Sean Cannon over at BuzzGrinder posted a very interesting video of professional music critic Chris Weingarten. The video shows Weingarten speaking at the 140 Character Conference where he basically critiqued took a shit on music bloggers, hypem, twitter, and basically every form of the online blog/hype world.
He does bring up some valid points, but a lot of it seems like he is just spiteful. I agree that some bloggers just do it for hits and to get on hypem. But then again, there are plenty of bloggers who do it because of their love for music (myself included).
It is an interesting watch and I think all of you would find it at least somewhat interesting:
The video keeps auto playing so I took it down since it was probably very annoying. You can view it over at BuzzGrinder.
Samuel — 29 Apr 10
It’s definitely got some hard truths, but I think it’s fair to point that the blogs that run for music they love simply wouldn’t put up negative music reviews, because there’s no point in sharing music you don’t like. That should be the job of the professionals, who are noticeably leaning away from it.
I think the core problem is that the line between bloggers who share music because they love it and professional music criticism journals/magazines/websites/whatever is becoming very blurred. These professionals shouldn’t be fighting for hits the way blogs do, they should be sorting the information and presenting it in a distinctly professional manner. There are simply different expectations when it’s someone’s job to digest these things.
That said, I don’t think that there’s some lost art of criticism of music, it’s simply less openly talked about. There’s plenty of music I come across every day that I think sucks, even if the blog I get from professes a love for it. Music’s so subjective an art form that there’s little reason to debate it. I mean, we all debate with our friends about music, but do we ever really change each others’ minds? I can’t see a blog based around negativity to be even enjoyable to read, and blogs aren’t set up to be forums are debate. They’re simply bulletin boards.
His rant at the end is dribble, and I think it’s where he shows his cards, particularly because that’s something I do everyday. I love Pandora because it’s such a wealth of discovery, album art can be the whole reason I download an album, I always make sure to see opening acts because I’ve been blown away by some (most recently Owen Pallett’s opener, Snowblink, who are incredible).
But then, I hadn’t even heard of hype machine, so I may be an outlier.
Ray — 29 Apr 10
Look, the guy makes many valid points, but this is just the way technology progresses. I don’t see what he is trying to accomplish in this rant. My guess is: nothing, except maybe garner a little sympathy. Business models change, technologies change and people operating under the old system often feel left behind. That sucks, but it’s natural. Either you adapt or you stand around bitching about how it was better before. I think it’s clear which path he chose.
I also think he pays too much attention to the aggregates (Hype Machine, Twitter.com, etc). Yes, the aggregate sites are bland. They’re meant to be (the Hype Machine’s somewhat silly mission statement notwithstanding). People who want to know about music follow individual bloggers and individual Twitter accounts to get their unique taste.
If anything, the internet has made it more likely that niche opinions will get heard. He laments the loss of an editor pushing some cool obscure group in a mag, but look at old issues of RS or Spin. The simple fact is, that rarely happened. Why? Because they had product to sell. The lesser-known magazines could push unusual groups, just as the lesser-known blogs do now. Music fans are interested in both collective consensus AND unique and interesting opinions, just as they always have been.
Frank — 30 Apr 10
He definitely makes some good points but his points seem borne out of frustration that these print publications he’s been writing for are losing readership numbers, so he’s scared he’ll be out of a job soon.
Sometimes I’ll download an album by a band just because I like their name (like he suggested) and it’ll turn out to be complete shite, and I’ll review it as I listen to it and put it up on my site, but I can’t know something’s going to be bad until I listen.
His point about not being able to stumble upon bands anymore is meaningless. What’s wrong with being able to find a new band directly by just clicking through sites or by finding them on Hype Machine? Music is music, and if it’s good then who cares where you found it? It’s as if he’s grasping to the way he used to do things or the way things were done before the music blogs changed the way people find their music.
To me I see correlation between magazines doing what they could to get people to read their mags on a regular basis (whether it be catchy cover shots, giving away free stuff, eye-catching headlines etc) and what blogs are doing to get hits to their site. I’d say the money that music blogs are making is minimal unless it’s one of the biggies, so for them the way they get readership is to post “firsts” or “exclusives”.
When he says that bands have to be constantly churning out “news” just to get some attention or to stay in the press it’s somewhat true, but it’s almost like he’s blaming it all on the internet. The flip side is that the internet has helped, is helping, and does help to break some amazing new bands and if it wasn’t for them constantly giving the blogs stuff to talk about or listen to, and if it wasn’t for the blogs who continue to talk about them then they may never see the light of day.
Print publications are on the way out and that seems to be the entire reason for his rant, but like you and Samuel said, he does make some good points.
Chris — 30 Apr 10
What say we nominate a blogger to craft a rant about what sucks about music journalists?