The fact that you're reading this column probably means you have some interest in the discussion of music via the printed word - a seemingly obvious statement, but a fundamental one nevertheless. This practice of writing and reading about music (or any form of entertainment for that matter) holds a strange place in the grand scheme of things: It is totally supplemental to the art itself and also important to its proliferation and reception.
Critics have historically held the power to override how music might otherwise be interpreted if left to its own devices, tainting it with judgment for better or worse and acting as a filter for the popular consciousness. Some would argue that critics are therefore the scourge of the industry, passing down judgment on art they themselves could not make. Others would defend their important role in ascribing merit, since, quite frankly, there's a lot out there to sift through.
The question is whether the Internet - which has already irreconcilably changed music - is dissolving this age-old debate by marginalizing the once privileged and necessary role of the critic.
According to my vantage point, hardly anyone reads music magazines anymore, despite the fact that at least eight prominent publications are still somehow in circulation. To most, the notion of a magazine only being updated monthly or bi-weekly has become strangely archaic when compared to websites that update news and reviews multiple times a day - like NME, Pitchfork Media and CMJ.
On top of that, the majority of magazines out there leave quite a bit to be desired, since they are often stodgily written and bloated with filler. These things are certainly less of an issue with the mix 'n' match approach of finding articles online.
The Internet has given every potential music journalist a voice and allowed limited, niche audiences to finally find a venue of expression. It must not be ignored, however, that despite certain benefits, music blogs and online publications carry a most unfortunate side effect: They are turning music into an industry of cool,"" as Lester Bangs would have put it.
The Internet allows the rapid fire of hype machines to wreak havoc on the more natural course of music exposure. It seems online writers often measure music in terms of viewpoints and hoopla generated by other websites, and like a game of Telephone, that usually results in an original idea getting distorted by people who portray something different from how it actually is.
In our current landscape of wide accessibility, where music fans are easily oversaturated with material to listen to and anything you want to hear is basically a click away, it's hard to say exactly what the role of music journalism is becoming.
On one hand, with the advent of album streams, free MP3s, 30-second samples and filesharing, there is now a whole variety of easy ways for people to sample and judge music for themselves. It almost seems as if we wouldn't even need critics to tell us what's good anymore. It's no longer necessary to steer people away from ""bad"" music because less is at stake - no one really needs to buy an album to hear it, allowing for a more causal process of evaluation.
At the same time, the opposite could be true. There's now so much music at our fingertips we need people writing about music more than ever, just to avoid drowning in a sea of availability. I think the opinions of others are still needed to steer listeners in the right direction and help us sift through everything that's out there. Now, it's easier to combine reading about an album with experiencing it firsthand and, in the end, that balance is very advantageous.
Think that Ben, being a music critic himself, should stop whining about the decline of critics in the current digital revolution? Let him know at bpetrerson1@wisc.edu.
