{"id":254,"date":"2009-10-07T13:13:35","date_gmt":"2009-10-07T17:13:35","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.artsjournal.com\/jazzbeyondjazz\/wp\/2009\/10\/future_of_music_journalism_its\/"},"modified":"2011-04-28T16:33:39","modified_gmt":"2011-04-28T20:33:39","slug":"future_of_music_journalism_its","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.artsjournal.com\/jazzbeyondjazz\/2009\/10\/future_of_music_journalism_its.html","title":{"rendered":"Future of music journalism: It’s about the audience (?)"},"content":{"rendered":"

The dozen “music journalism” professionals at yesterday’s Condition Critical panel of the Future of Music Coalition’<\/a>s three-day long “policy summit” became somewhat divided (at least from my perspective) over the course of a well-attended hour & three-quarters session. At one end of a spectrum of opinion were the old guard — me, Greg Kot<\/a> of the Chicago Tribune and Tom Moon<\/a>, formerly of the Philadelphia Inquirer — asserting that good music journalism puts the music in context, “illuminates, educates and entertains” its readers and reaches beyond its niche to satisfy those who are not devoted yo but may be curious about a given musical topic. At the other was\u00c2\u00a0Raymond Leon Roker of URB\/URB.com<\/a> and\u00c2\u00a0Todd Roberts, co-founder of the Daily Swarm<\/a>, who suggested that success in music journalism comes from amplifying, echoing and reinforcing the interests of the largest attractable audience. I may be drawing this too reductively, but it felt like an argument: developing substantive content vs, ever-better marketing, without much interest in content, using the processes of social media.<\/p>\n


\nI may have misunderstood this panel completely; I was never quite sure what we were supposed to be talking about, or to whom. Moderator Casey Rae-Hunter of FMC, who described himself as a recording engineer who had worked as a music journalist, posted the opening question: “What value do music writers bring to music, when it’s so easy for everybody to hear any music now [via the web]?” Co-moderator Fiona Morgan, formerly a writer\/editor for the Independent Weekly serving Raleigh-Durham and now a graduate student at University of North Carolina studying public policy issues regarding journalists, wanted to know “What’s the new business model for music journalism, considering the old one is broken. Who will pay for music journalism in the future?”<\/p>\n

<\/div>\n
Panelists found it much easier to answer Rae-Hunter’s question than Morgan’s.\u00c2\u00a0Eliot Van Buskirk<\/a>, a staff writer at Wired.com, began by suggesting the critic’s role is now more that of a “curator” (current buzz word) than consumer guide; that a crit makes a list of new releases bearing his seal of approval, and flourishes or folds depending on whether he\/she is believed or not. Molly Sheridan, of the American Music Center’s New Music Box<\/a>, agreed that there are more “reactors” commenting on music in digital media than ever before, but that those who are “anti-conventional” have a clear and distinct place, rising above the chatter.<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
Then Roker<\/a> proposed that music journalism online is in a “transitional phase” regarding the responsibilities (and compensation) of critics, but that now “the audience is king,” and that websites featuring music criticism must aggregate content, must syndicate content, and must look at what advertisers are doing for themselves in consideration of adopting the same forms of pr to ostensibly “journalistic” structures, because they’re popular. He urged thinking of music journalism as a commodity to be delivered to those who will support it — advertisers — in whatever form they want. Sir: If you’re reading this, have I paraphrased correctly?\u00c2\u00a0<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
Roberts <\/a>followed, agreeing that journos bring “point of view” to their postings, that the “consistency” of a point of view gains an audience, and that there is always a possibility of “the smallest blogs can become the biggest blogs.” Apparently this is the experience in indie rock, the music genre the FMC conference seeemed most friendly towards, but it hasn’t happened in jazz, blues, Latin music, classical or contemporary composition, bluegrass — and musical form less vulnerable to the whims of the pop world than those subgenres that splinter off from pop.<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
I was startled that Mike Riggs<\/a>, City Desk editor of Washington City Paper, proclaimed “We’re not worth what we’re getting paid” when Twitter is spreading information about new bands and venues better, and that some of us ought to “find something else to do.” I really didn’t get what Scott Plagenhoef<\/a>, editor-in-chief of Pitchfork, was trying to say about the audiences’ “need for filters” — apparently, music journalists who can separate the chaff of indi rock from the wheat; he and Maura Johnston, editor of Idolator<\/a> which she described as a one-person shop, seemed to be in agreement about how hard it is to gain rights and work with record labels, especially when their publicists maintain conflicting pr policies \u00c2\u00a0in different territories (i.e., US and Western Europe). ‘Scuse me, but if relations with record labels are at the top of the concerns list, maybe one ought to “find something else to do.”<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
Johnston did air her hopes for the survival of content that goes beyond paparazzi photos of celebs. She raised the difficulty of a small website “establishing an identity,” and complained when metrics are driving coverage, regardless of the coverage’s “value.” David Malitz<\/a>, a staff writer for the Washington Post, said his boss sees value in the local listings he compiles more than his occasional articles or blog postings.<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
It was Moon who chided current (young, indi-rock oriented) music journalists as being “unknowledgable and incurious”, Kot (a 29-year rock critic for the Chicago Tribune) who brought up that the rush for scoops, 24\/7 news cycle and increase in must-do tasks for those journalists lucky enough to have staff positions has resulted “getting a lot of the stories wrong.” He was the one who proposed that all reviews must “illuminate, educate and entertain,” and proposed that the way to have a future in writing about music is to do it well, not to suck at it. Pretty much where I come down on the issues, though as a freelancer rather than a staffer I believe that other sustaining work besides <\/span>writing itself have become a) necessary and b) harder than ever to secure. All we can do is keep trying.<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
Did these comments respond to the moderator’s questions? Maybe one, not two. Nobody but URB’s Roker touched the biz model question, and he got some heat for his willingness to abandon the traditional firewall between editorial and advertising (though he maintained he’d published no stories that breached conflict-of-interest protections). He and Roberts seemed to be saying music journalists should do what they do because they want to do it, regardless of compensation (during this “transitional phase”). Meanwhile, audience members asked for “big picture dreaming” about what online music coverage could be (I spoke of integrating music, text, video into one “article”), and wondered why wealthy philanthropists did emerge in cities like Boston and Denver to underwrite publications “like newspapers” in the public interest. (“After 25 years of journalism being derided by the prevailing political forces?” I asked back. Doesn’t seem too likely).\u00c2\u00a0<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
Did I miss something in this discussion? Another audience member questioned privately why there’s no Pitchfork for jazz, or URB. Got me — but it behooves me to take a look and consider what those sites are doing that might attract advertisers and audiences to what we can construe as less fashion-specific musical expression.<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n

howardmandel.com<\/a>
\nSubscribe by Email <\/a> |
\nSubscribe by RSS<\/a> |
\nFollow on Twitter <\/a>
\n All JBJ posts <\/a> |
\n