Paula Hearsum’s chapter on music journalism provides a fascinating contemporary analysis of the field which covers the general current state of affairs and recounts the popular ongoing debate: ‘Is music journalism dead?’ As an ex-music journalist and a current academic, her chapter places a particular focus on the perceived differences between academic and journalistic music prose. This topic is particularly relatable for me; as a final year Music student, the vast majority of my experience of writing about music is academic, yet my interest in music and enjoyment of writing has enticed me into a music journalism internship with Exposed magazine. As such, this short essay will offer my personal reflections on some of the topics addressed in Hearums’s chapter, comparing and contrasting my personal experiences of music journalism with those expressed by commentators in Hearsum’s chapter.

 

Hearsum begins with a general overview of music journalism, which, due to the demise of print and the rise of online journalism, is overshadowed by that looming, all-important question regarding the value of the discourse which seems to block out all other angles like a dark cloud on a sunny day. Following the ‘golden era’ of music journalism, the highpoint of which in the UK was in 1973 when NME was selling 300,000 weekly copies, traditional music journalism has died a death. The transfer of many music publications to online platforms has undeniably changed the face of music journalism for ever, and most people tend to blame this change for music journalism’s demise because “there is a current erosion of the cultural gatekeeping role of a music journalist” (Hearsum, 2012, p.109). Barney Hoskyns (2010) laments this oversaturation, arguing that music and music journalism is de-valued by this easy accessibility: “What is the pay off, the cathartic experience when there is an instant download?... Pop stars were the pied pipers leading us from innocence to experience, and the MP3 is a soulless bit of information like gum drops where all the flavour disappears.” Hearsum agrees to a point, arguing that traditional music journalism has indeed died a death. She puts this down to the fact that the key demographic for music journalism (students) are cash and time poor, and that the rise of new technology means the ethics of buying music or words about music have changed. She does however offer a more optimistic slant, arguing that students do desire a broader exposure to alternative music, which they will happily absorb via any source. As such, Hearsum contends that music journalism has become more open and polygamous, suggesting that the “place for strong writing has not gone but must now fight for its future amongst the hubbub and information overload” (p.111). If this is the case, which I do believe it to be, then what makes for strong music journalism? What do music journalists need to do to get their voices heard? And what, if not the move online, is causing people bemoan the demise of music journalism?

 

The opinions included in Hearsum’s chapter seem to link the demise of music journalism to a general move away from both personality and intellectual music journalism. Everett True (2008) argues that music journalism at its best is “an art to rank alongside the medium that it evaluates,” and Barney Hoskyns (1984) similarly describes music journalism as ‘metamusic’; a music about music. Reynolds echoes this view that music journalism can be an art in its own right, arguing that writing can be seen as a kind of performance in which the writer creates a confident and charismatic persona through words and hypnotizes the reader into believing they are right. This comment highlights the importance of personality over impartiality or objectivity. However, Forde (2001) argues that polyglottism and writer autonomy have subsided in the mainstream music press, reflecting a general move towards a more brand focussed, singular voice in the 00s. As far back as 1973, Rivers (p.533) notes “the effort to appeal to masses of readers causes many publications to express fewer editorial attitudes or none at all for fear of offending readers.” This was something which I grappled with during my time at Exposed magazine; I found it difficult to know how much personality to infuse my journalism with. Having had very little experience in music journalism, I simply had no idea what the scope was for personality journalism, nor did I know how to do it for that matter. As such, I tended to err on the side of caution, but consequently felt I was running the risk of being what Everett True (2009) described as a “faceless ‘meta’ critic.”

 

Forde (2001) mentions The Wire as one of the only print magazines which, due to its left-field stance, believes that it is not subject to the same commercial pressure that mainstream music titles are. If it is commercial pressure that is driving the decline of personality journalism, then I would argue that the move online surely allows more space for writer autonomy and personality driven journalism. Therefore, rather than being seen as the ‘death’ of music journalism, surely the internet should be seen as the saving grace.

 

In her comparison of academic and journalistic music writing, Hearsum argues that there are considerable tensions between the two ends of the spectrum. Lucy O’Brien explains how in the 70s and 80s the music press would happily feature intellectual writing, “… but by the early 90s there was a move to simplify the music press” to make it more “accessible and anecdotal” (O’Brien, 2010). Drawing on her own experience, Hearsum suggests that the academic study of popular music is often looked down on by music journalists, who believe that academics are too far removed from the reality of popular music to be able to write authoritatively about it. Personally, I didn’t detect any tensions or experience anything close to snobbery during my time with Exposed magazine regarding my academic study of music. However, I did get the impression that there wasn’t much space in the magazine for intellectual journalistic writing, as I suggested a couple of more conceptual articles which didn’t get taken up. Furthermore, my lack of experience in the field of journalism often left me slightly puzzled as to how to go about writing journalistic pieces – how should I structure my writing? How long should it be? How much personal, anecdotal information should I include, and how much fact-based information? What kind of language and tone should I use? These uncertainties do reflect differences between academic and journalistic music writing, but they are tiny hurdles which are very easy to overcome with practice.

 

Hearsum goes on to argue that the divide between academic and journalistic music writing is artificial, because both academic and journalistic music writing verbalise the same subject matter and have much to offer to our understanding, albeit with different sensibilities. She argues that the artificial divide is holding the discourse back and suggests that putting down the boxing gloves might offer more than continuing with the fight. This view is shared by O’Brien (2010), who argues that music journalism and academia are naturally linked: “Generally, it’s important to keep the standards of rock writing high – and you can only do that with good, in depth research and perceptive writing. Academia enhances those skills.” Based on my own experience, I certainly felt that my academic study helped me to describe music creatively and perhaps more authoritatively than a non-music student, and maybe even afforded me a different perspective on things. Similarly, Hoskyns (2010) argues that music journalism should deepen an understanding and appreciation of music and thus can be informed by the musicological. He concurs that music journalism and academia are now “closer than they once were” as academics have “come out of their ivory towers” and an increasing number are now writing intelligent discussions about popular culture. I can personally vouch for this point of view, as I feel that rather than distancing me from reality, my music education has in fact brought me closer to it. In my opinion, studying popular music is like studying a microcosm of society, interpreting social and cultural meanings through the looking glass of musical movements.

 

So, the internet has opened the floodgates to music journalism and everyone has decided that they want a piece. But rather than seeing this as the ‘death’ of music journalism, Hearsum acknowledges that there has been a change and proposes how people who write about music should adapt and collaborate in order to stay afloat. She proposes that for music journalism to survive, music writers must have an understanding of what Anderson has called the ‘imagined community’ in order to create meaningful and purposeful musical discourse. She further suggests that academic and journalistic music writers should unite around their common interest in order to ensure they will flourish at what Inglis (2010) has described as a “critical point” in the relationship between popular music and journalism. Furthermore, she argues that the move online is not solely responsible for the perceived death of music journalism, highlighting other changes such as the demise of personality and intellectual journalism. As such, I suggest that perhaps we should consider the internet as democratising the field and opening up a whole new realm of possibilities which will push music writers out of their comfort zones in order to achieve new limits.

 

 

References

 

Anderson, B., 1991. Imagined Communities: Reflections on the Origin and Spread of Nationalism. London: Verso.

 

Forde, E., 2001. From polyglottism to branding: On the decline of personality journalism in the British music press. Journalism: Theory, Practice, Criticism, 2(1), pp.23-43.

 

Hearsum, P., 2012. Music Journalism. In B. Turner & R. Orange, eds. 2012. Specialist Journalism. London: Routledge, pp.107-123.

 

Hoskyns, B., 1984. Subbed Culture. New Musical Express, October.

 

Hoskyns, B., 2010. Interview with Paula Hearsum.

 

Inglis, I., 2010. Interview with Paula Hearsum.

 

O’Brien, L., 2010. Interview with Paula Hearsum.

​

Rivers, W. L., 1973. The Press as a Communication System. In I. De Sola Pool, F. W. Frey, W. Schramm, N. Maccoby & E. B. Parker, eds. 1973. Handbook of Communication. Chicago: Rand McNally, pp. 521–50.

​

True, E., 2008. Is there anything left to say about music? Rolling Stone, December 2008, pp.37–40.

 

True, E., 2009. You write to make an impact: A tribute to Steven Wells. Drowned In Sound, [online], 13 July. Available at: < http://drownedinsound.com/in_depth/4137352-you-write-to-make-an-impact--a-tribute-to-steven-wells > [Accessed 15 April 2019].