Writing about Writing
Very well then as I said yesterday (this is backdated by the way) I was going to briefly discuss my gig at the Free Press where I am doing profiles of local bands every month. There a lot of annoying trends I've noted in music journalism and I've given some thought as to how I wanted to approach the columns. So I'm just going to, with great randomness, throw out some ideas...#1. I don't want to read a newspaper that reads like a blog.
Blogging and print are different. A blog is very informal especially when contrasted with a printed article. While you can slack off in a blog and not worry too much about perfection, in a printed article there should be enough rewrites and copy-editing where the goal should be that of achieving a clear well-crafted article with no grammatical, typographical, or other such errors.
#2 Snarky is the lazy man's rhetorical crutch.
When did everyone decide that the model for music journalism is Weekend Update? Somewhere along the way someone decided that everything has to be a fucking joke where the author mocks music from the safety of a computer screen. Hey the dude from Quiet Riot died. How many gallons of ink you think were spent mocking this guy and his band? What does it accomplish? To make the readers and the writer feel superior? Is it really some huge intellectual challenge to mock Quiet Riot?
Locally I can immediately think of two examples of snarky columns that exemplify this shallow superiority of some writers. In the Free Press we had a review of Jana Hunter's There is No Home where the writer effectively forgoes any real discussion of the music and instead rails about how "Whenever someone becomes the media darling for little reason they need to get called out." The problem with this is that to call someone out you have to be able to write and argue well enough to explain WHY you dislike them and/or what they do. Instead he offers vague attacks which crescendo with the dismissal of "music indie chicks like to get fucked by." If he had actually say cited examples of any song, arrangement, lyrics, or anything to back-up some assertion maybe we'd have had a real discussion. Instead what we have a macho superior tone substituting for intellectual discussion.
Similarly, the much attacked (and deservedly so) Olivia Flores Alvarez consistently substituted content for attitude and snarkiness. Consider her infamous Houston Noise Music article where every single assertion made by the author in jest fell flat because it simply pointed out her utter and willing ignorance on the genre.
#3 Get Out!
I remember talking with a music columnist about the Dimes (who are easily one of the most beloved of Houston bands) when they first started making waves in the indie scene and the columnist dismissed them based on their demos on Myspace. Mypace is all right but I've found the best way to keep your nose to the ground is still good old word of mouth's power to get your ass out to a show or just stumbling onto someone opening up for another band. In other words - step away from the computer.
#4 It's OK to Specialize
No reviewer should try to cover all genres or try to be all things to all people. Ever notice the trend in satellite radio to have actual DJs? I mean fuck XM until Clear Channel gives us real DJ back on the airwaves but the reason people pay to hear real DJs is because you want someone to share their enthusiasm and taste with you. It should be the same with music journalism. I like jazz and classical but I'm not qualified to write about it. Hell consider rap. I'm OK with it but my appreciation for it is more in the abstract. Why should a guy who thinks that rap is a really interesting and logical extension in the history of appropriation in western art be writing anything about rappers and hip hop? No I'm going to leave that genre to someone else. I'm going to write about what I think is interesting and excites me emotionally.
#5 Embrace the local and regional.
I was recently given the comment "Well you can't just write about your little scene in the Montrose." Guess what? I can and I should. Any thriving scene is by nature going to be an incestuous and interconnected cast of characters. You think that San Francisco hippies in the 60s, L.A. punks in the 80s, or Seattle Grunge bands in the 90's weren't? Imagine if everyone just dismissed those bands and those scenes as a bunch of fucking hipsters. It's asinine. If a group of artists are exchanging ideas and supporting each other it means something is going on that is alive and well. You worry about the music and if you are dismissed as a scenster/hipster, fuck 'em.
#6 Can we have a serious discussion here?
As kind of an antidote to the snarkiness of my second point, may I suggest we take this a bit more seriously? One thing I'm trying to do in my articles is to take the work and musicians themselves seriously - discussing the music in terms of ideas, methods, intentions, and et al.. Treating the music seriously suggests that the subject is itself important and valuable. One thing I got from talking with Theresa Kareakas was the fact that back in 80s LA punk scene everyone KNEW that what they had was special - they recognized that. I think it's time we recognize what's under our noses here in Houston as well.
#7 OK so here is how I'm approaching the articles.
Ultimately my goal is write well informed articles that accurately reflect the music and in the process express why I find what these people do interesting. In my case, I have a month to work on a piece about one band (admittedly a luxury). That means I try to attend shows, rehearsals, and have at least two interviews. Additionally, I have discussions with the bands where I discuss their quotes and the article in general with questions such as "Did I quote you correctly?", "Do you feel you expressed yourself well or would you like to revise your statement?", or "Do you feel that my article accurately describes your work and if not then why?" In other words, my methodology is collaborative. My argument is that this isn't politics, it's art we're discussing. If I am allowed to make multiple revisions in my article to fine tune it, why shouldn't I allow the band to revise their comments if they feel they can better communicate an idea? There are no "gotcha" moments here and if there were what would be the point? My goal isn't to catch someone talking shit and making some generalization that you can crucify them with, my goal is to do justice to the music and the band. If I achieve that goal I should be able to convey why the band and the music matter which in turn I think will serve the community.
Credits:
Lester bangs Photo Stephanie Chernikowski, © 1996.
From her book Dream Baby Dream: Images from the Blank Generation
6 Comments:
i agree with all of your points. i very rarely pay money for a music magazine because what passes for music journalism is pretty lame these days.
sometime ago i read an article on the internet which asserted that the main problem with music writing these days is that young writers are discovering lester bangs and then trying hard to BE lester bangs. imitation is the sincerest form of flattery, but being a rocker with an attitude doesn't make you lester bangs any more than drinking beer could make you charles bukowski. a writer needs to work on the craft and then find his or her own style.
first off, I have to say, that there is also the deal where writers write from their point of view, usually, and many times, that can be misinterpreted, or interpreted to mean other things, often. can be a pro or a con. hard to please everybody.
secondly, I'd like to say that I really enjoy my northwest austin community magazine. It's way more informative than other magazines around, for my news, and I really dig the infographics they use. They are particularly good at them, I must say.
More on writing...
From Heinlein's "The Cat Who Walks Through Walls"...
"I have this one nasty habit. Makes me hard to live with. I write."
The dear girl looked puzzled.
"I am not going to apologize for writing... Anymore than I would apologize for this missing foot...and in truth the one led to the other. ...I had to do something to eat. I wasn't trained for anything else and back home some other kid had my paper route. But writing is a legal way of avoiding work without actually stealing and one that doesn't take any talent or training.
"But writing is antisocial. It's as solitary as masturbation. Disturb a writer when he is in the throes of creation and he is likely to turn and bite right to the bone... And not even know that he's doing it. As writers' wives and husbands often learn to their horror.
"And - attend me carefully, Gwen! - there is NO way that writers can be tamed and rendered civilized. Or even cured. In a household with more than one person, of which one is a writer, the only solution known to science is to provide the patient with an isolation room, where he can endure the acute stages in private, and where food can be poked in to him with a stick. Because, if you disturb the patient at such times, he may break into tears or become violent. Or he may not hear you at all... And, if you shake him at this stage, he bites."
I like posts like this, process posts, so I will comment in detail.
Generally speaking I agree with your points, but I will comment on them one at a time.
#1 – I agree with you that blogs and printed articles are two different things and that readers are generally more willing to accept errors (grammatical or otherwise) in a blog than in print. However, I don’t think this is an excuse for writing carelessly on a blog, just because it’s a blog. In my opinion, if you’re going to write something, a book, a blog, a letter, an email, a note to yourself, anything, then you should write it as well as you can. Granted like you mention, time and other constraints allow for more revisions of something one writes once a month than something one writes once a day, but my point is, one shouldn't slack off just because it’s a blog.
#2 – Right on.
#3 – There is no substitute for going out and word of mouth. Especially if you are a local writer writing about local bands that are playing just down the street.
#4 – In many cases I would blame the publications more than the writers themselves for this problem. Most papers seem to push for the broad scope music editor, and I can see how that would be the most practical thing to do.
#5 – Once again, I agree with you, but if I may pick a small bone here, and I only do it with the utmost admiration for the work you have been doing writing about the local houston scene. My bone to pick is that, yes write about local and regional stuff, but write like you are writing for a non-local and non-regional audience, at least on this blog. I don’t know the Free Press and have never read it, so this point my not apply to your work on that publication, but I read your posts here every week and occasionally you write like you are writing for Houston readers that are familiar with what you are talking about. Certainly this is not always the case and I have learned a lot about Houston music through your posts, but once in a while it’s like you forget that some of us don’t live there. Stylistically, sometimes this works towards making me feel like I’m right there with you, you know, like a new guy in town listening in on a conversation between locals, but ultimately I think it distances me more than makes me feel part of what you are writing about.
#6 – I agree, and I wish these discussions would take place more often, and not just about Houston music. I’m going to be selfish and say that it is a little disheartening to write a post about the creative process as it unfolds, like I have been doing posting about the process of writing and recording a record, and yet, few people have anything to say about it. I could use some serious discussions of methodology, intent, and ideas in regards to those posts. Makes me wonder if there is no one out there that is interested, or if I’m writing in a way that doesn’t allow any room for discussion.
#7 – That seems like a great approach for a profile.
Great post Ramon.
Ramon, if you follow the principles you have outlined here, you will go a long way toward improving the coverage of local bands. You're absolutely right that someone writing in print media must be held to higher standards of quality, professionalism, etc.
While some might criticize you for being parochial, that's fine if that is consistent with your goals as a music writer. I do think that covering non-local acts that come through town is worthwhile even in that context, though -- remember the famous Bevis Frond show at MJ's? Well, the folks who were in the know got to see probably the best rock show in Houston in several years, and although Bevis Frond led the charge, it wasn't just because of them. In that case, there was a great dynamic between local acts and a touring act, and the fact that Houston was on the Frond's tour map says a lot about support for that kind of music in the local scene. Yet Houston Press basically ignored the show and I am sure that in part, that explained why there weren't as many people there as should have been. Reminds me of the time me and Tom Carter sat basically alone in Fitzgeralds watching Pussy Galore put on a fucking beast of a show. I don't know if I can blame the local music press for that one though...
So to make a long story short, there are cases where spending some time reviewing out of town bands has some real value, but not just because they're from out of town, obviously.
hey sparrow, actually kwame anderson does exactly what you describe for the free press. and we'll always have bevis frond... ah!
i really like roberto's critique on #5. it's easy to forget that the world doesn't start and end in Texas (and Houston by extension since we rarely travel to other Texas cities).
and roberto i don't have any experience writing music so excuse me for not commenting to your last post - en boca cerrada no entran moscas, no what i mean?
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home