Q&A RE: Music Journalism: Print vs the Web.
My answers to questions from Simon Warner from School of Music at Leeds University http://www.leeds.ac.uk/music/staff/srw/
1. What is the name of your website and what is your role?
DrownedinSound.com I’m the sites founder, editor, head of business development and VP of coffee-making. I also run and A&R Drowned in Sound Recordings.
2. What is the readership of your website?
The site teeters between 520k unique users on a busy month and 405k unique users in the quieter/shorter/more-bank-holiday-riddled months. We get an average of 27,600 visitors a day and have about 1500 die-hards who post on our boards on a daily basis.
3. Do you write online music journalism? If so, what and for whom?
I write every so often but most of my role is now in a more visionary and structural capacity. I contribute a lot more to the conversation on our forums than I do to saying why a record is only 6 out of 10. I tweet a lot/too much too and I also write a column for Sunday Times’ Culture section, as well as a monthly blog for Spotify. I don’t write many reviews as I’ve never really been a writer and I’m indifferent to most music, and prefer to focus on the stuff I passionately love and believe in. I do blog a fair bit tho http://seaninsound.tumblr.com andhttp://seaninsound.blogspot.com
4. Do you read online music journalism? If so, what?
I read heaps of stuff in print but I’m much more a nibbler when it comes to web content, trying to keep abreast of topics, trends and recommendations, rather than reading a great deal. This is partly due to written word fatigue from trying to keep up with a never-ending torrent of emails - I get around 1000 press releases a day about bands you’ll never hear about from one-man PR companies who have no idea who we are and make no attempt to build a personal relationship.
When I do read lengthier music things online it’s usually on the Guardian, WSJ, New Yorker, or industry-ish blogs like fingertipsmusic or hypebot. I sometimes read Hipster Runoff, MBVMusic, Stereogum etc but most blogs are just like radio djs, giving pithy intros, acting as filters, often reinforcing the buzz status quo. I kinda consume blogs, rather than read them, if that makes sense?
5. Do you write for a print music magazine? If so, what and for whom?
Yeah, Sunday Times’ Culture mag. Have also written bits for Bang magazine, a piece for NME and will be contributing to The Reverand’s Ark magazine.
6. Do you read print music journalism? If so, what?
I read loads. I probably buy about 10 broadsheets a month (Guardian, Times and FT Weekend) and at least 10 magazines. I love Wired, Huck, Esquire and Fast Company, which have a fair bit of music. Been really impressed by the relaunch of NME.
7. What impact has online music journalism had on print music journalism? Please comment on issues from sales to style and content. Have there been any benefits to the print sector?
Print has tried (and failed somewhat) to compete with the comprehensive nature of the web but seems, especially with Newsweek and relaunched NME, to be returning to the in depth analysis and lengthy, photo-fabulous features. I think the web has intensified people’s desire for both passionate and considered opinions from individuals and print has really realised this - Russell Brand’s football column is a great example of this.
The web has also shifted the tone of some publications, replacing formality with a more human and irreverent voice but few have really managed to reach the dizzying heights of Charlie Brooker or Chuck Klosterman. Obviously the idea of print breaking a story is well and truly over and any ‘exclusive’ is instantly replicated and reacted to in the web echo chamber. I’m stunned more newspapers haven’t gone weekly, leaving their core audience reading daily online but then I’m also surprised NME has turned into a free or pricier monthly publication - or even taken over daily sections with their ‘authority’ in places like Metro and Evening Standard. I think licensing and aggregation of specialist content will be a big thing in the year’s to come as publishers save money but want to maintain specialism. I still want to take DiS into print but it won’t happen in a hurry.
8. What advantage does online music journalism have over print music journalism? Is it merely that it is free? Are there any subscription sites in this sector that you are aware of? Are there other issues/attractions that might be driving readers away from magazines in print?
The web’s ability to throw in a video or something with a play button is, for most people, a billion times better than a verbose description involving seemingly irrelevant metaphors. There’s also the instant nature of the web and the ability to find and mine increasingly further down the niche of a genre, which for the truly dedicated music fan, who once relied on the limited selection in the media, is incredible. The fact it’s free and a few taps or clicks away is a factor and I can’t think of any website or music blog people would pay for as there are so many free alternatives (although obviously people would pay to access music via Spotify or Oink and there is scope for music specialists to charge for curation, to overcome choice paralysis but that’s a way off).
9. What disadvantages does online music journalism have over the print version?
My major bugbear with the web is the inability to really prioritise content in the same way you can with a cover artist or multiple page spread, although the number 1 slot in year-end lists is one of the few websites can do this. The web is now increasingly consumed via feeds and shared links, rather than people checking out even half of what is presented on a frontpage. People once checked out and debated the 1 new band a week (50 a year!) in the NME or the manifesto-like outpouring of their favourite journalist, now they check out the few bands a day that they’ve heard mentioned 3 or more times. The web is trying to adapt to this behaviour but print still has a massive advantage in terms of a visual ability to stick-their-neck’n’balls-on-the-line for an act they truly believe in, it’s just a shame there’s such a pack mentality and every mag is covering the same blog-approved, agreeable trite. The whole data-led nature of popular=best or falling in line behind the acts which have had the biggest record deals is something magazine editors really need to shy away from and become informed tastemakers again, rather than buzz-chasing, pr-informed pussies, constantly caught in the churnover of new-new-new and dismissing acts because they didn’t form 3 weeks ago and instantly get covered on Gorilla vs Bear. There’s a huge swathe of acts releasing third+ albums with no scope for media coverage, yet every magazine dedicates space to the flavour of the moment, often without seeing the band live or hearing a body of work - some acts are getting tonnes of coverage after sticking a demo online and then they have nowhere to get coverage when their album comes out 2years later. Quality not quantity, etc.
Plus print can suck you in based on imagery, whereas most of the web has a few characters of description to perk your curiosity. And then there’s the fact people are likely to read longer pieces in print, rather than just look at the scores (our reviews get 6 to 10 times more traffic than our interviews of the same acts).
10. To what extent does the industry – the labels, press and publicity officers, advertisers – respect or fail to respect online music journalism? Does the industry’s attitude matter?
Respect? Ha! If you’re Pitchfork or Guardian, you get all love in the form of genuinely special exclusives for acts people care about. The labels, especially indies or interesting acts on majors are constantly assisting this monopoly - Broken Bells for instance included the Pitchfork interview in their mailout, whereas we’ve done equally as much on the band, etc but we’re well aware we aren’t the dominate voice of indie-rock but then nor is Q which people quote on their advertising!? The rest of the time, artists break news or reveal videos on their own websites, meaning sites like ours are expected to aggregate it and constantly playing catch-up. We rarely have information or unique ‘assets’ to excite our readers or attract new users (which is especially frustrating when we give the smaller acts more love and rarely get the ‘pay off’ from labels biggest acts). Some labels still think a band playing a gig is a news story, rather than a glorified listing, yet a lot of sites will just republish every press release for the sake of google traffic.
There’s also STILL a sense that the web isn’t that important, with print getting promos sometimes months earlier than the web and much more than 15min interview slots (even if the publication has less than 5000 readers they still often get better treatment than sites like ours). We’re often asked not to run things until after magazines have gone to print or radio has aired them, working to the labels plans, rather than anything which might be in our interest. It’s rare we come top of people’s priorities which is fair enough based on our relative scale but long-term, damaging to the eco-system as a whole, shunning the hand that feeds into other areas of the machine… I hate being part of the machine but it’d be very short-sighted to do as we please.
Since writing for the Sunday Times (which is only a column every 3 weeks) I’ve noticed a huge difference and disparity in the calibre of things I can get access to and the sorts of things I get early enough to have a considered opinion on by the time they’re released or weeks after they leak. I mean, sometimes we get promos the day a record is released, yet printed press obviously don’t have internet connections or flog their promos to cd exchange, which is how a lot of stuff leaks. It’s very rare I get a personal email (rather than a blanket emailout) from most PR people/labels, least of all from anyone I’ve ever met who knows my taste. I get tonnes of emails about acts we would never cover. There are exceptions, obviously but of the 300+ pr companies/labels who email me each week, with an average of 3 staff at each company, I’ve met probably 30-40 of them IRL in the 10years I’ve been doing DiS. Each PR is usually working 5+ campaigns at any one time, yet it is rare to have much human, let alone personal interaction, especially considering artists/labels are paying these people £500+ per month. I just wish more labels came to us with interesting and unique ideas which are creative and reciprocally beneficial, rather than focussing on getting as much coverage as possible, irrespective of whether the sites or publications they choose have a relevant, passionate or large audience.
However, I repeat, there are some really great PR people but they account for about 5% of them.
11. To what extent do artists respect or fail to respect online music journalism? Do bands see equal value in web coverage as print coverage?
It varies but I think bands get it much more than labels a lot of the time, I guess partly because we’re more ‘fans’ than ‘cynical’ ‘clueless’ ‘journalists’ who turn up and ask faq’s which wikipedia could answer.
In fact, I got an email from one of The National this morning about checking out and considering some editorial for the support band at their shows next week, yet I’m not sure I can even get a ticket to the show.
12. Does online music journalism have a) more influence than print music journalism; b) less influence than print music journalism; c) an equal influence?
Equal. They compliment eachother. It really depends on the style and scale of the music. Obviously for a lot of acts who would once have sold 10k albums from curiosity purchases, they now sell considerably less but are heard by a helluva lot more people. Print still has more impact on mass media in this country but a lot of print is now powered by the opinions of the web.
13. Will the internet ever be able to create funded jobs and a recognisable career structure for music journalists? Can the web ever produce a viable economic model?
We’re a long way away from that. DiS struggles to pay 4 part-time salaries and the ad-funded model isn’t perfect (sponsorship, is a different matter). I think it would take all the major sites going behind a paywall to know if a paywall could work but then I think sites need to be able to create and curate content of real value and like I said, we rarely get the access to acts or support from labels to provide things of real value. Being associated as added value to a brand/product/services which values the ownership, even if its in a philanthropic kinda way or gives them integrity, like banks sponsoring art galleries, etc. This was sort of the idea with DiS’ short-lived deal with Bskyb/Sky.com/SkySongs.
14. Could you ever foresee a) the death of print music journalism or b) the use of paywalls in the online music journalism sector?
Print will be revered like vinyl at some point but I think e-readers/iPads will really help change things. Paywalls are possible but the required huge investment in quality content and services makes it an impossible catch-22. If people aren’t paying for music, they’re not going to pay for words about music in a hurry.
15. Do you have any other thoughts that have not been raised by the questions posed?
I think I’ve covered everything.
No comments:
Post a Comment