i guess i'm saying that when people posit themselves as experts who 'know more' about the music/subject in question than the critic, then the critic will never ever be able to say anything convincing (unless they allow themselves to be convinced). the people who 'know more' will always be able to unearth some esoteric facts that will somehow disprove each individual point making up the critic's argument, thus dismantling the argument--even if the complete thesis broadly makes sense. forest vs. trees, etc. look at this little debate about the snare rolls, which in dialogue form would be
PS: "UW draw from prog house's big room excesses, what with their uplifting snare rolls and buildups. at the height of their popularity, this chasing of rave mentalism sounded increasingly contrived on the albums"
dirty: "WRONG!!!!11 only one track in UW's entire oeuvre uses snare rolls"
also, tribal duckie does not spell kid lubricant
