I don't have all that much to say about this, except that 7/10 of the top albums were from 2000-2001 and 13/20 were from 2000-2002. Apparently, the best albums are the ones that are juuuuust far back enough for them to feel nostalgic about.
Also, if it is assumed that, of the 200 albums in a decade, that's 20 in a year, a little under two a month. Therefore, somewhere around five of the top 200 albums of the decade weren't out when they made the list. I guess that's what big revised-list features are for.
Thursday, October 8, 2009
maximum rocknroll, and punk/diy distribution in 2009
I picked up a copy of Maximum Rocknroll last month because I had never read a copy before (the only place I've ever seen it is an indie bookstore on my block), and I was expecting halfhearted, badly-written fluff and stupid attacks at bands I'd never heard of. Well... I can comfortably say that it's the best music periodical I've ever laid my hands on. This issue was "the queer issue," featuring the lead singer of Big Boys (a personal favorite of mine) on the cover above a list of bands, most of whom didn't ring a bell. The coverage of queer bands, was, well... good. It didn't try to minimize them to gimmick acts or promote them solely based on what set them apart, or (as mainstream music publications are prone to do) try to invent a trend that either doesn't really exist or has existed for a decade. It acknowledges that queer bands are simply an accepted, vocal, unique part of the larger punk scene that make good music. It also didn't stick to just major US cities, either: it has multiple pages on the queercore scene in Brazil. The reviews section is ungodly comprehensive, as well (though, minor point, it's often hard to tell what genre something is in for some of the shorter reviews). They don't beat around the fact that some are good and some are bad. So if I loved this magazine so much, why am I devoting a blog post to praising something way, way, way more well-respected than I am?
The problem that I see is that the ideology of the publication- supporting DIY, being nonprofit, not accepting ads or review copies from anything associated with a major label- no longer fits the magazine format. This is supposed to be a people-oriented magazine, something that's not high and mighty above the listening public but among them. Yet, instead of adopting the model that I would see as most in line with this (free internet distribution alongside the hard copy) to get it in the eyeballs of the most possible people, they stick to the old model of paper-only with only a blog containing information on the issues, how to order, and the monthly lists that a bunch of people write for them.
Hard copy distribution for independent music publications is on the decline. Okay, scratch that. I don't really know if that's true. But the fact is, there are so much better ways of getting it out. This might seem like a nitpick, but it's part of a larger thing with the magazine: they seem stuck in the old ways of doing things, permanently. The culture that advocated abandoning what had been left before and starting anew has become the old, a part of established culture. Despite new advances, it's still about zines and vinyl. Not liking vinyl because it contains things that are unavailable elsewhere from when it was the best format, but commenting on every good CD that they'd rather have it on vinyl. This is a totally... not elitist, exactly, but primitivist standpoint. At some point, people "got it right" in the punk culture and music, and it should stay that way forever. The fact is, making CDs is cheaper nowadays. You can fit more on. It's less effort.
Take this all together, how is someone supposed to get into punk and DIY music nowadays? They're supposed to live near one of the three places in the US that carries this magazine on newsstands, or find out about it somehow and spend $44 a year on a subscription (for a nonprofit magazine)? To get into music by people jamming in their basements on pawn shop guitars, eighth-hand distortion pedals and amps from the 70s, you're supposed to buy a turntable setup with all that entails? The music that accepts and embraces young people is supposed to drop money to use old technology just to know what's happening currently? Fuck that. The music should never sell out to mainstream accessibility in terms of art, but it shouldn't be so incredibly difficult to hear the songs in the first place without an invite-only bittorrent site. So yes... the best way for the majority of America to hear this music made by broke people is to download it illegally. Fantastic.
The problem that I see is that the ideology of the publication- supporting DIY, being nonprofit, not accepting ads or review copies from anything associated with a major label- no longer fits the magazine format. This is supposed to be a people-oriented magazine, something that's not high and mighty above the listening public but among them. Yet, instead of adopting the model that I would see as most in line with this (free internet distribution alongside the hard copy) to get it in the eyeballs of the most possible people, they stick to the old model of paper-only with only a blog containing information on the issues, how to order, and the monthly lists that a bunch of people write for them.
Hard copy distribution for independent music publications is on the decline. Okay, scratch that. I don't really know if that's true. But the fact is, there are so much better ways of getting it out. This might seem like a nitpick, but it's part of a larger thing with the magazine: they seem stuck in the old ways of doing things, permanently. The culture that advocated abandoning what had been left before and starting anew has become the old, a part of established culture. Despite new advances, it's still about zines and vinyl. Not liking vinyl because it contains things that are unavailable elsewhere from when it was the best format, but commenting on every good CD that they'd rather have it on vinyl. This is a totally... not elitist, exactly, but primitivist standpoint. At some point, people "got it right" in the punk culture and music, and it should stay that way forever. The fact is, making CDs is cheaper nowadays. You can fit more on. It's less effort.
Take this all together, how is someone supposed to get into punk and DIY music nowadays? They're supposed to live near one of the three places in the US that carries this magazine on newsstands, or find out about it somehow and spend $44 a year on a subscription (for a nonprofit magazine)? To get into music by people jamming in their basements on pawn shop guitars, eighth-hand distortion pedals and amps from the 70s, you're supposed to buy a turntable setup with all that entails? The music that accepts and embraces young people is supposed to drop money to use old technology just to know what's happening currently? Fuck that. The music should never sell out to mainstream accessibility in terms of art, but it shouldn't be so incredibly difficult to hear the songs in the first place without an invite-only bittorrent site. So yes... the best way for the majority of America to hear this music made by broke people is to download it illegally. Fantastic.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)