The British are known to be masters of understatement. Their cautious use of language is matched only by a handful of other nations in the world. However, when the spoken word is turned into newspaper print, the transformation is too often as tasteless as the alteration in the behaviour of English football fans departing their own shores. Could it be that this contradictory nature between the discourses of speech and writing is due to a persistent hangover rooted by Victorian behaviour codes and Shakespearean figurativeness respectively? Whatever the reason, one would think that in 400 years, even the Brits would take the process of national reinvention slightly further.

The British music press is divided roughly like their newspapers. The alternative music magazines, such as NME and The Fly, are similar to the tabloids and the more mainstream releases, for instance the music section of The Guardian and (for my surprise as much as yours) Q, compare with the broadsheets. This polarisation might be a bit harsh and many times inaccurate but there is a large grain of truth in it as well when you take a closer look at the styles the magazines tend to use.

These style differences are most notably present in their record reviews that are an essential part of any music release. The fact is that it's fairly simple to write a successful review if you have some knowledge of the music you are writing about. Therefore, you don't have to be Oscar Wilde to scribble one. However, the alternatives clearly think differently. It seems as if they are trying to stand out from the mainstream in the same way as the tabloids deviate from the broadsheets by constantly attempting to be so bloody cleaver and witty. The writers splash figurative devices as if their lexicon consisted of nothing else and drown the 100-word reviews so deep in metaphor, simile and hyperbole (in language and in tone) that instead of successfully fulfilling the purpose of the reviews, the pieces only achieve in being melting pots of indulgent trash writing. This happens because the blatantly obscure language turns the focus away from the music towards the smug reviewer who in his/ her self-complacency fails miserably in deceiving being anywhere near of wittiness. In stead, the writer only hits the spot of superficial dullness. Or what do you think of this gem of a review featured in the March issue of The Fly:

"The debut album from Sweden's Jeniverever is a beauteous little treasure of atmospherics that is so unequivocally of itself that it seems to reflect its own image back, with each track possessed of a kind of meta-ambience that hears its own call. There's a disorienting closeness here that leaves you grappling for points of origin, like time itself is a dream that dreams itself awake. Morning glorious."

Indeed, Jeniverever's music is beautiful and atmospheric but what the bloody hell does "time itself is a dream that dreams itself awake" mean concerning the actual music? If you want to be a poet, write poetry. But I wouldn't encourage the reviewer to quit his/ her day job just yet. After reading such a review, you feel puzzled and have no idea what kind of music the review is describing. And shouldn't the description be the primary purpose of writing the piece in the first place?

Another feature that labels the alternatives is their false consciousness of superiority. Doubtlessly, the elitist and arrogant style is a set feature in their writing guidelines but it doesn't make their condescending attitude any more justifiable. They write as if they know it all and have a tendency of building colossal hype around too many bands by toting them all to be the next big thing. Occasionally, they also sink as low as a well-known weekly express did by claiming something as preposterous as being the magazine that discovered The Arctic Monkeys. Let's face it, we would all do something as silly and desperate like this if we were clinging to the last scraps of our dignity by our teeth. Nevertheless, I don't think that the thousands of fans that really found The Monkeys on their myspace were that impressed about the claim. In short, the alternatives are like so many of the new Brit bands: Outwardly glimmering glitterati who adapt their style according to whatever is fashionable that week but inwardly as dull as a granny's tea party.

In contrast, the mainstream generally keeps it very simple. They use fairly uncomplicated language and seem to have a set but flexible structure guidelines of what a review should look like. So, after reading a review from The Guardian, for instance, you might not have learned any new words you never knew existed but you do tend to have an idea about the music. Keeping these aspects in mind, compare this sample from a review featured in The Guardian (August 25, 2006) to The Fly one:

"They've cut back on the orchestration – swooping violins are scarce, though spacey keyboards still dart nimbly in and out of the rush of guitars - but remain knee deep in lush melodies, the songs much lighter than their Smiths-like titles imply. Ticket to Immortality sees singer Murray Lightburn cooing like a contemplative Damon Albarn and the ominous Death Or Life We Want You could be a choice track from Blur's album 13. Lightburn dusts off his Morrissey impression for the soulful Bandwangoneers, but the arch David Bowie pose he strikes during Hate Then Loves suits him more. Lyrically, Lightburn still wrestles with his outsider status, but the Dears have never sounded so comfortable in their own skin."

There is enough flash and flair even to keep the alternative reader of The Fly interested but this writer doesn't try to indulge herself by throwing the whole dictionary of flashy and obscure words at us. The mainstream does not try to impress anyone by being cool and youthful nor deceive themselves of being better than the rest of us. And most importantly, they take music as it comes and do not pay attention to the hype machine shadowing the current flavour of the month (although, Q is known to make that mistake). Consequently, their attitude seems to be that if the music is good, it's good and that's all there is to it. Hell, they might even go as far as giving good reviews for a new electroclash album. Although, we all know that electroclash is soooo last year.

Of course, there's nothing wrong with being a tad figurative. Neither does writing always have to be so grave, particularly pop music journalism. It is just the way the alternatives write that is so cheap and egocentric that it makes you want to set magazine shelves on fire. They write as if they were not simply writing record reviews (which is of course exactly what they are doing) but something much grander. And even if they insist of trying to be the next Shakespeare, they are forgetting one crucial thing: The source of wittiness is not found from the words used, it's found from the way they are used. And because there is only so much that can be said in a single short review, they should keep in mind that by saying less they might even succeed conveying more.

Teksti: Markus Kitunen