Everywhere you go–and this is assuming you go to a lot of dive bars and conference rooms–you hear the same complaint from music writers: “Dude, nobody gives you the big word-count real estate anymore! Review spaces are shrinking. Feature wells are taken up with goddamn charticles and sidebars and charticles that explain the sidebars! Where can I possibly publish my Bangs-ian 7,000-word piece on the new wave of new-wave?” Good points, yes–but have you ever considered that maybe it’s a good thing for some stories to run short, or maybe even not run at all? After the click-through, some recent music pieces that could have dealt with some prudent pruning.
THE STORY: Sunday’s New York Times piece on the role nostalgia plays in reunion-tour mania.
THE GIST: Remember when you liked that band? Seeing them again will remind you of that time.
PUBLISHED LENGTH: 986 words.
NECESSARY LENGTH: 200 words. Or maybe just a quick email.
THE STORY: Today’s Wall Street Journal piece on British artists.
THE GIST: You know how sometimes people say there’s a new British invasion? There isn’t. But boy, that Amy Winehouse!
PUBLISHED LENGTH: 1,295 words
NECESSARY LENGTH: 12.95 words
THE STORY: Today’s Guardian Music Blog post on the possibility of a new Blur vs. Oasis reunion.
THE GIST: There’s a possibility of a Blur vs. Oasis reunion. Maybe.
PUBLISHED LENGTH: 613 words
NECESSARY LENGTH: One word: “Blur.”