A complete total lack of understanding how music moves on the net.
(yes, I know it's Entertainment weekly. but still. They represent the idiot part of the country. A good depiction how people beyond the usual mp3blogs see the blogs.)
and obviously the list is "paid for by corporation" list. (iTune is a webpage? in term of traffic size, hence importance. MySpace is way bigger than anything else by several order of magnitude. Turntablelab? RadiodavidByrne? rapshody.com? AOL music? wtf?
{edit, so industry mofo are not trying to do what I think they are trying to do)
---------
The 25 Best Music Websites (aka, the asshat lists)
01. iTunes
02. eMusic
03. Pandora
04. Rhapsody
05. MySpace
06. The Live Music Archive
07. Stereogum
08. Turntablelab
09. KCRW's and KEXP's Song Of The Day
10. Fluxblog
11. Smithsonian Global Sound
12. NPR's 'All Things Considered' Podcast
13. Soul-Sides
14. I Love Music
15. Mixunit
16. Pitchfork
17. Radio David Byrne
18. Insound
19. Lemon-Red
20. Music For Robots
21. Woxy
22. Little Steven's Underground Garage
23. BBC Radio
24. AOL Music's Listening Party and MTV's The Leak
25. Dusty Groove
you guys realize more people probably listen to The Leak on MTV.com than read blogs. Realistically it's probably a lot more important than a bunch of people posting about indie rock bands to a few hundred readers. Streaming full albums early is probably a big deal for the average pop music fan.
Hype Machine is a pretty big hole on that list, though.
For me as a promo person and indie fan, I am much more impressed by a great post on a blog, no matter the readership stats, but truthfully, for some labels, it's the "eyeballs" that count...and that is still the big sites.
I'm doing my best to change their opinions on this ;-)
see comprehensive list here.
http://www.freepress.net/content/ownership
TIme Warner/AOL was recently busted for selling advertisement to itself and counting it as a "sale" (eg. They are not ashamed of shilling their own product in guise of "information")
If you see the name on the list they are
1. People that buy ad heavily on their magazine / Timewarner media. (notice all the usual suspect of music vendors)
2. People that push Time warner products. (All the blogs mentioned are in this category. Hence you don't see for eg. heavy metal or country, which predictably should be in there because of demographic reason. But Most recent heavy metal acts have gone indie And countries act are not owned by rival corporations.)
Stereogum generates a lot of publicity around "entertainment products" while fluxblog and MfR are decidely right in Time Warner product territory.
3. crappy stuff to add legitimacy. (seriously. Archive.org? what? they suddenly becomes hardcore CC music lover? Can you count how many blogs/music freaks out there regularly point stuff out from archive.org? Ya might as well discuss the application of quantum mechanics in first 20 nanosecond of big-bang.. Nobody does that. It doesn't add up. NPR stuff are to add legitimacy to that big fat advertisement list)
The list is NOT consistent.
It's for eg. it's definitely not strickly about "most popular/high traffic", or where one can find the most mind numbingly banal "pop" music. Or in line of what sell in store. (country/heavy metal/pop rock) And of course DEFINITLY NOT about telling people where to find competing "good music that sounds better then their crap.
The only consistent is "here are the site the sell our stuff and buy ad spot on our parent corp. .. oh yeah and token mention on some web pages.. whatever)
kaching...
(This is the pernicious power of big media. It takes away people attention and cover up what it says it want to say. It misleads. It's not about "best msic web as it says, but it's about "buy our stuff")
"I know it's Entertainment weekly. but still. They represent the idiot part of the country."
Hold on. Hold on. NO THEY FUCKING DO NOT. Entertainment Weekly is the one mainstream entertainment publication that I really like. It has an excellent sense of editorial direction and philosophy - it's very pro-pop, but critical of it as well. It champions great things just off the pop cultural radar in a timely fashion, and genuinely wants those things to be just as big as things that are hugely popular. It essentially has the same philosophy that I've always had, but is actually quite rare in the press. To me, getting this kind of attention in their pages is a big deal to me - I've been subscribing for about a decade now, and it's immensely flattering, more so than some things in publications that may be considered a bit more prestigious.
Also, if you're going on this bullshit "everything on the list is bought and paid for" angle, then how the fuck did I get on it, much less place so highly? I'm broke, man, and the site is non-profit. Unless my subscription money counts as some kind of payoff, this is nuts. Like any list, it's totally arbitrary and flawed, but it actually does give a good overview of legal and semi-legal sites big and small that are useful and accessable to their readers. They frontload the stores, and that's fine. But it's fantastic to see five mp3 blogs and ILX on there. ILX definitely deserves recognition a LOT more than some fucking faceless aggregator.
The one thing that really really really should be on that list but is not is WFMU.org, but you can't have everything.
Matthew - that was interesting. Have you worked with them at all? Sounds like you have a better grasp of their internal culture than most regular readers.
While I don't agree with the advertising/buy our stuff theory by squashed, I always figured Entertainment Weekly was another lower-common-denominator sort of publication.
I was glad to see you / Stereogum / MFR in the list (see here) as you guys deserve the attention.
I agree that it is a great accomplishment. three sites I am used to reading regulary (fluxblog, music for robots, stereogum) all rightfully made the list.
even if EW isn't respected by the 'indie cred', they are still obviously an extremely popular publication. congrats to all the sites that made it.
I'm surprised AMG didn't make it though. I've found lots of older bands through it.
I'm sick of people taking shots at Matthew for his work with Urge. I think it's entirely out of line, (though if people want to rip on Urge, I am a mac user, so I have some issues with the program myself) and I think the same about the people who have made suggestions on GvB about Chris' Sirius radio show that people are "selling out." This is bullshit.
Both have a track record of quality writing about music and anyone who says they should continue to do this as some kind of "hobby" despite the fact that they are a source for a lot of people and have a lot to say and should be able to make a living out of their skills are out of line.
Anyone who has the expertise, audience and is passionate about what they do should be able to draw a paycheck from it, both of the examples I mention are people who TOTALLY deserve it.
yeah ... but there aren't that many people running around posting about "creds" and give a long and wide lecture about being independent. Then the next week saying entertainment weekly is about philosophy and "great"ness.
What's so hard about saying "Time warner/Viacom pay me. gotta push their products. Caveat emptor people, but ya gonna like it. You know me. plus my baby need new shoes."
It's the wonkette move. I greatly respect that.
It's the journalism pretension that bothers me. It misleads.
Here is what I dare Mat to do. Print all the record label next to all songs he is posting from now on, so somebody can run a statistical analysis. A mere nuisance, but certainly will enhance his "cred" a great deal.
squashed - I know you pride yourself on being the uber radical on the board and being a big fan of George Noory's "Coast to Coast" late night radio show it pains me to say this but everything that happens in the world is not part of some corporate multinational conspiracy.
when I worked at a small label we would occasionally (like 2 in 5 years) get reviews in EW, People, and Rolling Stone. this label did not advertise in any of those publications and spent very little on traditional advertisement at all.
any list of the 25 best of something is going to have holes, faults, surprises and inconsistencies. So while this is not a perfect list, I'm glad these 3 blog sites that have put in many more years than you or I, have many more readers than any other music blogs and argueably have the best writing and song selections of any other blogs were included. at this point the smaller blogs just have to hope for some trickle down effect, work on perfecting their sites and stop griping.
I think they're slightly ahead of the mainstream curve listing 5 MP3 blogs (even if they are among the biggest/most obvious picks). I agree that the publication tends to cast a wide pop-culture net, but that's not always a bad thing.
Well the answer to that is fairly simple since the list goal is well defined.
each of us generate our own version of that list. I think we all can agree each of us will be able to judge if the list we put out is total BS or approximately inline with the jibber jabber we do each days on the blog and around the net. (It's a small world) So, none of us can get away BS-ing the other.
and that EW list. That's not just "small" inconsistency. heh... maybe 5 out of 25 wrong would be small inconsistency. but if 80% of the item in the list fit my observation, why should my observation be false? (do you honestly think "pandora" even deserve in that list? or rhapsody or AOL?)
the title is "best music website".
(please note, my initial claim that the EW list is a BS list, a mere bought for ad sprinled with random sites on the extreme ends to legitimise it. It has nothing to do with whatever it is claiming)
I don't know about you, but my own site is always playing at number one on my list... it would have been funny if they listed a general "My Own Blog" as the Best Music WebSite.
sure, but do you have 24 other sites to cover the whole entry? Sure, I can buy no list is perfect. But that list is not "flawed". That list mislead. It's the intent.
yikes this forum has gotten so tense... i was simply agreeing with you that knowing the current state of the music scene is to know the increasing prevalence of individual blogs. sheesh.
squashed - Pandora is a genuinely interesting project. They are serious about developing an engaging product and I simply respect them for trying something as crazy.
I can only imagine their pitches to investors who have been spendng their recent days listening to raves about user-generated content, tagging and all this other new web technology stuff. "Well actually, our product will have experts at its foundation ..." *silence* :)
You should check out a film called Cube - there is a very brief but interesting discussion on the whole idea of conspiracy theories that I really enjoyed and you may too.
I asked an EW writer about the list (admittedly, yes, because I was a bit put off by its perfect description of p4k circa 01 rather than circa 06**) and was told it was generated solely by its author. It wasn't a committee decision. Anyway, how many of the list entries are actually filled by corporate sites? Four? Five? Not many. Pretty sure Nos. 7-23 aren't. No. 25 isn't. I don't even think 2 and 3 are, 5 is now but wasn't when it became popular, no idea who owns 4 or 6.
Anthony V ... squashed - Pandora is a genuinely interesting project."
yeah... it maybe interesting, but pandora doesn't work. Their rediculous suggestion is legendary. lol. Try it yourself by creating a profile and compare it to last.fm. It's hilarious.
I suppose it really depends on what you do with it. In the few times that I've used it, it offered very interesting and relevant suggestions that left me very impressed with their work.
I am sure they have tons of improvements to do as well (plus all that user data!) and once their catalog expands they will be able to work properly for a wider audience.
Squashed - you're forgetting that the article is being directed at the mainstream, not necessarily at the e-elite --- for the average person (and myself included), Archive.org is a hell of a lot more useful and interesting than 90% of music blogs. And on, and on.
it's one person's article/opinion, and whether it's "right" or "wrong" depends on who it's being directed to. My indie-nerd blog is useless to my girlfriend but she might like, say, Stereogum.
There are obviously more than 25 good sites out there. It's a solid basic list by any measure and I really don't see what's so offensive about it. How is writing about a great, consumer-favoring service like Archive.org - which offers something nobody else does, and should be as publicized as much as possible - because some dude "owes people favor?" (sic)
"you're forgetting that the article is being directed at the mainstream, not necessarily at the e-elite"
Then it certainly wouldn't put TWO stores that sell DJ gears and LP stuff. What? suddenly there is a DJ-ing craze in middle america? And since when smithsonian and BBC become 'mainstream' music?
anyway you cut it, a large section of the list doesn't make sense.
for eg. where is download.com? Why not put amazon.com download or tonspion? Those should be fairly OBVIOUS suggestion for "popular" music shouldn't they? (free, easy, mp3 etc...)
The inclusion of ILM and p4k, those are VERY hard underground/indie stuff. You can bet nobody cares about reading ILM and p4k except indie nerds. Why not pop matters? (heh heh....)
It's an old time blogger or at least somebody familiar. (if the guy is neutral reporter, he won't put such quirky selection. It's the ILM+ combination of blogs he decides to leave that tells a lot.)
I like EW, and nobody paid me to say that. I have a subscription to The Nation and to Entertainment Weekly and both fill different parts of my life. Snobs suck.
Dave Rawkblog ..You didn't address the second half of my argument. But you're more than welcome to keep making assumptions, I guess."
The list is titled "25 best Music websites" not "25 good Music websites" certainly some of the item on the list are "best" in some respect, but most are there not because the are "the best music website"
because any of us can point out a fairly obvious oddity in the list.
Not according to Alexa. seems billboard.com is slightly ahead. It doesn't mean p4k is small, but one cannot say it's ahead for sure.
yeah, if the guy print "best of..." album in EW like he prints this list. I won't be the one doing the wiggin'. He'll be dealing with his editor for sure. (I wonder what his editor is saying about that list.. )