From Andrew Duke Cognition Sent Mon, Jun 7th 1999, 15:14
From Andrew Duke Cognition Sent Mon, Jun 7th 1999, 15:14
agreed. a writer may pitch a feature to an editor, but the editor is the one with the final say. simon reynolds *may* have written a longer/different/ differently slanted/etc piece, but it may have been reworked by the editors (or he may have been asked to slant it differently, rework it, etc). or he may have pitched something originally and the feature printed is what the editor said "OK" to. or the editors may have asked simon reynolds to do the piece as it originally ended. columnists have quite a bit of leeway, but a feature is generally more of a give and take bargain between the writer and the editor (regardless of who pitches). i'm coming from a writer angle in this: i've just had something pitched to me this morning. i got back to the editor with my thoughts; she didn't agree with all (some, but not all), so she got back to me; i'm happy with some of her slant, but not all, so i've just got back to her, etc. basically, it's all about negotiation. don't forget that what a writer ends up writing in the end is the result of this negotiation between writer and editor. thanks. andrew duke :) ps and don't forget that writers don't always write about things they like: for example, personally: i wrote an feature on josh wink last year. now, I've got a huge list of people i'd like to interview, and i didn't call up a mag and say "hey, would you like a josh wink feature?", but i *did* have a mag ask me to do a josh wink feature, and, as paying the rent is better than not paying the rent, i did the josh wink feature. so a writer has to write; the writer can pitch things he/she feels strongly about, but if the editor asks the writer to write something, they can't just choose *only* things they *want to do* (when pitched by an editor) or they ain't gonna be writing for pay for very long (heck, i write cos i like to write, not to be paid. i'm certainly not paid by all the magazines i write for, so it's not about money, it's about the music. but the josh wink, for example, *was* about the money. i wouldn't have written the josh wink feature for the heck of it :)). "Kacy D. Wiggins" wrote: > a lot of valid and solid points have come up in discussing this article. but i > have to say in all fairness that we should not critique the article because it > isn't the article we would have writtern. some of the critiques are a critique > of the forum as much as it is the article. the primary audience for the new > york times is american-- thus the US-centric perspective of the article. the > piece was not written for anyone likely to read and post here regularly. all > of the details that might have been fascinating to us would have gone over the > heads or just not have been of much interest to a general audience. > > when doing arts and society type reporting this last point is important since > the piece is not necessarily about journalistic ethics or guidlines. it is > about getting the readers interest long enough to read a brief but informative > piece. to do all the interviewing and background would bogg down the general > reader and make it a piece better suited for a more special interest music > mag. > > and i as i said before i am not dismissing the points that others have raised. > i asked my self similar questions and thought of similar points. i just think > there is only so much we can expect from a piece in the sunday times.... > > -kacy > > np-- stevie wonder innervison > > Alex Reynolds wrote: > > > Simon Reynolds' NYT article > > (http://www.nytimes.com/yr/mo/day/artleisure/electronica-ads.html) skims > > over/ignores several important points re: use of electronic music in a > > commercial setting that would have otherwise made it an interesting read: > > > > == > > > > Ads fight for a few seconds of your brain's attention. In a society with a > > short attention span, a video editor must resort to a number of blatant and > > subliminal editing tricks to catch you. The quick "cut-and-mix" style of > > the music is currently the best means for distract-and-refocus, as well as > > purchasing-data-loading into your brain. > > > > Why didn't the article explore this avenue of the electronic artistic > > culture in more detail: that area that "sells out" to make this type of > > subtly manipulative "wallpaper" -- interviewing the people who make this > > stuff (Fatboy Slim, Orb, Crystal Method, etc.)? I'd have been really > > interested to read what Alex Patterson has to say on the matter. > > > > == > > > > What leads to the perception of no "overt meaning" in the music? Who gets > > to make that decision: the listener or the record exec or ad agency, and > > why is that important in terms of what motivates the (dis)use of > > "political" or "subversive" music in commercials, i.e. who gets to make the > > decision? > > > > On the flip side, what real lessons are gleaned from the latest angry band > > of the day (Korn) -- other than that youth angst is a marketable > > demographic? Is there really any other possible message? If so, why weren't > > the fans interviewed? It doesn't seem proper journalistic technique to > > interview businessmen about the politics of music. Particularly when it > > involves record execs talking about platinum-selling bands. > > > > == > > > > "Is this use of electronica as aural wallpaper by MTV and other channels > > like Bravo contributing to the trivialization of this once alien music?" > > > > A better question would be: "What other role could 'electronica' (ugh) play > > in a consumerist economy that wouldn't have trivialized it anyway?" > > > > I'm surprised that a journalist like Simon R. was not a little more > > critical on this matter, given that he has written a number of > > "politicohistorical" accounts of the "electronica" scene, with drug use and > > the gay club scene as anathema to the oppressive culture around them. > > > > Toning it down just to get printed in the NYT is kind of sad, but I guess > > you have to pay the bills. > > > > -A. > > > > __________________________________________________________________________ > > Alex Reynolds / Biology IT Support > > SAS Computing > > University of Pennsylvania > > Philadelphia, PA 19104 > > V +1 215 573.2818 > > F +1 215 898.8780 > > http://www.sas.upenn.edu/biology/