tiesto trumps the punk?

*Tuesday notes:

-*[Updated throughout]. Billboard (via Reuters) does a dance music wrap-up for '07 and finds that "Tiesto and the return of house music were the highlights of the dance scene in 2007." WTF? What about Daft Punk and the cool kids who love them, the melodic-tech explosion (Booka Shade, Trentemoller, Deadmau5, Gui Boratto, 16 Bit Lolitas), industrial redux (M.A.N.D.Y., Boys Noize, MSTRKRFT, Dubfire), the French invasion (the Ed Banger and Kitsune labels), the reuniting of hip-hop and e-music (Kanye West, Spank Rock), San Francisco's tech-funk renaissance (Claude VonStroke, Justin Martin), new rave (The Klaxons), and the continuing reign of dance-punk and indie DJs (Justice, LCD, Digitalism, Steve Aoki)? While I don't necessarily like all of these trends, they represent fresher news than Tiesto. And vocal house? Yeah, it never goes out of style. But the year for that (Kaskade, Dave Guetta) was '06, in my opinion.

I think part of the problem here is that the dance scene is way to inbred and provincial. Too many "writers" act as cheer leaders and essentially take on publicity, sometimes figuratively, often literally (check the bylines of some of the dance mags and you'll see that these folks are also repping artists, for money). In dance music, you find publicists who "write," writers who publicize, and self-proclaimed journalists who organize and publicize for-profit events and radio shows featuring the people they often write about (and otherwise publicize).

Many of the dance "writers" I've encountered over the years call many of their subjects "friends" and are often at their sides during gigs. They write profiles of their favorite spinners and producers not to please you, the reader, but to please their subjects. That's called being a groupie, not being a journalist. It's not something that's tolerated in mainstream journalism (except at certain publications, it seems). The result is a muddied sense of what's what in our scene. It's exactly why, for example, the latest issue of GQ magazine has a better sense of what's happening in e-music (it praises Justice, among others). Why would a mainstream, general-circulation magazine have a better sense of what's happening in dance music than a music industry publication with a expert insider of a writer? Precisely because GQ could give a fuck who the industry is anointing as the next big (same old) thing. Such outside-the-tent writers don't generally hang out with dance label folks and aren't about to email them the piece begging for approval.

(Full disclosure: I've certainly become friends with certain subjects, publicists and label-runners over the years. It's inevitable, and it happens in other facets of journalism. There are plenty of journalist-subject golf buddies in Washington, D.C., and the relationships can help the writers find out what's news. But, if you ask any of these friends of mine, I weigh their requests for press like I would others'. I think my record speaks for itself: I want what's good to end up in my print work just like Jay Leno wants whoever is most-entertaining to end up on his couch. And, I think it's clear here, I'm not afraid to offend dance industry types or even alienate myself in the name of truth. Somebody's gotta say it).

The dance scene having these insidery writers, often with monetary and personal ties to artists, labels and clubs, is like getting all your news about George Bush from his own press secretary and related cronies. Not that Tiesto is George Bush (although both seem to drone on to the same old tune). But just imagine if the reporters out there covering Bush were actually his friends, or had ties to the administration through side deals, publicity contracts, event organizing, etc. Would you trust the proclamations of such a press corps? That's kind of what we have in dance music though. To say, in 2007, that Tiesto is great is kind of like saying, in 2007, Bush is great. Not there aren't those who support either man. Fine. But let's have independence, balance, and fairness.

But what's the damage, you ask? The damage is that, when you're buying a magazine or dialing up a website, expecting a modicum of news and criticism about an artist, expecting some unbiased guidance, what you're getting is marketing material (as is the case with the Billboard piece). You're not getting a filter to tell you that, hey, that article that claims Tiesto was the big story of 2007 is not offering any statistical evidence and is actually quoting the DJ's paid publicist as a main source for its claims. What's more, this lack of independent judgment means that the music, the culture and the business of dance music evolve more slowly. Instead of saying, look, we actually did take some forward steps this year (Beatport, Trentemoller, Digitalism, et. al.), and we had some missteps too (DJ mag's voting controversy), Billboard is saying, let them eat the same old Tiesto porridge, it's good for you. Yeah, right. The risk is that, instead of embracing the new generation of young people attracted to the punkier, more-industrial fringes of dance music, we're chasing them away by saying, no, all we have to offer is the same old thing. We see no freshness unless the big dance labels tell us we do. These kids are just going to pass us buy, and the core dance music establishment, so bent on the status quo, will go the way of the old guido labels at the WMC - still trying to peddle diva house like its 1989 (or trance like it's 1999).

-Pop Matters does its own "Best Electronica of 2007." Oy vey, "electronica" is so 1997, but at least it's more tuned-in than Billboard.