Op-Ed: Adapting music journalism to Web 2.0

Excuse me, sir, but if I may ask: When did you stop beating a dead horse?

“Kicking and screaming will fools be dragged into the 21st century.” -Oliver Wendell Jones, Bloom County

*                                                         *                                                      *

This week, fellow music bloggers Drowned in Sound plan to feature various opinion pieces on the current state of music journalism. The pieces posted thus far are interesting reads, even if they all share one flaw: They’re all written by music journalists.

Now, before you let loose the double-standard accusations, consider this: I am a music fan, not a music journalist. The sheer hubris required to declare oneself a primary (or, even worse, the sole) arbiter of good or bad taste in a medium subject to so much personal preference lies not within my persona. Yet at the same time, so many people, from music-school graduates to random dorks with a one-terabyte collection of MP3s, do indeed possesses that inclination. Some of them critique music as a profession, others do it for free. And while the former can at least justify their activity by stating that it provides them with a (dubiously) honest living, it’s the latter that concerns me.

What could possess one to become a music journalist in this age of Last.fm, Youtube, and Myspace? All of the free, legal music that we could ever want is at our fingertips, in a very literal sense. Music has become democratized, categorized, and packaged in neat little boxes for our willing consumption. Do you like a certain band? Give ‘em a spin on Pandora and similar artists are a few clicks away. Want to discover something new? Pick a tag on Last.fm and give a listen to the most prolific artists in any given genre. It really is that easy.

Music journalists, by contrast, claim authority over the medium. In their own twisted minds, they decide which songs deserve praise and which deserve scorn. They tell us which albums are pieces of art and which contain nothing but processed commercial junk. They hype some bands and snub others. They are the keepers of good and evil, the holy figures of the religion of organized sound, doling out law like a priest preaching sermons, while their flock hangs on to every word as though it were universal canon. And therein lies the problem: The journalist-reader relationship is a power-based one, with the reviewer as the dominatrix and the reader as the willing slave. The first gets off on wielding influence over a swath of peons, and the second on being able to brainlessly follow the word of the former.

Indeed, I find it difficult to even classify music journalism as “journalism.” The goal of a journalist is to inform his or her readers. The goal of a music journalist, by contrast, is to influence readers’ opinions. Music journalists are propaganda artists and con-men who would only have you believe that their opinion constitutes journalism.

That’s not to say that music journalists didn’t have a role once. Back in the day, when all we had to go by was magazines and Top 40 lists, music journalists were the lesser of two evils – we could either trust in their word, or throw our money about willy-nilly at random products. Now, however, empowered with a web browser and a pair of headphones, we can make our own decisions. We no longer need voices of authority to tell us what to buy and what to leave behind.

All of this doesn’t mean that music journalism needs to go the way of the dodo, however. Instead, if they truly wish to be journalists, music journalists should use these tools to both empower themselves and provide readers with information (as opposed to opinion). Instead of an authority figure, a music journalist should strive to embody the image of a good friend. Adopt an attitude of, “hey, check out this cool music! I liked it, and you might too!” as opposed to, “This music is [good/bad] because I say so.” Never, ever, ever review albums or tracks. Instead, expose readers to music that you find interesting. If you must write about the music, be brief. Let your opinion show a bit, but for the most part, be objective and let the music speak for itself. Link album streams, Myspace previews, whatever you can find that’s free and readily accessible. Don’t talk at length about music that you don’t like – it makes you look smug and misanthropic. Build a relationship with your readers. Get them to trust you and your taste in music. Pretty soon, you’ll have a readership who follows you not because you claim some false authority, but because you provide valuable information from across the ‘net on new and exciting artists and their output.

Finally, let the marketplace of ideas work its magic. Music journalists who try to expose readers to artists that those readers don’t like will never find an audience and die out. Those who consistently provide the dirt on artists that people enjoy, by contrast, will find their readership and thrive. Most of the successful Web 2.0-spawned blogs and sites have adopted this approach to great effect. (Even Pitchfork, despite being host to some of the most horrid reviews I’ve ever read, maintain their audience mostly by providing cutting-edge news stories, tracks, and videos.) Perhaps not coincidentally, I cannot name a single such popular blog or site that makes it on reviews alone.

So in conclusion, music journalists don’t need to die out, nor should they remain as they are. Instead, they just need to chill out, relax, and try to get buddy-buddy with the guys and gals that they formerly took for granted. Only then will music journalism survive the democratization of the medium.

*                                                         *                                                      *

FOLLOW ME ON TWITTER for more music and entertainment news stories!