In Seattle this week, we lost a local journalism institution when the Seattle Post-Intelligencer stopped the presses for good. The P-I was one of our two daily newspapers, and the other one — the Seattle Times — is also reportedly in financial trouble.
I knew the rock critics at both papers. Patrick MacDonald — wily old veteran that he was — got out a few months ago when he announced his retirement from the Times after decades of covering everyone from Hendrix to Nirvana. MacDonald no doubt smelled the writing on the wall, and decided to get out while the getting was good.
As for Gene Stout at the P-I — well, I'm not sure what ol' Gene is gonna' do. I always liked Gene though. When I was working in the record business in L.A., he once stayed at my apartment in Burbank, and we went to see a comedy show featuring the guy who used to play the bartender on the Love Boat. Gene himself was always a genuinely likable and funny guy. He used to refer to beer for example as a "meal in a mug." Definitely my kind of guy.
Word is that Gene's old paper the P-I will be trying things out as an exclusively online publication. And this, to be honest, has really got me worried on a couple of fronts. You see, much as I love the internet — and don't get me wrong, I do love the internet — I have also seen the damage it has done to two institutions I happen to love very much — music and journalism.
It doesn't take a genius to see what the internet has done to the music business. While downloading has made music instantly accessible to everyone — and in the process of doing so turned every old-school record industry marketing apparatus on its ear — it has also done so at the expense of both sound quality and, subsequently, artistic vitality.
If MP3s and the like blew up that whole music as commerce dinosaur for good, they did so at considerable expense. Unless I'm mistaken here, the only really viable casualties have been the independent record stores and record labels once run by actual music guys. These days, the music business is being largely run out of the corporate boardrooms of megalithic companies that give less of a shit about music than the suits at Sony or Warner ever did.
Article comments
— go to most recent comments1 - MarkSaleski
i think the problem here is that we're right smack in the middle of a big shift from print to...uh, something. and we just don't know what the new model will look like.
as far as journalism and reportage goes, the "free on the web" thing will at some point run into a wall because somebody has to be paid to dig out the information.
as far as the effects on the music industry, yep...the big commercial part of it is in huge turmoil. the independent part? well, that will rise up (in a form as yet to be determined) at some point because there's still a huge amount of new and interesting music out there.
2 - Jordan Richardson
there's still a huge amount of new and interesting music out there.
Indeed.
3 - Glen Boyd
Yes there is as much as great music out there as ever. But it's harder to find than ever -- with the record store an endangered species, its up to music writers more than ever to point the way.
Since the internet standard of anything goes "content" has lowered the standards of music writing, its up to US to pick our game gentlemen.
That's all I'm saying.
-Glen
4 - Glen Boyd
pick UP our game meant to say there.
5 - MarkSaleski
it's harder to find for who? remember that part of the reason record stores are going under is that kids just don't give a hoot about them (obviously, i'm not in that camp)
i'm not even disagreeing that better writing would be a good thing. i'm just not sure what good it would do.
6 - Glen Boyd
It starts with better writing Mark. As a great writer yourself, you know this every bit as much as I do. Yes, there is as much great music out there as there ever was. It's just not as instantly accessible as it once was -- that is unless you are willing to weed your way through thousands,if not millions of MySpace blogs and the like to find it.
The internet affords us this great opportunity to reach people -- definitely moreso than my days as a writer for the Rocket in Seattle ever did.
Unfortunately, that same greater access means that anybody with a keyboard can write, and that a lot of those writers being published also suck. You know this as well as I do. Internet journalism is not about "writing" at all --its about hit rates. Its about content.
And its up to the good writers -- yourself, myself, Jordan -- to clean up our own house.
-Glen
7 - Jordan Richardson
Agreed on the content thing. It's all keywords and hits online, for the most part. There's the odd gem, but it's so fucking technical that it's embarrassing to read.
8 - Mat Brewster
How is it harder to find? With blogcritics and any number of good blogs, plus a couple of cool music friends I'm constantly being inundated with interesting bands.
I guess you could say there is almost too much, and the problem now is sorting through it all, but to me that's where the friends and the blogcritics come in. I trust Mark's opinion (well except for all that wanky jazz stuff)and he (as well as other folks/blogs) have led me to all sorts of wonderful musical ideas.
It is the same with writing. Sure there is lots of crap out there, but with a little patience you can find wonderful stuff that ten years ago most of us would never have been able to find. To me again, it is the same networking principle. There are some cool writers on BC and they turn me on to other places with cool writers and so forth.
I'm arguing here with you Glen, but I take your meaning. The Internet has caused dramatic shifts in both industries. Things are very much still in the air in a lot of way, but I guess I'm just more upbeat about where they will land.
9 - Donald Gibson
While I, too, lament the losses in the print media, I can also envision (and in some cases, have discovered) how the Internet -- more specific, Internet publications -- can embrace well-written, insightful music critiques and analysis. I just don't see it happening enough. And I don't see it being encouraged, either.
In talking about the hordes of talentless acts who have released albums in recent years, Elvis Costello remarked, "Just because you have access to a recording studio doesn't mean you have to make a record." And I think that logic is applicable in this context as well.
Just because someone has access to an online magazine in which to express his/her opinion on a piece of music shouldn't automatically mean he/she is entitled to have it published there.
If such media outlets have no critical standards for the articles they publish -- or their standards are so low that they're practically nonexistent and inconsequential -- than the overall quality of their writing, their ethic, and their validity is no greater than an un-moderated message board.
Great article.
10 - Glen Boyd
I expected that this article would generate comments from some of the people I see here, and I'm really happy that it has. But I think some of you are missing my point here...
I'm not saying there isn't any great music out there now, because there most certainly is. Possibly more now than ever. Which is exactly why we need to see more from the writers who are best qualified to write about it.
But all of this instant access to music has created a double edged sword. On the one hand, any band in a garage can put its music out on the internet. On the other, there is the none too small problem of finding said band an audience in something as vast as cyberspace.
Which is why I'd like to see internet journalism standards -- especially in something as subjective as music -- that more closely match those of the print media.
I agree with Mat that there are some great writers on Blogcritics. Unfortunately there are also some here, as well as everywhere else on the net, that can barely string a sentence together and have no business being anywhere near a forum that affords such great access.
At the risk of sounding like the old hippie crank that I probably am, I guess what I'd like to see is something more closely approximating the old city desk at those big daily papers that are rapidly becoming an endangered species.
And make sure my desk has an ashtray on top, and a bottle of hooch in the drawer.
-Glen
11 - Mat Brewster
I get that, and agree, mostly. The days you are longing for are certainly dying. Print newspapers will eventually be a thing of the past. Magazines struggle. But there are some cool online places to take their place. Places like salon and slate offer good writing, though not necessarily about music. While Pitchfork tends to lean heavily towards the if-its-new-it-rules, if-its-old-it-sucks attitude you were talking about they do seem to have editors.
One of the great things that I find from the slew of mp3 blogs out there is not the writing(which often isn't good) but the enthusiasm. Take our own Josh Hathaway for example. While he is a fine writer, he would admit he isn't always up to the standards you're talking about. Yet Confessions of a Fanboy is a great read. It is fun and full of love for music.
Though you are right again, the really greats like Lester Bangs had both the writing skill and the love.
12 - Glen Boyd
Josh isn't Lester Bangs (and neither am I for that matter), but he is certainly of our best, and I love reading COAF (just don't tell him I said that, okay?).
What I'm talking about here isn't an Edward R. Morrow sort of standard...hell, even Bangs himself couldn't have lived up to that (and probably wouldn't want to if asked). That would take the unpredictable factor out of the internet equation and would also make for a lot of hopelessly dry and boring stories.
All I'm asking is that the bar for internet music writing be raised just a little. That the writer can put a sentence together, that he more or less knows his stuff (and is willing to research the subject if he doesn't), and hopefully that he can code a URL (something I had actually had to learn once I started doing this internet thing myself).
Thats all. And that really minimal level of a skill set is often not even met on a lot of internet sites today. The emphasis is on content, content, content and more, more, more rather than even minimally substantive writing sometimes.
I'm all about looseness, and I've always been a fan of the so-called renegade or outlaw journalism. Lets just make sure that the outlaws know how to actually fire the damn gun when asked though.
-Glen
13 - MarkSaleski
i totally agree on the quality thing (and have certainly done my own amount of bitching offline about the writing on certain websites), but given the model of more eyeballs is good, i don't know that that gets you anywhere.
i've wrenched my guts a few times writing pieces, published them...only to see them vanish in the wind.
it seems like on the internet, you can get more traction by being provocative. you know, write a story about how Slash is overrated or something, then watch the kooks (and their eyeballs) come out of the woodwork.
14 - Glen Boyd
True enough Mark. I've got no problem with the eye-popping shit either...at least as long as it doesn't come off as just plain stupid anyway.
I'll take goofy, gossipy news any day. Britney dances naked for the pope? Bring that shit on, brother.
But if someone just has a personal axe to grind -- you know, Bruce Springsteen is a douche bag or something along those lines -- I just don't have the time or the patience for it. It cheapens whoever happens to publish it in my view. As does writing that is riddled with factual errors or hyberbole.
Not that I've ever engaged in hyperbole myself of course...
-Glen
15 - Brian aka Guppusmaximus
I know...no one gives two shits about my take but here it is anyway:
Most consumers stopped giving a crap about the quality of sound when they bought into CD technology. It was sold as the indestructible disc..Yea..until someone left theirs on a dash on a hot,sunny day or got a deep enough scratch *Smirk*.
But, the upside was the digital movement and with it comes the advancement of digital memory(memristor) or hard drive space plus compression formats that aren't as crappy as Mp3. Ultimately, as I have said before, it's a journey back to analog,digitally. Sure, it will take time but when we get to the point that we can record an artist and not only capture the full spectrum of sound BUT we don't loose any of the sound when we make copies of their material then people will have all but forgotten Lp,8-track,etc..
(Come on,Glen,your beloved Steve Wilson is offering up his tracks in FLAC which doesn't lose any sound quality from CD)
As for not being able find new music on the web...lmao. Dude, not only can you find new American artists but you can be connected with the rest of the world to find new music and most indie labels offer better music & better quality than their major conglomerate competition. Really, who needs someone to write about it anymore especially if its all "subjective" as I've been told here.
16 - Glen Boyd
Oh, my dear Mr. Gupp-meister, of course we value your opinion. In fact, when you jump into the mix is usually exactly when things start to get interesting.
A couple of things though.
I'm gonna repeat this for the umpteenth time in this thread, but I have never suggested that there is a lack of great new music out there. There's more of it now than ever, and I know that. It's just that actually finding it can be a problem because nobody has yet figured out a new model for effectively targeting the precise audience all these new bands out there are seeking.
MySpace and all the rest are great news for bands who otherwise have no avenues to get their music out there. Finding that great new band is another matter entirely due to the needle in a haystack model of the internet.
Secondly, when I speak about how download models have resulted in an overall de-emphasis on sound quality, I am speaking in the most general terms. Because it is generally the truth. You mention Steve Wilson, and most of his music that I've downloaded has in fact been on either flac or mp5 formats.
But most of these damn things are either so compressed or have such low bit rates, that quite frankly, they sound like "shite" (hey! I got to use your favorite word there, Brian).
Case in point was Radiohead's In Rainbows. Like everyone else, I took advantage of the free download when offered (I paid them $5.). But when it came out on CD, I couldn't even believe it was even the same album it sounded so much better. I heard layers on the CD that I never knew were even there on those damned MP3 files.
The other point here is that the downloading revolution also means that artists don't have as much motivation to explore innovative or new studio techniques. Why make a multi-layered, genre-re-defining masterpiece when 90% of your fans won't have the equipment necessary to properly appreciate it?
Don't get me wrong, because I also have a healthy appreciation for low-fi...but I think you get my drift here....
-Glen
17 - MarkSaleski
Why make a multi-layered, genre-re-defining masterpiece when 90% of your fans won't have the equipment necessary to properly appreciate it?
there's some truth in that but remember, we did listen to Spector's wall of sound on crap-o-matic am radios.
18 - Glen Boyd
Yeah, back to mono. Thats the ticket.
-Glen
19 - MarkSaleski
Really, who needs someone to write about it anymore especially if its all "subjective" as I've been told here.
because it's fun to read somebody's enthusiastic report of something they've discovered?
20 - Glen Boyd
....And because really great writing can be as joyful an art to appreciate in and of itself.
21 - Brian aka Guppusmaximus
It's just that actually finding it can be a problem because nobody has yet figured out a new model for effectively targeting the precise audience all these new bands out there are seeking.
That to me sounds like a marketing problem that would only affect the people who don't necessarily love music to the extent that we do. Personally, I love searching the net for music because it takes the "ordering" guy out of the equation. To me, Myspace is only a way to listen to a sample of a band's music that I found by surfin the web...
But most of these damn things are either so compressed or have such low bit rates
If you are talking about FLAC,WMA 9.2, or any other "lossless" container then you are mistaken. You wouldn't hear any compression. As for Mp3, I completely agree... It's a shitty format but it is easily sold to the masses because a lot of people don't understand the difference.
Why make a multi-layered, genre-re-defining masterpiece when 90% of your fans won't have the equipment necessary to properly appreciate it?
Because 90% of your fans never purchased the right equipment to listen to music..Ever! Unfortunately, a lot of people don't think that it is important to purchase this type of equipment, thus, again, why Mp3 sells!
But, I don't that mass mentality stops artists from using newer techniques in the studio. Look at SACD or DVD-A. The people interested in creating music on that "multi-layered, genre-re-defining masterpiece" level will always find the better technology to do so. Whether or not that society picks up on it has always been the challenge.
As for low-fi, your major labels have been waging the "loudness wars" for quite some time, so, even if you think you're getting better quality from their CDs, you are probably not. They compress the quality to make it louder and to fit more songs.
22 - Tom Johnson
I must be the lone freak here. I find it WAY easier to find the oddball stuff now than before the internet. Jesus, I remember days of driving from record store to record store hoping to find that One Great Thing and coming home with a pile of random stuff. Now I have at my fingertips an entire world so deep with relevance to my interests that it is impossible to measure. There are many times when I struggle to decide just what it is that I want to buy because there are so many things I've found. I mean that I have to LIMIT myself to one or two things of many things that I want. Just using three sources you could blow a paycheck - Allmusic, Wikipedia, and Amazon. So I don't agree - the world of the music freak is way better off due to the internet. Maybe it isn't the same as trawling the racks, which I love and do weekly as well, but if you're interested in the new, the world is your oyster due to the internet. I love it.
23 - Glen Boyd
I was mainly referring to the MP3's, because that has unfortunately become the format of choice when it comes to downloading...hence, the music consuming public becoming conditioned to accept inferior sound.
As you said, not everyone is as passionate about music as we are.
But your points are certainly well taken.
-Glen
24 - Glen Boyd
Its become so damn impersonal though Tom. And a lot of good people have lost their jobs too in the wake of all this, umm, "progress."
I mean sheesh, did you know there is now a website in Seattle where you can have beer brought to your damn door? Thats either one more reason not to leave the house, or a new incentive to get out there and experience actual life in the real world.
And the sound quality has suffered -- you've written about this yourself on more than one occasion Tom. As Brian has said, there are ways around this (flacs etc.). But the average schmoe is less likely to take the time to seek out all this new music out there, and if he finds it the quality is more likely than not to be inferior.
The average schmoe also likely spends less time at the computer, and more time doing the thing called...life.
-Glen
25 - MarkSaleski
The average schmoe also likely spends less time at the computer, and more time doing the thing called...life.
this is true, though i tell ya...there is a new crop of average schmoes growing up whose life is IN the computer. sad but true.