We listen to music for how it changes us. That's why some old Greek classified modes and their effects on listeners and why Plato only approved of music that inspired men to fight wars. Or why some churchmen, or popes, banned certain keys as being the devil's domain. Or why Bill Russo's textbook on arranging gets specific about how to convey various emotions.
What you choose to practice during the day is what's likely to appear amidst the immediacy of your improvising at night. I think the most important part of a critic's job is to verbalize what the music communicates and the value of that communication - the life of the music - is it serious or trivial, fresh, personal, coherent, clever (or merely clever), and so on. I almost said "honest," but in the heat of improvisation a player can't be anything but honest. Obviously I'm drastically over-simplifying what a critic writes. My point is, a critic has reasons for his opinions, it's not the jerking of his knees. (And as Bernard Shaw once said, I'll find out if I liked it when I write my review.)
Back to Jack Cooke. His extensive Jazz Monthly survey of Eric Dolphy's recordings, written shortly after Dolphy's death, had such thoughtful detail and analysis that it, more than anything else, convinced me that writing about music could be a worthwhile occupation.