The Cypher: Things Done Changed

Reggie, dude killed it and I'm firmly in his corner. Last November during Fun Fun Fun Fest weekend in Austin, while attending a panel on the same topic, I found bloggers to be more entitled, righteous about their punk rock calling to document memes at the grassroots level, and generally unbearable than ever. Again, here are his arguments:

1. The Hype Machine is, ironically, the lowest common denominator as it is an aggregate of stupid blogs and its frequenters are fooling themselves into thinking they are pulling rare, important indie works.

2. Twitter merely enables a culture of "firsties!" and its transmissions are a "constant stream of piss." This is a bigger problem when reputable Twitter accounts go to places like Coachella and suddenly Rolling Stone's tweets are indistinguishable from bloggers/drunken music fans.

3. Blogs are covering baby bands hoping to be first and get recognition and cred; an unnamed blog recently blogged about a MySpace account that is three weeks old. A constant search for new music.

4. AOL-Spinner interviewed all registered 2,000 bands with official South by Southwest showcases and submissions were shit, an editor told him: "these were presumably college kids but it was amateur hour with the writing" It didn't matter, AOL won: "I can't Google half of [SXSW bands] without these fucking Q&As coming up."

5. When clicks are lifeblood of the business it doesn't matter if writing is any good: "Good writing dies at hands of search engine optimization."

6. There is no more stumble-on culture, just websites just mentioning same names over and over hoping for clicks.

7. Nonstop, nonmusical coverage of "Twilight" and "Avatar" and "Glee" in music magazines is killing standards and content. Respected writers are stuck covering "American Idol." Editors are "playing Madlibs with Google trends."

8. The famed "exclusive MP3" ploy labels throw at blogs and how nowadays, it doesn't matter what anyone writes next to it because the move generates clicks.

9. Musicians themselves have to be internet hustlers. I mean Christ, there's a YouTube video for an "Album art teaser." To quote many a terrible rap blogger: "the fuck?"

10. OK Go's latest boasts 11 millions views and they can't sell a record to their fucking grandmother because this culture helps blogs, not bands.

11. No one is writing negative things: everyone is scratching everyone's back.



Ramon, I think he's right about some things, like the relative absence of negative criticism online, but dude really doesn't know what he's talking about.

Point's where I think this guy is ignorant and wrong:

1. Twitter/firsties: No one uses Twitter for firsties. Mags and blogs primarily post about whatever they have going on on their actual sites. This guy just resents Twitter.

2. Twitter/Coachella/piss stream: Twitter is 140 character bursts of text. It is what it is. People dig the shit that other people are saying and doing. It's been proven. If you're saying and doing those things at a cool show at Coachella, that is genuinely better than the average tweet. The Twitter community has embraced this.

3. Music mags covering things that aren't strictly music, i.e. Paste and breweries: Dude, wake the fuck up. Seriously? You claim to be a magazine guy? Culture is to music as chocolate is to peanut butter. Always has been.

4. Musicians have to be internet hustlers: No they don't, and most good bands aren't. YouTube and social media marketing are the types of shit that our friends in music PR are bending over backwards about every day, not the musicians.

5. No more stumble culture: This is perhaps the most wrongheaded of the bunch. The blogosphere is much better at stumble culture than magazines ever were. And there is infinitely more out there to stumble upon because of it.



1. His point was that the Twitter accounts of big magazines are just as low-grade and poorly maintained as the average student at a festival and they are wrapped up in the game to tweet about instant happenings which is true/not journalistic.

2. It's not culture, it's music magazines leading with covers and assigning their best writers to follow and qualify big dumb trends like Megan Fox or "Glee" or The Jonas Brothers because they now have to.

3. Aspiring musicians have to be internet hustlers. And moreover, bad musicians can break through with superior hustle. Once they get to a good place, they have a team of handlers to operate their Twitters, MySpace pages and other social medias. But, many big musicians also blog pointlessly and relentlessly to try and "connect with their fans."

4. Define stumble culture.



1. Whether big magazines are bad at Twitter is a moot point. It really has no bearing on music journalism. This entire line of thinking reeks of anti-Twitter sentiment and really should have been left out of his argument. And again, I dispute the existence of a race by blogs/zines to tweet news first. The rush to publish is a problem for online publications in general, not Twitter. It pre-dates Twitter.

2. Rolling Stone doesn't have to put anything on the cover it doesn't want to. They choose to do those things because they're ambitious and want to make as much money as possible. The blame belongs with the publishers and editors.

3. Point conceded. Although I don't have any problem with musicians blogging/tweeting if they're so inclined. That shit tends to only go to people who are interested, and is useful for journalists should they become interested.

4. The rate at which new and strange kinds of music/artists enter public discourse.



1. Twitter absolutely has bearing on music journalism because it is music journalism and it's just as influential nowadays. ?uestlove expressing fondness for a guest band on Fallon is a big deal for tastemaking and it filters through to bigger outlets that leach on what is said.

2. Rolling Stone doesn't have to put "Glee" on its cover, correct, that's an example of an editorial hierarchy naturally aging and paying more attention to their DVRs than what's going on in the streets and it's weak. The Jonas Brothers, as an unmissable force in music, were justified and the article was great, but I can turn to TV Guide, E!, Entertainment Weekly and thousands of blogs for information on "Glee" and that's an issue. On a side note, I cannot fucking stand "Glee." The storylines are trite and uninteresting and its appeal (strong female characters and lots of flamboyance) is equalized by its abhorrent, surreal musical numbers.

3. I'll concede that the internet mass of music actually accentuates the stumble-upon culture in many ways. But in many more, it's people trying to be different, reading about Neon Indian and She & Him.



1. Ok, I may be underestimating the importance of Twitter in music journalism circles. However, Twitter is an example of new media as a tool and not a death sentence if there ever was one. Music journalists should take care to use the medium to promote the content of their choosing and drive conversation - not simply echo it. That's what it's for.

2. So who do we blame for Zac Effron? Acknowledging the existence of shifting and powerful market forces beyond their control, can we blame a reputable national music magazine for jettisoning its editorial integrity? Was there another way, or do Rolling Stone and Paste have a gun to their head?

3. Last year I would've stood up for "Glee," but with the novelty gone, I have to admit I've found it painful of late. I blame creator Ryan Murphy, he always burns out and spirals into kitsch (see "Nip/Tuck").



1. Agreed. I mean, we have a Twitter.

2. Yes. But then again, I don't do demographics research. There has to be another way.