Electrical Storm

thanks Simon

Sunday at 21:03 ·

Rachel Beth Coburn

The Sex Revolts: Gender, Rebellion, and Rock-n-Roll by Simon Reynolds and Joy Press

Sunday at 21:18 ·

thanks Rachel, but wrong era surely?

Sunday at 21:20 ·

Kevin Pearce

There's a great book by Helen McCookerybook (The Lost Women of Rock Music) under her real name of Helen Reddington about female musicians of the punk era in the UK. More musician-oriented than frontperson, but great book. Only trouble is it's an academic book so costs a fortune - but I was given my copy as a present.

Sunday at 22:05 ·

Aubrey Fairweather

I second Rachel's suggestion, great book. Never Mind the Bollocks is also good (although does concentrate on certain artists, as does She Bop).

Sunday at 22:16 ·

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QqPuTL77KfE

yeah, there's actually a copy of Helen's book at the QUT library! I was going to mention it but didn't for the reasons you just stated.... I don't really like She Bop.

Sunday at 22:20 ·

Richard Boon

some of the above, of course -w hat's missing is the one liz naylor should've written

Sunday at 22:44 ·

Rachel Beth Coburn

actually this book, the SEx Revolts,does indeed cover bands from that era - not exclusively however, but they've got everyone from The Raincoats to Marianne Faithfull to Grace Slick and Babes in Toyland and Annie Lenox...just to name a few!!! :-0

Yesterday at 05:19 ·

Marcus Jay Woody

Men, Women, and Chain Saws: Gender in the Modern Horror Film - horror films were my punk rock. Same difference.

Yesterday at 09:07 ·

music criticism

noreply@blogger.com (Jerry) — Wed, 12 May 2010 04:32:00 +0000

People get me confused sometimes. I'm fundamentally a fan of music, not of music criticism

Huxley

noreply@blogger.com (Jerry) — Wed, 05 May 2010 23:48:00 +0000

Everett True C'mon. Lay some Huxley on me baby.

Mon at 21:41 · Comment ·

Tim Footman

“Maybe this world is another planet’s hell.”

Mon at 22:02 ·

Mof Gimmers

Mon at 22:11 ·

Paul Lloyd

"Freedom & order are not incompatible..truth is strength..free discussion is the very life of truth"-Thomas Huxley ;)

Mon at 22:59 ·

Deniz Martinez

"Consistency is contrary to nature, contrary to life. The only completely consistent people are dead."-Aldous Huxley ;)

Tues at 01:53 ·

Deniz Martinez

"I'm afraid of losing my obscurity. Genuineness only thrives in the dark. Like celery." XD

Tues at 01:55 ·

Candy Ballard

"In the days before machinery men and women who wanted to amuse themselves were compelled, in their humble way, to be artists. Now they sit still and permit professionals to entertain them by the aid of machinery. It is difficult to believe that general artistic culture can flourish in this atmosphere of passivity."
Aldous.

Tues at 09:27 ·

Everett True: search engine optimisation is killing music – Crikey

Now that's what I'M talking about...!

Tues at 10:07 ·

Tone Constandi

Every man who knows how to read has it in his power to magnify himself, to multiply the ways in which he exists, to make his life full, significant and interesting

Tues at 11:30 ·

my response to a misguided response about SEO

noreply@blogger.com (Jerry) — Sun, 02 May 2010 21:48:00 +0000

His original response is here. I've reprinted it for the benefit of those who don't have subscriptions to Crikey.

Response to True: keeping up with the music masses

by Evet Jean, a publisher and music promoter for Opulent

After reading Everett True’s piece in Crikey on Tuesday, I was struck by a great sense of irony — a proud music journalist bemoaning the demise of his career on the very medium he blamed for its downfall.

But the greater irony lies in True’s criticism of what he calls Web 2.0 music journalism and its inability for original thought. And how does True demonstrate his point? By using someone else’s tired idea that music writing on the internet is popularised, recycled content. But the opposite is true...

True confusingly belittles and borrows from Chris Weingarten. His hatred for web 2.0 music journalism, embodied by the website The Hype Machine, which True incorrectly labelled as search engine optimisation, is well known. But this is not the source of a homogenised music landscape, far from it.

The Hype Machine is similar to Google. It searches from a group of selected sites and aggregates them. At your fingertips are a plethora of music sites that offer opinions in narrow fields of interest. But this is a good thing.

Music writing on the web is home to niche experts. It’s here that genres have been reborn, careers launched, and trails blazed. All from an uploaded mp3, and few keystrokes from an unknown blogger. From obscure blogs about African cassette tapes that inspire bands such as Vampire Weekend, who go on to play to crowds of thousands — the amateur music journalist is wielding more influence than ever and the results are not always bad.

The Hype Machine should be seen as a resource, a music hub that offers sounds that won’t be heard on the radio. The majority of what’s published often goes unnoticed by the mainstream. It’s the stuff the older music journalists haven’t heard of yet and some of them are angry someone on Blogspot is scooping them.

True classifies this blogger as someone beneath him and it’s easy to see why he holds this sense of snobbery so tightly. His role is changing. Very few paid music journalist are on the forefront of music. The role of the paid music writer is now to look to the web for what is being written and to do so you must have some respect for the bloggers who work for nothing writing about music they love.

Thanks to myriad music blogs, I can access South African dance music, traditional music from Malawi or hear the hits of Peruvian clubs. The home of niche music writing is on the web and its influence is still expanding.

The web is on the forefront of musical exchange, whether it’s opinions or actual music, and it has left a lot of people struggling to catch up. I couldn’t think of a medium less in risk of homogeny.

My response follows. Confusingly, he didn't even touch upon the second half of my original article, which built upon Weingarten's arguments to make another argument..

That’s lovely you can do all that. But you’re missing my point. 1) The vast majority of folk using The Hype Machine to access music or Google Search to access websites couldn’t give a rats’ arse about finding alternatives… and 2) all these alternatives exist in their tiny little ghettos. (We call them ‘blogs’ nowadays, but don’t be confused in the change in terminology, or the fact that you can now access one from anywhere in the world.)

Most people use Google because they can’t be bothered to type in the full name of a website. And Google has even recently changed the way it operates searches for individual users so the most familiar sites always come up top - increasing choice? I think not.

Most people on the Internet judge music by the rating given at the end of a review, and then go to their favourite meta-site where a whole bunch of those ratings have been aggregated. Is that increasing choice, or simply reducing everything to a lowest common denominator?

You’re right about Chris Weingarten, though: I do find his manner distasteful and I do think he’s quite typical of the entire breed of Comic Book Guys who populate (and have always populated) music criticism. But I did like some of what he had to say, and he seems quite smart underneath all of that.

Have you examined, for example, the fact that critics in the annual Village Voice ‘Pazz And Jop’ poll voted for pretty much the exact same records as critics in the annual Pitchfork poll this time round? Sure, they’re all Americans… but it’s still pretty spooky, don’t you think? And how do you reckon that happened? That’s right: the wonderful Internet, bringing everyone closer together.

Personally, I love the way I can go seek out thousands of new blogs and writers on the Internet: especially as it means I don’t have to even go near the crap that passes for music criticism in the Australian street press in Melbourne these days. Personally, I love the fact I can find pretty much any music I can think of within seconds - and be turned onto hundreds of thousands more, simply idling away for a couple more seconds.

I suspect that you’re just as guilty here as what you’re accusing me of: are you at all familiar with what I do? I don’t operate within print environments, or very rarely. I blog. I blog. And I blog about music I love. And that’s pretty much all I do. I guess to such a go-getting judgmental critic as yourself that might seem supremely unimportant, not when there are thousands of others like me out there that you can just dip in and out of whenever it takes your fancy.

But it matters a fuck of a lot to me.

P.S. Oh and I really don’t think citing the fact Vampire Weekend appropriate from other countries’ cultures is a particularly good example of the power of the music blogger. Not something to be proud of, at all.

SEO and the web

noreply@blogger.com (Jerry) — Thu, 29 Apr 2010 00:55:00 +0000

http://www.crikey.com.au/2010/04/27/everett-true-search-engine-optimisation-is-killing-music/

www.crikey.com.au

Immediacy and the race to be first on the internet is killing quality music criticism (and journalism) stone dead, writes Everett True.

Tues at 13:59 · Comment · · Share

Andrew Hitchcock likes this.

Daniel Chan

You could also apply the same theory to food writing/criticism. On something like twitter, someone can be one of the first to go to a hot new restaurant, take photos of the food, post them on twitter, and then provide a 140 character criticism of it. It wouldn't suprise if there are some food bloggers who aim to do just that - be the first at anywhere new.

Tues at 14:22 ·

Matthew Rimell

Yes I agree. That immediate press of a switch just creates a fickleness and a lack of time. Is the three minute pop song now to be considered a bit too prog in terms of time. Music reduced to ten second jingles? Art to 3 second flashes? Films to a condensed youtube effort? Hmmm I'm not sure this is progress.

Yesterday at 04:06 ·

music journalism print vs web

noreply@blogger.com (Jerry) — Wed, 28 Apr 2010 09:40:00 +0000

Reprinted from Sean's totally excellent Tumblr blog without permission. (Um, Sean - please tell me if you mind and I'll take it down!)

Q&A RE: Music Journalism: Print vs the Web.

My answers to questions from Simon Warner from School of Music at Leeds University http://www.leeds.ac.uk/music/staff/srw/

1. What is the name of your website and what is your role?

DrownedinSound.com I’m the sites founder, editor, head of business development and VP of coffee-making. I also run and A&R Drowned in Sound Recordings.

2. What is the readership of your website?

The site teeters between 520k unique users on a busy month and 405k unique users in the quieter/shorter/more-bank-holiday-riddled months. We get an average of 27,600 visitors a day and have about 1500 die-hards who post on our boards on a daily basis.

3. Do you write online music journalism? If so, what and for whom?

I write every so often but most of my role is now in a more visionary and structural capacity. I contribute a lot more to the conversation on our forums than I do to saying why a record is only 6 out of 10. I tweet a lot/too much too and I also write a column for Sunday Times’ Culture section, as well as a monthly blog for Spotify. I don’t write many reviews as I’ve never really been a writer and I’m indifferent to most music, and prefer to focus on the stuff I passionately love and believe in. I do blog a fair bit tho http://seaninsound.tumblr.com andhttp://seaninsound.blogspot.com

4. Do you read online music journalism? If so, what?

I read heaps of stuff in print but I’m much more a nibbler when it comes to web content, trying to keep abreast of topics, trends and recommendations, rather than reading a great deal. This is partly due to written word fatigue from trying to keep up with a never-ending torrent of emails - I get around 1000 press releases a day about bands you’ll never hear about from one-man PR companies who have no idea who we are and make no attempt to build a personal relationship.

When I do read lengthier music things online it’s usually on the Guardian, WSJ, New Yorker, or industry-ish blogs like fingertipsmusic or hypebot. I sometimes read Hipster Runoff, MBVMusic, Stereogum etc but most blogs are just like radio djs, giving pithy intros, acting as filters, often reinforcing the buzz status quo. I kinda consume blogs, rather than read them, if that makes sense?

5. Do you write for a print music magazine? If so, what and for whom?

Yeah, Sunday Times’ Culture mag. Have also written bits for Bang magazine, a piece for NME and will be contributing to The Reverand’s Ark magazine.

6. Do you read print music journalism? If so, what?

I read loads. I probably buy about 10 broadsheets a month (Guardian, Times and FT Weekend) and at least 10 magazines. I love Wired, Huck, Esquire and Fast Company, which have a fair bit of music. Been really impressed by the relaunch of NME.

7. What impact has online music journalism had on print music journalism? Please comment on issues from sales to style and content. Have there been any benefits to the print sector?

Print has tried (and failed somewhat) to compete with the comprehensive nature of the web but seems, especially with Newsweek and relaunched NME, to be returning to the in depth analysis and lengthy, photo-fabulous features. I think the web has intensified people’s desire for both passionate and considered opinions from individuals and print has really realised this - Russell Brand’s football column is a great example of this.

The web has also shifted the tone of some publications, replacing formality with a more human and irreverent voice but few have really managed to reach the dizzying heights of Charlie Brooker or Chuck Klosterman. Obviously the idea of print breaking a story is well and truly over and any ‘exclusive’ is instantly replicated and reacted to in the web echo chamber. I’m stunned more newspapers haven’t gone weekly, leaving their core audience reading daily online but then I’m also surprised NME has turned into a free or pricier monthly publication - or even taken over daily sections with their ‘authority’ in places like Metro and Evening Standard. I think licensing and aggregation of specialist content will be a big thing in the year’s to come as publishers save money but want to maintain specialism. I still want to take DiS into print but it won’t happen in a hurry.

8. What advantage does online music journalism have over print music journalism? Is it merely that it is free? Are there any subscription sites in this sector that you are aware of? Are there other issues/attractions that might be driving readers away from magazines in print?

The web’s ability to throw in a video or something with a play button is, for most people, a billion times better than a verbose description involving seemingly irrelevant metaphors. There’s also the instant nature of the web and the ability to find and mine increasingly further down the niche of a genre, which for the truly dedicated music fan, who once relied on the limited selection in the media, is incredible. The fact it’s free and a few taps or clicks away is a factor and I can’t think of any website or music blog people would pay for as there are so many free alternatives (although obviously people would pay to access music via Spotify or Oink and there is scope for music specialists to charge for curation, to overcome choice paralysis but that’s a way off).

9. What disadvantages does online music journalism have over the print version?

My major bugbear with the web is the inability to really prioritise content in the same way you can with a cover artist or multiple page spread, although the number 1 slot in year-end lists is one of the few websites can do this. The web is now increasingly consumed via feeds and shared links, rather than people checking out even half of what is presented on a frontpage. People once checked out and debated the 1 new band a week (50 a year!) in the NME or the manifesto-like outpouring of their favourite journalist, now they check out the few bands a day that they’ve heard mentioned 3 or more times. The web is trying to adapt to this behaviour but print still has a massive advantage in terms of a visual ability to stick-their-neck’n’balls-on-the-line for an act they truly believe in, it’s just a shame there’s such a pack mentality and every mag is covering the same blog-approved, agreeable trite. The whole data-led nature of popular=best or falling in line behind the acts which have had the biggest record deals is something magazine editors really need to shy away from and become informed tastemakers again, rather than buzz-chasing, pr-informed pussies, constantly caught in the churnover of new-new-new and dismissing acts because they didn’t form 3 weeks ago and instantly get covered on Gorilla vs Bear. There’s a huge swathe of acts releasing third+ albums with no scope for media coverage, yet every magazine dedicates space to the flavour of the moment, often without seeing the band live or hearing a body of work - some acts are getting tonnes of coverage after sticking a demo online and then they have nowhere to get coverage when their album comes out 2years later. Quality not quantity, etc.

Plus print can suck you in based on imagery, whereas most of the web has a few characters of description to perk your curiosity. And then there’s the fact people are likely to read longer pieces in print, rather than just look at the scores (our reviews get 6 to 10 times more traffic than our interviews of the same acts).

10. To what extent does the industry – the labels, press and publicity officers, advertisers – respect or fail to respect online music journalism? Does the industry’s attitude matter?

Respect? Ha! If you’re Pitchfork or Guardian, you get all love in the form of genuinely special exclusives for acts people care about. The labels, especially indies or interesting acts on majors are constantly assisting this monopoly - Broken Bells for instance included the Pitchfork interview in their mailout, whereas we’ve done equally as much on the band, etc but we’re well aware we aren’t the dominate voice of indie-rock but then nor is Q which people quote on their advertising!? The rest of the time, artists break news or reveal videos on their own websites, meaning sites like ours are expected to aggregate it and constantly playing catch-up. We rarely have information or unique ‘assets’ to excite our readers or attract new users (which is especially frustrating when we give the smaller acts more love and rarely get the ‘pay off’ from labels biggest acts). Some labels still think a band playing a gig is a news story, rather than a glorified listing, yet a lot of sites will just republish every press release for the sake of google traffic.

There’s also STILL a sense that the web isn’t that important, with print getting promos sometimes months earlier than the web and much more than 15min interview slots (even if the publication has less than 5000 readers they still often get better treatment than sites like ours). We’re often asked not to run things until after magazines have gone to print or radio has aired them, working to the labels plans, rather than anything which might be in our interest. It’s rare we come top of people’s priorities which is fair enough based on our relative scale but long-term, damaging to the eco-system as a whole, shunning the hand that feeds into other areas of the machine… I hate being part of the machine but it’d be very short-sighted to do as we please.

Since writing for the Sunday Times (which is only a column every 3 weeks) I’ve noticed a huge difference and disparity in the calibre of things I can get access to and the sorts of things I get early enough to have a considered opinion on by the time they’re released or weeks after they leak. I mean, sometimes we get promos the day a record is released, yet printed press obviously don’t have internet connections or flog their promos to cd exchange, which is how a lot of stuff leaks. It’s very rare I get a personal email (rather than a blanket emailout) from most PR people/labels, least of all from anyone I’ve ever met who knows my taste. I get tonnes of emails about acts we would never cover. There are exceptions, obviously but of the 300+ pr companies/labels who email me each week, with an average of 3 staff at each company, I’ve met probably 30-40 of them IRL in the 10years I’ve been doing DiS. Each PR is usually working 5+ campaigns at any one time, yet it is rare to have much human, let alone personal interaction, especially considering artists/labels are paying these people £500+ per month. I just wish more labels came to us with interesting and unique ideas which are creative and reciprocally beneficial, rather than focussing on getting as much coverage as possible, irrespective of whether the sites or publications they choose have a relevant, passionate or large audience.

However, I repeat, there are some really great PR people but they account for about 5% of them.

11. To what extent do artists respect or fail to respect online music journalism? Do bands see equal value in web coverage as print coverage?

It varies but I think bands get it much more than labels a lot of the time, I guess partly because we’re more ‘fans’ than ‘cynical’ ‘clueless’ ‘journalists’ who turn up and ask faq’s which wikipedia could answer.

In fact, I got an email from one of The National this morning about checking out and considering some editorial for the support band at their shows next week, yet I’m not sure I can even get a ticket to the show.

12. Does online music journalism have a) more influence than print music journalism; b) less influence than print music journalism; c) an equal influence?

Equal. They compliment eachother. It really depends on the style and scale of the music. Obviously for a lot of acts who would once have sold 10k albums from curiosity purchases, they now sell considerably less but are heard by a helluva lot more people. Print still has more impact on mass media in this country but a lot of print is now powered by the opinions of the web.

13. Will the internet ever be able to create funded jobs and a recognisable career structure for music journalists? Can the web ever produce a viable economic model?

We’re a long way away from that. DiS struggles to pay 4 part-time salaries and the ad-funded model isn’t perfect (sponsorship, is a different matter). I think it would take all the major sites going behind a paywall to know if a paywall could work but then I think sites need to be able to create and curate content of real value and like I said, we rarely get the access to acts or support from labels to provide things of real value. Being associated as added value to a brand/product/services which values the ownership, even if its in a philanthropic kinda way or gives them integrity, like banks sponsoring art galleries, etc. This was sort of the idea with DiS’ short-lived deal with Bskyb/Sky.com/SkySongs.

14. Could you ever foresee a) the death of print music journalism or b) the use of paywalls in the online music journalism sector?

Print will be revered like vinyl at some point but I think e-readers/iPads will really help change things. Paywalls are possible but the required huge investment in quality content and services makes it an impossible catch-22. If people aren’t paying for music, they’re not going to pay for words about music in a hurry.

15. Do you have any other thoughts that have not been raised by the questions posed?

I think I’ve covered everything.

critic or journalist?

noreply@blogger.com (Jerry) — Sun, 25 Apr 2010 09:52:00 +0000

A reader writes...

Hey, Jerry

This is too long for Twitter, but a month later your little rantlet is still bugging me.

Think about it: what is your job? Truth be told, very few people genuinely give a crap whether you like a song or not. I mean, your best friends might, but almost everyone reading anything you like only cares about whether they are going to like it or not. Your job is to describe it well enough for them to consider whether they might like it. If you say you like it and they like most of what you like, then that makes it easier - just giving a description with no measure of endorsement doesn't really help. The question we ask our friends of anything they've experienced is normally "is it any good?" That's all: describe; recommend.

To do either, you have to be using the most appropriate words that you can find - not the cleverest or longest words, but the words that best fit. Is "music critic" a good fit for what you do? Yes, so long as you're just criticising music. It doesn't work very well if you're interviewing bands, unless you're impersonating Simon Cowell as you ask the questions. If you're a freelancer who also picks up a few spare pennies to write advertorials and press releases, it's not an appropriate description at all.

So what to call you, then? Music writer? Probably the safest term, but unless you're a book author then "writer" sounds insufferably pretentious. Wordsmith? Scribe? Hack? Pen-botherer?

Journalist.

The word to me conjures "diarist", which is probably the way I see what you do. You record your experiences. It's a pretty broad term that can cover things like interviews or even the reportage side of things like those endless features on "is this the end for copyright?" - or "is this the end for freelancers?"

There's a bit in Third Rock from the Sun where trashy Viki is in labour and says to Dr Mary Albright, "You're a doctor, ain't you?" and begs her to deliver the baby. The canned laughter confirms it - no sane, intelligent person would confuse an anthropology professor with a doctor of medicine. I think you're reasonably safe that nobody will dispatch you to a war zone any time soon.

Besides, what do we call all the other scribblers? What do we do with Charlie Brooker, for a start? (I suppose that largely depends on your opinion of Charlie Brooker), but he's not solely a critic. Perhaps he's a columnist, except for when he's writing creatively? Wikipedia calls him a journalist, because it's a simple easy-to-grasp term that everybody understands.

You could call yourself an opinionist, but then you'd just sound like a wanker.

Hope all is well in kangaroo-land

Jo x

taste-makers etc

noreply@blogger.com (Jerry) — Sat, 17 Apr 2010 23:47:00 +0000

(from Facebook)

Stephen Graham Interesting article here.

http://robotsdancingalone.wordpress.com/2010/04/16/tastemaker-critics-in-web-2-0-environments/

Tastemaker Critics in Web 2.0 Environments « Robots Dancing Alone

robotsdancingalone.wordpress.com

Everett True over at Electrical Storm asked me to do a joint article on this topic. As neither of us could quite work out how we would go about this, I wrote something on his suggestion, sent it to him, and am posting it here. It’s a little autobiographical, for which I do apologise.

Yesterday at 08:58 · Comment · · Share

David Whitelock

Not sure If I fully agree, the critic wishes he was the artist and very few critics have become great artistes. The critic’s only parallel with the artist is his need to satisfy his egos desire for acceptance and approval… oh and to scrape a living.

As a formal (unsuccessful) taste maker myself; much of what the critic says is often transient and finite. I often agree with the notion that “opinions are like assholes, everyone has one” and like a dog we need to need to find the one that smells to our liking. Once we find that asshole we become content with that asshole until another more inviting one comes along. The problem with blogging is that we have too may assholes outpouring puerile opinion that has no foundation and our senses have become numbed by a haze of diatribe. This new Web 2 world of critical exchange is very near to disappearing up its own asshole. Yes we need critics but not everyone that has a blog is a critic. A real critic needs a pedigree, a decent pair of ears and some relevant context from which to spout their opinion based on what is real and not what is conjecture. The real artists aim is to engage and challenge their audience and the critic as an alleged guardian of taste passes on his thoughts in what should be a captivating piece of copy. That’s all I have ever looked for but now that we can access our music so quickly and readily through vessels like lastfm, spotify, imesh, p2p etc the importance of the critics has lessened as has their impact. Captivating copy is difficult to find on many blogs and why is this? Is it because blogs are self regulating with no language filter like that provided by the role of the editor or sub-editor?

I am reminded by a great quote of Henry Millers that reminds me off why I never pursued my career as a journalist …on top of the many drunken brawls I had with clueless idiots that dared challenge MY AUTHORITY. Glad I aint that guy anymore.

Music is a beautiful opiate, if you don't take it too seriously.
Henry Miller

Yesterday at 16:17 ·

An Horse, of course

noreply@blogger.com (Jerry) — Sat, 17 Apr 2010 23:30:00 +0000

Everett True An Horse, of course.

06 April at 11:27 · Comment ·

Really? Ha! Why?

06 April at 11:29 ·

Frank Menesch

An horse is an horse, of course, of course.

06 April at 11:31 ·

Keir Hardie

No-one can talk to a horse, unless they're as cool as us, of course.

06 April at 11:33 ·

Darragh Bee-bop Murray

ohhhhhhhh

06 April at 11:35 ·

Darragh Bee-bop Murray

Did you ever listen to Iron-On? The band Kate Cooper was in prior to An Horse?

06 April at 11:35 ·

too inoffensive for me, Alex. Everything about them is designed to cause the least maximum offence.

06 April at 11:43 ·

Hmmm... Yes. What's worse than bad music? Inoffensive music that illicits no response at all. Truly the scourge of our times! Straight to the Kenny G bin with you.

06 April at 11:48 ·

"They didn't upset anyone". it's not much to aspire to, is it?

06 April at 11:50 ·

Oh dear Jerry. An Horse. She is authentic, she's not trying to be anything. I've met Kate and she is really as unoffensive in person as on stage. I think there are so many local bands more deserving of the Everett True most hated award. Really. You should go out more.

06 April at 12:32 ·

Russell Birrer

what Ed said...

06 April at 12:34 ·

Wait a second. I don't actively seek out bands to hate. That would be retarded. I just comment on what chances across my path.

06 April at 12:35 ·

Fair enough, still surely you've been sent all the turds that float to the top of the Brisbane music scene. I think An Horse is more offensive than some other music I can think of.

06 April at 12:37 ·

Wait a second. So if it's more offensive I should hate it less....!?

06 April at 12:39 ·

Actually, I don't get sent any local music at all, not even by bands I like. I ain't important enough

06 April at 12:39 ·

No, you can hate or like whatever you want to. That's fine I am just surprised. I recon I could make a mix tape that would change your mind pretty quickly.

06 April at 12:40 ·

what? of music I don't like? why would I listen to it?

06 April at 12:42 ·

S & M

06 April at 12:43 ·

it's not that you're important enough or not, it's just that you want only links and downloads and some of locals haven't made it into the 21st century yet and are still obsessed with the tactile ;)

06 April at 14:06 ·

dude, i'm happy to take your cd! i can swap, if you like

06 April at 16:06 ·

female music critics

noreply@blogger.com (Jerry) — Fri, 16 Apr 2010 04:21:00 +0000

Everett True does anyone have any favourite female rock critics?

06 April at 16:22 · Comment ·

White Hotel likes this.

James Michael Lomas

Everett True.

06 April at 16:28 ·

Yep. Emily Bick and Frances Morgan.

06 April at 16:28 ·

does Lydia Lunch count or is she just an opiniated musician as opposed to a critic?

06 April at 16:29 ·

She does count, but I'm looking more for people for whom criticism is one of their main - if not the main - occupation.

06 April at 16:30 ·

Oh. Well that takes out Bick and Morgan, since no one in the UK can afford to be a full-time critic anymore.

06 April at 16:34 ·

Simon Price

No.

06 April at 16:35 ·

Jim Smith

Julie. Julie. Julie...

06 April at 16:37 ·

And... specifically ::rock:: critics?

06 April at 16:38 ·

Linda Wolfe

Me. Because I'm cynical AND humorous.

06 April at 16:39 ·

Jim Smith

she was a rock critic. does that count?

06 April at 16:39 ·

Simon Bridger

I used to like Cathi Unsworth.

06 April at 16:39 ·

Susie Tennant

Ann Powers evvy-ev!

06 April at 16:47 ·

Stuart Coupe

Sylvie Simmons

06 April at 16:55 ·

I'm using rock critic = popular music critic = music journalist = etc etc etc. And main occupation doesn't necessarily mean paid. How would you define me? I don't make a living from music criticism, far from it.

06 April at 17:08 ·

Simon Bridger

I would say you're a 'miserable old sod living off former glories', a bit like myself really. :)

06 April at 17:13 ·

OK then, Bick & Morgan back in the game (though 'main occupation' is a tough requirement when we all have day jobs - and in both cases, their other specialisms are part of the reason they're such wonderful writers).

06 April at 17:20 ·

Courtney Dean

ann powers + jessica hopper

06 April at 17:24 ·

Ann, Jessica and Frances are already on my list. Thanks for the other suggestions, all taken on board.

06 April at 17:29 ·

Jack Sargeant

lydia lunch for her reviews in forced exposure

06 April at 17:41 ·

Eugene Kelly

Eunuchs at the orgy.

06 April at 17:50 ·

Jessy Nix

me? :-) i wish...

06 April at 18:02 ·

Jessy Nix

too bad you don't read italian, you can't read my articles :-(

06 April at 18:03 ·

Jack Endino

Come on. My ex Dawn.

06 April at 18:26 ·

Tobi Vail

not really "rock", but I really liked Phyl Garland

06 April at 18:37 ·

Tatoes O'Brien

Jude Rogers and Emily Bick for me.

06 April at 18:46 ·

Jimmy Cairney

My mum....she's always honest.

06 April at 19:00 ·

Cypress Grove

Sylvie Simmons. And yes of course Lydia Lunch!

06 April at 19:04 ·

Nadine McBay

miss amp!

06 April at 19:51 ·

Stevie Chick

frances morgan, sharon o'connell, victoria segal, cathi unsworth, sylvie simmons, sophie harris, hayley avron, petra d and many many more

06 April at 20:02 ·

Fortune Teller Press

Jan Moir.

06 April at 20:24 ·

Stevie Chick

jennifr 9, too. and val wilmer's books are amazing.

06 April at 20:26 ·

Fortune Teller Press

Lois Wilson.

06 April at 20:28 ·

Veronika Kalmar

Dawn Andersen is the queen of all female rock critics.

06 April at 23:17 ·

Paul Clarke

lillian roxon

06 April at 23:36 ·

Brontez Purnell

TOBI!!!!!!!

06 April at 23:58 ·

John Everhart

Victoria Segal, Annie Zaleski. So many of my old favorites, like Gina Arnold, don't seem to be doing it anymore.

07 April at 00:11 ·

Sean Padilla

Whitney Cummings is pretty good.

07 April at 01:06 ·

Rich Jensen

Courtney Love.

07 April at 02:54 ·

Rich Jensen

Melissa Meltzer. Tricia Rose, 'Music' not necessarily Rock. Rock?

07 April at 03:02 ·

Charlie Bertsch

Ann Powers, obviously, as others have noted. And I'm actually pretty partial to Carrie Brownstein's criticism, even if I regularly disagree with her.

07 April at 03:27 ·

Art Chantry

gillian gaar

07 April at 03:48 ·

David Whitelock

How about Leslie Conway Bangs....heheh!

07 April at 06:53 ·

David Whitelock

Used to like Kitty Empire and who wrote under the name of Betty Page in the 80s? Love her or hate her Julie Burchill was an interesting read oh and Mary Ann Hobbs had her moments.

07 April at 07:01 ·

Andrew Leavold

Roxon, definitely!

07 April at 09:57 ·

Andrew Leavold

...and Jean Nicotine (for the local angle)

07 April at 09:57 ·

blog stats

noreply@blogger.com (Jerry) — Tue, 06 Apr 2010 00:18:00 +0000

Everett True In its first six months, my music blog has had 92,257 visitors. How does that compare generally, does anyone know?

31 March at 19:47 · Comment ·

Bianca Rosemarie de Valentino likes this.

Sway Austin

Yr being sarcastic, I'm sure. I doubt mine has had more than 10 or 15 in the past few months.

31 March at 19:50 ·

No, I'm not. It's part of my research, and while audience numbers aren't the only way of measuring influence, they are part of it. I'd be very interested to know what the range is, audience-wise, for blogs similar to mine,

31 March at 19:52 ·

Sway Austin

I don't know. I check Thurston Moore's blog pretty regular. Naturally, I'm not sure how many hits he gets, but you get a ton more comments. I enjoy yr blog. Thurston's is cool, too. He wrote a really interesting piece on the Stooges a few weeks back.

31 March at 19:54 ·

Jacques Eduard Scorsese

6,111 in a year.

31 March at 19:54 ·

Russell Birrer

3,500 visitors a week sounds like a lot of traffic to me !

31 March at 20:04 ·

At a rough guess, just under half of what Simon Reynolds blissout blog gets. And rightly so!

31 March at 20:08 ·

wait. 48,569 visits, of which 27,842 were absolute unique visitors. Does that sound more like it? the original figure was page views.

31 March at 20:40 ·

Audiences are created

noreply@blogger.com (Jerry) — Mon, 29 Mar 2010 02:50:00 +0000

Everett True "Audiences are created". Quick, recommend me a good reference book

how to write

noreply@blogger.com (Jerry) — Mon, 29 Mar 2010 02:47:00 +0000

Everett True drink first, then write. Then think. Maybe

24 March at 21:31 · Comment ·

Dan Curnow, Nadine McBay, Scott Mckenzie and 3 others like this.

Martin Deeson

I've spent years trying to work out that particular ordering. If you have a breakthrough do please pass it on. I favour eat, sleep, think, write, drink, drink, write, write, spellcheck, invoice, think. On a good day

24 March at 21:35 ·

Didier Becu

and then not able to hold a pen because of the drinking....
By the way : a great advice for the youngsters who wanna become music critics!!!!!

24 March at 21:35 ·

Russell Birrer

Youngsters don't want to be music critics Didier ! They have far more exciting things to do..

24 March at 21:48 ·

Alexandra Rajasalo Nyfors

Yeah. Like watch So You Think You Can Dance Australia

24 March at 21:51 ·

Frank Menesch

Or do what I do. Drink, write, accidentally pick a fight with the leader of a bikee club, then wake up and see what you did on facebook the night before.

24 March at 22:01 ·

Gavin Crabtree

hey, i resent that. I'm quite young and i hope to become a music critic...amongst over things.
By the way: my order is usually drink first, then think, then write, drink more, then write. Then usually what i was first thinking about changes completely as I'm writing...might be because of the drink.. i don't know

24 March at 22:06 ·

Tommy Udo

Write first, ask questions later. Always the best interview technique.

Thurs at 20:57 ·

Erika Meyer

Tommy, ok if you don't get so attached to your original story that you avoid changing it once you actually have access to original source material.

Thurs at 22:24 ·

critics or journalists?

noreply@blogger.com (Jerry) — Mon, 29 Mar 2010 02:45:00 +0000

Everett True Here's what I don't like. 1. People who call themselves music journalists. You're not a fucking journalist, you're a critic. Wise up, losers

24 March at 13:59 · Comment ·

Daniel Newton, Blair Hughes, Charlie Bertsch and 3 others like this.

What about people who report on news about musicians or the industry instead of writing about sounds produced by artists? Aren't they music journalists?

24 March at 14:02 ·

Mike Wolf

There's just one thing you don't like and that's it?

24 March at 14:07 ·

Yes Alexandra. But on the whole they're not the ones who going around calling themselves music journalists. You know the folk I mean. Anyone who sits at a typewriter and thinks that because they can think of a number between one and 10 and give a star rating they're now a "journalist".

24 March at 14:08 ·