Let's pull out one particular quote from the previous post.

Do you look for famous writers for your website?
Not really because we can't afford to pay them. Also I'm not sure many writers are particularly "famous" beyond a niche of fellow writers and die-hard music journalism enthusiasts. We paid Everett True to write for us for a bit last year but somewhat surprisingly he garnered the same amount of views as someone submitting their first article about the same acts, which is sad but sadly true - however, to be fair, I doubt the format of our website particularly helps. 

I guess it's worth noting that many of our writers have garnered notoriety and followings (former Editor Mike Diver and current reviews editor Andrzej Lukowski especially), as well as gone on to bigger things i.e. NME features editor James Jam, Metal Hammer features editor Terry Bezer and various others started out contributing to DiS. We've had various musicians write for us too and will continue to do so as it's loads more interesting than reading their responses to the same ol' questions.

tightrope walking (reprise)

Thought I'd repost a handful of my answers to some of the comments elicited by Drowned In Sound's Music Journalism R.I.P? week.

tightrope walking

Correct. The monopoly of information has been broken. It had always been broken, to a lesser or greater extent. What does that prove?

Three examples.

1) There are builders outside, replacing my roof right now. I have the same access as them to all the tools required to finish the job - the scaffolding, the tin, etc. Could I? What do you bloody think?

2) All a tightrope walker requires to complete their craft is a rope strung between two poles. That's all I need as well, in theory.

3) School textbooks. We all have equal access to those, correct? So why do some learn faster and some slower? The Internet hasn't levelled off hierarchies (of power, of information), not at all. It's simply destroyed some and created others. HOW DOES THE NEW JACK KID DISCOVER WHAT MUSIC SHE WANTS TO LISTEN TO? WHEN? WHERE? Oh, by trawling through thousands upon thousands of sites themselves...thereby becoming (to all intents and purposes) "an expert". DOES EVERYONE DO THIS? Really?

Alternately, they turn to trusted platforms (P4k, DiS etc) who point them in appropriate directions.... which is what has always happened! There has always been hundreds of thousands of music fans, expert in their own fields. The Internet didn't suddenly change that fact: it just confused the field by flooding it with too much information.

Everett_True | 16 Jul '09, 00:30 | Reply

the person reading this article

Do they have exactly the same access to information as I do? Really? How so? Are they me?

Everett_True | 16 Jul '09, 00:33 | Reply

and

With regard to this point (again), marcusian123, "The information asymmetry is shattered, I can check out American bands the same as the next person."

There's a reason for that. You're motivated. You have a vested interest in doing so. Most users surfing the Internet do not. (Goes back to the classroom: why do some learn fast, and some slow.) Sure, it means that folk like you no longer need to lean so heavily on folk like me. And that's fine. Doesn't mean the same applies everywhere.

Everett_True | 16 Jul '09, 00:37 | Reply

the differences between a taste-maker critic and a critic

Polar Bear is Dying raises a very fair point in response to a previous post that cuts straight to the heart of my research. What is the difference between a taste-maker critic and a critic? Don't all critics influence taste in some way or other?

Um, you could certainly make an argument for that. But wait. Many critics don't look to influence taste. They see their role to inform, to provide a form of consumer guide: or to discuss and inspect without necessarily prejudicing the reader (this form of approach particularly favoured at more 'respectable' newspapers); or (lower down the food chain) to do whatever it takes to blag that free CD or pair of concert tickets. There are whole sections of the critical community that view 'personality' in a writer with distrust - "immature" is a word I've seen used several times in conjunction with the recent death of one of the NME's foremost taste-maker critics of the 80s and 90s, Steven Wells (and not particularly as a prejorative). Many (perhaps most) critics view their duty as to 'tell the story', describe the music - nothing more, nothing less.

I'm not saying that the latter can't be taste-makers. Of course, they can: especially when they have a certain consistency in their views which their audience learns to interact with. For example, David Fricke of Rolling Stone is a man who's never bothered pushing the 'personality' side of his writing, but clearly he's a taste-maker critic - many people, both within the industry and without, set great store by his recommendations.

Then again, there are many critics who would define themselves as taste-makers without any clear reason why. I'm particularly thinking of the sorry breed of writers that showed up at the UK music press mid-90s, having read nothing and experienced nothing except the UK music press itself (and perhaps a few years at university, which frankly amounts to bugger all). Were they taste-makers, simply because the intent was there? Or were they lacking the personality - so crucial to a persona like Steven Wells, or Nick Kent, or Everett True - without which, unless you're as trusty and consistent a source as Fricke, or Simon Reynolds (to give an even better example), you cannot fill that role?

(I'm not meaning to imply Reynolds' or Fricke's writing has no personality - clearly it does - just that that personality isn't central to their whole approach.)

Is it possible to be a taste-maker critic if no one is paying attention to your views? Now, that's another question entirely. To pull in a question I posed a few weeks back, is the critic defined by their audience? Because it sure as hell doesn't just lie in the intent. How can I be a taste-maker if I'm not influencing anyone?

So is there a ready checklist by which you can define a taste-maker critic? Of course not: like all definitions, it is mutable and flexible and determined by the medium it exists within. And yet I need to be able to state - as unambiguously as possible - what a taste-maker critic is, because without doing so, how can I define the changing role of the taste-maker critic in web 2.0 environments?

In the past few days, I've been engaging in a (one-sided) argument with the fine readers of Drowned In Sound over a particularly cantankerous blog post overview of dull-ass Icelandic band Sigur Ros. Most are down with the idea I should be free to write what I like, even if they disagree with the sentiments and feel the post is gratuitous and rather pointless. Interestingly, almost without exception, the entire (message board posting) readership of DiS seem - quite touchingly - affronted that I should be seeking to engage them in dialogue over my views, one staff writer even going as far to suggest, "I wish a little of the old True would come back instead of just trolling for hits".

It's almost like a entire generation of music fans have never engaged with a taste-maker critic - because this is what I've always done!

Oh, and here's a tentative checklist for a taste-maker definition... If I could be bothered, I'd draw some arrows linking and circling the following to indicate the relationships. Maybe one of my readers could oblige?

Taste

Opinion

Personality

Writing skills

Trust

sociology vs consumer guides

I wonder. Is my other blog an attempt to change my critical style, in response to the fact the entire blogosphere now seems to take a sociological approach to music criticism? (i.e. It's all about the interaction with the audience, specifically the individual writing the blog.) Or is my style of writing mutating because of the physical demands of blogging, and the way it almost forces you to link to other sites?

Either way, it's starting to look worryingly close to...no, don't be too concerned, not criticism viewing rock-as-art...but a consumer guide, what with the overload of hypertext.

the music critic is defined by her audience

Gentle reader. You are part of a very select bunch. Very select. Perhaps too select.

I feel a need to spread the word. An urge to spread the word. A pressing, downright depraved, desire to spread the word. And this is where you can help me, gentle reader. I cannot do this alone. Please. I know that from the very fact you’re here – part of a very select bunch, remember? – you must be a dedicated blog reader. If you enjoy this (or my other) blog, please spread the word. Everett True cannot exist in a vacuum. The music critic is defined by her audience. If there is no audience to define her then – like the Gods of old – she will wither and die.

If you believe that Gods should still exist, please send links out, post messages on forums, pingback to other blogs, Twitter incessantly…if only for a day or so. Contact big alternate indie sites! Contact itsy-wisty teenie-weenie PhD sites! Irritate the hell out of Pitchfork!

And you will also be helping my PhD research, to see how easy (or otherwise) it is to spread word-of-mouth about taste-maker critics from zero in web 2.0 environments.

Bless you, gentle reader.

architecting about dance

Discussions relating to this blog:

The Future Of Music Writing

Dancing about Architecture

Everett True

Research is FUN!

My name is Everett True. I am a music critic – more specifically, a rock music critic. In certain sections of the world, I am considered an institution...

I would quote more from one of my early (discarded) stage 2 drafts, but there's a squashed mosquito on the computer screen.

punk a cappella

The Legend! meets The Young Liberals

The Legend! and Edward Guglielmino

The Legend! vs Shady Ladies

The Legend! w/Verity Susman

self-awareness

Traditionally, music journalism is a dialogue between writer and reader - one cannot exist without the other. Does this mean that I am defined by my audience?

tightrope walking

Just to make this explicit...

I do not think the "slow death of Everett True" has anything to do with the babble of voices in hyperspace. That is down to other (outside) factors (e.g. I am now a postgraduate student, a dad, a Queenslander - none of which seem to be particularly conducive to being a critic). There are plenty of platforms where "Everett True" could exist right now and continue to exert influence, if he chose to do so. Indeed, one could argue that the opportunities for Everett True to be Everett True to be a tightrope walker, performing for those impressed by such feats of dexterity, have increased exponentially since the advent of web 2.0. Are they devalued because the opportunities for Sam Citizen Critic to be Sam Citizen Critic have equally increased? I don't think so. The playing fields haven't been levelled, not at all. That's simply wishful thinking.

Here's a quote for today: "For all the supposed emancipation implicit in the pronouncement 'we're all critics now', the loss of critical authority...diminishes the agency and choice of the reader. It plays into the hands of the monopolies who pedal fewer and fewer choices and whose primary interest is always the bottom line." (McDonald, Ronan, The Death Of The Critic, 2007, Continuum Books)

The slow death of Everett True

More (edited) stuff from Twitter last night. The babble of voices is meant to reflect the...well...babble of voices. I love Andrew's 140-character answer to why writing (criticism) is important: "Because it is the dominant way of recording history. Because it influences other people. Because it conveys your beliefs."

everetttrue c'mon, c'mon...anyone know of any music criticism that ISN'T rooted in Bourdieu's theories of cultural capitalism?

niteshok@everetttrue Yeah: How To Be A Live Music Critic

louispattison@everetttrue Semi on-topic but have you read Carl Wilson's Celine Dion book in the 33 1/3 series? V v good.

everetttrue anyone in Brisbane got a dog-eared copy of (Paul Morley’s) Ask they’d care to loan me? Doesn't have to have canine characteristics, of course

everetttrue 1) can a music critic exist without an audience? 2) Is a music critic defined by their audience? 3) Does the term 'music critic' automatically confer authority? Is this down to (misplaced) notions of autonomy? 4) Is an audience defined by their music critic?

aramadge@everetttrue 1) Yes. 2) No. 3) I owe you a beer.

angusbatey@everetttrue 1) Yes 2) No 3) No (but if it did, then yes to part two) 4) I should hope not, but they should be informed and perhaps guided.

kicking__k@everetttrue 1) Depends on whether they feel the need to feedback or share their opinion, but they're only a critic if they're critiquing.

everetttrue yeah but, 1) a tightrope walker is a tightrope walker, is physically quantifiable. is it simply down to the statement, "I am a music critic"?

angusbatey@everetttrue If you listen to music - really properly listen - and think about it, and react or form an opinion, then you're a music critic. I don’t think it’s about writing or anything like that - it's about the nature of your relationship to music.

kicking__k@everetttrue 2) Some aspire to lead, others to follow (much modern music press claims to do former while secretly aiming more at the latter)

everetttrue so music criticism is performance. wait a sec...there's a fellow up here who argued that a couple of years back: Marc Brennan's his name...

aramadge@everetttrue What? Writing something produces a more tangible outcome than walking 10m on a piece of string, audience or not.

kicking__k@everetttrue 1) I'd say more institutional/culturewide recognition, like the value conferred by being in print, as opposed to blogging.

angusbatey@everetttrue Not performance as such - more about being an engaged participant rather than passive recipient in the music/listener exchange.

everetttrue@angusbatey but isn't the difference between opinion and criticism a) being informed and...um...isn't that the difference? most critics are passive, however. n'owt to do with feminism.

aramadge@everetttrue How could he or she possibly speak for the reaction of all potential listeners? Engages with the music’s effect on the critic.

everetttrue@kicking__k isn't recognition via blogging culturewide these days? c.f. citizen journalism

angusbatey@everetttrue The acquisition of information is a function of level of engagement. You only learn about it if you care.

everetttrue but most (rock etc) music criticism engages with the music's effect on an audience, not the actual music itself

kicking__k@everetttrue 1) If a music critic belongs to the media (i.e. 'in the middle'), s/he's always dependent on having subject + audience.

angusbatey@everetttrue I think the act of criticism is inherently interrogatory so cannot be entirely passive, even if it has no impact on the art/ist

everetttrue@angusbatey what if it has no impact on its audience?

everetttrue@aramadge agreed. i'm just referring to the fact that surely a critic is writing with an audience in mind, even if it's just themselves. re: piece of string analogy. surely, that's for the audience to decide?

angusbatey@everetttrue You can only hope for impact. You'd still write it, it's not defined by its reception. This is getting very tree/forest/sound.

aramadge@everetttrue RE: string...You were talking about how it's “physically quantifiable”. The piece of writing more quantifiable than the walk.

angusbatey@everetttrue Also, define "audience". The most important audience may be yourself - your criticism may impact on future thoughts.

everetttrue Ziggy Stardust does not exist without an audience. Neither does Everett True. Or am I only talking about one strain of rock star/rock critic?

angusbatey@everetttrue BTW, didn’t mean "This is getting very tree/forest/sound" to sound so potentially impatient - just a trun(k)cated observation.

niteshok@everetttrue "If you're not writing to be memorable, then why the fuck are you writing?", right?

angusbatey@everetttrue Ziggy still had to learn to play gtr. He wouldn't do that in front of an audience. Did he exist while honing craft? I'd say

aramadge@everetttrue But even if both only have one audience, themselves, then both exist.

angusbatey@everetttrue indubitably yes. So ET is still ET if all his Twitterfollowers are asleep and they never see his words of wisdom. You don't stop being a rock star/critic just cos other people forget to pay attention. Ask Anvil!

everetttrue@aramadge so what does differentiate criticism from opinion, esp in the context of web 2.0?

everetttrue@angusbatey i've got bugger all Twitterfollowers. give me MySpace anyday! 15-yr-old goths + lonely h-wives! I was Book of The Week there, y’know...

kicking__k@everetttrue Some, but atypically. I think most bloggers are less about opinion or debate than they are the act of distributing.

aramadge@niteshok@everetttrue "Writing to be memorable" sounds like a load of shit. What about writing because it’s important? Polemic.

aramadge@everetttrue Did anything ever differentiate the two? If it did, it wasn't a printing press or a publishing model. It was in the writing.

angusbatey@everetttrue Myspace scares me. Facebook too. I thought I'd hate this but like it a lot.

everetttrue@aramadge i thought it was (partly) the platform. People treat you differently, depending where you're from. Take that Guardian blog furore...no one cared about the fact I'd had a go at the Australian music press cos I was Everett True. It was all because it was "The Guardian" - that's what conveyed the notion of authenticity. You could argue that it took me years to get to the position where I could represent "The Guardian" but I think that's irrelevant. Anyone can represent "The Guardian"

everetttrue@aramadge what is 'important'? depends on yr approach as a critic. there is more than one.

everetttrue@kicking__k another means of spreading 'the word'...?

niteshok@aramadge Why is writing important, though?

everetttrue At QUT, Journalism studies (partly) argues that it's not about the platform but the writing...sorry, i think that's being deliberately naive

aramadge@everetttrue If you'd been writing for The Times it would have been just as big. It was "Everett True" and not "The Guardian".

aramadge@everetttrue Yes, what is important may depend on the writer. But I believe it is a better inspiration than fame.

aramadge@niteshok Whoa! Why is it important? Honestly, I have no idea how to put an answer into 140 chars. But I will think of a way to.

everetttrue@aramadge I really don't want to disagree with you, but I have to. I'm simply not that well-known. Not here in Australia. And not in the UK, either.

kicking__k@everetttrue The writing affects how it's processed - one expects a blog to be informal, and print to be learned - often the best in either field plays with that expectation.

aramadge@niteshok Because it is the dominant way of recording history. Because it influences other people. Because it conveys your beliefs.

everetttrue@aramadge i think we're talking about the same thing here. writing to be memorable = writing about what's important. it's not about fame.

aramadge@everetttrue The original journo must have known. After that, "Everett True" became "legendary British critic" and it turned into drama.

aramadge@everetttrue I suppose, but it doesn't go both ways. I can think of many memorable idiots. Then again, perhaps they are important too?

angusbatey@everetttrue It's not about the platform *or* the writing - it's about the engagement with the subject, the intellectual process.

everetttrue@aramadge It was the Courier-Mail. It was an easy hook. I'm nowhere near as famous as I'm given credit for. It used to be flattering but...(shrugs)

everetttrue wait. i am getting so confused holding down...what...five different conversations at once.

aramadge@everetttrue Anyway we're getting off topic. Back to opinion vs criticism. Re: deciding by platform, wasn't that always bullshit anyway?

everetttrue@aramadge not totally. the platform confers authority, a crucial part of the critic's role.

aramadge@everetttrue I mean, a certain tabloid critic may have published more critical writing than their broadsheet counterpart.

everetttrue@aramadge what i mean is...in the babble of voices that is web 2.0, how is one more voice - however well-informed and succinctly argued - going to stand out?

aramadge@everetttrue Perhaps all today's situation means is that the critic has to earn their own authority rather than rely on the masthead.

everetttrue@aramadge without authority, who is going to afford the critic the necessary power to fill their role?

aramadge@everetttrue A fair point, however a good writer will find their way to the story by circumventing the powers that demand said authority.

everetttrue@aramadge agreed. and that'd be nice but i don't see it happening. i really don't. you could argue 'Pitchfork' but...i have issues with that...but of course i'm arguing from a blinkered perspective. i once had authority. i no longer have authority. Hence i feel embittered by the situation and it colours my judgment. i try not to let it.

aramadge@everetttrue What are your issues with Pitchfork? Certainly, it's not perfect. But nor is it the only example of web criticism.

everetttrue@aramadge because they're up their own arse, and don't attempt to engage with the world outside their own narrow worldviews. and it’s not even their own arse, it's Simon Reynolds' - and much as I like Simon, I do not want to be up his bottom.

aramadge@everetttrue Couldn't that be said of a lot of music criticism via traditional publishing as well, though? I think it could.

aramadge@everetttrue Why do you believe you no longer have authority? Do you really think a multitude of voices has killed "Everett True"?

everetttrue@aramadge the title of my PhD thesis is precisely that. (straight up!) i'm not sad about it - more intrigued. actually, it's more down to the fact i refuse to stay put, and keep uprooting myself just when all seems to be settled.

aramadge@everetttrue RE: Simon Reynolds and his arse... That is something we can both emphatically agree upon. :)

rock critics in their underpants

Everett True interview

residual value (pt 2)

I was going to write a post on residual value, then realised that I was plagiarising - badly, and without much thought - from post-structuralists I don't even have names for. All I wanted to know is this: does a work of art have any residual value, beyond that invested in it by the reader/observer. If not, then what's the purpose of the critic. If so, then surely that value is a construct, artificial - no better and no worse than a popularity contest.

One reason I dislike the perfect '10' that Pitchfork gave Sonic Youth's Daydream Nation is the unspoken arrogance implicit in such an action, for - if we can all be agreed upon the fact that the merit of a work of art needs to judged upon both the author and reader's roles - not only does this assume that the work of art is the most 'perfect', flawless ever but also that the judgment passed upon it is from the most 'perfect', flawless critic the world has ever witnessed. The relationship is inter-dependent.

Like most of the western world, I prefer to read an interpretation rather than the 'original' (if it exists). The individual voice becomes all-important in Web 2.0, and how it relates to your paradigm.

It takes a panel of six peers to recognise an expert. Otherwise that expert does not exist. I sometimes feel this can be applied to my own role as music 'critic' and Australia.

residual value

I have long since doubted the power of my words - that any residual impact they may have fully lies within the meaning charged them by my readers, the fondness they have for this persona 'Everett True'. The notion of myself being the creator seems foolhardy at best. And what has my entire life as a critic been if not some sort of stance against the notion of critic as 'authority', from my first tentative steps at NME where I was unable to even construct sentences properly and my notion of a well-reasoned argument was the number of exclamation marks applied.

When I was in my late teens and attending gigs, I would grade them all accordingly (doubtless, in some sort of throwback to my strong mathematical inclinations) - but not in a straightforward, NME/Pitchfork/Q/Mojo way, rather as a form of numerical shorthand. One mark for 'performance' and one mark for 'enjoyment', thus unconsciously ackowledging the relationship between author and reader, the inter-dependency of both in the 'value' of art. Yet you could equally argue that I was setting myself up for a fall by separating the two values, 'objectivity' and 'subjectivity', that they cannot be separated anyhow.

everything is miscellaneous

Does anybody think that Chris Anderson's Long Tail theory can be applied to music critics? In other words, with the advent of the concept of the infinite catalogue, instead of everyone reading a handful of immensely powerful, hip critics, there are 500,000+ critics to read on the Web now and the residual power lying with these few is growing smaller and smaller (even accounting for immensely influential nodes such as Pitchfork and Australia's Mess And Noise).

According to Chris, 40% of all record sales are now in releases that sell less than 10,000 (as Wikipedia says, citation needed).

Or does criticism still remain about heirarchy - and all that has changed are the structures? Goddamnit, don't look at me. I don't know anything. I can't even write about music anymore without worrying about context. As I stated in Plan B a few months back, my greatest strength used to be that I took everything OUT of proportion. Being a parent fucks you up in so many different ways. I'd kind of always assumed that the critical heirarchy was based on the same philosophy that kept the men behind the Cold War so gainfully employed for so many years: but what happens when all notions of objectivity and balance are finally removed (cf: blogs, paysites such as amazon, eBay etc)? The centre is lost. The centre is lost. I might well feel that my interpretative paradigm borders on a feminist-slanted post-structuralism, but I don't necessarily enjoy seeing life that way.

Quantifying criticism

Critics are guilty of devaluing their craft, by falling into the 21st Century malaise of wanting to reduce argument to a numeral, seduced by its certainty (cf Garry Mulholland’s The 261 Greatest Albums Since Punk And Disco). Pitchfork grade albums, according to some obscure mathematical formula that utilises the Dewey System, thus treating criticism on quantitative terms – but how are they able to categorise a work such as Sonic Youth’s Daydream Nation as a ‘perfect’ 10? This not only assumes a positivist approach – now seen as incomplete when it comes to determining much of human emotion – but also a perfect conflagration of events during which the listening experience must have taken place – ie: the weather outside, the quality of coffee drank beforehand, the sound quality of the recording system, the friends on hand for reassurance, and so on.

The first post

The idea behind this blog is to create dialogue (argument, discussion, comment, rancour) around my ongoing PhD topic - "Is there anything left to say about music?". The idea is to run a blog in parallel with a blog being set up by a group of QUT students, helmed by myself. I would like a uniformity of design, and to regularly update this page, otherwise I feel it lacks validity. The design needs to include hypertext links, visuals, audio. The uniformity should spread to the written entries. The blog will be used to test out ideas and theories, hopefully to shoot every last one down in flames. The blog will be based in and around Brisbane, but is not intended to be limited by any boundaries - real or imagined - imposed by my location within this fair city. The blog is intended to add colour, not lessen texture.