Facing the Music: We Need You to Subscribe to the Quietus
thequietus.com
thequietus.com
First time seeing the site - it's hard to navigate, small fonts that are hard to read and tons of text all squished together. Then when I read, what is essentially a sales pitch and I still don't know what they DO.
Like - you tease "but just look at what you get in return…" but don't actually answer what you are - or how you are different from a million other publications.
Sure, you don't have a ping pong table, but can you tell me why I should pick you over say the NYTimes Music section? Or some other indie music magazine?
This sounds like I am crapping all over them, and I guess I am a bit, but I just get frustrated when people can't be clear about a differentiator. Tell me WHY I should pick you over everyone else, THEN tell me pricing and perks.
I used to read music reviews in order to discover new music. Then I read them to confirm that I had good taste and pick up talking points that would make me insufferable at parties. I was stumbling into enough music I liked on my own. Now I just like what I like and mostly don't read about it.
This personal trend is not just a loss of anxiety over liking "cool" music or gaining confidence in my own opinions. Getting access to new music used to involve a trip to a niche music store and a significant outlay of cash on a CD that you might have only read about. Reviews were an imperfect guide to finding new music. You just had to hope you'd like it as much as the reviewer.
You don't need to do that anymore. This is a key function of music reviews that has been rendered completely obsolete.
I still read reviews for movies and books because these require a larger investment of time. I want some assurance that my time won't be wasted. For music, I just listen and make up my own mind.
Reading a music review today (I just tried it) is actually a somewhat frustrating and unrewarding affair. If the reviewer talks about a specific part of a specific track, sometimes I have to seek back and forward trying to figure out what the heck they're talking about. Perhaps, in a world of instant multimedia content delivery, print is no longer a good medium for music reviews.
Take a look at this guy (Alex Moukala):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w80WSIBASzU
Almost half a million subscribers. He seems to be doing okay. His thing is to take music people already love, mainly video game music, and break down how and why it works. You learn something about composition when listening to him, and large part of it is because he'll play a passage and then immediately talk about it. This is next-level stuff when compared to print music reviews, even if the function it serves is almost backwards in comparison. You're not listening to this guy to discover new music, but to learn about what you already enjoy.
I'm not suggesting that print music reviews are utterly dead. You can write about almost anything and make it compelling. There will no doubt be gems of music criticism written in the coming decades that will be a joy to read. The question is, will there be enough of them for a site specializing in music criticism to stay afloat?
The Quietus in particular focuses on highlighting artists far outside the mainstream that people might not otherwise notice amidst the sea of new releases on Spotify. We might not need reviewers to cover the new Drake album, but what about Horse Lords? Decius? There's a slim-to-0% chance I would know about these artists were it not for The Quietus. That said, I agree that print is a tough business to be in these days, insofar as every independent publication has it tough.
I don't understand the comparison to a reaction video on youtube, since you even acknowledge that it has a different purpose. A better point of comparison would have been Anthony Fantano, since he does video reviews, but honestly if he published transcripts of his videos I'd probably prefer to read them.
There's a lot of great music out there but to get to the "just listen" part, you need to find the artists first.
It is still very important for young people to have affirmation that the music they like is 'cool' or fits the in-group they are trying to be a member of.
However, young people generally are not reading zines or long-form music reviews any more, and instead are watching TikTok clips, YouTube videos, etc. to work out what kind of music is 'cool'.
This comment is particularly insightful, I think:
> Perhaps, in a world of instant multimedia content delivery, print is no longer a good medium for music reviews.
I would say though that print was never a good medium for music reviews, but there were no other options. Column inches in a newspaper were better than wasting money on a record. Then, it was better to read reviews online for free than waste hours downloading a file on Napster/Kazaa/whatever.
Now, with instant streaming, it takes less time to consume the content and decide for yourself than it does to read a review.
I think it's exceptionally hard to make a convincing value proposition particularly for music journalism at the moment.
A written review is a kind of two-step, a puzzle between the writer and reader. The writer evokes the gestalt of the music without being able to reference it directly. It's more interesting than the actual music a lot of the time, and there's a vague erotic tinge to it.
I agree though often it's easier just to listen to the song and make your own mind up.