2:59

Buzz band. How about we all put this term to bed? There’s nothing that invalidates the contents of a press release more effectively than the use of this label. The bullshit detector just hits 11 at first sight.

For the sake of argument let’s say that the term’s actually appropriate — The act in question is genuinely generating a fair amount of chatter from an assortment of zines and local scenes. If that’s the case then say so, and be specific. There’s nothing better than an identifiable trustworthy source. Labeling an act as having “buzz” is nothing more than a shallow invitation to guilt the writer onto the bandwagon. I doubt anyone with more than a modicum of pride wants to be seen as chasing trends. Of course they may end up doing so (when the entire culture lurches in one direction it’s hard to remain ambivalent) but they want to at least feel that they’ve made the discovery somewhat organically.

It’s just too meta a term. It declares “the tastemakers have spoken” without acknowledging that you’re pitching to those very tastemakers. It dates the act, practically looming the possibility of future overexposure and fatigue before the band ever gets there. The net allows us to delve into our own tastes so effectively that listeners, whether they’re zine writers or the audience, are getting used to avoiding so-labeled buzz bands on principle.