this is the claim made in an article on the daily beast.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/03/18/music-criticism-has-degenerated-into-lifestyle-reporting.html

i don't really agree with where he takes his argument but the initial criticism is something i've been thinking about for a while. so much music journalism at the moment seems to focus on the immediate/ultra-current: albums are reviewed before they're even out, artist's twitter spats and daily ramblings are reported as news, everything seems geared toward filling year-end lists only to be largely forgotten by the following mid-january. i dont really have a problem with twitter, nor with album reviews per se, but i cant shake the sense that a lot of music journalism is currently geared towards keeping up with new music as opposed to actually engaging with it.

one pitchfork's writers rebuffs the article here: http://pitchfork.com/thepitch/278-music-as-lifestyle/

i like his argument, but i think he's in some ways getting at the same stuff as Gioia does in the daily beast article. he takes umbrage with Gioia's perceived insistence on using technical language, which is fair enough, but at the end of the article he points to music journalism's ability to have 'insight: A statement that takes something you thought you already understood and makes you see it in a new way.'

i think Gioia's focus on the technical side of music detracts from his larger point about the way we approach music and reporting it now (imo the instantaneous nature of the internet has had a negative impact in the last few years). his criticism of 'lifestyle reporting' is totally valid in my opinion. i think there's a very good chance i'm jaded and probably also looking in the wrong places, but i want the music journalism i read to provide the same kind of insight powell talks about in his article: actual engagement with music that makes me think about what im listening to- how and why something works the way it does.

so i guess i can take two questions from what i've written above.

1) what do you think about these arguments? is it all just old men bullshitting about stuff cos things have moved on, or is there something worth thinking about here?

2) where do you go for coverage of stuff you like? and where do you go for coverage of stuff you might not know about? what do you look for in that coverage?