Music journalism and publicity blur into one. They needn’t but do more so now because of social media and the way the online cycle churns. 

While music journalists often write what others might see as publicity or on-side puff pieces there is a difference and that is music journalists write what they and their editors if any want and do not work along the lines of copy approved advertorials or pieces written as part of a package that involves the placing of an ad and not necessarily described as such but de facto the case, usually the readership oblivious to this.

The things to offset in some way for the experienced writer are always: freebies (eg free CDs and trips) which are always dished out and rarely acknowledged in published articles not that it matters that much for most proper music journalists who know that they are quite free to be critical notwithstanding the largesse although they may realise they will be left off the next trip or crossed off some list for access if they really overstep the mark. Their readers might be grateful, however! And that is the point, to write for readers.

Being critical is tricky, that is why some music journalism is worth reading and a lot is not. If being critical is thought of as writing critiques per se and the house tone is fandom then that is not really being critical. It is writing critiques like you might label a jar of jam. What you end up with is a critique where the parameters are bordered and guarded by praise stewards. Pejoratives keep out in other words is the prerequisite of such an exercise and is practised widely.

I would see being critical in this weird age when everyone publishes far more quickly than they otherwise would when there were typewriters or clunky floppy discs as basic tools is being a filter if true candour is not possible (and it rarely is because of specific media lack of impartiality or balance) and I do think specialist writers self censor because they want to be positive which contributes to a culture of over praise and a lack of clarity as to actually what is really good.

These mini booms or hype bubbles that happen every so often are usually a combination of publicity and journalists who are happy to hype because hype gets their name about before they move on to the next big thing. It can be that cynical.

Non journalists would be absolutely amazed at the amount of new albums and reissues that never get reviewed but that does not mean that what gets reviewed is really where it is at. The year end polls usually tell you something about a year but rarely the full story, the only consensus arrived at by an averaging out of very often wildly subjective views.

That real story happens day to day in the clubs and venues and in releases put out in the marketplace, often no different to any other market, the press are nearly always behind what is actually happening. The specialist press tend to be a few steps behind, relating very much to their in the know readership; the nationals usually a few metres further back catering for people who see their newspaper as something to line the cat litter tray with if that in this digital world; with radio a little further back; and TV miles away ironic given the potential immediacy of telly.  

The subject of jazz now is too big for any specialist publication or blog or any format to cover properly and in that vacuum academia is providing much more debate and analysis by both teaching and publication.

Half the time the coverage and this is a big problem is not just to “cover” releases and “gigs” although nine out of 10 blogs and magazines do that more or less contributing to all of their content.

Neither kind of writing is necessarily reportage but live reviews tend to give a better snapshot than record reviews in terms of an overall picture because there is more of a story and less recourse to simple adjectival outpouring and opinion.

Features these days and this is positive are less reliant on over prescriptive publicists although flacks still get in the way too much and spin stories into blandness or more usually a sales angle for their label or client.

It is far better when music journalists go direct to the artists and discover their own angles even if they are wrong half the time or missing the point (from the marketing perspective certainly or the image that the label wants to project) at least they are being real.

For sure the future is online and continues to be given how difficult it is to find print publications on the news stand (even finding a news stand these days can be tricky).

I guess we will know this as gospel when a big title say Downbeat goes online only and does a print version only on demand for subscribers that jazz has caught up with what has been happening in the rock press for years. Such a migration does futureproof jazz and reflect its internationalism more than we may all realise but may find hard to accept when it happens which the way things look now certainly are not far off.