> What must be remembered is that not everyone cares about the lyrical 
> quality, the
> performance, the production, or any of those things; they just want to 
> know,
> "Who does it sound like?"

Wow. You really think that's the main thing people look for in new 
music -- a band that sounds like their favorite bands? I mean, I'm with 
you on most of what you've said, but this point is way off from my 
perspective. That's basically the same thing as saying, "Yeah, the 
songwriting sucks and they can't play for shit... but hey, they sound 
just like this band everyone likes, so you should get it!".

> I'm not trying to be desperately argumentative here.  I'm just trying 
> look
> at this from the viewpoint of my wife, who is a wonderful, intelligent 
> woman
> with an incredibly open mind when it comes to music...but, unlike 
> myself,
> she doesn't study it day in and day out, she doesn't subscribe to music
> magazines, and she doesn't go around memorizing the names of obscure 
> bands
> she's read about but never heard, just because she wants to be able to
> remember them when looking through bargain bins.  She just knows what 
> she
> likes, and a review that doesn't at least ATTEMPT to speak to that kind 
> of
> casual music listener is never going to inspire her to buy something...

Um... you said she doesn't subscribe to music magazines though. So why 
should the casual music listener who doesn't buy the magazine be 
considered over and above the target audience (the obsessive music fan) 
by magazines such as BTO and Amplifier. Just seems an odd expectation to 
me. Seriously, I think there is a middle ground here, but I think 
writers like Stewart are covering it.

Ryan