Quantcast
 Everett True

Christopher J. Ott | The other Guv’ner

Christopher J. Ott | The other Guv’ner
Decrease Font Size Increase Font Size Text Size Print This Page

Watch this, you dumb fucks. Around 4.20 I was laughing so hard.

As the man himself says:

“You want to get paid for music writing? You’re pretty soon going to find out that you are in a world that has nothing to do with music or writing. It’s about executing PR campaigns.”

I particularly enjoyed this comment left on a Pitchfork editor’s blog (and the Pitchfork editor’s response):

“What do you think of the last Shallow Rewards video? Although I have many reasons to disagree with it and not even care about it, it’s inevitable for me to also feel discouraged. I’m guessing that you’re going to disagree with it too, considering that it attacks Pitchfork and your job, but I was interested in knowing your opinion.”

Part of his (oh, very reasonable and sane) response:

“Does being paid for music writing necessarily mean entering into a morally dubious sphere related to advertising? In my opinion, and from my experience, it does not. But I know very little about advertising, and I’m in a business where it’s a source of revenue, so you should listen to me (or not) based on that. When I am at the keyboard I write what I want to write and I have never once thought about advertisers and all my checks have cleared. Still, I am not you.”

Fucking ‘open-minded’ Internet critics, bane of our fucking society. Why is he (or the original blogger) even caring about what Chris has to say? Surely, you either write about music because you HAVE TO, or you don’t? Where’s Simon Reynolds when we need him?

“What I find disconcerting is how many young writers are very reasonable and sane in their approach, and overly fair-minded. It’s not what I want to read, at all. I’d much rather read a very fierce denunciation of something, even it was attacking something musically dear to my heart.”

Thanks Guv.

Related posts:
Simon Reynolds ! The Guv’ner
Haim | An open letter to Christopher R. Weingarten
The 100 music albums you must have in your record collection
30 Reasons Why Katy Perry Is The Best

23 Responses to Christopher J. Ott | The other Guv’ner

  1. Everett True December 3, 2013 at 7:37 pm

    [There’s been a fair amount of discussion around this post on the Collapse Board Facebook group. In the interests of presenting more than one side to the story, I thought I’d reprint some of it. Oh, and I’ve taken out most the references to ‘dumb fucks’ within the blog post to avoid any confusion as to my original intentions – Everett.]

    Bek Moore, Zach Phillips, Brigette Adair Herron and 5 others like this.

    Scott Creney
    Chris Ott used to be one of my favorite P4K writers back in the day. Also wrote that great 33 1/3 Joy Division book. Some folks on twitter are comparing his rant to The Rock Critical List: http://www.themorningnews.org/article/same-as-it-ever-was

    Everett True
    Man, that’s a long fucking article. Needs a good editor.

    Hhbtmike Turner
    this made my night……

    Jed Smith
    yut

    Jake Cleland
    Everett, Chris Ott is a FUCKING ASSHOLE, man. I know you get off on all the Fuck The Music Industry shit but Jesus, dude, do your research. Chris has made it his mission in the last six months to harass, degrade, and attempt to discredit a number of young female journalists (via nothing but hearsay) while broing down online with the dude who runs Noisey, VICE’s music blog. You don’t wanna throw your lot in with Chris. He’s a hypocrite and a bully.

    Jed Smith
    While I totally agree with everything he says regarding advertisers/venture capital/etc, I have to say that I think the level of intense, humorless seriousness towards popular music this exemplifies is possibly part of the problem as well.

    Erika Elizabeth
    Mostly it’s just kind of absurd that this dude is on a soapbox ranting against talking about “bands with eight songs on Bandcamp” or whatever by suggesting it’s not important & that nobody cared about his shitty band with eight songs in 1993. It just comes off as petty, bitter crybaby bullshit – having to win the approval of some old, jaded arbiter of taste is the reason why the same handful of bands get endlessly recycled in music journalism coverage & I think anything to break out of that should be commended. If it were up to this dude, I’d never write another demos column for Collapse Board because “nobody will care about those bands in ten years”. Who gives a fuck? What about the people who might enjoy it now, instead of worrying about how influential it may or may not be down the road? Ugh.

    Hhbtmike Turner
    i like mean old people, leave the mean old guy alone. hahahaha

    Jed Smith
    I live in fear of a world where everybody under 30 thinks they’re more important than everybody over 30

    Jake Cleland
    Oh and Everett, need I point out that writing for TheVine neatly contradicts anything you think you have in common with Chris ideologically?

    Everett True
    can I quote you all on my post, please? (Jake, I’ll understand if you say no.)

    Jake Cleland
    Yeah, I’ll just add that I’ve got no more problem with Noisey than any other music publication and I like Drew Millard a lot, but I think it’s hypocritical as shit that Chris disproportionately attacks young female journalists doing honest-to-goodness music journalism motivated by the same ideals you claim to champion. I brought up VICE not to indict Noisey – they publish work by some of my favourite music writers and Drew’s own piece with the dude from WorldStar today was hilarious – but because I know how much you hate VICE and it seems really suspect to me that Chris apparently doesn’t apply the same standards to young male writers. Basically, what my friend Michelle said here: http://theremixbaby.tumblr.com/post/68783639365/for-all-the-nasty-corporate-influence-excessive

    Also I don’t think it’s fair for you to call Mark an “anonymous Pitchfork editor” as if he was trying to hide anything with his reply. His name is in the URL, man, and his response was totally candid. For you to call him a “dumb fuck” and ask why he cares about what Chris has to say – he was asked on his personal Tumblr, and if he was as spineless as you apparently think he is, he could’ve fairly avoided answering. I mean you can write this off as me defending Pitchfork because I write for them sometimes but I’ve known Mark a little bit for a while and I don’t know any senior writer who cares about upcoming writers as much as he does, so when Juana, who is one of those upcoming writers, asked him a sincere question, and he answered equally sincerely, I thought it was pretty fuckin’ noble. Honestly, Everett, your crusade against Pitchfork is the one thing I don’t like about you. You don’t have any idea what you’re talking about and, much like Chris, it just makes you look like a bitter asshole. Don’t expend your energy on this absurdly one-sided hatewank. If there’s a dearth in the kinda music criticism you wanna read, expend that energy writing it yourself. Lobbing ad hominem attacks at sensible people is a waste. Destruction is for cowards. Do something constructive with your life instead. You can print that too.

    Jake Cleland
    How’s that for a fierce denunciation?

    Everett True
    you’re an ambitious young music critic, Jake. That’s what I like about you. bit late to tell me not to slag Pitchfork editors though.

    Everett True
    the anonymous comment wasn’t supposed to be a reflection on Mark per se, more a comment on how it’s often hard to tell Pitchfork editors and writers apart. I might change it if it’s being misconstrued.

    Jake Cleland
    Yeah I mean I know you linked to his post and all but the first time I read it, that’s how I interpreted it, so I figure I can’t be alone.

    Everett True
    I used that picture of Grandpa Simpson yelling at clouds on this post (although the picture has temporarily been lost in the redesign). I know who I am and what I do.
    http://www.collapseboard.com/everett-true/why-music-criticism-still-matters-so-go-fuck-yourselves-spin-magazine/

    Everett True
    I’m not sure I do think I have anything in common with Chris ideologically incidentally, Jake – aside from being an embittered old hack.

    Jake Cleland
    Well, you’ve at least got a better pseudonym.

    Everett True
    also, the reference to ‘dumb fucks’ wasn’t directed at the Pitchfork editor (who may or may not be a dumb fuck, I have no idea) but at the dumb fuck writer who posed the question in the first place.

    Jake Cleland
    That’s even worse! Juana’s a good person. Just a young music writer, writing about music she loves on her own blog for a handful of friends.

    Everett True
    She shouldn’t read (or listen to) embittered old fucks then. That’s all that needs to be said.

    Everett True
    OK. Fair warning. I’m going to be quoting a whole bunch of this shortly (in the interests of giving more than one side of the story). If anyone’s NOT cool with that please let me know ASAP.

    Erika Elizabeth
    Like I said, quote my first post all you want. Also, as an aside, I think it’s interesting that he brought up Liz Pelly’s NME piece being as something particularly ire-worthy. As someone who lived in Massachusetts for the last eight years, I didn’t think it was a groundbreaking piece of journalism, but I’m also super familiar (and in some cases, close friends) with those bands & I’m not the target audience for a scene report designed to introduce them to new listeners. My one big complaint was that it focused on the same three or four bands that seemingly every blog/article/whatever championing the “new Massachusetts scene” has zeroed in on – there’s way more bands who could have benefitted from that exposure, if you really wanted to show people how much rad shit is going on in the area right now. But that’s me being a nitpicky insider. Quote that, if you want.

    Scott Creney
    Maybe I heard his rant differently, but he seemed to be encouraging columns exactly like Erika’s. His rant is primarily aimed at the co-option of music, particularly DIY/underground stuff, for profit in a way that diminishes the value of that music and re-contextualizes as (first/foremost) product. And it’s a valuable & important thing when someone points out the inherent contradictions in art/capitalism. The people who pretend that these contradictions don’t exist, or that they don’t influence the way culture gets created/sold/consumed, bother me a hell of a lot more than Mr. Ott and his rant. Especially when the heart of what he’s saying is ‘Know Who You’re Working For’. Which is damn good advice.

    Scott Creney
    This is also a good read, promoted by Chris Ott himself–just so you know he’s a somewhat reasonable guy.
    http://ethmlong.tumblr.com/post/68842918909/on-shallow-rewards

    Erika Elizabeth
    Scott, I totally agree with you about rejecting the capitalist grossness that seems to go hand-in-hand with a lot of contemporary music writing. But when you single out one (female) writer by name because she happened to write about something a decade after you were around to write about it the first time, it seems more like a sour grapes beef than a commentary on the state of the industry as a whole. And like I said, I’m not even a huge fan of Liz’s writing & I still thought he had some serious misplaced anger about it in that video.

    Hhbtmike Turner
    i guess i wonder if he edited the video or someone else? cause i’ve done interviews and had a large part of it edited to tell the story of the editor and not the full interview which had an entirely different tone all together. there might have been more examples but they could have been cut. it’s why when doing any interviews now i think of answers i give and how it can be used as a whole and edited.

  2. frickwad December 4, 2013 at 1:31 am

    you lot are definitely my all time favourite circlejerk

  3. It’s quite sad to me that in aid of developing a justifiable ad-hominem position Jake and his pals have invented the position that I am “against female writers” and believes age is a relevant basis for debating intellectual and ethical concerns. This sort of gap-seeking, self-martyring nonsense is endemic in your circle. Stop looking for reasons to invalidate your critics and confront them word for word.

    Elitist cliques pull this whenever someone says something to upset their harmonious network of fast friends trading self-celebration, reinforcing their position while circling the wagons. All I’m trying to point out here is the wagon.

    The “authentic experience”-hunting brands and the portals they pay for (like Pitchfork and the NME) want young women on the wagon for far more sexist reasons than you might understand. Their reader base is 70% male. And these young women chose to put themselves in my line of sight, I didn’t seek them out.

    Further reading: http://www.ipcadvertising.com/resource/fd4e20nlh1xefkowjxdha4xu.pdf

  4. Everett True December 4, 2013 at 7:48 am

    I’ve thrown in a couple more Scott Creney comments at the end of the Collapse Board/Facebook comment to try and balance the commentary.

    I’ve seen this happen many times before, as well. Sometimes justifiably, sometimes not. It is the cosy we’re-better-than-anyone-else media hivemind that Jake is tapping into here, similar to the one propagated by Dorian Lynskey and chums when they were teaming up to attack Neil Kulkarni and Scott Creney earlier this year. (See Collapse Boards passim.) I don’t know enough about the situation to know whether Jake or Chris is the more ‘right’ here, but it does strike me that Jake (who I have a lot of time for) is an ambitious writer, and he does not like critics attacking other critics. Um… except when it’s him doing the attacking, presumably?

  5. Everett True December 4, 2013 at 7:52 am

    Now it looks like I’m having a go at Jake. (Sighs.) I ain’t.

  6. Jake Cleland December 4, 2013 at 8:45 am

    ‘salright, I don’t take any of this stuff personally. Also I don’t really attack other critics anymore unless they’re going after my friends, in which case it’s personal. Um, but seeing as Chris wants me to engage him word-for-word, sure, here I am.

    Chris, your entire argument is based on speculating about the motivations of other people. Some of those people, Mark in particular, has contradicted the aspersions you’ve cast, so now it’s just your word against his. Am I inferring correctly that you’re saying the people who advertise with Pitchfork want people like Jenn and Liz et al. around to build their cool? I can believe it, but why the fuck are you going on about the writers? How pathetic is it that you relentlessly fire barrage after barrage of criticism at people you’re claiming are exploited instead of actively going after the people allegedly exploiting them? I mean it’s not like Stosuy and Schreiber are out of your firing line either but for every tweet about how Schreibs is rolling in a swagged-out mansion you’ve got five about how Maria Sherman is some corporate scenester whore. Get real, dude, it’s so fucking crass.

    Either way, put up some evidence or shut up. Do some fucking journalism if you’re this concerned. Find someone who’ll confirm your suspicions. Otherwise you’re literally just ranting about some correlations and assuming everyone involved is motivated by greed. I’m not gonna deny you know what you’re talking about here a helluva lot more than most people, but it’s time for you to show your working.

  7. Wallace Wylie December 4, 2013 at 9:17 am

    I read Pitchfork pretty regularly, mainly for news, sometimes for recommendations. The people they write about are often great. The way they write about it oftentimes isn’t, though I’ve read a good few reviews in my time. That said, their takedown of M.I.A. after the Superbowl is the worst piece of music writing I’ve ever seen. So bad, so embarrassing that it even had to exist. I’ve never read anything quite so disgusting in any kind of cultural writing unless it was some kind of right-wing hate-fest. Pitchfork showed their colours and it was sickening. When I think of writers for the NME and Pitchfork I don’t think they’re motivated by greed. I just think you have to be a certain way to get along. That’s what my Realpop article was about. http://www.collapseboard.com/music-blogs-3/wallace-wylie/realpop-an-introduction/

  8. Michelle (remixbaby) December 4, 2013 at 9:40 am

    I assure you I don’t need to invent this position, Chris. I am a full-time laboratory technology student and 99% of my writing appears either on tumblr or a few ad-free independently-run blogs where I wrote for free. I’ve been paid to write twice in my life. I have never attempted to make a career of this, largely because I know that writing for table scraps on some lame corporatized music site would make me hate music and being a writer for a living would make me hate writing. I used to admire you, because I too aspire to have a normal job that pays a decent wage while loving and possibly writing about music on the side. It’s a passion of mine, as I’m sure you can empathize. I don’t disagree with your disgust at the prevalence of sponsorship and advertising in the music press right now. I suppose I take more of a ‘hate the game, not the player’ stance here, though I assume you’ll think that’s a soft Millennial position to take. I do believe there’s a need for full-time music writers, and that those people deserve to be paid for their work. Working a full-time job while writing as a hobby might work for you and I hope it will work for me, but you’re myopic if you think that’s a viable solution for everyone.

    My point here is that I actually agree with a lot of what you are saying, so I’m not bringing up your sexist behavior in attempt to discredit you. I bring it up because I find it genuinely disturbing. Nor am I bringing it up to defend my ‘pals’ because I do not know Liz Pelly, I do not like punk rock, my highest-profile writing gig ever was basically based on me disagreeing with something her sister wrote, I have no personal stake in this other than the fact that I am a young woman who loves music and I hate it when this community condones sexist harassment.

    I certainly would never lob such an accusation if I didn’t believe it. My values are sincere, and I think that you suck. Sincerely.

    Perhaps if I had never encountered your social media presence, I would detect no sexism in your video. It is only in the context of your continued shittiness to female writers that I drew that conclusion. It feels like a vendetta to me, a weirdly personal one. I understand that there is some hypocrisy in espousing DIY/punk while doing work that contributes to corporate interests, although I am far less troubled by it than I am by, say, the Brisk Bodega. Maybe this is because I was never part of any punk or DIY scene like that, and I always saw those people as being inherently hypocritical because their ideals seemed literally impossible in the first place. But I really do no understand what it is about this particular hypocrisy that is so offensive to you. You are perfectly chummy with plenty of professional music writers who write for, edit, and run the sites you claim to be railing against, while simultaneously lobbing endless insults at a few young women. Why do some people get the benefit-of-the-doubt from you while others don’t? I truly find it hard to believe that it’s only the DIY HYPOCRISY thing that would prompt you to launch a half-year long campaign against someone way younger and less experienced than yourself, but maybe you really do feel that strongly about it. Maybe DIY is that important to you. In which case, you’re a loony.

    I honestly cannot tell if you are playing naive or if you lack self-awareness about this sexism thing, but you have been harassing young female writers on the internet for months, with a gusto typically reserved for Foxygen members. I get that you’re an asshole to lots of people, but the constant references to “cheerleaders” (you don’t know this but that’s a very insulting thing to say to any female music geek who has had to prove her cred her whole life), the #PellyPitches tag, the weird psuedosexual jokes, denigrating feminism and accusing us of have ‘victim complexes’ are all evidence enough for me to assume that you have some issue with 20-something hipster girls gaining too much influence. I get it, you don’t like them. That in and of itself is fine. Say it once and get on with it. What are you trying to accomplish by tweeting insults at them for months on end? Intimidate them out of the industry? Express your disapproval and then ignore them! You’re a fucking adult, Chris.

    I hope you know your petty obsession with insulting these girls destroyed the tremendous amount of respect I once had for you.

  9. Jake, you’re off-base to suggest there’s reportage to be done.

    Pitchfork is a private company. It is not beholden to reveal any information about its staff or activities. This is to its advantage, more and more, as they get deeper into bed with WME and the major PR firms they deal with.

    There is no way to confirm the direct involvement of rumored silent partner Marc Geiger of WME, but he is publicly on record as being Pitchfork’s agent for a number of years now. He is publicly on record as a board member of TopspinMedia, which shares venture capital advisement with Redpoint, a venture capital firm that financed SpinMedia (SPIN). He is further part of a succession of UCSD music directors and San Diego-area promoters along with Bill Silva and Larry Weintraub who are using music as an inroad to corral youth attention and sell it to marketers.

    http://www.wbez.org/jderogatis/2010/06/breaking-illinois-attorney-general-investigating-lollapalooza-for-anti-trust/27523

    http://www.fanscape.com/

    “Turn your fans into customers.
    The ultimate fan conversion platform.” — http://www.topspinmedia.com/

    These are not the people I want bringing music or music journalism to me, because their primary interest is satisfying investors that they have control over what advertisements I see. If you consult the public (because they’re owned by a listed company, Time Warner) NME reader behavior chart I posted above, I hope you will be likewise repelled by what music is being used to support by these corporations.

  10. Jake Cleland December 4, 2013 at 10:38 am

    This is exactly what I’m talking about, Chris. Do more of this. Stop shitting on writers. I know you’re so averse to text these days but that one post is so much more convincing than any part of #24. Like I said earlier, I know you know what you’re talking about. A handful of people I know who’ve spoken to you privately about their careers in the music industry etc. have said as much as well. And yet you suffocate all this actually insightful industry talk with bile and venom and now people are taking you less and less seriously. It’s a shame because I loved hearing and thinking about what you had to say as recently as a couple months ago but it’s getting harder to ignore all the pettiness.

  11. Andrew Necci (@buzzorhowl) December 4, 2013 at 2:19 pm

    Also, Chris, you responded to Jake’s post while completely ignoring Michelle’s–which, regardless of whether you agree with her points, is well-written enough to deserve some respect. And since you didn’t respond to it, you just make her look even more right about her accusations of sexism. And now you’re doubly fucked because if you DO respond to it only after I, a dude, called you out, she looks even MORE right.

    Another thing no one’s seemingly brought up to you directly yet, which I mentioned on tumblr and will ask you directly now: who exactly are you clearing “$94k + bennies” per annum from? What are the ethical implications of your near-six-figure corporate desk job? If Pitchfork writers have to answer that question and be responsible for all the VC money that may or may not be backing them, I’d think you should too. After all, we’re all just trying to make a living here, and your day job is directly funding your ability to be a music journalist in your spare time. Give us the lowdown, dude. Prove you’re not a hypocrite.

  12. Sarah December 4, 2013 at 3:49 pm

    Honestly I don’t really care if companies use music to supplement their marketing strategies. Ott’s endgame for all of his arguments has been “but all that’s REALLY happening is that the companies are using the music for their own profit!” and to that my response has been, “…so?” Seriously who cares. It doesn’t diminish my enjoyment of the music. Obviously noone wants to support a company that you find out has sweatshops and child labor issues going on or doesn’t support equal rights, etc, but if that’s not the case and it’s just some company, why all the anger? The argument seems to be, “because it’s a COMPANY!!! Don’t you SEE???” to which, no, I don’t see. Maybe it’s a 99% issue he has? If he wants to go after proportion of wealth issues in this country, there’s much more direct routes to fight it. Telling broke-ass Boston basement bands and journalism majors who are chin deep in college debt not to do their thing full-time and remain as DIY and shitty as possible doesn’t seem like one of the more effective or impacting ones.

    If all it is is that he doesn’t think bands who claim to be DIY are actually “DIY enough”, then jesus calm down. I feel like Ott is having a heart attack over such an insignificant and convoluted topic – it’s like kids arguing over what “hipster” or “punk” really means. If that’s the case then it’s also kind of a shame that he doesn’t want these bands to be more successful. I get that if a band runs around screaming about how “DIY” they are, only to turn around and take direct sponsor money, that’s a little annoying (a little…we laugh and gossip about them and then move on….no reason to erupt in losing-our-shit rage). But I don’t know anyone in that Boston scene that runs around screaming and bragging about being DIY. They just ARE, I mean the scene itself is DIY by necessity, but if one of them starts getting more opportunity to break out of that I think that’s great. Take that money, fool. They never made a pledge or swore on a Bible that binds them to being 100% DIY for all time.

  13. Katherine St. Asaph December 4, 2013 at 4:05 pm

    Hi. I’m a music writer. Sometimes I write for pay, sometimes I write for free. Sometimes I write about pop music, so I’m pretty familiar with sponsorship (well, as familiar as you can be without being on the advertising side.) Sometimes I do other things for pay, too. I’m sure you could come up with all manner of things to discredit me already. But whatever network of pals may or may not exist, I’m not part of it. I’ve never emailed, let alone met, a lot of the people who may or may not be involved; I’m pretty sure some of the people in this supposed network of pals don’t even like me and would be really amused to learn that I’m their pal. “Harmonious” is not an adjective I would use to describe my personal experience in the field, so there’s not much to disrupt for me. (Is this word-for-word enough?) But the only reason I’m commenting — and believe me, if my “ambition” came into this I probably would have shut up from the start — is because this whole mess is completely disturbing and, frankly, should be beneath you, if not as a professional then as a goddamn human being.

    I’ve said this elsewhere, but when most of the blame for a systemic problem sustained by ad execs, CEOs and venture capitalists is placed on mostly beginning-to-mid-career female writers (if age isn’t relevant, experience certainly is, as it contributes to a power imbalance), and when their male writer counterparts are for the most part criticized only in terms of being pals with and/or wanting to sleep with said female writers — I distinctly remember coming across a tweet claiming one guy, I forget who, was “looking for a handjob,” and I’m inclined to suspect it isn’t an isolated incident — then no, I don’t think it is an invented position to call this, if not outright sexist, then highly misguided about one’s targets. It’s like (to use a very imperfect analogy) making three-quarters of a point about how Amazon has questionable business practices, and then singling out a few women who work in the stocking centers. (Given that gender parity in bylines is consistently skewed toward men year by year, and given who actually writes where on a daily basis, I suspect that quite a few male writers have also “placed themselves in your line of sight,” whatever that means, and yet when it comes to the vicious attacks it’s always the same few women. For some reason.) But even if sexism weren’t an issue, every response I’ve read — and I’ve read more than I ever wanted to — has carefully failed to address the matters of why early-to-midcareer writers, many of whom don’t have any means of getting a 94K-and-bennies fallback job, receive the vitriol for whatever venture capitalists may or may not be doing. (Side note: A lot of this debate has centered on Pitchfork, but it might actually be worse for Spin, considering it just laid even more writers off. I suspect that for a lot of people, “whether I’m still going to be able to pay rent in a year” outranks “whether I am funding Kenneth Lerer at six degrees of separation” on the list of worries.)

    Speaking about being misguided about targets — I was linked to this post from a 19-year-old (I think) girl’s blog, as she found out she was called a “dumb fuck” for simply asking whether all this should discourage her from writing. (I don’t know and I don’t care which references were taken out, what matters is that she saw it.) This is disgusting. It’s disgusting that it happened, it’s disgusting that no one apologized (“well then don’t mess with embittered old fucks” isn’t an apology, even if that was remotely close to what she did), and it’s disgusting that this has become the tenor of the debate. It isn’t about not wanting critics to attack other critics. This is about not wanting grown men in their thirties with years of experience and industry connections to attack teenage girls with Tumblrs who write about the music they love for free. (Two points there: a) isn’t this exactly the kind of music writing that you’re championing? b) again, if you don’t see how age is relevant here I don’t even know what else to say.) Like, why the fuck is this even happening? I can guarantee that zero venture capitalists give a shit about this debate. (“Debate” is too polite a word; something like “fiasco” might be closer, but I’m trying not to be too angry because being a freelancer means that sometimes temp agencies Google your name.) These, however, are the people who do. I’d like to think this wasn’t the intended result, but I’m not even sure of that anymore.

  14. Everett True December 4, 2013 at 4:42 pm

    Katherine, I took the ‘dumb fuck’ comment out after Jake Cleland pointed out to me that it was bang out of order. He was right to do so. (See conversation below.) I wasn’t commenting on the person who sent the question to Mark. (How could I be? I had no idea of their gender, age, race, platform or country of birth.) I was commenting on the question itself. It struck me as wrong then, and it still does. Why would (what turned out to be) a 19-year-old blogger care about what Chris Ott has to say? Clearly, their points of commonality are way, way apart. However, I am happy to apologise unreservedly for any offence or discouragement I may have caused – I was not aware of the context from within which the comment was made, and I should have been. And fuck yeah! The more enthusiasts, the better!

    I have asked Jake to send me a contact so I can apologise to the blogger in person, too.

    P.S. I didn’t write, ““well then don’t mess with embittered old fucks”. I actually said, “She shouldn’t read (or listen to) embittered old fucks then”. There’s a world of difference between the two remarks. The first is aggressively defensive. The second is intended to give support while having a go at myself for being so knee-jerk cynical.

  15. Rosie December 4, 2013 at 9:37 pm

    chris is a lone voice out there and if u can’t see that he’s fighting the good fight then you are an idiot. u gotta decide how much of it u put into practice in yr own career but bottom line is U BEEN TOLD. he’s a puritan and quite frankly very few ambitious young writers are gonna peace out for ethical reasons. So in the words of Dave Eggers, he can shoot from behind bullet-proof glass. Still, no one else is telling it like he is telling it right now. he’s punk as fuck. the videos are excellent. i want more of them. however, chris – the thing with the pelly twins in unseemly. you have to leave them alone. you know this. use your common sense.

  16. Iain Mew December 4, 2013 at 10:59 pm

    The vague bit about women being hired for sexist reasons, citing the IPC data – is the argument that having more female writers is meant to be attractive to the 70% male readership, or that it’s an attempt to balance out the profile of the readership for the benefit of evil advertisers? Or something else better reasoned? Genuinely curious.

  17. roa sod December 6, 2013 at 6:12 am

    “but all that’s REALLY happening is that the companies are using the music for their own profit!” and to that my response has been, “…so?”

    Are you even a real person? You’re just satisfied with whatever bands have the best relationships with PR companies being funneled to you as BNM? How is that tolerable to anybody with an interest in music? What a fucking repulsive thing to say

  18. Sarah December 6, 2013 at 8:27 am

    I think those of us who have the greatest interest in music are able to ignore that shit and be autonomous, decide what we like on our own. Therefore these companies can scream at me as loud as they want about who they think is BNM, I don’t really care. I’ll make an independent decision of whether or not I agree with them. Also, every once in awhile a band with “the best relationship with PR companies” is actually a good band. You need to judge things based on their own merit and not on these extraneous details that are biasing you against art.

  19. Everett True December 6, 2013 at 9:35 am

    Are you even a real person?

    So asks the anonymous commentator with a made-up name and email address.

  20. roa sod December 7, 2013 at 6:09 am

    My name is a silly immigrant name that’s googleable as fuck so no I’m not posting my real name here or anywhere on the internet but that email address, despite being hacky, is real.

    correspond w/ me bby :^)

  21. Red Bitchass December 10, 2013 at 11:32 am

    roa sod is an immigrant from /mu/, that means he wants to steal your smug

  22. roa sod December 10, 2013 at 1:29 pm

    “steal your smug”

    I don’t follow

  23. Red Bitchass December 11, 2013 at 12:27 pm

    I stand corrected

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.