Spinning out of control?

As anyone who has even the vaguest interest in the media coverage afforded to elections, wars and any other major events will be aware, spin now has a large influence on exactly how stories are covered and how news is 'broken'. So if the dark arts of the public relations industry has infiltrated the news room unhindered, what is the situation like in the music sphere? With print mags in decline and the internet becoming the primary source for fans to read about artists and labels to promote their artists, has new technology made the voices more questioning or merely provided a greater weapon for the PRs to get the angle on the story they want? By now, we are all aware about Hawtin's cube. While the debate continues to rage about whether it's all just a bit of tongue-in-cheek fun or a serious attempt by Minus to emulate the Jedis, there is no doubt that Hawtin has already won the PR battle. People are talking about it and clearly the exercise was to make people aware about and promote the Kontakt parties. In this instance, the maxim that there is 'no such thing as bad publicity' was adhered to. However, there is a more stealthy, creeping invasion by the PRs both offline and online and to my mind, this is a phenomenon both fans and critics alike should be more concerned about. As their pulling power wanes, it is more common to see print mags devoting acres of glowing reportage to major festivals and super clubs, or to bandy about absolutist terms like 'genius' or 'masterpiece' when reviewing or profiling mainstream acts. The concept of paying for editorial is nothing new, but at least in the past, the print media had more freedom to actually critcise the big acts paying the bills -  now some of the features read like a crash course in the art of the press release. Online, the PRs participate in forums, posting 'information' , ie press releases, about their artists and calling anyone who criticises the music they are being paid to represent  a crank. Recently, on an RA thread, I said that the new Josh Wink single wasn't very good. Straight away, the PR, who hadn't told any of the users of her vested interests, started calling me overly negative because I had criticised the single. This is just one of many, many examples of internet users being vilified by PRs for criticising an event or release. In some instances, the PRs have succeeded in getting threads deleted because they told uncomfortable truths. So free speech on the internet is under threat. Is this anything new? Not really. Seven years ago, Josh Wink - maybe he's just particularly sensitive -  was under pressure to explain the 'similarities' between his new release at the time an an old Dan Bell record. I was writing a piece about the conflict and in the interests of fair, even-handed journalism, I decided to ask both sides for their version of events. Dan Bell happily obliged, but when it came to Wink's turn to provide an explanation, all I got was a phone call from his PR at the time, explaining that any similarities were entirely conincidental and that if I printed anything to the contrary, then myself and the magazine it was to be published in would face the threat of legal action. Naturally we ignored him and printed the story. Thanks to new technology, it is easier to spread the spin, because as any good PR person will tell you, the more things change, the more they stay the same...

Comments

[vveerrgg]

It's a sticky mess when PR people get right in with a community. It's hard to be part of a scene and push an agenda... or atleast be honest.

That having been said... more and more artists are getting out there and joining communities... some with success and others not so much. Josh Wink should get an account on RA or start a blog.

[clom]

i've found there's increasingly a creepy intolerance of any form of negativity in online discourse.

there seems to be profound discomfort with any sort of frank exchange of views.

the shooting down of critics because they're "overly negative" isn't new but there's something inherently conformist and dead-eyed about all this "well I bought the album and I thought it was AMAZING. You must be an OLD MAN or something" malarkey.

this semi-literate huffy feather ruffling presents an opportunity for everyone to demonstrate how nice and positive and encouraging and interesting they are.

it's all a bit nauseating really.

time was the internet was a place where being casually and gratuitously cruel about things got you props.

i must be an OLD MAN or something.

[tom/pipecock]

you know, i first became aware of the inbred culture of the underground music media back in 02 when the UK garage magazine "Deuce" started up. many of the artists in the more dubby side of garage who were profiled in Deuce and other magazines like XLR8R were written by Steve Goodman, aka Kode9 and owner of hyperdub (which at that time was a "zine" of sorts, covering much of this kind of stuff) and a strong ally of Tempa Records whose artists he interviewed and covered. is this legit? it became more cloudy when Tempa started releasing records by Kode9. none of these conflicts of interest were ever noted, nor would they have been readily apparent to most people reading the published stories.

i guess this is different from the straight up PR people trying to tell you what to write, but it is along the same lines. should all these connections be revealed in any articles? i try not to cover up my connections, though i have no monetary connections to anyone whose music i deal with.

[Steve]

I've experienced mixed responses to my more negative reviews. No one has seemed to mind when I go negative on LWE, but RA is obviously a bit more touchy. Still, when I gave the then new Connaisseur Supérieur by Pele/Dave Shokh a 1/5, Alex was at least considerate enough to only say that a lot of DJs had offered praise. So far no flacks have outright confronted me for not being positive enough.

Still, it's become quite easy for PR firms for labels/clubs/et al. to guide writers' content, even if only through repeated suggestions and enticements/rewards. I try my hardest to avoid being PR firms' mouthpieces or worrying about their reaction when I'm writing.

[clom]

i think that localised and emergent scenes in electronic music are crucial to the development of the music. that's what made house and techno a spin on the "folk" form- the sound played in a particular place has as much to do with the djs and dancers as it does with the individual producers. this is what makes local scenes more interesting for me than, say, more landmark destinations.

I went to Bristol a few months ago and went along to one of the Tape nights. What really struck me about the place was how tight the crowd were, the Dj's and crowd all seemed to know and support each other. it felt really organic and natural. compare that atmosphere to a big "landmark" club destination- it's a different thing, sure the speakers are bigger, toilets are fancier and smoking areas are more luxurious but it doesn't move you the same way.

There's a similar distance between Kode9's early boosterism of Tempa & Hyperdub artists back in '02 and a big artists PR posing as a punter on a community like RA.

[tom/pipecock]

no doubt there is a difference in the two, but i just wonder if it is possible to have a truly objective opinion in a scene that is so relatively small? it is not like rock criticism where you are churning out reviews of big time cats that you may never meet in your life.

it makes an even bigger difference in dance music as people so heavily involved with the journalism are also often promoters, producers, deejays, etc. for me personally, my taste as a deejay and my criticism are 100% connected. anything i listen to goes through that filter. i think it is a good thing in many ways to have someone who puts the music to its practical purpose talking about it, but i can see how that can be limiting to people who are strictly "listeners" as well. it is certainly much different from the standard forms of music criticism.

[chrisdisco]

good post. PR posing as news is a major issue not just with techno, but pretty much all forms of media/communication. a recent book dubbed this 'churnalism'. the reasonably small techno community, combined with how it has developed has reinforced these more general trends. in this regard, i strongly agree with tom's point about how the size of the scene has a big impact. the connections are so close, the structure is one that can often discourage speaking critically or frankly.

and it again gets to what my fellow blog member pete has termed a culture of 'boosterism'. he's written some really interesting things about it, the latest being some comments over at ronan's blog (which he blissfully ignored):

http://ronanfitzgerald.net/houseisafeeling/2008/05/22/review-review/#comments

the real problem is what all this hidden PR does is continue to foster an acritical culture which accepts rather than questions, praises rather than considers. it also has created a really unproductive culture where criticism and critique are not considered acceptable or fully legitimate.

over at mnml ssgs we've really tried to mirror what you and infinitestatemachine both do. i think these kind of blogs are really important to counter-act the common tendency in the scene to shy away from critique and throw round the high fives.

the best we can do is keep fighting the good fight!

[jig]

and a great job your all doing to!
keep it up

[tiddlerz]

is all this back and forth internet / forum bitchyness not extremely trivial????

[tom/pipecock]

"is all this back and forth internet / forum bitchyness not extremely trivial????"

i mean, what ISN'T trivial? this isn't exactly life and death we are talking about, but it doesn't make the discussions any less important to the issue at hand, regardless of how small picture the issue may be.

these discussions give a forum for argument about music that is recorded and available for everyone worldwide to see. it is more wide ranging and cheaper than any magazine, it is the future of media. the dance music media (not unlike the media covering any other topic) will shape thought about and possibly even the direction the music takes. trying to ensure that coverage (and by proxy, perception) of the music is non-trivial is very important.

[Ronan]

"over at mnml ssgs we've really tried to mirror what you and infinitestatemachine both do. i think these kind of blogs are really important to counter-act the common tendency in the scene to shy away from critique and throw round the high fives."

that's some glorious irony.

I think tiddlerz is right, this is trivial. Freedom of speech isn't particularly under threat since you can start your own blog and say what you like.

In any case, people aren't being beheaded or starved to death as a result of Josh Wink's single being rubbish.

Maybe it makes peoples lives seem more significant to act like we're in the midst of some vital war against the impending death of criticism but newsflash: there's more freedom to say what you want than ever.

You're all doing it and nobody's stopping you.

[tom/pipecock]

could you stop being dense for just a moment Ronan, or would that be impossible?

nobody said anything about their "free speech" being limited, what the hell are you even talking about? what is being discussed is the status quo in dance music that stays away from criticism due to internal pressures or conflicts of interest.

of course you are the guy who said martin buttrich has no personality and a bunch of engineering skill and meant it as a compliment! hahahaha. seriously man, you are a joker of the highest order. i wonder if you actually sit around and think this shit up, or do you just start typing and see where it goes? i can't tell if the shit you spew is so ludicrous that it must be planned or that it can't possibly be planned.

[detroitio/wojtek]

the comments about the small local scene effect ring true for the small scene in a relatively big city of san francisco. i've been often accused of being either a hater or not moving along "with the times" whenever i critique the lack of variety in what passes here as "progressive" techno.

what's ironic is that san francisco prides itself for being one of the most progressive places in the usa in every respect, yet when it comes to real critique of anything, let alone dance music, there isn't any.

[chrisdisco]

ronan - for whatever reason, you seem completely unable or unwilling to recognise the role played by social structures. yes, we may have the freedom to start a blog and be critical, but if the culture is structured in such a way that criticism is not well accepted (which i'd argue it is), then you'll be labeled a 'hater' and the only person reading the blog will be yourself. but this is even presuming you'd built up a readership in the first place. which leads me to another good conflict of interest example. one way a new blog gets noticed is through the powerful RA filter recognising it and vetting it. i know that being included in RA feeds has been very important for us - our readership jumps for posts which have gone through the feed. you may have the freedom to write whatever you want, but whether people find it, read it, respond to it - for the most part that is largely beyond your control and much more to do with the way things are structured.

you can take the RA case further. test has now started writing for RA, tom/pipecock does, ronan does, i think LWE may do, and 3 out of the 4 members of our blog have or did write for RA. so does that create a conflict of interest for us? while we may not consciously do it, does it lead to us being less willing to criticise RA? and the fact that successful bloggers start writing for RA, will that encourages others to write and react to music in a way that they see as being compatible with RA, in the hope of getting a gig?

i should say - this is not an attack on RA in anyway (please keep feeding us!), for the most part i think they play a really excellent and positive role in the scene, and some of the problems i've had in the past with it they've addressed. but i think RA is a good example of the potential conflict of interests that arise. you could play out a similar story with labels and djs we are in touch with.

[PC/dysconnect]

The point is to declare those interests/biases. It's a matter of having sufficient information. The devil's in the dissimulation, and it's when you have somebody posing as one thing in order to gain advantage for another (undeclared, conflicting) interest that problems arise.

BTW, some hilarious turns of phrase so far. Favourites:

"semi-literate huffy feather ruffling"

"could you stop being dense for just a moment Ronan, or would that be impossible?"

The mistake here would be to make this counterproductive/about Ronan, which is what nearly every 'conversation' with Ronan appears to become. Ronan's whole rhetorical structure appears to be about trivialisation, contradiction, spoiling, and drawing attention to himself. Dude, if you're listening (if you ever really do), I'm really sick of your preferred method of 'involvement'.

...and (for everybody) can we just say that, if you don't think the issue is important, DON'T POST! If a group of people are engaged in a dialogue that they find interesting, what is your interest in sabotaging that by saying (nothing but) 'I do not think this is interesting/relevant/imporant.' What gives me the shits even more is that such people invariably do not offer a counter-proposition, ie 'X is not important, the real issue is Y.'

...okay, rant ends. And now a point:

Politics is essentially antagonism. Democracy could/should be about disagreement. Where we lose the ability to do these things, where we no longer respect the disagreement of our interlocutor and become antagonistic, where we begin to think, 'X is not for me... X is against me!' Then we have a breakdown.

The flipside is that precritical enthusiasm is enormously important for incubating solidarity, and as a lot of people are using RA as a weak network of likemindedness, they get all hissy when somebody bursts their love bubble. A tendency within all our natures, perhaps.

BUT – this is a space for critique, and that means being critical. Being critical, as distinct from sledging, whingeing, or merely contradicting things. For me, being critical is as much about empathy and engagement as it is about disagreement. It's also about respect... and an acknowledgement of our own absurdity.

[Jacob]

I think it's annoying and all that PRs turn up on forums, but still feel that the big picture is that the playing field is far more level for smaller artists and labels than it's ever been.

Digital media and distribution mean that all the clout of major labels is now virtually irrelevant. I remember when everything Perfecto put out would hit the top ten in DJ magazine, largely because of their huge marketing muscle. This would be impossible now.

I think ultimately, though, the onus is exactly on people like you all here. No government is going to step in with a bunch of guidelines for music criticism that ensure there are no conflicts of interest. The only checks and balances are that there are people around who will bother to check things and post them on forums.

I think Peter Hook would concur.

[Jacob]

BUT the other question here is where do you draw the line between acceptable and unacceptable spin?

If an artist gets on forums and pushes their own agenda is that ok? If an artist comes up with an image and pushes that, is that ok?

I think you have to say that it is. George Clinton's cultural impact isn't just his music, and that's great. Same with Public Enemy. We live in a public culture so I think it's fair enough for artists to construct public faces and have fun with that.

Similarly, if that image is being constructed by a corporation not an individual, does that matter? Berry Gordy's nature doesn't invalidate everything Motown put out, nor does the fact that a lot of those artists went on stage with straightened hair or matching suits. And lets not even start on UR...

Structural considerations are just that - considerations. Ultimately the call has to be made on the music (and perhaps the image) itself.

[tom/pipecock]

"I think ultimately, though, the onus is exactly on people like you all here. No government is going to step in with a bunch of guidelines for music criticism that ensure there are no conflicts of interest. The only checks and balances are that there are people around who will bother to check things and post them on forums."

this is true, and it is why i find these public discussions by the people covering this music about what is okay to be important. nobody is going to step in and provide guidelines, you are right. so it is up to us to decide how to keep our shit on the straight and narrow. in general, we are seeing a whole new format of publicity being available. magazines are dying and more interactive mediums such as forums and blogs are becoming more and more the ONLY place where you can discuss and read about this music and the artists.

i think due to this interaction, people expect the coverage to be more and more transparent. i think this is doubly true for blogs that do not accept advertisements and thus have little in the way of obvious money to sway opinion. RA is interesting in that they are more old style media but a large number of people writing for them are used to making their own rules. i have been and will continue to be both critical and supportive of RA as is necessary. i believe that 08 has been a more diverse year for them in their coverage by far, and it seems like they are interested in allowing the people who contribute to them to criticize them in their own work. that seems like a pretty fair set of rules for everyone involved.

"BUT the other question here is where do you draw the line between acceptable and unacceptable spin?

If an artist gets on forums and pushes their own agenda is that ok? If an artist comes up with an image and pushes that, is that ok?"

i think that the next step is going to be much more artist interaction with forums and blogs. it makes sense in so many ways. the main difference in an artist pushing an agenda vs. some faceless/nameless PR person is that the artist has something to lose by looking like a toolbox complaining about things like a bad review. if they have a legitimate point to gripe about, that is also going to be a chance for them to set the record straight right from the horse's mouth.

"Similarly, if that image is being constructed by a corporation not an individual, does that matter?"

the difference in effect might not be huge, but it is there. people are definitely going to be more understanding of an artist who believes in what they are trying to do, whereas they will be suspicious of random person X trying to shape coverage for a paycheck from their customer. and i think it is for good reason!

[Martin Dust]

PRs are easy to spot and it's such a waste of time because it always and I mean always backfires.

Richard once gave me a 1 Star review for a System 23 EP, we all laughed as it sold shit loads and we reallt loved the tracks.

What gets me more than anything is when people just repeat this shit without even listening or knowing what the tracks are about - I'd bet they wouldn't know what they wanted on their pizza if you asked.

[PC/dysconnect]

...I dunno, I've been flamed by people after doing RA reviews where I was fairly sure it was a disgruntled PR/label person. And in one case, I was directly contacted by the artist I panned and was told that I 'showed nothing but contempt'. I kinda like that though, it's great when it's not totally anonymous. I think it's important to give an account of oneself, and if you do make claims, then you should be willing and able to defend them without just slinging mud and being insulting.

I think, on balance, the present environment could be worse. I think the problem is less the people taking an active role, and (actually) fucktards slinging anonymous mud from the sidelines, 'cos they know it costs 'em next to nothing... it'd be nice if we could get paid, too, but I didn't get into this for money.

[Fusion]

Well some you might not realise the term "Sleeper", they are employed by pr companies, they build up a clean profile on various forums and then "influence people" with spin and a point of view that goes well with their paymaster, this includes bigging up certain artists consistently and putting out false rubbish about other artists that may be in competition with the bill payer (artist or record company) and drumming up support. It's a sad fact that this slimey business happens but it is true, they also have to sign a confidentiality agreement so they will not share this shady nastiness.......how do I know? Guess?