(The number of chain-record stores nationwide has dwindled. However, St. Louis has become an unlikely safe haven for indie record shops -- and for DJs who prefer to spin the black circle instead of scrolling their iPods. In this new weekly column, we'll focus on personal portraits of St. Louis' record aficionados -- and the rooms where they store their treasures. Meet the last collectors standing. Know a collector who deserves the spotlight? Email us.)
(This is part two of last week's LCS; read part one here.) In a recent issue of Freezerburn you were quite critical of the music news/reviews website Pitchfork. Do you feel they give biased coverage of current music? I became aware of Pitchfork about ten years ago, when I heard it be referred to as something that covered alternative music, something that existed completely outside of the mainstream. To an extent, I'm sure it still does. To an extent, Rolling Stone also covers bands that may exist outside of the mainstream, and they do very good things by giving good exposure to good bands.
I think it might be the line of thought that I'm against when a website suddenly embraces the same ideals that the rest of us are running away from. I mean, [Pitchfork] just reviewed all of the Beatles reissues. I don't know about you, but I can read about that anywhere. Pitchfork, and any music website that should offer an alternative, or at least claims to offer an alternative, should probably not offer its antithesis, the status quo.
So you don't think [Pitchfork] even offers an alternative perspective of the Beatles? Not from what I read. I got very curious, actually, and I slogged through some of those reviews. It starts off with the same line of thought, which is a very uncritical one. It accepts a gold standard, which is, "Well, the Beatles were the best." I have no problem with someone thinking that the Beatles were the best, but I do have a problem with something telling me that a certain band is the greatest of all time. After a certain point, it doesn't matter whether I agree or disagree. I might think that Frank Zappa was one of the greatest musicians of the '60s, who bettered the Beatles at whatever you consider popular music. I might tell somebody that, but it is simply my opinion. If I ran a website of that capacity, or if Freezerburn were read by millions of people, I would probably back off from being quite so definitive.
Then their grading scale of the perfect 10-point album, which they've given out to quite a few albums, doesn't work for you personally? It dumbs it down a little bit, don't you think?
It makes it very easy for the reader to just glance at it and say, "Okay, I know what they think," and then just move on, instead of actually reading the critical element. Sure. If you talk about record collections, we're living in an age where people have adopted that as a mindset. They'll look at a review, the starred review. [pantomimes reading a magazine] 'If it's a 3-star album I might not be so interested.'
I think there is a tendency, more so than ever, to digest music in the same way. They'll hear one song from a band, rather than the entire side of an album. If you can keep something on an iPod or a hard-drive that's the size of your thumb, then I think there is a very crucial switch in perceptive. You're no longer having to devote your time to music, because you're suddenly expecting music to devote its time to you. It's done at your whim rather than the other way around. You don't have a personal, emotional investment in music anymore.
I don't want to say that, well you know, therefore people who collect records have more patience or superior taste. I don't want to imply that. I do think that when you get into different formats like music websites as opposed to concerts themselves, then you have people who are just uninterested in going anywhere below the surface.
That's an interesting take on it, because you actually go out and enjoy the music in person instead of just reading an arbitrary review. I'm sure there are a lot of people who base their entire opinion on a review and maybe never even listen to the music, just because they trust a certain site as being "good." It gives us enough information out there to do that. You no longer have to mail-order an album and wait two weeks for it to arrive so you can critically judge it, when you can read somebody's opinion [online] who you've never met before in you life.
Do you think zine music coverage crosses over into a collector's mindset? Are there collectors in the world who specifically use zines to help them find what they want to listen to? Absolutely, and zines can be just as guilty as websites of having people dismiss bands simply from reading an interview with the band.
The format is a little bit more archaic. It certainly is a lot more fun to collect something that you can hold in your hand. I think that does add a certain sort of legitimacy when you see a band interviewed in a zine, or an album reviewed. I remembered having my own zine reviewed by music publications. I remember Punk Planet use to review my zine, and Razorcake is another good example. I think that's a really great way of getting the word out, because if you read a critical review on a website you can dismiss things a lot more easy because it's on a website. Even a dismissive zine review or a dismissive review of a band's album in a print format is still very good publicity for a band, or for a zine, or for an artist, because you are holding it in your hands and reading it. One way or the other, you've taken the time out to get the magazine in the first place. You're probably going to be interested in the bands in the zine whether they're in a good or bad light.
