You mention in the book that you stopped writing for the commercial press. Why was that? How long did you do that? Has music writing ever been your full-time job or is it more of a hobby?

It's my full-time job right now, but I'm not really making a go of it; in fact I can't stop myself spending more time doing stuff like answering these questions than pitching album reviews…

I did very little writing for pay between 1991 to 1998; the reasons are complex (see part four of my book). I've never felt on home ground when writing for the commercial press, and by 1991 this had worn me down to the point where I stopped. And then I started up again in 1999 when my friend Chuck Eddy became music editor at the Village Voice. I'm still not on home ground in journalism, and I never will be, nor in academia. And that's not likely to change.

Have you seen this satire of Guns 'n' Roses lyrics? Is there a better band to show the disconnect between critics and the fans?

Which critics and which fans. Seems to me that fans are critics. Everyone has an opinion. But professional/semi-professional critics tended not to be in the prime audience for Guns 'N' Roses, whereas professional/semi-professional critics did tend to be in the prime audience for Nirvana. But there's also a disconnect between how critics write about music for the press and how they talk about it to their friends and chat about it online. In the latter circumstances they're more likely to flirt and fight and gossip and make jokes, just like real people.

You do a good job describing what some might consider Axl Rose's
attraction. Should appearance even be a factor in music reviews and criticism or should it stick to the music itself?

As for appearance, it is part of music; any discussion of James Brown or Elvis Presley or the Rolling Stones that didn't include how they looked (and how they danced) would be incomplete. It's not just a strange, random coincidence that metal bands tend to look like metal bands, and indie bands tend to look like indie bands.