that's insane... reviewers will give positives, negatives and indifferent reviews... shame to ignore an artist because of just one opinion!
normally i do the second-- the artistic process, thought and 'intention' of music fascinates me. it often isn't as apparent as a visual piece of art, and is far removed thematically and theoretically from the intentions of literature. understanding the mindset, the context and the aesthetic of the artist very often helps to appreciate their music as art and as a finely-crafted and thought-provoking piece. also, there's the obvious benefits associated with looking up lyrics or liner-notes to written-songs in order to aid your understanding of the verse-lyricism. reading the 'concept' behind many electronic albums brings them alive in a whole new light, though.
sometimes, although rarely, i'll be reading a high-art music monthly such as WIRE magazine that will feature a new, upcoming artist or will do a retrospective-study of 'x' discography. if the way they present the artist's material there is interesting enough, then i will go and check that particular musician/band/artist out. it's kind of like reading a book when you know the ending, though, and you start to wonder to what end you're listening to simply hear what the reviewer/essayist/critic has instructed you to 'hear' in the music through their secondary-work. still, though, i cannot lie.... this method has helped me to discover some fantastic artists, such as the back-catalogue of John Cage.
libertarian benefit collector - anti-academic super-intellectual.
http://mixlr.com/the-little-phrase/
