I work in the music department of a bookstore. We are given these fine computers. With internet access. And we are expect not to use the internet access unless looking something up for a customer.

Yeah right.

So instead of outright disrespect for the rule, I limit myself to music related sites. Hunting up online music magazines to read reviews of cds is a favorite past time. One of the places I enjoy reading reviews at is PopMatters.com. I like them because they write good, informative reviews and they update the site once every two or three days.

Today, bored out of my brain, I went there and read a this review of a cd I had never heard of before called "Beauty Party" by Majesticons. Now, the cd it's self holds no interest to me. However, the review it's self is very good. The author of the review manages to make it funny and interesting. However, one of his statements made me think.

"Temptation #2: To dutifully recount the reason this record exists, just like every other reviewer in the world. Sadly, I think I'll have to succumb right off the bat, but let me just say, first, that records should fly on their own without having to rely on history lessons, and, secondly, that I don't think this one does. Without its context, Beauty Party doesn't make any sense."

Out of context of the review it may be hard to grasp, so I'll summarize the basic gist in my own words. He is saying that having a "history lesson" (about the band, style, record label, or whatever) in a cd review is bad and a sign of weakness for a given cd.

Now, I feel that while in some cases this is true, that there are many good reasons to add history other than explaining the cd.

1) For interest's sake. Take, for instance, Wilco's "Yankee Hotel Foxtrot" that was released last year. We all remember the "losers come out on top" feel good story behind that. It created interest for the band and the cd. It made for great reading. It gave the reviews a direction.

2) For writing's sake. Good writing should have various angles and feel united. It should not just be slapped together opinions in a rambling, stream of consiousness way. Adding the history will contribute various angles. Great pieces of literature usually don't just stick to the basic story line. Why should a review?

3) Drama. The history can often add suspence to a review. To use the Wilco example again, after reading the history, the reader is left wondering whether or not the cd is actually good. Suspence is always a positive factor in writing.

4) Comparisson. Like with the Zwan cd, reviews went into his history with the Smashing Pumpkins. It helps the fans of the previous band know whether or not to bother with Zwan or not.

5) Intelligence. Adding the history will give the reader faith that a reviewer is familiar with the band and knows what he/she is talking about. If the review just gives the reviewer's reaction to a cd, a reader is left with a bad taste in their mouth and wondering what angle the reviewer is coming from.

So, all in all, I cannot see how history is a negative aspect of review writing. After all, those who don't learn from history are condemned to repeat it.

peace.