I will attempt to interpret these programs through a foil; while I believe myself insufficently experienced as to be able to give a full and complete dissection, as say a trained Media or philosophy student might consider trying, I will nonetheless enjoy the arguments that will surely erupt from the attempt.
And now, as this space is free, I would like to spite the chap who, when I was writing a music article in late may, told me I should not write the phrase 'musical volcano', despite the fact that the music did, in its surroundings, evoke the effect of a musical volcano.
'Musical Volcano.' Hah!
Where you using the term Volcano as a descriptive term, as in to say that the music conjure volcanic imagery for example; the guitars erupted like a volcano. Or "the music swells and explodes like a volcano, dooming all those in its path to hideous death"
ReplyDeleteOr was it perhaps a suggesting a coming together of various instruments slowly combining as one like an eruption, perhaps similar to the way the end of a A Day In The Life or National Anthem is described as Thunderstorm.
Or was it the description of an artist or act in general as volcanic, lumbering but deadly?
I can't see why anyone would object to any of the above were it used correctly.
Or did you use it in an inappropriate and uncomfrotable way like the sentence "Nick Bruschi is a sexual tyrannosaurus"?