Music Journalism for Toddlers.

After deciding that the real world was...well just a tad too real I am about to start an MA at City University in the field of Magazine Journalism. Last week I received my (frightningly long) reading list. On said reading list was a title that caught my eye, and I decided I would begin with this book.

Good Writing for Journalists by Angela Phillips promises a lot in the title, and whether it fulfilled its actual purpose is now completely irrelevant because it has saved my life. I wish I could say I had it in my jacket pocket and it stopped a bullet. Being rather thin I'm glad to say it never had to try. Instead it pointed to me (metaphorically) and said "Jonny, one day you will be a damn fine music journalist, and work for whatever magazine/website you choose".

And how did it tell me this? By pointing out the obvious - That music journalism today is, by and large, and in the style of a music journo.

"Like the bastard child of a dyslexic and a Jeremy Clarkson impersonator." (read poorly written, self important tripe)

Despite being among the most popular forms of journalism and, in my opinion, one of the most important, the quality of writing is nowhere near the standard of other cultural journalisms.

All to often we try to be witty, cutting, original, subversive and offensive. I believe this is because to be a music journalist you don't necessarily have to have a journalist background. If you have an ear and a passion for music, and know a few people in the industry you are half way there. I understand that a slating review is exciting to read and an absolute must for music enzines, but the need for such reviews has overtaken the need for balanced, contextual and factual reviewing. Opinion seems to be far more important than eloquence (to put that in context, taxi drivers have opinions, should they be allowed to air them in print?) Like bulldogs bread to have noses so flat many couldn't breath, NME has recruited writers gradually more and more hateful to the point where when they hear bad music they choke and gasp out a review of such malignance that it makes readers react with pure venom themselves (see here - http://www.nme.com/reviews/sam-isaac/10733 and make sure you read the comments.)

Music journalism of old used to be written for its love of bands, festivals, gigs and albums. Now we take as much pleasure in hating bands as we do loving them, and as journalists we have to rise above this or at the very least justify ourselves when we can't. By writing on the manner of the article I have linked we take away the ability to debate, to critique and to enjoy. There is no music in the world that deserves the slamming that Sam Isaac got (even the schiztophrenic NME seem to think so, having given his single a glowing review). NME, by recruiting these lamtentable and hateful "free spirits" are slowly destroying music journalism, people's interest in it and the forum for the furtherment of musical brilliance.

Knowing this means that I can endevour to be a better journalist than all the "journalists" at NME, who ultimately have jobs that many writers would kill for. Reviewers have a unique opportunity, and therefore responsibility, to write and be a positive part of the world of music. When they waste it they become part of the problem they seek to slate, and to be a honest a toddler could write better reviews than most of them.

So you want free music do you?

Despite the occasional cameo from Piratebay, it seems the ugly head of illegal downloading has gone back beneath the surface. That is not to say it is no longer an issue, but that the media has decided that something that isn't new...isn't news.

I would love to say that another reason is that people have found more legal ways to enjoy free music, but that would be niave. So here I am, a one man army saying that I am totally against illegal downloading, and even more against it now I have stopped doing it. That is because I have discovered Spotify.

Spotify, in its most basic form, is like a jukebox with almost every song in the world on it that you can access whenever you have an internet connection. For a small monthly fee you get advert free music on a scale never before thought possible. You can also pay one measily pound and get a day's worth of free music. Or even better, don't pay at all and every 20 minutes of so get a 30 second add.

Its all ad and link funded, so the conscience is left untainted, even if it gets a little nervous every time you find a really good album you'll never have to buy. I personally think it outshines the wonder that is Last.fm, which does offer the musical scope and media variation, but not the ease of use or simple playlist ability. Spotify also seems far more reliable for streaming, though this may be due to the numb er of listeners involved.

So for you thieves - start borrowing music instead. Its free, easy, legal, supportive of bands and a hell of a lot quicker at finding the tracks you want. It also has loads of kareoke tracks...I've checked - You've Lost That Loving Feeling is there.

Taking a bite out of Apple

I may not be alone, but I must certainly be in the minority when it comes to hating Apple. Of course, there is a twinge of jealousy when I see the wonderful apps people can buy for their iphones, and the cool sticky notes on Mac desktops, but for me buying an apple product involves the rejection several morals I have about music, business and consumerism.

Take Microsoft for example. Globally labelled as an evil, multi-national conglomerate bent on world domination via computer desktops, it is hard to find someone that would use windows given a viable alternative. So why is it that Apple are regarded as revolutionary, conceptual and enterprising? They use exactly the same tactics to squeeze money from the hapless customer - releasing dated software that needs updating, creating file formats specific to its programs and releasing similar rehashed products year on year to keep sales ticking over.

Apple accounted 73% of the MP3 player market in 2007 and I can't imagine that figure has dropped at all if we allow for iPhones. They celebrated their 5 billionth dowloaded MP3 track (or should I say AAC) just under a year ago. Now Apple enjoy a monopoly on music downloads and to a lesser extent players, and have have none of the related
backlash. But they deserve it - its tracks can only be played on Apple mp3 players which essentially means that once you have an iTunes library you can only ever buy an ipod if you want to listen to it outside. Imagine if Microsoft developed windows to only work on their own brand laptops. We would all be forced to buy them so our programs would still run.

Of course there is an alternative - Amazon have just slashed all their prices in a bid to get in on the downloading market and in some independent research proved either equal too or considerably cheaper than iTunes. Other advantages include no crappy iTunes, and if this really matters to you try play.com, who dont require any kind of downloading software. (check out this excellent Guardian post - http://www.guardian.co.uk/..technology/blog/2009/apr/08/..apple-itunes-amazon-prices).

Whether you are an apple lover or hater, you owe it to yourself to check out the alternatives. All it takes for evil to succeed is for good men to stand by and do nothing.

I still want an iPhone though.

An idiots guide to starting a band from a guy thats started a few...

Starting a band can be a daunting process. After all the hype, the drunken discussions and the first practise where you wrote a song that sounds quite a lot like Smells Like Teen Spirit but no quite so much that people will notice immediately, you begin to discover that its actually quite hard work. You also discover that as much as you talk about it, the ladies just don't seem to give a damn that you are "in fact a pretty big deal, being singer of 'The Butt Monkeys'".
You need a presence, you need a scene, and most of all you need gigs and songs to play at them. This article will give you a no nonsense, no frills and most importantly no promises guide to getting your band of the ground.

1. Find a sound. It may seem obvious but far, far too many bands recycle the same shit again and again, but with less and less quality – and then wonder why no one wants to watch them. Don't find a riff, hit overdrive, moan over the top and repeat it for four minutes. Even the worst song in the world can be saved by adding dynamics, stops, changes and middle 8s - and even a tiny bit of subtlety will set you apart on the local scene.

2. Don't jump in at the deep end. If your mate is having a party and wants you to play, don't unless you're ready to. You'll need 5 songs all drilled to perfection before you can play in front of people. You only get one chance to impress a crowd and if you want people to come see you again you can't be scrappy, out of time and off-tune.

3. Get a decent recording. If you have a friend with some tech knowledge, get him in, or if you can afford it get some studio time (prices will be from £120ish a day most local places.) A clean recording with a decent mix, presented with contact details on the CD case, will double your chances of getting a gig – but then your songs have to do the rest of the talking. A scrappy demo has the same effect as a scrappy gig – the promoter won't look back.

4. Send out as many CDs as possible. Buy 50 cds, 50 cases and 50 envelopes. Go online, find all the venues in your area and send you CD. Don't be picky – A gig is a gig. Give any dates that you can't play – just to save the promoter time and so you come across as serious and professional (even though you're not). By all means sell some CDs to get your costs back – but don't look to make a profit because then you won't. If it has cover art and 5 songs charge no more than £3, for less songs/no cover art £1 is best - It's about spreading the word remember.

5. Most promoters are moody bastards. It's harsh but its true – they do this every night, their ear drums are shot and if you find sound checks boring imagine doing it four times a day. So - turn up on time, set up without a fuss, sound check quickly and efficiently and get out of the promoters hair if he looks angry. Keep to you allotted set time and don't insult the audience (whether you're Pete Doherty or Jim from The Butt Monkeys you'll come across as a twat) or the promoter. Once you're on stage you can go apeshit – 'coz its wicked – but, and I can't stress this enough, only trash you own equipment! Seriously, a guy broke my drummers bass pedal by throwing it at the audience – he got banned from playing there.

6. Socialise! After playing so talk to people, carry CDs with you (visibly!) so if people want to buy one they know where to go and can see you're approachable. Don't sit and hide behind you pint expecting people to come over, because they won't. Be friendly with the promoter too – if you make good friends with him he is more likely to remember you when you ask for a second gig.

7. Get a mailing list. It's the easiest way to let people know when you're playing. Forget facebooks and Myspace messages because they get ignored way to easily. Everytime you have a gig, send out an email saying where when and with whom.

8. Make your myspace/facebook/bebo/sellaband etc look good - its sad but its true that people judge you by how it looks. If you have spent time on it it will pay dividends. Also, spend some time getting friends and commenting to increase click throughs and messages back. A busy myspace is important!

9. Make sure you apply to festivals, because playing them fucking rules.

10. Don't take yourself too seriously. Work hard, have a laugh and at worst it will be a lot of fun. Most chances at the big time come through talent (which you can't control) and luck. Push and push, but don't get overly excited. It's a cliche but the music world is harsh, commercial and forgetful - but do it right and you wont ever forget that moment when you jumped off the stage and crowdsurfed out the door.

A blog is for life, not just for Christmas

I have recently been frequenting music message boards all over the web, and in particular posts about X Factor. For some reason I am still unable to tear my eyes away from the programme, and I am now oblivious to my own words of disgust for it.

It seems I was not as outspoken as I thought in regard to several things. For starters Rhydian wasn't as popular as I thought (while also probably a victim of the "Everyone likes him so I don't" trap) and people were well aware of the fact that he is not that great an opera singer, nor that great a pop singer. Which is a bit of a pickle for a bit of a prick.

But the biggest revelation of my message board surfing is my realisation of the power such sites wield. While my modest site is yet to change the atmosphere of my room, let alone the music scene, many posts on these boards can reach thousands. If the general discourse of a topic goes one way, the thousands of readers that see it will be affected. Whilst reading someone's self important post about how Simon Cowell is deluded to think anyone would buy a "Hope" record, I actually found myself thinking "Fuck you, I'll buy one" before realising I hate everything to do with the band, who are after all 90% make up.

I couldn't say for sure that my words have this kind of effect, I may after all be weak minded, but I do believe that once something is written, whether it is on the web, a book or on your drunks friends face it is there for the duration. Your point of view that Simon Cowell is gorgeous is stuck on the web the duration, as is the memory of your marker pen assertion that your drunken friend is a "Dick."

I think that, while on message boards this is relatively harmless, reviewers and feature writers can lose sight of the power they wield. A case in point is Carrie Bradshaw Layfield's review of the Foo Fighter's new album. Layfield uses the review space not to talk about the album, but to slander the Foo Fighters previous connection to Alive And Well, an organisation that denies a link between HIV and AIDS and claims the African Epidemic is exaggerated.

Whether this exaggeration is true is irrelevant to the album. As is whether the Foo's involvement is questionable or not. As is the fact that they were involved. As is the fact that they no longer are. In fact, barely one sentence of the whole review is relevant to music, except where he compares the "energy" of the Foo's to a dead child.

People reviewing music with an agenda should not be allowed. It's bad enough that politics get in the way of music creation (not always true I accept), let alone its critics. As reviewers, people have a responsibility to deliver an insightful, illuminating and entertaining read, something Mr Layfield fails to do on all levels. In fact, he just embarrasses himself. The words we write mean something. We can't claim we wrote them in the heat of the moment like a harsh word in an argument, because we think the words, spell them, then check them. We think about what we write, so we should think about who reads it.

The WHY!? Factor

I think we all know how we all feel about The X Factor. If "A Clockwork Orange" had been written forty years later I feel sure that Alex Delarge would have been forced to watch it. But while the fact that it is on television haunts me every night, I do get a good chuckle out of the fact that it won Best Comedy Entertainment Programme over Jonathan Ross at the British Comedy Awards in 2005.

The thing is, I always used to watch it and I can't for the life of me work out why. The auditions are of course hilarious, Simon Cowell's sheer ego a marvel to behold and the audience wonderfully cringing. But now, even the joy that is Dannii Minogue can't hold my attention. And it's because of all the people in this year's competition, not ONE of them has real talent. 200,000 people auditioned, and here we are now with seven either plain, plain bad or unoriginal artists. Is this really the best the UK can come up with?

I can hear the cry's of angered girls who watch the show, drinking lambrini before hitting town on a Saturday. "What about Rhydian?!" The man has no variation, his Pink cover was laughable and the way he smiles he could be Satan himself having a go at pop. Beverly is obviously just going to produce an album of Whitney and Aretha Franklin covers. Hope, aside from having the worst band name ever, are simply leggy, made up girls who can sing in tune. Also can someone tell the tall black one not to wear heels when the rest of the band are a foot shorter…?

But it is the presence of "Same Difference" that most agitates me. Not only does it scream of a brother-sister relationship with a lot of, shall we say … secrets, they are cringingly plain and boring, and it causes me physical pain to watch. The fact that their selected songs come from Steps, S Club 7 and High School Musical is a testament to the fact that they should be singing at Haven or Butlins, or worse the Eurovision Song Contest.

But let's not get me started on that monstrosity.