It is of course possible to be erudite and - shock horror - INVENTIVE when writing about music. There's an element of showing-of to the writings of Ben Watson, Ian Penman and Greil Marcus, to name three music critics who I think are the bees knees.

Personally I like juicy sentences. I think any writer owes it to herself to be interesting, entertaining, thought-provoking. I wish more writers tried to be more evocative in their writing: if you can communicate the energy of the work of art you're reviewing, even if it's bad energy, then you're doing the reader a great service. I'm happy to suffer a little pretentiousness for a little poetry. More mimeticism in music mags! Now!

Elvis Costello once wrote, dismissively, that writing about music is like dancing about architecture. What he failed to appreciate is that truly visionary architecture might well inspire someone to dance, or sing. It's a peculiarly desensitized and pigeonholing attitude for a musician to take. It's like synaesthesia never happened!