My thoughts on music books.

This is an essay I've been thinking about writing for a long time. A common complaint I've read about many music books is that all the information therein is readily accessible on the internet. Even if that is true, I think that a few things justify a book. First of all, people are incredibly lazy. It takes a certain person to do more than a cursory search. A very curious person. A slightly deranged person. (Hey, I'm describing myself here.) Second, nothing on the internet feeeeeels permanent, from an academic standpoint. Unless, it's on one of those really legit websites and not a dodgy fansite. Fansites are great for compiling trivia, but they're not always kept up well, or even updated all that often. Third, music journalism is not just about compiling facts, it's also about interpretation. As a journalist, or even a music journalist, one can try and place the subject in context, a factual framework. This is the important part. This is what separates hobbyists from the professionals - the fact collectors from those who do something with those facts. Fourth, a good writer presents information in a factual, yet readable way. Similarly, things which appear in print also have an air of credibility. You don't believe everything you read on the internet, do you?

So yes, the internet may make things a bit complicated for music journalism and music history, but it hardly makes music books obsolete.