The Vitality of Negative Criticism

Music journalism sucks, and mostly because of too much positive criticism!

I’m grateful to have woken up this morning on one of my first few days of bed rest to a Twitter discourse—one that particularly riles me up. Pitchfork posted their review of the beloved new Foxing record, Draw Down The Moon, which I admittedly have not listened to and probably never will. I never got into the band aside from their emo hits (“The Medic” and “Rory” are gorgeous tracks) but it’s impossible to be on emo Twitter and not see how much people love them. So when fans saw the 6.0 score and read the reviewers negative criticisms within the article, they lashed out.

Now, this is okay. This shit happens all the time, and it, in part, is what keeps Pitchfork alive. Pitchfork—which, you know, is called pitchfork—thrive off of every now and then offering a new, controversial insight and counterargument that makes readers and fans angry. Obviously it was worse in the early 2000s when they published a review that dismissed Amy Winehouse’s alcoholism, or when they asked Elliott Smith: “Are things really that bad?” There are ways to go about negative criticism—and intrusively attacking the artists’ personal life is not it.

Foxing, though, have only received an 8.0 and a 7.6 on Pitchfork before, both reviews having been written by Ian Cohen, who is known for loving Foxing. So there is a sense of disappointment when the publication lets someone else step in to review this new record from a different angle.

The score itself doesn’t diverge that far from those scores—a 6.0—but the review itself is pretty harsh. It calls a song “an uninspiring piece of festival rock built around a disco-rock shuffle and a falsetto ‘you-hoo-hoo’ chorus,” which, like, yeah. Whatever.

This isn’t about the review itself, because who cares. It’s just another Pitchfork article. But to this band and this band’s team, apparently, this is why music journalism is bad. And I understand fans thinking that this is why music journalism is bad—if I was outside of the industry and one of my favorite bands got a scathing Pitchfork review, I’d be upset! But the reason people inside the music journalism industry—bands, publicists, managers—are upset, is because they think they’re entitled to only good press.

The band’s manager, who I won’t name because I’m not trying to bully anyone (!), Tweeted: “If I needed just one more reason to be done with virtually all music press it was presented to me with the most idiotic and objectively wrong review I’ve read in years. Not to worry though as music press is truly on life support and no one is going to object to pulling that plug.”

A lot to unpack here:

• “Objectively wrong review” is a bold statement about a review for a band that you manage—you yourself cannot offer an objective perspective. That’s a fact.

• What does it mean to be done with music press? As a manager, what does that mean? And… why?

• “music press is truly on life support”—okay? Yeah? The industry is falling apart… and it sounds like you’re bragging about that?

Journalists, because all they offer is their opinion, are necessary, and it’s lame to poke at the eventual and inevitable demise of their careers casually like that. And I say this as someone who’s barely doing journalism anymore. I’m not defending myself; I’m defending the journalists who do their jobs, rely on their jobs to survive, and are putting out great and needed work.

Again, I’m not bullying anyone here, this is a structural problem (as most things are). I got into music journalism at this weird time when it was generally easy and accessible for a privileged person like me to do so. I used the Internet, I sent emails, I made contacts, and I started. Yet with this new accessibility comes a vague and somewhat uncomfortable relationship between journalists and bands’ teams.

Too often, publicists reach out to journalists asking the journalist to write about the band they work for—and then they only expect a glowing review/interview. They view an article as a favor. Journalism cannot subsist on this.

All press is good press. If you’re reaching out for press, you’re asking for press. Even if you’re not reaching out, you expect press. That’s it.

I’ve also written about the way too much of music journalism is just glowing press; it’s journalists wanting to interview the most-hyped artist and not wanting to risk anything. Negative criticism is frequently considered the reason music journalism sucks, but it’s really the opposite! It’s what keeps music journalism interesting. Too many people are afraid of being wrong—or worse, they’re afraid of triggering a visceral response from an army of stans that will proceed to dox them. Being a journalist, in the worst case, is dangerous.

When journalists are afraid to do their jobs, there’s a problem. The purpose of negative criticism is not to rile people up—it’s to start a conversation. But it never feels that way. And it sucks. It’s a two-way street; if you can’t offer any more insight than “this review sucks,” then your opinion sucks too! Give something more!

But I just think it’s irresponsible for industry people to act so entitled and be complicit in the attacking of music journalists. The industry would not exist without them. Your bands would not be doing as well as they are without them. And yes I’m going to mention that these are mostly industry men acting entitled and angry because I’m not surprised!

Journalists don’t get paid enough to deal with this bullshit. And this is why the industry sucks. We are all friends until we aren’t. I had a publicist once suggest to my editor that we kill my piece because it negatively reflected the artists’ record label—as if they have control over whether or not the piece goes up. There needs to be a barrier. Remember when St. Vincent successfully killed an interview because she didn’t want it to be published?

Besides, would everyone prefer that the writer lied? Written something different than their opinion?

Any band will get past a negative Pitchfork review. In fact, they will get more attention and money because of it. So… say thank you.