Business Re: The Raconteurs Coming to Seattle in April; Trying to Kill Music Journalism Now
posted by on March 18 at 13:40 PM
You know, Megan (and Idolator and David-at-the-Guardian), I don’t think we need to wring our hands about this. The Raconteurs’ press whiteout seems more an attack on the record and p.r. industries than music writers.
Timeliness isn’t really a virtue in criticism, which is why people still read these guys:
Criticism isn’t about being the first, it’s about being the smartest.
Hype is about being first. So for the record-p.r. industry and media outlets that live to serve the interests of hype (see radio), the Raconteurs move is a big fuck you.
For smart critics who will have smart things to say about this record a week, a month, or a decade from now? Not so much.
The Raconteurs’ press move seems more like Radiohead’s pay-what-you-can fuck you—an end-run around the ossified music-radio-advertising machine, not an attack on writers with actual ideas.
FIRST!1!!
Stars released a record last year in the same way: "We're done, here ya go!" I didn't give a shit because I don't like Stars, but it didn't seem to stop people from praising the album. I think we gave it four stars in this here rag.
In any case, I agree, it's not about criticism or thoughts. It's about the front page of Myspace and publicists. And fuck that shit.
Well put, Brendan. The agelessness of a composition is just as important as its timeliness.
That being said, if you still aren't sure how you feel about Van Halen, it's very possible that the most cogent, insightful critique in the world won't help.
People need trusted filters to navigate and prioritize the firehose of cultural product. Critics are one such filter. The so-called hype-machine is another. Historically, these two things have been in symbiotic alignment. The web is breaking that alliance down. New filters are emerging (e.g., more fan-based comment on music).
But one way or another, if you are a musician trying to be heard and to sell yourself to an audience large enough to support you financially, you're going to need some filters to help people find you.
And the most valuable filters are the ones the user trusts. So whether it's KEXP, Pitchfork, Rolling Stone, the Stranger, or Eric Grandy, the ultimate criteria is trustworthiness.
Therefore, to me, the issue isn't whether critics will become irrelevant; the real issue is whether the new landscape will provide enough financial support for good, smart critics to continue their work full-time.
If this support isn't present, it may not be the end of the world, but we definitely will have lost something. And this may be hairsplitting, but I don't think criticism is about being smartest. It's about being the most insightful. Often those two things coincide. But just as often they don't, because the critic chooses to show off his or her smartness at the expense of digging for more insight.
the ultimate criteria is trustworthiness.
That should be criterion.
Otherwise, an insightful post.
All good points. When it comes down to it, critics are just another opinion.
Comments Closed
In order to combat spam, we are no longer accepting comments on this post (or any post more than 14 days old).