The old journalist quote, which I newly took off Andrea Peyser, defines the problem with the big boys, the Spins , Stones and Forks: “If you want to cover the circus, don’t get intimate with the elephants”.
A coupla years ago, before rock nyc, I read a letter from the editor extolling the personal relationship writer Austin Scaggs had with the band he was writing about, cover of the Rolling Stone boys Kings Of Leon.
They got drunk together.
They hung after shows.
They were likethat EVEN BEFORE KOL HIT IT BIG.
So, here’s the question, that being the case what the fuck do I care what Scaggs has to say about em? Recently Spin had Amanda Palmer’s fiancee write about her gig at Irving Plaza. Now that may have been lots and lots of things, but a review it sure wasn’t.
From one end of rock criticism to the other, the coverers are intimate with the elephants.
Jann is best friends with Springsteen. Has Rolling Stone ever printed anything approaching a negative review of Bruce? I think everything Bruce has done since his reformation of the E Street Band has been relatively weak… a song here, a song there, but no sustained greatness. Look at it this way: If it wasn’t for the 70s and 80s, Springsteen in the 00s would be non-existent.
Maybe my take is a little extreme but it is a helluva lot closer to the truth then Rolling Stone’s.
Pitchfork is corruption for tots.
Forget that indie bands play at Ryan Schreiber’s birthday parties and bullshit like that. Pitchfork are concert promoters. How can they review what the promote and be taken seriously. They are completely compromised.
Look: the minute you are taking advertising from record companies there is a conflict of interest. So you break it into two: advertising/editorial and you hope the buyers for UMusic don’t offer you a huge ad for a band you hate. I get it, the mags have to make money some way, I would do the same thing if I could.
Also they, even we, need some form of special treatment. Freebie albums, photo passes, stuff like that. Now, they might be able to diss, say, Elizabeth and the Catapult, and maintain their relationship with Verve. Us? Less so… but whatever, it doesn’t really stop us.
And then there is exclusive info, streams, interviews, blah blah blah. All the ins and outs of a corrupt but inevitable relationship between the business of music and the business of writing about writing.
And finally, as I’ve written before, simply writing about music corrupts your opinion of music.
1. the false immersion in an album forces you into overstatement.
2. a watched object changes direction.
3. The limits of language is pushing the ineffable to the point of breaking.
4. Nobody WRITES ABOUT MUSIC, we all write about ourselves writing about music, so there is a one remove. What I mean is, there is a difference between the way I react to a song when I just listen to it then when I listen to write and the fdifferenc is the inner conversation from “this is good” to “Jakob Dylan is fucked” -by stylizing my thoughts I falsify em. Nothing is true.
But for all that, at least there should be an attempt to maintain a distance between artist and writer -a distemper of absolute honesty.
I’ve known many many rock stars and I have maintained a huge distance from all of them for three excellent reasons:
1. I don’t like them.
2. They don’t like me.
3. I want the freedom to dislike or like their music unencumbered by the huge corruption of friendship
Last November when MOF were in town I contacted somebody I knew at Saddlecreek, a friend of Conor’s, to try and set up an interview with him. I got turned down. A month later I called Bright Eye’s album I’m Wide Awake, It’s Morning the best album of the 00s.
There is no integrity left in the music writing profession.
Everybody is intimidate.