| |
|
Radiator's point is interesting, although it'll probably take us off-topic, but what the hell: I guess it comes down to the question of what you want music writing to be, and what you want it to be for. One argument is that it should be primarily functional: this is what this album's called, this is who the band, this is when and on what label it's out, this is what it basically sounds like. I think the idea that that last one can ever be done in an objective way is a myth, and has led to a lot of bad, boring music writing.
Personally, I like reading music writing almost for its own sake: growing up reading the Melody Maker, I didn't have access to 90% of the music described (if not more, initially - bear in mind that this was before Oasis started getting on daytime radio, so it was basically a question of matching the bands written about to the songs heard on the Evening Session). So I've always liked music writing that makes me think: and possibly makes me think about stuff other than music. This is why the best stuff I read is often online. There are very few print publications that are willing to take risks in this department: Plan B is definitely one of them, though. Of course taking risks means you'll get it wrong too - there will be pieces that are self-indulgent, or borderline coherent - and some people will call you these things, or 'pretentious', even when you're not - but it works when it produces pieces as good as David McNamee's review of the !!! album, which is one of the best things I've read this year, so I'm glad you mentioned it, Radiator (anytime you want to pick up where we left off on that topic, feel free). |
|
|
