Idol8or

Warning: This post is a little inside blog-ball. Continue if you're into that kind of thing.

Earlier this week I came across this old post by Chris Ott (music critic and former Pitchfork writer). Dated 9/16/2006, it's largely a reaction to the debut of Idolator, Gawker's entry into the music blog game. Ott writes:

Idolator's unsubstantiated and obnoxious "manifesto" is a pile of sub-MisShapes cooler-than-thou dogshit. "Online music criticism sucks, they're all dorky white kids, we're BADASS." This has turned everyone off, and I mean everyone. ... So far, the site reads like a piece of Chewels with no goo inside, Indieshite without the slanderous so-sue-me insider sneer (though I'm sure with some reputation-building, it will develop Gawker-level cachet). Maura's trying to even things out with nods to bands like Syrup USA and some other heartfelt digging, and if anyone has the ability to draw in readers from outside the narrow-minded hipster set it's her, but Idolator is obviously a job to its editors, at least for now, and that's a major incongruity with the divisive, overconfident contentiousness of that scene-shattering launch announcement.

The branded, jaded tone of the site—its Gawker quotient—is also 100% counter to the culture the entire pop music shouting match rose from, the fanzine. Idolator is a grotesque Baby Huey that has the potential to ruin a lot of slow-boiled friendships based on years of trust and good faith, to spoil the casual, party-hopping positivism of our younger, self-policed culture writers.

Now that Idolator is over a year old, it seems like as good an arbitrary time as any to reassess this criticism, particularly in light of two recent events. First, Idolator's editors made their only foray into 2007 year end list-making with their "Top 40 List of Awesomeness", and second, yesterday's post for their new intern search contained the most distilled version of their mission statement that there's been since Maura took over as Editor: "If you read Idolator, you know we're looking for someone with a gut-level love of music but a suspicious eye trained on all of the online hype and industry b.s. that comes with it in 2008." To begin with the latter statement, it clearly bears out Ott's early reading of the site. Even with the author of that derided "manifesto" gone, Idolator has remained clear in their suspicion of the online hype machine, largely composed of the "younger, self-policed culture writers" Ott refers to. While I obviously can't speak to the actual opinions of the Idolators, I imagine they're not completely opposed to the fanzine mentality, the "casual, party-hopping positivism," on its face. Rather, they are leery of the power and sway that the broad reach of the internet has given to that voice. Rather than the positive boosterism of a 2-4 issue a year fanzine - simply out to turn people on to some new bands - the breadth and communicative ability of the blogging world can make and/or break a band in a matter of weeks or months (see: Tapes 'n' Tapes, Birdmonster, Vampire Weekend, Black Kids, and plenty of others). Moreover, there's now real money involved (Stereogum is now a multi-million dollar venture), and if not money, then there's plenty of merch and other similar perks (the MOKB Zune imbroglio comes to mind). With nothing like editorial oversight, their casual, self-policed nature has allowed the world created by these blogs to spin out of control. In this case, I think Idolator's treatment of these issues is valid. Perhaps, given the passing of a year and three months or so, Chris Ott could agree that the milieu of the music blogging community is of a different nature than that of old cut-and-pasted-and-stapled paper fanzines.

Turning to Idolator's list of their 40 favorite songs of 2007, one could come away with the notion that their suspicion and cynicism regarding the indie rock hype machine has taken a reactionary turn. In this case, "Top 40" is an apt descriptor indeed (zing!). The majority, I'd say between 2/3 and 3/4, of the list is made up of chart-friendly radio pop. I don't want to get embroiled in some kind of rock vs. pop debate, since I think that "good" music is any music that you like (it's part of the idea behind this blog in the first place), but it's hard not to feel like the editors are pumping up their anti-indie (or "popist", for people who like to talk that way) bonafides in order to provide further evidence of their distance from the hype machine. That is to say, while I acknowledge that there's an abundance of over-hyped mediocre-or-worse crap clogging the indie pipelines, I think there's still enough good, interesting music out there to construct a list without turning to major label music with radio play and thousands of marketing dollars behind it. [Two possible responses to this criticism: 1) Why should radio-ready pop music be considered only a last resort when making a list of your favorite songs? 2) Many of the people reading Idolator are, either out of professional obligation or by choice, not paying much attention to this type of pop music, and thus, in a manner that queers the indie fanzine concept, the list serves to introduce many of them to music that they wouldn't have heard otherwise - in this case music that has already gained plenty of exposure through mainstream outlets. That Lloyd song was alright!] In this sense, I think Chris Ott's "Online music criticism sucks, they're all dorky white kids, we're BADASS," description still rings true. Their reactionary slant in regards to online music criticism is palpable. However, later in that paragraph he says of Maura: "if anyone has the ability to draw in readers from outside the narrow-minded hipster set it's her." The "Top 40 List of Awesomeness" serves as further proof, as the average Brooklyn Vegan commenter would likely do no more than scoff at the list, not giving it another thought.

All of this is to say that Idolator is a weird and interesting element in the current online music writing environment. The editors have staked out a crucial position, one so unique that it's only natural that they'd lose their footing at times, coming off as reactionary cranks when it is really only their love for music that has so concerned them with changing nature of the entire music business - from the recording industry at the top, to consumers and critics at the bottom - and their's is one of the few voices questioning this change in a reasoned, thoughtful manner on a daily basis. As that sentence may suggest, this is also a love letter. Reading Idolator turned me on to writing about music, and the elements surrounding it, more than Pitchfork or anything else I've ever read. I've been toying with the idea of applying for their internship position, but now I don't know, as this post would seem like a total ass kiss. Maybe I could delete this last bit.

Update: I just found a similarly-themed post at Eric Harvey's marathonpacks, dated 9/18/2006 (just 2 days after Ott's). It's pretty long, and I haven't yet had a chance to read it, but it's definitely worth a look.