Journalists Are Not The Enemy

Like any industry where artists put their personal work out in the public domain for criticism, the music industry is a dog-eat-dog world.

Not only because it is highly competitive, but because music is such a personal thing for the artists putting their work out there, as well as being more than just business to the industry professionals behind the scenes. What should be evident in any professional industry, however, is a certain level of professional respect, even if it isn’t always an easy industry to work in. Is this evident in the music industry? Certainly not. 

There is a strange and severely out-dated perception some musicians seem to have that supports an ‘us against them’ mentality, where artists view journalists as dim-witted predatory scum. In reality, the people working behind the scenes are the people supporting the music industry the most. And believe me, they’re not there because they want to make money; they’re there because they are your biggest fans. Most people tend to form their opinions based on what popular culture tells them and I guess some bands must have seen Almost Famous a few too many times. In the film Cameron Crowe’s roman à clef music journalist character, William, is labelled ‘the enemy’ by the fictional band Stillwater and refused entry into the gig he is meant to review. When William demonstrates his knowledge of the band’s discography, Stillwater’s egos are decently satiated, William is no longer deemed a threat and he is allowed into the gig. A journalist might like your music, but that doesn't mean they want be a band's friend and they should've have to suck up to musicians to feel welcome.

So where does this ridiculous attitude stem from that positions journalists like William as the enemy? Of course bands are instantly antsy around journalists as they have the power to point out the flaws of the band to a wide audience, but this isn’t necessarily a bad thing. We all know how important it is for bands to be able to take on criticism from reviewers, even if the reviewers themselves are not musicians with as much as in-depth knowledge about music production as the musicians themselves. A reviewer’s opinion is still important because they represent the audience a band is targeting – the fans. And guess what? The fans are usually not musicians either and these are the majority of the people buying your records. And if the fans don’t like it, then yeah, their opinion is kind of valid, even if they don’t fully understand the music as much as the artist feels they should. Fans and reviewers really don’t owe artists anything, except having an open-mind to their work. In any case, sometimes journalists are musicians with as much music knowledge as the bands they are writing about, if not more. Sometimes they are not trained musicians, but still have a hefty music background and ample knowledge that could compete with any band. Positioning the person on the sidelines as inferior is unjustified and reflects an uninformed perspective.

Inevitably, William’s acceptance into the Stillwater circle does not last long when he points out the internal struggles of the band in his Rolling Stone article. William is once again deemed the enemy, even though he just did the band a huge favour by writing an honest and uncompromising piece of writing that landed the band the cover of Rolling Stone. But this really isn’t the point. The point is that reviewers and other people working in the music industry should not be considered the enemy and regarded with caution, or even worse, instantly judged as being vindictive and inferior, and worst of all, labelled an outsider. A music community should not be founded on isolation and marginalisation of the people who support the music.  We should be helping each other out instead of supporting uninformed attitudes and beliefs that form a wedge between musicians and the people supporting the industry - the fans.

All of these points are even more important to take note of when you consider the challenging circumstances of a journalist’s job. Most of the time, music reviewers are not paid at all for their job, instead being paid with free tickets to gigs; there is not even any transport money given and no drink tickets. The most you will see for freelance writing is around $100, more commonly $25 per piece (usually for interviews as opposed to reviews). Music reviewers are there because they like the music. Which brings me to my second point: music reviewers are rarely given designated gigs by publications to review. Reviewers put up their hand for bands they want to see and are allocated media passes. So the age-old idea of the music reviewer who gives a bad review because they know nothing about the band is completely uninformed. They are a fan of your band. So making them feel like the enemy really just turns you into the enemy. Thirdly, reviewers have little time to write their reviews, with most publications expecting the review to be posted the next morning. So it’s difficult to bypass typos and grammar mistakes, especially when most publications expect reviewers to do independent self-editing.

Restrictive word counts also make it difficult for reviewers to express their views as eloquently and as in-depth as they might prefer. Most publications designate 500 words for a live review, with 800 typically being the maximum. Expect 200 words for print publications. With anything from two to ten bands on a line-up, reviewing everybody is simply not always an option. And giving bands a song-by-song analysis? That is simply impossible because of these meagre word counts and also because of the nature of live reviews. Perhaps with an album review or EP review a thoughtful song-by-song analysis is possible, but with a live review it is very difficult to scribble down that many notes. Especially with other people giving you dirty looks all night for being on your phone during a gig, wrongly assuming you’re texting. Moreover, although a band might like to read an insightful analysis of their performance, most readers unfortunately do not. Reviews should be written like stories that make the reader feel like they’re there – not pander to the bands’ egos so that when they read it they are reminded of how awesome they are. Journalists are writing reviews for other fans as opposed to writing reviews solely for the musician’s benefit.

We also need to remember that journalists are people too and they have their day jobs to go to; reviewing is often a minor hobby. Even if you work for a music publication during the week, you are usually busy handling social media, interviewing artists, writing news articles and writing press releases; refining reviews and feature articles all day long is simply not an option. A lot of journalists are also university students furiously studying during their spare time or trying to edit a 15,000 word thesis or 90,000 word PhD. It doesn’t give bands a good reputation to nit-pick at reviewers doing their best in a challenging work environment and to the point of being rude and abrasive, and it certainly isn’t going to change industry standards for music articles. Even if journalists are critical they are rarely tactless and mean-spirited.

Artists should be supporting artists and writing is a form of art, too. Just like viciously slamming a band for making a small mistake during their set or having a mediocre filler song on their album is uncalled for, so is slamming a writer for a small typo or a rushed article. In an industry that needs as much support as it can get, this is exactly what we should all be doing: those of us on stage and those of us off stage. But I guess if we were all nice to each other all the time that wouldn’t be very rock ‘n’ roll, would it? I still believe that reviewers need to be honest and uncompromising, even if someone’s ego gets a little deflated, and I also believe that bands should not suck up to journalists to get some nice words written about them. At the end of the day, rock ‘n’ roll should be about the music, not the egos.