Have spent most of this evening getting my head around Marathon Packs' critique of mp3 blog criticism: http://www.marathonpacks.com/2007/10/on-re-shifting-focus.html

For my own part, it becomes noticeable in writing up about new bands and releases every week by choice just how limited the language of music criticism is - there's only so many ways you can describe what a song sounds like before you have to distance yourself from musical theory detachment.

I don't know how many reading this are aware of the whole New Games Journalism farrago of a couple of years ago, spearheaded by Phonogram writer, gaming scribe (most notably PC Gamer) and past occasional compadre of mine Kieron Gillen, which was similarly about turning video game writing about the flashy colours and onto relating the game's appeal to yourself, your cultural awareness and your feelings, in the Tom Wolfe/Hunter S lineage. It didn't take off because analogous pieces weren't what the people who bought the magazines wanted, really only the people who frequented the online forums. It's nearly the same in music, where Robert Christgau and Paul Morley have as many detractors as followers for their varying but consistently often loosely defined approaches. The best bloggers, your Fluxblogs and Said The Gramophones, achieve what they do not necessarily by openly engaging their prose with what the music sounds like, but after you've heard it the reaction if it's worked would be "right, I see now". It's not a writing style you see much in British bloggers, but then I like the more direct, critical style of Song By Toad, The Daily Growl, The Runout Groove and so forth too.

Whenever I've posted mp3s I've always gone for that route one option of "here is a band and a song of theirs I'd like you to hear, here is part of the biog, here is who they sound like. Have fun!" because hopefully that should help the reader to draw their own conclusions. It doesn't exactly exude enthusiasm, though, although I like the longer form reviews I occasionally write because it allows cross-references and new avenues to open up and there's really no self-imposed limit of the reader's tolerance. Both approaches work well, but I'd love to know what the hoi polloi who have to read this thing would prefer - straight up descriptions or, oh go on then, New Music Journalism.