You know that wanna be rock journalist kid modeled after Cameron Crowe in Almost Famous? That was me.
You know that wannabe rock journalist kid modeled after Cameron Crowe in the hit movie Almost Famous? That was me. Seriously, I nearly cried watching that movie because it so directly mirrored my own experience growing up as a teenager who wanted nothing more in life than a career writing about the music that I so dearly loved.…
Article comments
26 - Glen Boyd
I do remember that Ray. They always had all the charts towards the back of the magazine. Somewhere along the way, they turned into more of a hair-metal sort of magazine which is sort of ironic considering they kept the name Hit Parader.
-Glen
27 - Pico
Enjoyed the read, Glen, good stuff.
28 - Glen Boyd
Thanx P. Its always gratifying when one of the better music scribes here acknowledges your own stuff. Mucha appreciato!
-Glen
29 - Tom Johnson
Great stuff, Glen. I had no idea you had that kind of background.
I can only see the point of a negative review if it's the kind that actually talks maturely about why something isn't very good. The kind of writing like "GTR:SHT" is pretty damned immature, stupid, and useless, just like the modern day version that Pitchfork pulled with the last Jet album (I'm sure we all know what I'm talking about, but just in case: the "review" consisted of a video of a monkey peeing into its own mouth.) If you have to write a review about something you hated, I don't care how much you disliked it, the readers deserve to see, in a mature manner, why you think that something sucked.
So I'm glad there are folks like you, Glen, not to mention Pico, Mark, Josh (and others I'm too tired to write out at the moment - sorry, it's late) here at BC that do exactly this kind of good writing. I think it's really unfortunate that there exists here the opposite element that thinks provoking readers without backing it up with something substantial is worth anyone's time. It may garner hits and comments, but in the end it just adds to the pile of rotten music writing that was already pretty big to begin with. Just give me something substantial and meaningful to read, that's all I ask.
30 - Glen Boyd
Thanx Tom. I guess it just falls on guys like us, as well as Saleski, Josh, Pico, and the rest of the "good guys" here to continue to fight the good fight ya know?
And ya' see what happens when you try to be a good guy and offer a little free advice?
All bloody hell breaks loose.
Thanx for the comment--from one "fanboy" to another.
-Glen
31 - Christopher Rose
I hope I can trust in the maturity of gentlemen of the stature of Messrs Johnson, Boyd et cetera in tolerating my putting a modest case for the defence of the kind of reviews you decry.
I certainly don't think the Pitchfork review of Jet was either fair or an accurate review of the band, who are actually not bad at all. On the other hand, it was funny as fuck, as was the GTR:SHT review.
I don't understand why there is such intense pressure from you more mature types to reduce all music appreciation to the tight format of quasi scholarly writing.
For one thing, it seems out of keeping to write in such a way when reviewing, say, Iggy Pop or the Butthole Surfers or a million other artists that go for raw power and brutal energy over quasi-literary aspiration.
Surely there is enough room in the broad church of music appreciation for more than one approach and no real need to try and enforce one style or technique over another?
If you guys are going to keep treading this apparently restrictive line, I can't help quoting from one of the greatest rock bands of all time, a band that managed to embrace both the energy and intelligence of great rock:- "Meet the new boss, same as the old boss" Loosen up guys...
32 - Glen Boyd
So heres the thing Christopher.
I don't have a problem with writers here who want to express their opinions, or even their sense of humor. Hell, I have as much apreciation as the next guy for things like that "SHT" review, and I think I made that pretty clear in the piece I wrote. Contrary to what others may think, us old school music scribes are not completely humorless. Far from it, actually. To have lived through some of the shit I have lived through requires nothing if not a sense of humor.
What I do object to however is how a guy -- whose own personal opinions I really couldn't give two shits about -- is allowed to bring his own personal psychological issues -- which seem to include a presecution complex -- to the site and masquearade them as being credible rock journalism.
This in my view cheapens us as a whole.
You saw this today, and I am sure that as sharp as you are that you didn't miss them. He accused me of things that are -- at least in my own personal opinion -- completely fucking nuts.
Again, in my own personal opinion, this really tends to cheapen the rest of us music writers who do care -- deeply -- about BC as a destination site for people looking to come here to gain information about music, rather than getting a peak into the soul of someone who clearly has fairly profound psychological issues of his own.
Call it what you will, but even though some of us here take what we do fairly seriously, we are certainly not above having a sense of humor about it. I know that I certainly don't.
But the type of shit that went on earlier today borders on lunacy, and dsesrves a much closer look in my view.
Disagree?
-Glen
33 - Brian aka Guppusmaximus
"He accused me of things that are -- at least in my own personal opinion -- completely fucking nuts."
Dude, I was kidding about you kidnapping all the great Rock Journalists. I know they are not in your closet...I'm Sorry:)
34 - Christopher Rose
Glen, I wasn't defending Daryl, I was just making the general point that I made.
As to that particular issue, well, there are all kinds of remarks made throughout Blogcritics and when they go against the comments guidelines, they get dealt with appropriately, and that's what happened in this case. I deleted his obviously unfounded remark within seconds of him making it, it can't really get any better than that.
As the comments editor, I probably spend more time on the site than most other people and I am always one of the first to want to defend it against any kind of abuse, whilst maintaining due regard for people's right to express themselves. Our lords and masters have clearly indicated the desire that the site is pretty much neutral ground where, if the minimal guidelines are taken on board, all are welcome. I like to think of it as something akin to the Star Wars bar.
It's not my place or my role to judge the sanity or otherwise of anybody on the site and nor do I much care. None of us know why anybody comes to the site and your idea that people come here to gain information about music is just a theory. Maybe they actually come to have a good argument. Who knows?
Personally, and it's just my opinion nothing more, the majority of the music writers here are incredibly mainstream and conservative and, as a direct consequence of that, often rather dull. I certainly wouldn't be coming here to find out what is going on in music, although I would, and do, come here to find out what people are feeling or thinking about the music they hear, which is far more interesting.
You as a writer are perfectly entitled to take your work and yourself as seriously as you like, of course. Where I would disagree with you is that you seem to be trying to make it a requirement that people should engage with you on your level. Frankly, why the fuck should they?
I can't say whether Daryl is a loon or not but, based on the general balance of his writing, I'd tend to figure not. I don't agree with 99% of his musical tastes or opinions, in fact I find him rather shallow on that front most of the time. This is a guy who with no trace of embarrassment publicly admitted to liking such schlock as Pat Benetar and Laura Brannigan for fuck's sake! For that alone he deserves daily humiliation in my book.
Clearly, he has kind of lost it with you recently and made a fairly ludicrous and insulting statement, which got the treatment it deserved.
It's not for me to say if matters should be taken further, though if they were, I'd prefer a kindly word in his ear to any more extreme treatment. We are all human and make mistakes and he's not the first by a long way to go too far.
There are many writers and even editors who have had their comments edited and or deleted, some with quite staggering frequency. As the lightning rod for people's feelings and someone who has strong views of their own, I come in for possibly more than my fair share of attacks from both colleagues and more casual visitors, but I just take it as something that comes with the territory.
You should try and remember that, even though you're an editor now, this is neither your site nor mine. We should all strive to make the site the best we can in terms of our personal contribution and just let others do the same. Demanding that people conform to an arbitrary standard of taste, conduct or writing is not what we are about as far as I know and I very much doubt that I would want to be part of a site that was so controlling. Would you?
35 - Glen Boyd
Not looking for conforming to someone's arbitrary standard at all here Christopher. Not yours nor mine nor anybody elses.
And again, I don't personaly give two shits for what passes as Mr. D's "taste" in music or anything else.
But a simple sense of decorum towards his fellow scribes here would be nice. The charges made against me yesterday were absolutely outrageous. On that much I am sure we could agree. You did your job, and deleted them (as well as my defense of them), and for that sir, you get an A plus in my book.
But why this guy continues to get the pass he does here continues to just baffle the living be-Jesus outta me.
It's called "standards" and I highly suggest that BC look into the concept if we are to be taken anywhere near remotely seriously. As of right now, we simply allow some guy a forum to write whatever drivel he chooses. Which is fine I guess -- old fuck that I am, I do understand how the freedom of the internet works, and as a die-hard bleeding heart liberal myself, I will defend that to the death.
But in whose interest is it when our writers attack one another -- and quite frankly, who the fuck cares? and how does it make us look over the long haul? -- when the charges have absolutely no basis in fact, and in reality come from a base of apparent delusion?
Certainly, not ours.
Are we to be the destination point for all frustrated folk with personal axes to grind and persecution complexes to sing to the world whilst passing it off as fucking "journalism"?
I certainly hope not.
But that's just my personal opinion. And you already know what they say most of those are like.
Yesterday's escapades were a blight on this site in my own admitedly "personal" view. And I also happen to know that a lot of regular contributors to the music section share my point of view.
So when exactly are we going to at least reel this guy in a little?
You have yourself a nice day Mr. Rose.
-Glen
36 - Donald Gibson
Reading your essay only confirmed aspirations (along with behavior, insomnia, and more interest in music & writing than would be deemed "normal") that I've had since I was 12: I want to write about music for a living.
I really enjoyed reading this, Glen.
- Donald
37 - Mark Saleski
i've brought this up before, but several years ago i wrote something that touches on this topic. it was called The Nasty Review(er).
...don't have anything else to say about this here, as i believe i've said it all before.
38 - Matthew T. Sussman
"[T]he first thing I would say to anybody aspiring for a career in music journalism is simply, don't. ... [T]he second thing I would say is be absolutely passionate about what you do."
Goes for just about any section BC has -- make a hobby out of it, and with a lot of work and dedication maybe one day you'll have your own Wikipedia page.
39 - Glen Boyd
That was a really good piece Mark. I don't know , sometimes I get a kick out of reading a particularly good skewering -- especially if it's clever or funny as in the case of the infamous "SHT" review.
I know that I've written them from time to time as well (negative reviews, that is), although as with you, I much prefer to write something positive if I can. As my own writing style tends to lean more towards the analytical or "nerdish" (as has been pointed out here), I also like to break down the specific reasons why something might not be up to par if I can, rather than getting nasty about it.
Still, I do admit that I sometimes enjoy reading the occasional nasty review, especially if it's funny. Your article puts an interesting spin on it though. And I definitely enjoyed reading it.
-Glen
40 - Mark Saleski
it's not like i think that all negative reviews are somehow "invalid", it's just that they don't work for me...it's just not the way i'm wired.
and yea, even ole Lester Bangs used to put people through the wringer, but he was funny as hell AND knew what he was talking about.
41 - Christopher Rose
You're just a big softie, Mark! What's so funny about peace, love and understanding anyway? lol
42 - Tom Johnson
Let me just toss a name out there for others to think about: Roger Ebert. And this even applies to Christopher's comment about writing "scholarly" about Iggy Pop. I realize he's talking movies and we're talking music, but he's exactly what I'm talking about with regards to the "positive-writing" critics. He always gives whatever he writes about a fair write-up, whether it's a big, serious film or the latest college-sex comedy, and whether it be a movie he liked or not. He is one of the few critics whose writing I can read and, regardless of his review, know if the movie he's talking about is something I would actually like to see. Not only that, but when I disagree with his judgment of a movie, I understand why he felt the way he does. That's good writing and that's GREAT reviewing. I would think that, were Ebert a music critic, he could easily review Iggy Pop with the same style as he would any other artist and it would still remain a useful piece of criticism - whether he liked Iggy Pop or not. That's the kind of caliber of writing that I'm talking about - the reader should be able to get something out of every review, whether the critic liked it or not. Very few people strive to reach for that level of writing anymore, spurred on by crap writing at the Pitchforkmedia, etc. level. Pitchfork wields a lot of power right now and they rarely use that power for good.
And here's a great example of Ebert really hating a movie and yet still giving it the time it deserves: Deuce Bigalow: European Gigolo.
43 - daryl d
[Edited]
Christopher, thanks for being the only "outspoken" blogcritic who is somewhat on my side (although barely). I have talked to other blogcritics who are on my side as well but it's a mystery why they have to email me in private about it and not post it here is a mystery.
You have to understand this though. I'm not a music critic; I'm a music FAN. I also write about other things than music, as I am an avid technology fan as well. Some people don't like my technology reviews because they are not written like a so-called technology "expert." To me, that's great and the people who buy stuff are usually fans, not experts. I was really touched by a two page email I received by someone who went out and bought an OQO after my review. He said my review made him feel what it's like to own an OQO and told me all his experiences with it.
[Edited]
44 - Christopher Rose
Daryl, I'm not on your side at all, it's just that I'm not on their side either. To quote a lyric from the mighty Pere Ubu, a band you're probably unfamiliar with,
Forgive the diss but, to my taste, you're also only a music fan in the broadest and most generous possible definition of the term and, with a small handful of exceptions, I despise and/or loathe every artist you've named as liking.
On the other hand, I think you have every right to write about music or any other subject in any way you want to and I don't think it is right that others should be objecting to you wailing on their sacred relics artists, most of whom I don't like either.
There is no "correct" way to relate to or write about anything and for every fan of the "Ebert" approach there is another who finds the "gonzo" style of journalism more interesting.
Me, I walk both sides of the street, partly cos I get bored with the same old same old and partly because I'm a music fan who actually worked in the music industry for over twenty-five years. You didn't by the way, you worked in the media, just the same as critics. Glen did work in the music industry for a little while and then crossed over to the other side. I blame Darth Vader!
45 - JC Mosquito
Interesting... perhaps we're talking about two different things here? Glen's article is about becoming a "rock" critic - maybe it functions on a different set of criteria than a "music" critic, or a music "fan."
46 - Christopher Rose
It's hard to get definitive about that. I think there's room for all kinds of writing.
Personally as someone who has lived the lifestyle rather than had an academic interest, I tend to find the drier kind of writng various proportions of dull, patronising or just plain irrelevant but, as I said, there's room enough for all approaches.
I'd really like to read more about music from people who are living the life currently and can write about the music from the inside but I guess finding literate folk who can do that isn't so easy.
47 - Glen Boyd
And when you have them -- "literate folk" that is, Mr. Rose -- whether or not you personally like what they have to say -- a more careful approach in protecting them, given your most important position, might just be called upon when their integrity is under attack.
Just a thought.
-Glen
48 - Christopher Rose
Glen, I believe that I am treating everybody the same way, regardless of their writing style. Defending integrity is a much trickier call of course, but one does what one can...
49 - JC Mosquito
CR: "Personally as someone who has lived the lifestyle rather than had an academic interest..."
Again, I guess I'm looking for a definiton. Is living a "lifestyle" or "working in the music industry" the same as as actually "being a musician" or "being a rock critic"? I would like to think there might be some crossover, but again, I think there needs to be some common basic understanding before true dialogue can occur.
It really doesn't further the conversation by citing experience or credentials on the net - it has to be about the written word. I'm not trying to invalidated your life experience, but saying "band A is good, band B is bad" is a valid statement because you worked in the industry is no more valid than me saying "He's wrong - band B is good, band A is bad" because I got a songwriting royalty check last month (and of course we both assume we're telling the truth).
Or another example - I really like Grand Funk - but I have no illusions as to their quality of musicianship, songwriting, or presentation - they're not really A list material. But if I were to try to argue in their favour that they're right up there on Mount Olympus in the company of the Rock Gods (whoever you claim them to be), I would likely lose that argument to anyone vvauguely knowledgable asbout music who can put a complete sentence together. They're just not that good - but that's just my experience, and people can hoot about GFR all they want, but I still ove 'em.
Sorry for the long comment - it maybe didn't even address the issue. But Blogcritics' motto is "A sinister cabal of superior writers" - and for the most part that's true... and hopefully it will continue to live up to that humourous but lofty high standard.
Skeeter.
50 - Christopher Rose
I think we're talking different languages, Skeeter. To try and answer your questions, no, the lifestyle, the industry, the musician and the critic are all very different experiences.
Obviously it has to be about the written word, but that writing is informed by the relationship one has with music.
I kind of lose the track with your observations in your third para because I don't base my opinions of music on the fact that I worked in the industry.
If you love Grand Funk so much, then surely it follows that for you, they are A List material and I don't see that your view is any less valid than anybody else's. Indeed, the case you make for them as a lover of their music, the passionate intelligence you could bring, would surely be more interesting than some critic following in the rock convention that artist A or B is "better".
I would contend that such a piece of writing would indeed conform to the superior writing standard far more than some bloke droning on about whoever.
51 - JC Mosquito
Well, at least we can disagree in a rational, civil manner, which doesn't always happen in real life. My apologies, but I've got to run - I'm on my way out of town for a week or so in three minutes or less. Best to you, Mr. Rose, and to you as well, Mr. Boyd, Mr. Saleski, et. al.
52 - Michael J. West
I don't know if this will be an affront or not, but I'm currently cooking up an article about how disastrous the influence of Lester Bangs has been for the field of music journalism....
53 - Pico
That should be another must-read article coming from you, Michael. No one will be more interested in checking that out than Mr. Saleski *grin*
54 - Mark Saleski
sacrilege!!!!!
;-)
55 - Pico
Haha, I knew you'd swoop in like Kenny G's Asst. This promises to be a lively, informative discussion. Can't hardly wait.
56 - Christopher Rose
Michael, that would be the equivalent of writing that The Stones were a disastrous influence on Rock!