By Jessica N. Bowles-Martinez
Buddyhead is a site that I have returned to every few months over
the past few years, its focus has never been clear, but through all
its scattered elements lies an attempt to reflect the interests of
the smart-talking twenty-something crowd.
Buddyhead's lack of a central theme in its content is both its greatest
asset and burden. Its constantly changing set of articles and columns
leave the site flexible and often better suited to adapt to the ephemeral
notion of what is considered "relevant" or "interesting"
to its target audience. Unfortunately, its lack of a consistency also
means that it can't really keep people who were interested in a particular
column or subject that was covered once in particular issue coming
back for multiple visits. The lack of order or unity can be frustrating
and with no guarantee that a column will be continued there is less
motivation to return to the site.
Even the layout seems to change every couple of months, currently
it has a set up where it is very wide, and to get to any of the site's
content you have to scroll sideways. While this is original, it tends
to be very inconvenient and it is not easy to see everything that
is available. It also requires the downloading of a lot of graphics,
which could be very frustrating for people with slower connections.
It is a site willing to sacrifice good design in the hope of appearing
"edgy."
The site is supposed to sound like a bunch of your "buddies"
who made this site for their buddies talking to you. But, at times
they try so hard to sound natural and hip that it's an obvious effort
and a bit insulting. It feels like it's saying, "we know that
you normally talk like an idiot but have moments of cleverness, so
do we!" I believe that by using this tone its going to attract
high school kids who think this is what being a twenty-something is
all about or the barfly, skating through life, wannabe musician type.
While I think they are actually trying to attract a more intellectual,
hip, image-conscious, alternative-music listening type of audience.
I believe that another of its problems, and its one shared by many
online magazines, is that people may not care about many of the reviews
on the site. Online it is hard to create a reason for someone to value
your opinion of a record or movie. There are places online with established
critics and creating an argument for why an anonymous person behind
a web site is a more valid source of opinions is nearly impossible.
The site can easily come off as looking like a bunch of "nerds"
giving their unwanted opinions. The advantage is that, there is less
reason to believe that these reviews are biased by corporate obligations
or behind-the-scenes manipulation, and can over time be trusted as
a non-commercial alternative opinion.
One recently acquired feature, which creates community amongst the
people who go to the site, and may restore credibility to many of
the review sections, is that there are now online forums. Viewers
are encouraged to submit their work, whether it's a movie, a demo
tape of their band, or some of their own writing, and then people
who frequent the site are encouraged to critique it. This can be a
very effective way to create a strong sense of community between the
sites viewers. Now, it is not just an anonymous stranger who was given
the power of reviewer because he had we server, but it is now possible
to have a say in what really is good or bad. Another thing, that is
not particularly original but is very helpful in getting an idea of
what other viewers are like and have interests in, are the forums
for posting messages. In there people posted questions about a huge
range of topics, and there were many candid responses which I found
more interesting than almost any article I'd read on this site.
The site has its strengths in being able to capture at times a wonderful
moment of relevance and community between its readers. But perhaps
it's a little too good at capturing the schizophrenic nature of some
of its readers, and no one likes the idea of an exact replica of themselves.