As a New York Times weekend subscriber who happens to think that there’s more to music out there than those artists who reside at the intersection of “tasteful” and “indie,” I’ve often been disgruntled with the Sunday Magazine’s choices for music-related features, which for the most part seem to crib their ideas from Pitchfork’s Best New Music listings. (Daniel Radosh’s insanely in-depth piece on The Beatles: Rock Band was well worth the read, but the feature well has also seen articles on Andrew Bird, Stuart Murdoch, and Neko Case this year—all fine artists, but definitely pitched to a similar target demo, or, hell, a single side of a mixtape.) Well, a Q & A session on the Times site with Magazine editor Gerald Marzorati went partway toward solving the mystery of why—and surprise, surprise: It has something to do with Marzorati’s own, sordid music-writing past!
Q. I have noticed over the years that you seem to write about the music I like, most notably Radiohead, Sigur Ros and Beth Orton. Do you play guitar or another instrument? Are you in a band? Or do you just have incredibly good taste in music and an unbelievable platform on which to indulge it?
— Michelle Falkenstein, New York
A. Dear Ms. Falkenstein: I think you meant to say not “incredibly good” taste in music but, rather, taste remarkably similar to yours.
Yes, I did play bass guitar in several bands, but quit the business in 1970, when the Beatles broke up, though that had nothing to do with it. I was 16. It was a high school like Liverpool in 1962, or Reykjavik in 2001: Everybody was in a band. One of my classmates went on to be in a real band, a really great band, actually, the Feelies. Their albums are being re-issued next month.
I loved writing about music, and yes, the Times Magazine gave me an unbelievable platform to indulge it. So did Slate and Artforum and some other places. Writing about music was always an indulgence — something I did mostly for me. Editing, which is what I really do, is not so much about me, and when I became the editor of the Magazine six years ago, I decided that continuing to write for a Magazine that I had the say in what got published would be, well, WAY TOO MUCH about me.
So I don’t write about music anymore, though I still buy CDs (was the new Grizzly Bear in heavy rotation for you this summer?) and surf the Web (how about those Velvet Underground covers Beck has on his site?) and go to shows (TV on the Radio was energetically channeling a Stax soul thing in Brooklyn’s Prospect Park two weeks ago). And … oh, got to get back to work.
Hmm, no mention of current pop, R & B, or, uh, anything outside of knowledge-worker-approved indie in those name-drops? Nothing for nothing, but I don’t know if Marzorati should no longer be worried that the Magazine’s music coverage is “WAY TOO MUCH” about him. At least he plugged the Feelies, though?
Gerald Marzorati - Talk To The Times [NYT]
feelies crazy rhythm [YouTube]
Funny to me to complain about lack of breadth of coverage when said “current pop, R & B” dominate the airwaves and charts—-not sure they need the coverage, but I guess if it makes you feel better….
Y’alls consistent “indie bashing” is just beginning to look sad—2-3 comments a post, the “glory days” sure have fallen around these parts huh.
Well–you’ve still got Ned
Maura, this is why you are awesome. Thanks for posting this.
It’s one thing to suspect and kind of mutter to yourself about the tastes of the editors in question, but it’s quite another to know exactly where they come from (as with the staff at NPR’s All Songs Considered, for instance).
Of course, as I write this, I’m immediately struck with the thought that Marzorati isn’t really all that different than the mighty John Peel was, function-wise. But then it all just comes down to a question of your opinion of the tastemakers’ own tastes (and your opinion of how they do their jobs), doesn’t it?
@michaela:
To me it just seems like bitterness…
@trippertrapper: Actually they don’t dominate the popular consciousness (your statement reveals that it’s been a long time since you actually, y’know, LISTENED TO RADIO OR LOOKED AT CHARTS, despite your weak attempt at a “lol bad traffic” backhand). But thanks for playing, and coming off like you have some “bitterness” of your own.
Look, the current moment means that there are lots of interesting stories to tell out there, music-wise. (The The Beatles: Rock Band piece was one of them, actually!) And the fact that the NYT Magazine — which, as you well know, is very influential — is consistently punting, and instead running profiles on a very narrow spectrum of artists because of its editor’s personal tastes and constant desire to name-check his coolness (I mean, come on, that last graf of his response reads like the comments on a Hipster Runoff piece) is depressing.
Sure, “editors being lazy” is a story that’s told at many a daily and one that’s old as time. (Re music, said laziness is why I dubbed the bit that I wanted to do back in the day that measured the ratio between Lexis-Nexis word counts and SoundScan totals “the Lucinda Williams index.” If only we’d had more interns.) But I don’t think it’s a stretch to say it’s irresponsible, and it adds to the “let them eat stuff sold at mall food courts” elitist whiff that also emanates from Styles and any first-person piece the paper runs.
At least Lynn Hirschberg’s Amanda Latona profile from all those years back was pulling back a curtain, you know? And making people think?
@michaela: The Peel comparison is an interesting one. I guess it’s that way, although I think he had a bigger feature well (for lack of a better term) to work with, thus allowing a greater variety of artists to shine through. (Of course, one could debate the class origins of those acts, I guess…)
@trippertrapper: I don’t think it’s unreasonable by any stretch of the imagination to wonder why one of the biggest mainstream media outlets largely ignores popular music. The NY Times is not Stereogum; it is not by definition an outlet devoted to covering independent music or music popular with only a very narrow section of the population. Why not also cover top 40, or even just stuff that falls outside what Maura very astutely described as the ‘intersection of ‘tasteful’ and ‘indie.’
If only there was a place to go for smart criticism of analysis of both blog popular music AND actually popular music…man, if only someone had the capacity to value and respect the whole spectrum…oh, wait, IDOLATOR.
@trippertrapper: Well–you’ve still got Ned
Um, thanks, I think.
I can’t add anything to what Maura has noted (in the article and in the comments) and if Marzorati is the East Coast equivalent to D. J. Palladino or the like then it’s an all too familiar pattern. (If anything it might be the lingering revenge of an upset demographic portrayed by Garry Trudeau all too accurately back in 1990.)
But I admit, can we just talk about the Feelies a bit? (I wonder which band member?) The reissues arrived in my mail the other day and look great — if they do a reissue of Time for a Witness that would cover it all since Real Life was already done, and then after that they can finally work on a 57 CD boxset of live shows over the years…
I’d say the “2-3 comments a post” thing has more to do with the fact that nobody can remember their passwords anymore.
In my mind, equating Grizzly Bear, TV on the Radio and Beck with “indie” seems to be as much at the center of this argument as anything. Has anyone heard the new Future of the Left? Mount Eerie? Anybody? Eh?
@trippertrapper You know what I hate? I really hate it when you criticize something, and you’re immediately branded a “hater” and “bitter.” What vested interest do you have here in slamming me? Surely you can’t be THAT big a fan of the magazine.
Here’s the thing — there was a time when I’m pretty sure that I was the NYT magazine’s target demographic. That was about 5-10 years ago. But I’ve changed and my interests have changed, and their editorial quality has also changed. There’s a lot of factors that have contributed to the shift in my reading habits.
I keep up with what’s in the magazine, sure. But I rarely read it. I kind of half-read that Rock Band article and thought the Neko Case profile was pretty nice. The thing is, I was kind of into Andrew Bird and Neko Case years ago. I’m not saying this to show off, I’m saying this to point out that I’m not their target audience anymore. I don’t need to read a 10 page profile of an artist whose career I’ve followed for over a decade. So, though I keep up with what’s written there, I kind of don’t bother even cracking open a link or reading over someone’s shoulder on the subway. I am not their target audience. And I feel I’m perfectly within my rights to say, hey, you know what? This isn’t for me. And I don’t think that the person editing the publication has very interesting or broad taste. And the data is there to back me up. I certanly don’t think that makes me bitter.
@maura You know, after reading my comment again, I’m not 100% sure what my rambling point was — it was late and I was doing a bunch of coding and my brain was kind of mushy! But yeah, my point was: you have this huge audience looking to you as a tastemaker. Even if, in the case of Marzorati, you’re not a household name — it’s still your responsibility as a journalist (be it in print or radio or on the internet) to expose people to things that they wouldn’t hear/see otherwise. And sure, you can argue that for the NYT mag reader who doesn’t listen to NPR or include Pitchfork or Stereogum in their daily reads, these articles are probably somewhat interesting and are exposing them to things they wouldn’t know about otherwise.
Anyway, I’m not sure I’m chiding the magazine for the same reasons you are — I’d be happier, on the whole if they had just more interesting and varied coverage of music in general. But, like I said, I don’t feel like the stories they chase on any subject are all that interesting these days.
@eugenelangley that new mt. eerie record is incredible!
Creidt where it’s due: he actively rejected the notion that his tastes in music reflect the full spectrum of “good taste.”
@EugeneLangley: Seriously. The system has never provided me the option to change my password. Fortunately, I’ve got it saved in KeepPass. Also, I would be a lot happier if the login would keep me on the page of the article that I actually want to comment on, instead of taking me to my profile page.
@Maura:
Not sure we need more articles about Lady Gaga or Kanye West, that’s all. It’s nice to see big outlets expose people to music that doesn’t sell as much. Yeah Neko Case sells A LOT in comparison to say Mt. Eerie, but it’s no lady gaga and I’m not even a fan of Neko Case, but I think the disdain for the coverage is more about what seems to be displeasure at a style of palatable indie rock that gets coverage that you don’t like—when in reality, those artists could use the exposure 10 x more than any of the big radio pop stars.
@EugeneLangley: And I thought I was the only one with the password issue. Good to know.
I was wondering why there was an article on Stuart Murdoch. That God Help the Girl album has been out for a while (it’s not that great either) so I’m wondering if they were scraping the bottom of the barrel article-wise.
However, in light of that, all would be forgiven if they did a story on the Feelies. Seriously.
@trippertrapper: I’m actually not talking about GaGa or Kanye. I’m talking about, I don’t know, a compelling artist who might not appeal to the All Songs Considered crowd? Or an interesting trend — like the Amanda Latona story I talked about above, or that story from lo those many years ago that looked at why the Apples In Stereo sold their music to ad agencies? “How does it feel to be so incredibly awesome” profiles are just tiresome.
And I mean, not for nothing but all the artists covered have fine promotional infrastructures that are chugging along very nicely! Just look at any daily paper, or, shit, the tons of press releases that I’ve received about all of them. Don’t confuse “appealing to you personally” with “authentic” — any pretense of that goes out the window once a publicist gets hired.
@Maura: Do you ever wonder if this just kind of comes with the territory when you live in NYC or LA? In my opinion, I hear constantly and endlessly about the “tasteful” indie rock bands but that just may be due to my surroundings and the media that I choose to surround myself with. It also, perhaps, speaks to the age-old “critic v. listener” disconnect in that the East Coast/West Coast Rock Critic establishment represents a much, much smaller piece of the pie than the amount of coverage they provide allows many to believe.
@2ironic4u: Oh, I’m sure that is a large part of it. But the practices perpetuating themselves also demonstrate an irresponsibility, you know?
@2ironic4u: I’d say that even 5 years ago, you might be right. (And, though I live in NYC now, I’d say this is also a problem in my old city of residence, Austin). But the news cycle has changed so radically that editors everywhere are scrabbling to have content 24/7 — whether it’s worthy or not. For instance, I happened to follow a link from Twitter to the Prefix Mag site this morning, and about 85% of their front page “news” was recycled press releases that were already moldering in my inbox. Take a look at the blog that’s written by a cultural or music critic in your city. Is a good portion of the material just recycled “news” about the same old things that you’re reading about everywhere else?
I’d argue that everyone’s getting more press then they ever could have dreamed of “back in the day.” Someone needs to cut through the dreck and the hype to find the really good, really interesting stories. And the NYT Mag no longer fills that job. It used to, but not anymore.
@michaela — I meant to say a cultural or music critic associated with a print publication in your city. Gah!