Ultimately, to insist that rock criticism be political is first to insist that the humans who make and enjoy music are embroiled in politics whether they like it or not - and whether they know it or not.
I believe an editor's job is to help a writer sound like himself or herself.
People believe that criticism should be objective, whatever that means, but I really don't understand what people mean by that. I guess if you're doing sonata-allegro procedure analysis, you can be objective for a page or two. But in pop? Really hard.
Subject is very important. If you're going to write non-fiction the style means nothing or very little. The content justifies the effort you need to put into the writing itself.
If you wanna write non-fiction you have to be interested in the world.
I believe that writing on music is experienced inside your head, is not a physically present in the world, it has a different kind of authority and prominence and you absorb it differently.
I'm not that Internet-savvy. I get by. But that's all. I don't have serious skills or any other stuff.
Everything I know about Facebook makes me want to avoid it. Twitter has really improved my reading habits.
I don't believe in pulling punches or being judicious, as the standard in literary criticism or academic musicology.
Prince Rogers Nelson was the most gifted artist of the rock era. Not the greatest genius - just the most musical in the broadest sense.
