They aren't doing it out of any sense of altruism, they are doing it cos to do otherwise would kill the golden goose.

They are an integral part ( and I include our chums at Word) of peddling the music business's absurd puffery about the preening showoffs we like to think of as "stars".

Offer them no quarter.

by writing utter tosh for vast amounts of money...Parsons and Burchill spring to mind.

...well, more or less. I bowed out after 7 years pro then a further 4 or 5 as a spare-timer. Anyone who sticks around long enough and doesn't fade away generally becomes some kind of eminent cultural commentator (like Heppo) or vaguely arts related columnist (Julie Burchill) and lots of others whose names I can't recall, or an author of books (like Peter Doggett and Joel McIver), or makes a transition into other areas of journalism like Giles Smith, the great Richard Williams or John "New Labour Project" Harris. A handful of others grind away for ever, ploughing a particular furrow (often very well) or chasing continued relevance with the kids and the next big thing.

Regarding the UK publications, it may not be widely known that the publisher of Mojo/Q/Kerrang had a serious, long-running stand-off with over 100 of their best-known freelance contributors a couple of years back over mandatory new contracts affecting payments/electronic rights/legal liability issues. There was virtually no negotiation conceded. Keen eyed observers will have noticed a great deal of names, as a result, who no longer contribute to those publications on point of principle or economics - yes, there'll always be a next slew of people willing to fill the breach, whatever the terms, but a great deal of expertise was sacrificed by the publisher.

If you're wanting to be a music journo these days be in no doubt: it's not an easy ride.

I'm no expert in these matters and I'm not in the business. But I read a lot of rock journalism (including in The Word), good and bad. Some of it seems to be "puffery" indeed - and even buffoonery - and/or designed to fill much needed column inches to meet editorial deadlines. Other pieces are transparently intended to push a product rather than offer a truly objective critique of an artist or their record.

That said, now and again you read some insightful well researched stuff which is right up there with conventional journalism in terms of quality of writing. The late Ian McDonald springs to mind, Peter Guralnick, Richard Williams. If I may say so, David Hepworth's writing is generally superb and I thought this month's Paul du Noyer piece about Amy W was top drawer.

Of course, some rock hack legends of yore managed to find a niche for themselves covering aspects of the business from the inside, adopting an adversarial attitude towards accomplished artists and helping to influence certain trends in musical taste against the prevailing winds.

Here it could argued that in the case of the likes of Lester Bangs and Nick Kent, both of whom were regular trustees of modern chemistry, living life on the edge of sanity, as Clash puts it, probably played its part.

However, as a general rule, rock journos are no more or less insane than the rest of us.

I started a thread about rock journalism last year, though it was more about good examples of rock writing. The Word Massive's responses were tremendously informative. Here is the thread.

http://www.wordmagazine.co.uk/content/rock-journalism-what-do-you-recomm...

All of movie media exists to engorge expectations for upcoming product (and the industry itself), whilst having to acknowledge how average it is when it finally arrives - Empire especially will spend pages and pages on front covers and "coming soon" pieces for films it then gives 2 stars to when eventually released.

But even more than music journos, film hacks are wined and dined, taken all over the world to be "on set", and spend time with real-life film stars, and it's in their interest to keep the gravy train running... I'll concede that much time is also spent sitting in Soho screening rooms watching dreadful sequels and cheapjack exploitation flicks, but it's hardly coal-mining, is it?

(and also people who work at record companies) is that we find it very easy to stay sane because we really, genuinely like music and enjoy being able to spend time on/with in. The longer you write about music, the less likely you are to be charged with wringing some sense or entertainment value out of the latest hot young thing. This is a task best left to other hot young things whose excitement might be misguided but is usually genuine. We covered some right old rubbish as well as the good stuff when I did Select magazine but we seldom counterfeited our enthusiasm - and anyway you can often have more fun writing about bad music than good. In the heyday of one competitor magazine, I used to scan the review section for the one-star reviews because I knew they'd be funny.

Fatigue does set in sometimes but there's always something new and exciting (or old and exciting) around somewhere. That's why I get very annoyed by "hilarious" pastiches that portray rock journos as lazy cynics who are all in the pocket of record companies. In my experience they're actually quite idealistic and obstinately independent.

I can think of some veteran critics I still enjoy reading , like Simon Reynolds, David Stubbs and Byron Coley, who have stayed in music journalism by ploughing their own furrow among the genres they like. I'm sure you can think of others.

Personally, as I suspect I may be falling out with rock music altogether, I enjoy reading about the music industry and other related cultural topics, which The Word does extremely well.

...ie reading about the music industry backroom stuff etc. Having seen as many wizards as I probably need to, it's more interesting looking behind the curtain now. Still lots to explore back there, past and present...