The end product of these reviews is a soulless, formulaic and uninteresting description of music accessible only to the people who know the genres and artists referenced in the piece. Sometimes the artists work well together. Percussion doesn’t do much aside from being a backbone or propel the instruments forward as they whirr, spiral or crescendo as songs reach their destinations. Results of this strategy, especially with new bands, evoke other, more well-known bands - “Artist A draws influences from Artist B, is a cross between Artist C and Artist D, or is like Artist E’s early albums” - or a list of genres flanked by annoying prefixes like “post-”, “neo-”, “indie-” or “alt-.”įrom there, the focus shifts from macro to micro by picking out certain elements of the song - whether it’s an instrument, line or effect - and describing them with a limited pool of adjectives and verbs.

Most reviews start with a description about the artist, note some influences and oftentimes attempt to discuss the music in terms of something else. Perhaps it speaks to my shortcomings as a writer, but I can’t escape these pitfalls of modern music journalism. There isn’t a way to talk about music I like without either giving a boring, surface-level description of what a specific song or album does, or devolving into talking about myself and my taste.

Lately I’ve felt frustrated because I cannot write about music the way I want to.įor whatever reason, everything I’ve tried hasn’t been good enough.

Arcade fire everything now zip