That's it! The only ism I want to come out of your mouths is jism. Overacademic Bullshit Must Die.

vs. Fred Durst.

Christ you should have said something, they've already agreed in principle to publish my piece about this thread and I kinda need the money

Also, in a forum like this one, it's selfish to assume that just because a concept is over YOUR head, it's over everyone else's head too (cf. "overacademic bullshit").

"Impenetrable" to whom? To YOU! You're saying you can't understand it, therefore NO ONE can!

"Impenetrable" belongs on the "use other" pile, along with "unlistenable" (which I was guilty of using when I first got here).

I personally don't mind high vocabulary words in any type of writing; it forces me to get out my old and worn dictionary (the copyright's from 1954!) and look up the word, thus enabling me to learn a whole new word (as opposed to "Whole New World", which is a great example of a POS Disney song). However, when it comes to music criticism, I really can't stand the usage of a highly obscure musical artist or film director as a crutch when it comes to the description of said critic's opinion of the album/song/concert and assuming all of the reading audience will get said reference. Robert Christgau landed forever on my "I curse you forever!" list because of similar actions; I mean, what 13-year-old in 1993 Middle America was going to know some of the artists he referenced in his reviews? (Besides, he was one of those music critics who was there at the "it must've happened!" music journalism convention that obviously decided Duran Duran would forever get treated like shit by all "well respected" music journalists no matter what the band did, thus making people such as myself bristle at the mere mention of Q, Rolling Stone, Spin, NME, etc.)

*ahem* But anyway, college-level vocabulary doesn't bother me in the slightest. In fact, sometimes I welcome it in greedily. I like learning new words, new ways of describing things and putting words together, etc.

ha crosspost

To paraphrase what I said before -- if you're not familiar with it, that doesn't necessarily make it "obscure."

Goddang, Blount look higher up in the thread for your precious names. You really can't think up any yourself?

http://www.orsiitaliani.com/durstdc3.jpg

the idea that english speaking music magazines are writing for some intellectual elite is hilarious to me.

(hey! Ironically "Rollin'" just came up on my mixtape THIS VERY SECOND!)

Of course, with the invasion of the Internet and the fact that almost anything can be Googled into understanding, this point may be at present moot. There was no such thing as the Internet for the average Jane/Joe back then, however. There weren't even computers at the grade school I went to back then. So it wasn't as if I could look up "Robyn Hitchcock" as easily as I could look up "redoubtable" back then, just to name an example.

I just think that when it comes to criticism that would've been read by a wide audience back in the Dark Ages Before the Internet Was Available in Any Public Library, people should've worked hard to not include elements in the opinion piece that would've been damned impossible to look up. Words are one thing -- I mean, everyone in here has had a dictionary in their possession for all eternity, right? Even slightly obscure historical events could've been found out through a quick interrogation of one's favorite history teacher. But trying to figure out who the hell "G.G. Allin" is/was back then -- I think I would've had much better luck finding out through my teachers what happened during the Second Peloponnesian War.

p.s.: I knew who The Smiths were back when I was 13. I should've -- I was a fan of theirs back then. (Still am, in fact. Ever loyal me.)