Sunday, April 25, 2010

critic or journalist?

A reader writes...


Hey, Jerry

This is too long for Twitter, but a month later your little rantlet is still bugging me.

Think about it: what is your job? Truth be told, very few people genuinely give a crap whether you like a song or not. I mean, your best friends might, but almost everyone reading anything you like only cares about whether they are going to like it or not. Your job is to describe it well enough for them to consider whether they might like it. If you say you like it and they like most of what you like, then that makes it easier - just giving a description with no measure of endorsement doesn't really help. The question we ask our friends of anything they've experienced is normally "is it any good?" That's all: describe; recommend.

To do either, you have to be using the most appropriate words that you can find - not the cleverest or longest words, but the words that best fit. Is "music critic" a good fit for what you do? Yes, so long as you're just criticising music. It doesn't work very well if you're interviewing bands, unless you're impersonating Simon Cowell as you ask the questions. If you're a freelancer who also picks up a few spare pennies to write advertorials and press releases, it's not an appropriate description at all.

So what to call you, then? Music writer? Probably the safest term, but unless you're a book author then "writer" sounds insufferably pretentious. Wordsmith? Scribe? Hack? Pen-botherer?

Journalist.

The word to me conjures "diarist", which is probably the way I see what you do. You record your experiences. It's a pretty broad term that can cover things like interviews or even the reportage side of things like those endless features on "is this the end for copyright?" - or "is this the end for freelancers?"

There's a bit in Third Rock from the Sun where trashy Viki is in labour and says to Dr Mary Albright, "You're a doctor, ain't you?" and begs her to deliver the baby. The canned laughter confirms it - no sane, intelligent person would confuse an anthropology professor with a doctor of medicine. I think you're reasonably safe that nobody will dispatch you to a war zone any time soon.

Besides, what do we call all the other scribblers? What do we do with Charlie Brooker, for a start? (I suppose that largely depends on your opinion of Charlie Brooker), but he's not solely a critic. Perhaps he's a columnist, except for when he's writing creatively? Wikipedia calls him a journalist, because it's a simple easy-to-grasp term that everybody understands.

You could call yourself an opinionist, but then you'd just sound like a wanker.

Hope all is well in kangaroo-land

Jo x


3 comments:

  1. Are you going to respond, Everett? I do note that the writer asks 'what is your job' and then said 'you job is to...'. But anyway, interesting question, would be interested in hearing your response.

    'Demagogue' comes to mind but perhaps thats being a bit too harsh! Or perhaps 'rhetoricist' but I doubt that is actually a legitimate word.

    And by the way, Charlie Brooker is a fucking legend.

    ReplyDelete
  2. (from Facebook)

    Federica Pierino and Gökhan Pamuk like this.

    Simon Price
    I'm happy to be a critic. I don't go digging around for news. I wait for stuff to happen, then I slag it off. And hopefully make a point along the way, and maybe make people laugh. I realise it's not exactly an essential service on a par with being in a lifeboat crew, but such is the decadent froth of capitalism. You know this already, right, ET? It's a bit late in life to be having qualms about the validity of your vocation...
    Yesterday at 20:49 ·

    Everett True
    absolutely. i'm a critic 100 per cent. i have no useful abilities whatsoever.
    Yesterday at 20:58 ·

    Federica Pierino
    That's a good question...
    what about "CRITIST"?....
    Yesterday at 20:58 ·

    Federica Pierino
    "The clue is in my job description – music critic. I do not consider myself a journalist, as I do not research or report hard news. I do not consider myself a commentator as I believe that everyone should be a participant. I criticise people and in return I am not surprised if other people criticise me. It is part of the whole deal of being in the public arena"
    Yesterday at 22:36 ·

    Bianca Rosemarie de Valentino
    a person that likes chat chat a.k.a dialog...
    about an hour ago ·

    ReplyDelete
  3. @ Darragh - I was actually being rhetorical with my "what is your job?" question. To put that into context, the first thing I ever said, as a teenager, to Jerry was "has anyone ever told you you're an overpaid, pretentious wanker?", to which he looked affronted and replied, "I am NOT overpaid".

    I was so impressed that I idolised him from that moment on and deliberately copied his writing style when running my own teen fanzine, to which a mutual friend/neighbour, Edie Mullen, also contributed.

    All that imitation obviously worked since by my late teens I was being commissioned by various people to write various things - reviews, interviews, advertorials, press releases - anything, really.

    That is the part I was taking issue with: calling yourself a critic is fine if you're *solely* a critic, but a bit inaccurate if you're doing something else as well, so those who do shouldn't be criticised for calling themselves a "journalist" if they are *inclusively* critics.

    Taking your point, I also think Charlie Brooker could accurately be described as a Fucking Legend.

    @ Jerry, you're still talking bullshit about having no useful abilities. I've bought albums on your recommendation before, so it was pretty useful to me.

    I don't actually regard what I do now as "journalism" because I deliberately stay outside those conventions. "Hobbyist blogger" works fine for me now.

    ReplyDelete