(thought it would be interesting to have a counter thread to see what people actually enjoy about music journalism)

#1 when the reviewer reveals or elucidates lyrical or thematic elements to the album that i hadn't yet noticed/realised/understood.

(i know this sounds really wanky and can't always be applied to every album)........

...but surely this is the entire point...?...to give the reader some greater understanding/appreciation of the music/album that they wouldn't have had before...basically just spotting something that would have passed you by...or explaining something you didnt grasp...and in turn making you appreciate the album even more.....

but obviously this is a rare one....and also brings out another redundancy of reviews...the culture in which publications get out their reviews earlier and earlier....i think you get much more from a review if you have actually listened to the album and you can compare your own thoughts.....also, with releasing an early review, writers tend to get lost in the hype.....that is..unless the review is just a vehicle to tell us what something sounds like and what we can expect......which makes it pretty redundant once we have got the album ourselves.

anyway....waffle over..

got any others
?