<< I was shocked to see a reviewer even stop and think about such things.
Without blowing anybody's cover, I can say without reservation that the
relationships between musicians and the writers who review and cover them
are generally a whole lot closer than either party lets on >>
Of course it is. And this is the great Catch 22 in such a profession. On one
hand, a writer should submerge his or herself into the culture, local scene,
etc. to understand the music and the artists better. Good relationships with
musicians also tend to allow for greater insight by the writer and more
openness from the artist. All obvious stuff. But at the same time, it is
dicey. Once that relationship crosses the line, it challenges a writer's
ability to speak freely in print about an album or an artist. And tainted
opinion is the last thing music journalism needs.
I remember a story from a couple years ago. Buddy Blue from the Beat Farmers
was writing music reviews for the LA Times under the name of Buddy Siegal.
But, as I heard the story, once Times Pop Editor Robert Hilburn learned of his
active role as an artist in local clubs, he pretty much told him that it would
have to be one or the other. Twas a conflict of interest. How could the same
person who's trying to get gigs at certain clubs also write objectively about
other gigs at that club? Worth considering.
BTW, Buddy Siegal did cease writing for the Times and is now the music editor
of the OC Weekly, which obviously doesn't have such an ethical problem, or
doesn't have ethics... one or the other.
Adios.
Neal Weiss
