As I sit down across Paul at his desk, he apologizes for its disorderly state. Gingerly, in an effort not to disturb the trove of knowledge in front of me, I set down my things. Books of varying topics and sizes are dispersed across the surface of his workspace; my phone rests on a dated encyclopedia of pre-60s rockabilly. A casual observer can easily appreciate the depth of his love for popular music. With his reggae magnet-covered filing cabinet, obscure music encyclopedias, and a few records in the corner, Paul’s office seems more of a safe-haven than a place of work.
Paul Kaupilla is a librarian at the Martin Luther King Jr. Public Library at San Jose State University. His breadth of study is impressive, dabbling in a variety of topics, from linguistics to political science to music journalism. After waylaying him on his way back to his office, Paul agreed to share his opinion on the current trends in music journalism and popular music.
A great paradigm shift has recently occurred in the world of popular music. The burgeoning slew of online publications following the emergence of the Internet was a great upheaval for the world of print, and music journalism was not spared. Along with all media of popular culture, music publications such as Rolling Stone, Billboard, and Complex have been a window for the everyday man to look inside the industry. If you look into the history of popular music publications, you will find that the major shifts in journalism practices reflect major ideological shifts of their respective periods.
The early years of music journalism can be traced back to the 1930s, with roots stemming from the rise of jukebox culture. During this era, charts with the Top 50 tracks could frequently be found alongside gossip columns in trade magazines. At this time, music journalism was limited to such magazines and did not receive much attention until the mid 1950s, magazines dedicated to art, music, and politics, such as The Village Voice, began to spring up and give popular music adequate coverage. Just as the contemporary shift from print to online publications represents a major paradigm shift in the eye’s of the public, the shift from pop music content exclusively featured in popular culture magazines to artsy New York culture critique magazines represented the public reconsidering pop music being vacuous drivel to something of artistic importance.
Paul argues that rock history canonists have a tendency to be disparaging towards the fifties rock ‘n roll era compared to the sixties. ”They thought it was it was silly kids stuff,” he starts out. “They think all they sang about was ‘Oh baby baby baby… but that isn’t necessarily true.” At this point, Paul pulls up a video of Link Wray’s instrumental single “Rumble.” This song, released in 1958, was banned from the radio despite any controversial language. All that was speaking was the heavily distorted wails of Wray’s guitar. “It’s the music, not the lyrics, that drives people wild, makes a statement.”
This sophistication of music would be the inspiration for Greg Shaw, who Paul considers the father of music journalism as we know it today. Merging his two loves of journalism and rock ‘n roll, Shaw started Mojo Navigator, a fanzine started in San Francisco. Shaw would interview local musicians and invite his friends to write about their favorite bands.
Although short lived and not very well known, Mojo Navigator would end up influencing many of the giants in music journalism, such as Creem, Crawdaddy, and Rolling Stone. This new breed of music journalism was heavily influenced by both the social/political climate of the sixties, especially youth and counterculture, and the experimental tendencies of psychedelic rock.
A number of related factors set these magazines apart from their predecessors. Firstly, perhaps most obviously, was the content. Issues youth culture were interested in, like the Vietnam War and the various music scenes were constantly in flux, and this new style of journalism had the quality and quantity to keep up and deliver. Secondly, attitude was another major element. Early Rolling Stone was known for its irreverent, profanity-laden, gonzo journalism that renounced traditional standards appealed to the new audience, (uncoincidentally the “New Journalism” movement was happening concurrently). Not everybody was able to go to Woodstock; highly subjective and personal feature stories will help the reader get the experience.
Up until this point, the previous method to review of a piece of music was based on mainly on the sales numbers of the primary music format; the single. Traditionally, in pre-cultural explosion United States/Britain artists would pour the majority of their effort into crafting the perfect song to be released independently, while albums were seen as sales fodder, sprinkled with the singles and fattened up with filler in between.
However in the 1960s, bands were more adventurous to experiment in their music but not compromise sales with their singles, finding solace within albums. In a short period of time, albums had gained a new importance, and critics shifted their focus of judgment on this particular format, becoming the dominant expression of critique in popular music. Album reviews were a different affair from sales driven single review. They tend to be highly subjective pieces, essentially a few paragraphs the author is allowed to describe his opinions of what he heard and what sticks and what doesn’t. This formula continues to be the dominant expression of critical analysis of popular music found in journalism, even today.
Not long afterwards, the industry began to recognize the commercial weight of such tactics. Evidently, good reviews equaled good sales. In the days before digital formatting, music was confined to the now considered novelty vinyl record, which are a lot more expensive than compact discs and MP3. The Internet wasn’t around, and tools such as Youtube and Spotify did not exist for us to test the waters with. Consumers were understandably a little hesitant to spend money, and reviewers gave them a reason with the five star rating system.
Towards the end of the millennium, like many other forms of print media, music journalism became less popular with the public. This can be attributed to many things, but can be wrapped up succinctly by saying that people were simply growing bored with print. Less readers means less profit, which means less ad sponsorship, which leads to discontinuation. Of course, this gradual decline was only emphasized during the turn of the century, by this time a great deal of the public had become regular Internet users, being granted access to the same information offered by print for free.
It was during this time that online music publications came into genesis. The initial slew of online music publications, such as Tinymixtapes, Stereogum, and the newly prominent Pitchfork, were inspired by locally run fanzines and blogs, and as a result were naturally very different from traditional music journalism. These websites renounce the now old-school style of highly subjective and purposely inflammatory writing favored by Rolling Stone and the like, and wrote in a conscious, authoritative and objective persona.
Furthermore, these journalists had grown in a generation that always had the album review and as a result, they commonly referred to the established pop music canon while reviewing an album. Paul makes note that online media’s absence of production costs allow smaller, more niche online publications that assume more musical exposure on the reader to flourish. This breadth of knowledge allowed them to review a wider variety of genres and bands, bringing more experimental or underground artists to a larger audience.
The native online music publications set the scene for printed music magazines to make the shift over to the Internet. The Internet was defined by immediacy, expediency, and a modern flair; everything printed music magazines had lacked. Soon enough, many of the printed magazines began to either: establish a website for the magazine that would provide 24/7 coverage of smaller matters while their magazines would put even more emphasis on feature length stories with some overlap in content, or make the shift to the Internet completely by discontinuing their printed content. This too, has come to represent a major paradigm shift in our culture. In the age of the Internet,the above qualities-immediacy, expediency, ironic rhetoric, wide spanning knowledge- are valued greatly not only by journalism, but by popular music, writers, advertisement, and in entertainment.
“I think, for the most part, these changes are a good thing. Better suitable for the times, of course.” Paul says unaffectedly. Toby Matoush, his coworker, agrees somewhat. “What is different with music journalism that is different than the music industry, especially today, is that there are many women involved. Music is a boys club, and as a musician, I think that needs to change.” Toby speaks with good sense. Although the music journalism tends to follow the industry with major trends, some believe there is disproportionate amount of men in the industry than there are women, especially compared to careers such as journalism. “Music is a release for the soul.” Toby adds. “The creative release of women is just as important as the creative release of men.”
Upon being asked where music journalism will goes next, Paul looks at me quizzical smile. “I have no real idea where it’s heading. Just as I don’t know where music is going either. When there is bright minds in music, bright minds writing about music are sure to follow. We’ll just know it when we see it.”
