writing.

I mean all I want to do at work is draft snarky argument-winning correspondence to the other side, which is basically the litigation equivalent of review writing and posting on ilx.

this is a total tangent/aside but document discovery is possibly the most horrifying white collar job there is IMO

Insert strikethrough in the obvious place above.

Yes.

"people who work for free undercut people who do this as a profession, basically."

Are you seriously trying to argue this point, Lex?

how is that disputable

people doing work for free lowers the economic value of the work in question

well, it is like arguing with the existence of the ocean. the trick is just making your work that much more valuable

there's no trick to it, it's just a simple trick!

people doing work for free lowers the economic value of the work in question

― Shakey Mo Collier, Thursday, December 8, 2011 11:49 PM (4 minutes ago) Bookmark Permalink

But that matters only to the people who aren't any better than those doing work for free. Which is what deej is echoing, I think.

lol "only"

economic value is often not assigned by quality btw

for ex. shitty MP3s are free, higher quality formats may cost money - guess which one is more popular. and guess which one also drags down the actual overall market value.

or to put it in journalism terms - shitty blog posts articles by anybody for free, and people read it because it's free. fewer people read a competing site requiring payment, they don't bring in enough money to pay writers, writers who want to be paid have to compete for a smaller number of spots. and get paid less, because the site has less money coming in.

this scenario has been played out on a macro scale so many times over the last decade, denying it is like climate-change denial, it's just bizarre.

yeah but what is he supposed to do about it?

like, might as well complain that you die one day. boy that sucks!!

what is who supposed to do about it, Lex? Lex can't do anything about. rennavate can't do anything about it either, but maybe he should stop making denying reality.

making

I think the general point (writing about music for free lowers economic value of music writing) is correct but I don't know that it's as clear-cut as that suggests either, primarily because free music writing and paid music writing are not identical in content or medium.

This is where the poor-quality free MP3 versus CD analogy doesn't quite work - that's more like reading a newspaper online for free online but with annoying pop-ups versus paying for a print version.

Certainly some blogs and non-remunerative publications aspire to be precisely as tedious and narrow-minded as their remunerative counterparts, but beyond those, "free" music writing is part of a broad continuum of non-journalistic writing that includes people posting on ILX. In some senses, ILX competes directly for its readers' attention with paid publications: rather than read an article about Amy Winehouse's life we might read the ILM RIP thread instead.

Would we propose, therefore, that the existence of the latter is a negative historical development?

Lex raising the issue of dabblers in my profession (law) and how I would feel about them was kind of useful in this regard: it doesn't actually happen in Australia (and I assume this goes for the UK as well) because the admission and compliance requirements involved in being a lawyer are far too onerous for anyone ever just to "dabble" in it, except as a career-withdrawal strategy (i.e. after they've done it full-time for a long time).

This has the effect of helping to protect standards, but it's also criticised for reducing competition, making the industry hidebound, conservative, and effectively turning the legal industry into a partially closed shop (especially at the Bar).

Imagine a universe where all music journalism (in the broadest sense) had similar professional standards regulations: where you could be sued for offering a written opinion on a record without holding the appropriate qualifications and a licence to write through a paying publication. What would the effect of this be? I expect it would mean that:

(a) publications could charge a lot more while still commanding an audience;
(b) journalists would be paid better;
(c) standards of writing would be higher in many senses, particularly technical standards;
(d) breaking into the industry would be harder;
(e) the writing and opinions would by and large be more conservative, slow to change and divorced from public opinion; and
(f) the diversity of writing and opinion would be constrained.

Some of the above effects would be positive, some negative - as is typical in respect of issues of industry regulation.

Whatever the arrangement, there will be good and bad writers and good and bad lawyers.

Obviously no-one is actually proposing the above ITT, I'm just using it as an illustrative example of the kind of tensions that surround the issue of music writing's creep beyond the boundaries of professional journalism.

Every time you talk with your friends about music, you are stealing from professional music critics.

(a) publications could charge a lot more while still commanding an audience;
(b) journalists would be paid better;
(c) standards of writing would be higher in many senses, particularly technical standards;
(d) breaking into the industry would be harder;
(e) the writing and opinions would by and large be more conservative, slow to change and divorced from public opinion; and
(f) the diversity of writing and opinion would be constrained.

all of these things were true for journalism prior to the internet, sans "regulations"