So I saw this thing on the Bird Site that got underneath my skin a bit and went on a MicroRant which I’ll preserve and expand upon here because I want to embarrass myself some time in the future.
If there’s one thing I know from decades of arguing about music on the internet, it’s that not making comparisons or assigning genre ≠ good music writing.
Sometimes those things are needed to provide context or support your thesis, especially if an audience isn’t well-versed in what they’re listening to. There’s a balance to be made. Veer too much into the “RIYL” and the tagging side of things, and you’ll just sound like a machine spewing metadata.
I know that in my younger days, a lot of my writing relied too heavily upon florid adjectives (much like the content of the site in question) because my subject matter expertise about artists, movements, and history was still growing. Not to mention that my own knowledge about how music is made on a purely technical level was forming at a similar pace. So my advice to those starting out on this journey, do the homework.
It’s OK to use terminology such as “distortion,” “fuzz,” or “feedback” because those are commonly understood by audiences, not to mention describe what is sonically happening. It’s perfectly fine to reference whether a band sounds like Pavement or Nirvana, but also know when that reference might be too broad a descriptive container (or whether you’re just listing it because it’s popular).
As my pal Erin put it so well:
I don’t know if zero comparisons or reference to genre allows for access to the “value” of anything. Music is always and forever about context – history, culture, connection. You really want to toss that aside?
I don’t have a Grand Unified Theory on how to write about music, because everyone approaches it differently, but here are some things I do think about on the reg when listening to something, even if it’s just for my enjoyment:
- Is this rooted in a specific genre? Time period? Culture?
- Are they doing anything that might deviate from these things? What, in particular?
- What is the artist trying to do with their instruments? What do I think the lyrics are about?
- What do I think they are trying to accomplish on this recording? Is that something I have inferred upon initial or subsequent listens?
- How does this make me feel?
- Would I listen to it again?
- Do I want to tell others about this?
Like I said, YMMV. And for me, those are the things I am looking for when reading other people’s writing about music, not to mention if anyone is writing about the stuff I make. (Not that anyone is scrambling to review myself, and that’s OK, because I am so fussy it’s actually better no one reviews it.)
My day job involves building websites and as a strategist, it’s my responsibility to talk to stakeholders about their pain points. Not that music is the same thing as a website or any digital product. My job is to listen and understand so that I can ultimately help. I think that’s the connection to writing about music. A writer, blogger, or journalist should be listening effectively so they can understand and help audiences.
For as much as a creative exercise as it can be on a personal level, writing about music and sharing that writing with the public at large is a service. And I’m not talking about “service” like how one would buy a coffee. Service in the sense that it does something for your community, I suppose. Listening and understanding what an artist is doing is a sign of respect for music on the whole; helping audiences demonstrates a commitment and care to the communities they belong to.