Well, i'm sorry (because you apparently know EVERYTHING about this :rolleyes: ) but you should never, never let them play the puppet master creatively. in that case, let them write the fucking story and see how long they last.

The best editors and writers work collaboratively. But ultimately, the editor is always right. :) (For better or worse, that is a rule of the trade--it's usually even stated so in the freelancer's contract, although a bit more diplomatically.)

When they do THEIR job, they are right. When they try to tell you what to write (and i mean this literally) then you tell them "kiss my ass"

& frankly, when editors do run into an "attitude" like this from writers, they often will just write it themselves, rather than deal with a beligerent writer over "creative differences." In that case, it's faster, easier, and cheaper to void the contract and start from scratch with a staff writer or do it themselves.

---as they tell you not to let the door hit you in said ass on your way out! :)

Because, like it or not, in the usual newspaper or magazine venue, it is an editor's job to tell a writer what to write. Editors interpret that job in many ways; some are more controlling than others, but in essense, the editor is paying for the copy he or she wants, so the writer pretty much does write to please the editor.

It's an entirely different case in other places, like literary jounals and such, where an editor should not interfere with a writer's creative effort. But that's a different case. And even so, an editor can still accept or reject a work.

Well, you know what else I say. If your writing is good enough, the editor shouldn't have to tell you to do much creatively. But that is a matter of opinion.

True. The best writers are the ones that just "get it" and don't need much direction.

Rolling Stone? Oh, yeah. She needs to give you more credit than that!

She's my mom. I'm sure you understand how mothers are. Rolling Stone my ass.

heres a link to an article i wrote a few months ago.

http://www.furious.com/perfect/src.html

Yeah. My mom thought I'd make a good priest. Mom!!

That's fairly well-written. I'm no expert, but I think one of the things you can improve on in your writing is to make your descriptive prose less prosaic and more, well, descriptive. Meaning metaphors, analogies, similies, that kind of thing... :) Check out Pitchfork's writers and how, when they describe something; especially the music itself; they always manage to be very evocative and eloquent... Thanks for the article, by the way... :)

I think you did a fine job, dazed. I think writing about music performance is especially difficult. You have to describe the band/performance without becoming too flowery or overly descriptive, and I think you struck a nice balance between giving us the facts about the band and your own impressions.

The only crit I have is with the sense of history you try to give in the beginning. I think it's dangerously close to hyperbole. That kind of history is really hard to give unless you can be very factual. I'd stay away from that kind of generalizing, if I were you.

Funny, my biggest regret about college was feeling that it was a waste of valuable youth that I will never get back.
However, had I never gone, I would merely suspect this to be the case. This way, I know for sure. I fucking HATED college with a passion. I did perfectly well in it, but I find the academic environment to be stifling, self-congratulatory and insufferably smug.

For me, college felt like four years of complete freedom. I only worked part-time to keep myself in beer and music (grants/scholarships/loans paid for tuition and board), and I felt like all my classroom time and studying was exposure to a great big world I'd had no clue about before. I soaked it all in. And then outside the classroom there were movies, plays, bands, records, girls, entire summers off with no classes and 20 hours a week working.

Since I was basically unaccountable to anyone but myself, I tried on different ideas of who I was, thought a lot about who I was and what I wanted to become.

I've never had so much free time or more enjoyed what I was doing.

Like I said, the best 4 years of my life, without a doubt.

that shit gets boring after awhile.

Depends on the person, I guess. I could have been a student forever, if I could have figured out how not to live in poverty doing it.

being an arts student is fantastic if yr on a good course, but a living hell if not. i myslef am on a fine art media course, which means i have 2 hours of lectures a week, and then spend the resst of the time doing whatever the hell i want, using video, film, sound and photography. most arts degrees only really offer what youre prepared to put in, which means you have to be quite self motivated to enjoy it.

I almost went into art. Sometimes I wish I had. I was bowing under a lot of parental pressure, though. They thought it was bad enough I was an English major.