In his piece about success of metal he gave it skin deep analysis.
After a post on Deathmetal.org I checked some of his writings. He tread carefully, because he walks into into wasp’s nest, but his thoughts are a standard set of fixed topics and “problems” to popularize within metal, to made it aware of them. His opinions indicates that he is first and foremost a Jew, and that goes beyond his overexposed national identity. I wouldn’t fell so low as to celebrate weak and essentially un-metal (unless metal means being rebellious to any common consensus as a rule) band only because it represents my culture. Thanks to being open with his intents and psychological attributes, he avoids potential accusations about dishonesty or promotion of irrelevant and distracting, not to mention transgressive. His primal, hostile “otherness” in dealings with chrisitianity is clear as well. He praise secondary cultural additions to otherwise universal and basic heavy music. That leaves impression, that he got a pop-listener perception. He only “thinks” that he understand, thanks to spending time on it and feeling some affinity. It seems to me, that one cannot be academic researcher first and foremost, because in fact professional distance prevents from recognition of subject in its whole magnitude. There’s always aftertaste, that while you can’t say about certain thesis, that they aren’t true, they are still somehow insignificant and shallow. Paradoxically professionalism demanded by academia is infantile.http://www.kahn-harris.org/category/the-best-water-skier-in-luxembourg/
It’s a crawling in trivialities and trying to derive from them higher meanings, the rationalistic way. He’s right on some points. Reality can’t be denied in its entirety even by most clueless. They stumble on it, but then make wrong conclusions.What he said about strength of small communities, or regional scenes is true, but one must first realize what Keith-Harris know - that they are always unified by some big principle.