Showing posts with label The Guardian. Show all posts
Showing posts with label The Guardian. Show all posts
Tuesday, December 8, 2009
Monday, December 7, 2009
another fine blog from that man Simon Reynolds.
This one is at The Guardian, just up, time of writing.
Fine commentary by Simon Reynolds but I think his emphasis is a little off.
Surely, the fact that Pitchfork's illustrious elite think that eight of the decade's finest 10 albums were released by 2002 reflects the fact that over the past decade it's become increasingly easy to follow the trail.
History is no longer a closed book, certainly not where music is concerned. Now, with a few clicks of your mouse, you can track back your way back to the sources - or other alternatives - or fresh new ways of hearing. And this means that the very concept of 'new' (which was always absurd) is becoming more and more outdated. And this means that no group of critics can agree with any other group of critics because there's too much access and too much information.
Also - ALBUMS of the decade? Downloads, surely?
(You can find more Reynolds here. Well worth reading, I say.)
Fine commentary by Simon Reynolds but I think his emphasis is a little off.
Surely, the fact that Pitchfork's illustrious elite think that eight of the decade's finest 10 albums were released by 2002 reflects the fact that over the past decade it's become increasingly easy to follow the trail.
History is no longer a closed book, certainly not where music is concerned. Now, with a few clicks of your mouse, you can track back your way back to the sources - or other alternatives - or fresh new ways of hearing. And this means that the very concept of 'new' (which was always absurd) is becoming more and more outdated. And this means that no group of critics can agree with any other group of critics because there's too much access and too much information.
Also - ALBUMS of the decade? Downloads, surely?
(You can find more Reynolds here. Well worth reading, I say.)
Wednesday, June 17, 2009
traffic
I've managed to get my hits on my music blog up to around a thousand per day, over the last three days.
Interestingly, being linked to by The Guardian website hasn't make the slightest bit of difference to my incoming traffic. Most of my referrals come either from Twitter, Facebook, the live Nirvana forum or the UK music site Drowned In Sound.
To put all this in perspective, when I published my own fanzine in the 80s I was selling over 2,000 copies per issue, hand-to-hand.
Interestingly, being linked to by The Guardian website hasn't make the slightest bit of difference to my incoming traffic. Most of my referrals come either from Twitter, Facebook, the live Nirvana forum or the UK music site Drowned In Sound.
To put all this in perspective, when I published my own fanzine in the 80s I was selling over 2,000 copies per issue, hand-to-hand.
Tuesday, April 28, 2009
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. :)
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. :)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)