Writing about music

[freakytigger.livejournal.com]

Just wrote this on ILM, on a thread called "What do you look for in music writing". It's not an especially good thread, it's mostly people arguing whether reviewers should write about themselves or try to describe the music or whatever. But I was pleased with my post to it. It seems to me answering the question should look at the outcomes of music writing first and then work back to more formal preferences.

What I like in music writing, in rough order of priority:

- brings me to (or back to) the music in question
- shows me something new or richer about that music
- tries to start conversations, not stop them
- makes me think, excites me with its insights and ideas
- a focus on the listener
- avoids recieved wisdoms
- elegant or lively sentences
- unforced humour

It's not *that* hard to tick all these boxes, which makes it irritating that most print music mags fall down on #s 3-6 and most blogs fall down on nearly all of them. (And that I can't hit them all every time I write something). piratemoggy's entry on poptimists yesterday, about Cascada, ticked all eight, for instance.

If I can think of a couple more then I'll have ten, which is the kind of number (sorry dubdobdee that Pitchfork columns are made of.

ADMIN: All 22 LoP tracks received and sent, links to the zips up soon. Intros for Week 11 up tomorrow.

i opened the window and INFLUENZA

[dubdobdee.livejournal.com]

( being an explcation of some elements of why i think the word INFLUENCE is a rubbish word )