smoe.org mailing lists
ivan@stellysee.de
| From | "josh chasin" <jchasin@nyc.rr.com> |
| Subject | Re: obscure critic reference points and Stewat's soapbox |
| Date | Thu, 17 Jul 2003 15:02:02 -0400 |
[Part 1 text/plain iso-8859-1 (1.4 kilobytes)]
(View Text in a separate window)
----- Original Message -----
From: "Harris, Will" <wharris1@bcharrispub.com>
To: <audities@smoe.org>
> Yeah, you'd like to think that the average Amplifier reader knows his/her
> stuff...but you'd also like to think that Amplifier can continue to expand
> its audience now that it's expanded its distribution, and going out of
one's
> way to cite an artist's similarities to both Anti-Pasti and the Blades of
> Grass may not be the best way to do that. I'm not saying you have to dumb
> things down to the simplest possible level, but mixing mainstream
> comparisons up with the obscure isn't such a bad idea...
The thing is, I think, that possessing something resembling expert knowledge
is probably a criterion for becoming a writer on a topic. So by definition
the writer is better informed than the constituency he or she writes for,
unless he or she is only writing for other experts. That's why they're
doing the writing. Academic writing is like that (where the writer assumes
a similar expertise among the readership). Pop culture writing probably
shouldn't be. Writing for Amplifier isn't the same thing as writing for,
say, the hypothetical Northeast Journal of Power Pop Cultural Studies.
(Show of hands: how many would subscribe to such a title? Probably a lot
of us. Hell, a lot of us would probably submit articles.)
For assistance, please contact
the smoe.org administrators.