At PopMatters, Devon Powers deconstructs the world of music journalism. Or, more specifically, today's world of music journalism. This brings about a curious situation, however, as music that was previously perceived as "independent" or "underground" is now, in a way, mainstream. Groups - hell, sounds - that wouldn't have made any majority's radar screen five years ago are now all over the place, from commercials to video games to your kid sister's compact disc iPod.

While music journalism as an institution and the indie rock genre is in many ways better off losing its contrarianism and opening its arms to more listeners, 2004 marks a sea change during which the term "indie rock" should perhaps finally be put to rest. It's not just the blurring of the lines between independent and major labels, not just the appearance of certain acts on Clear Channel radio, not just the increasing popularity of artists and sounds which only a few years ago would have been widely deemed alien and crass. It is that, for a good band, it is increasingly difficult to remain obscure. Recording songs, in some ways, has become just another means of sending a press release, for once that music ends up on the Internet, it belongs to the world.

But here lies the question. Does this prove that the music journalist, the one who has strived (strove?) for so long to preach his or her beliefs of the excellence of "that band I heard on x college station," was right all along? Or, does it just adhere to a theory that have some have discussed (and is a favorite between myself and a music-snob friend of mine) that it doesn't pay to be a music elitist any longer? The Internet has all but destroyed the wall between obscurity and 15 minutes of fame. So I ask again - was the critic right all along, or are the darlings of Pop / Top 40 radio merely there because they happened to get listened to by people who don't necessarily "get it" (whatever 'it' is) but happen to dig a song here or there if it's got a cool beat that they can get down to?