Revenge of the Earnest: Fighting Snark and Sarcasm in Indie Music Journalism

Some time last week, Chaz Bundwick-- the South Carolinian behind Toro Y Moi-- released a Toro Y Moi remix of Odd Future member, and the recently Racecar Brown reviewed Tyler, the Creator's song "French." That probably shouldn't have been a big deal, but then Chris Weingarten, the man behind 1000 Times Yes who famously reviewed 1000 albums in single Twitter posts, took Bundwick to task, accusing him of bandwagoning.

Chris Cantalini, purveyor of indie blog Gorilla vs. Bear shot back, starting a war of the 140-character tweets that the Daily Swarm covered here. It's interesting, to be sure, but not precisely the point I'm getting to, merely the catalyst behind it.

I get to the point after the jump.



I tweeted this last week, and reiterated the essential point during the backlash over the admittedly unentertaining Oscars, but I'm fucking tired of people being snarky and sarcastic. And as a dude who is often snarky and sarcastic, that's saying something.

There's an essential difference, though. I'm fully willing to admit that this may be me deluding myself, but I think the snark and sarcasm that I utilize is different because I use it not as my essential point, but as a humorous allegory to reinforce an idea I've already presented. It's not the foundation of an argument, it's a single I-beam.

But there's a disturbing trend in indie music journalism, and that's using snark as the definitive statement on an argument. Look at sites like Weingarten's Twitter feed, or Hipster Runoff, and you'll see the same thing, a general sense of snark and/or winking irony, a nod toward those who are presumably "in" on the "joke." But what it's short on is earnest evaluation of the content that's being judged.

I was always taught, in both science class and in mock trial (high school shout outs, ya'll), that to prove an idea, you have to do so in a step-by-step process. First, you create a hypothesis, then you test that hypothesis, then you form a new conclusion based on your testing. But that middle step, the one that's the most important step, is often absent from these snarky asides. They jump straight from their opinion to making a joke about their opinion in conclusion, without allowing for argument of the point in between.

It's cheating, basically.

Sadly, not only is this behavior accepted, it's often lauded. IndieHulk's Twitter feed was recently called "the best music writing since Hipster Runoff."  Which has to be a huge slap in the face for anyone who has tried to make their point honestly and with justification.

What makes me the most depressed about this is that the critical thinking necessary to come up with these jokes betrays an intelligence and ability with the written word to earn their snarky asides. See, it's easy to be snarky something you don't like-- who can't do that?-- but it's harder to write about it in a way that's reasoned and interesting. The people behind these things have the talent to do so, but they've decided to do away with that portion, hiding it behind the veil of a pretty good sense of humor.

For some, that's good enough. If they laugh, it's enough for them to endorse something and enough for them to ignore the fact that an actual argument isn't being made.

Here's the thing about snark: it usually makes an assumption about the material it's talking about, but instead of honestly relating it to the audience as an assumption, it presumes it to automatically be true.

I'll give you an example, here's a tweet from DrunkHulk on Radiohead's new album, The King of Limbs: "LISTEN TO NEW RADIOHEAD ALBUM! IT TOO EARLY FOR LENT! SO DRUNK HULK NO UNDERSTAND WHY RADIOHEAD GIVE UP!"

The assumption that this makes is that the King of Limbs is boring, and it presents this assumption as a necessary truth; to enjoy the joke, you have to accept the premise. It's funny, to be sure, I laughed when I read it. But it also doesn't bother to actually prove it's premise. Now, DrunkHulk doesn't have to and, in a way, Twitter users don't have the space to do so in 140 characters. But, at some point, if we're supposed to take your opinion seriously, you need to make a reasoned argument about it. DrunkHulk doesn't, and it's a pattern sadly imitated by many music critics.

I don't have to listen to these peoples' opinions and, really, I don't. I don't follow 1000TimesYes or Hipster Runoff or whatever. But I think it's a sad state of affairs when their unreasoned arguments are what qualify in the court of public opinion as "the best music writing."

This is a call to arms for the earnest. Let's put making a point back en vogue.