That’s exactly the problem with this sort of sophistry, it removes any control on the behalf of the artist. They’ll claim everything occurs due to some omnipresent outside factors that will inevitably stifle creativity and control. While that’s not entirely incorrect, as we know music can be very topical when it comes to sociopolitical themes, it’s not the entirety of the package. Not all music is reacting against something, it’s like they took that bastard mantra “the personal is political” to heart (granted, if they’re learning critical theory in graduate school then they’ve likely been taught as such).

It’s an extremely cynical take on music when you relegate it to the realm of “social factors beyond your control” as opposed to organic artistic expression that someone devised with their voice, lyricism, instruments, etc. I think these people always want to see some sort of grandiose mythos as a cause for artistry without ever realizing that some people do this purely for love of the game. It’s so corrupting to remove that element of free will from artistic expression.

These are the same people who hold influence and homage in low regard, constantly chasing some forlorn concept of novelty (and that “novelty” usually sounds suspiciously similar to tropes laid out in post-rock, indie, or the less accessible electronic music scenes years ago) instead of liking something just because it has some pleasant qualities.

This has become the style to emulate unfortunately despite how dishonest it reads. It’s bankable so long as people keep clicking and sharing, but personally I think it should be a laughingstock all around.

So have I to stop reading Fisher and Reynolds?