Music Critics and The General Public

[fabz]

Basically the article talks about the music that the general public loves but critics hate and vice versa and the reasons.

Music Critics are the arch nemesis of the Musicians. They write things that don't make sense and sometimes don't understand the music. They're subjective writings have destroyed the great works of many and uplifted the talentless.

Discuss.

http://entertainment.timesonline.co.uk/tol/arts_and_entertainment/music/article3492137.ece

[Idioteque]

Sometimes I listen to a allbum, then read the critics review, without ever having being exposed to criticism from anywhere. Oddly, my views typically match up with that of the critics. I don't know if this makes me a unbearable music snob, or if I just have really varied tastes.

Half of the stuff on the critics list appealed to me.

[timbot]

I liked the article and completely disagree with Fabz. I'm not exactly sure, either, what inspired that quick rant, either.
I think Edwards' article rings true in most forms of criticism. I know it does in the realm of literary criticism--which I am most familiar with--the same things happen. Critics often like things that the public hates, and hates things the public likes. And, just as he said, it's often simply a case of what weighs most in your opinion of the work. Which aspects do you think are most important.
I will agree a little bit with fabz and say that sometimes critics praise stuff that is utter trash. But, I think fabz goes too far. Very few, if any, great works have been "destroyed" by critics. The fact that critical flops have sold huge numbers shows that in the end, the public will listen to what they want, even if critics hate it, so the work is not destroyed.

On a different note, I'd like to say that I don't own a single album, not even one song, by any of the bands mentioned in either of the lists in that article. Kind of makes me feel special.

[Knight of Cydonia]

I would like to point out that everyone has there own music tastes. I might love a certain band and some people might hate. Some critics might hate a song which other critics like.It really depends on the person.

[Quadros]

The fact is that many music critics are on a neverending quest to out do each other with the most obscure music possible, often forgetting that THERE'S A REASON IT'S OBSCURE. I know this because I'm an on-off music critic who has worked with these cardigan wearing, tight trousered, rediculosly big haired fags on quite a few occasions. I hate it when they put on some rediculous samey crap and insist it's giving them an actual orgasm. Three undisputable facts.

1. Their latest album is shit and their older stuff is better. Yep, this is an undisputable fact, bands do not develop or learn they whither from their very begining.

2.If you've heard of them they're shit. Yep, they're crap and comercial bullshit and nothing like MY scene. But I'm wearing their shirt? Yeah but I got this ages ago before they SOLD OUT on their latest album. (see #1.)

3. The shitter it is the better it is and you're just to vulgar to get it. Don't you just love how the pretentious vocals clam around the nonsensical and talentless electical jarring like a bad smell? It's like SOOO OUT THERE AND REVOLUTIONARY! And yeah so the sound, play, sing, dress, act, talk and suck just like 'The Feeling', but it's ok because they're like TOTALLY UNDERGROUND (see #2) and they've not SOLD OUT (see #1).

I would like to point out that everyone has there own music tastes. I might love a certain band and some people might hate. Some critics might hate a song which other critics like.It really depends on the person.

No, all music critics (aprt from me, for course) are in fact clones of each other with one pretentious hive mind. And no I'm not joking.

[Matt]

I don't know about you guys, but I like getting my musical views from unqualified people that are paid to give reviews in mass amounts. Just like how Maxim reviewed The Black Crowes album without even listening to it (http://stereogum.com/archives/maxim-apparently-deems-actually-listening-to-the-m_008196.html).

[Casalen]

Critics suck, artsy people suck. That mentality that Quadros mentioned is in every artsy field; painting, filmmaking, sculpture, photography, etc. I live in an area especially filled with that crap. It also seems to relate to a grouping mentality a lot; it's not just a question of what they can get that we can't because they're smarter than us, but that the thing they're getting came from the right person with the right contacts and so forth. Otherwise it doesn't count. Not sure how much that applies to music, but I see it everywhere else certainly. Of course there are many exceptions, but generally critics don't seem to understand people like things they like, no matter how much you analysis the meaning behind it and whatnot.

As for exceptions... sometimes critics say things suck and they really do, the mentalities go both ways. When a proper critic says bad things, a lot of musicians will say it's just because he's a critic- clearly, the critic doesn't 'get it' like everyone else does, everyone else being better (to make them feel better about themselves).

[Mr.Tea]

Anyone trying to compare, debate, or criticize art is in fact an idiot.

[Idioteque]

You really expect the critics from a men's magazine to be good music critics?
I typically take critics reviews with a grain of salt, and I read a lot of them.
The Rolling Stone is excellent for music reviews if you can stomach the liberalism of the magazine.

[Quadros]

Anyone trying to compare, debate, or criticize art is in fact an idiot.

That's the stupidest thing anyone on these forums has ever said in the history of ever.

[Pelican Man]

Anyone trying to compare, debate, or criticize art is in fact an idiot.

Yes, because Simple Plan AREN'T shit, they're just different, right?

:rolleyes:

[xkittenxsocksx]

I read pitchfork every now and again,
does that make me an elitist ass?

[SWiTCH]

Music reviews are just opinions, and I would hope that most critics know that.

The point is that if a critic tends to share your views on what is good and what sucks, then you can depend on them to give a good impression of how good a new record will be (to you).

I think critiques tend to do a pretty good job deciding what's good and what's bad. Obviously, you can't just take one critic's word for it. If you read a lot of different opinions you will get a pretty good indicator of how good something is.

I depend on critics for videogames, because they're so expensive. If it doesn't get a damn good score on metacritic then I probably won't buy it, that method has served me well so far. At least I haven't bought any shit games.

Of course it's easier to tell if a videogame sucks than if a piece of music sucks.

It's a fact though that the general public likes shit music. Just like they vote for shit presidents, and shit american idols.

Music is not always subjective though. A song can be derivative trash regardless of whether people like it, and a lot of pop music is just that.

[Chocoholic]

You know how I determine if a cd is worth my money or not?
I use one of those cd sampler things at a music store, listen to the samples of tracks, and decide on whether or not to buy the cd. It works wonders.
The thing is, like most people have said, we all have a different taste in things. We can never really be sure if something is good or not until we've seen it, heard it, played it, read it, or whatever. Of course, we can also determine what we'll hate and love just by knowing what band/director/actor/author is involved.

But perhaps critics tend to hate the things the general public loves because they have to listen to it so damn much. Popular music is rarely diverse and you're going to have to listen to it all the fucking time (in stores, on the radio, etc.). They probably get a little pissed off.

[Shagg]

For the most part, I think critics do a fairly good job on determining an albums value; but some critics like to be the black sheep of the others and give it a shitty review even if it was gold. I guess that makes them more noticed or whatever...

Also the critics that pick the little things apart and rate it lower than it should because of something so trivial; those are the retarded critics.

[Hats of!]

Yeah, Music Critics are the most annoying assholes in existance, why? Yes, unlike Movie Critics or any other Critics they follow the annoying rules to what makes a good album.

1. Concept Albums about how silly life is. Okey, some Concepts about insanity and depression is really great, but every time some Post-Punk-Indie-Not-Quite-Metalish band makes a song or album about this, they're unique! So unique in fact that there is no reason to accuse My Chemical Romance for ripping of The Wall when it comes to The Black Parade.

2. Metal is a horrible genre. Well, aslong as it's not Metallica or something. There's no reason to why some Metal-Bands isn't as praised as some of the greater. I mean, who haven't seen someone walk around in a "And Justice For All" T-Shirt talking shit about metal. And many Critics just use the word Metal, they ignore the add-ons like Progressive, Death, Symphonic, hell, even Heavy.

3. The Grammy! Dark Side of the Moon didn't win album of the year. Neither any other great albums. But hey, sales doesn't matter, huh? By the way, since when is Jethro Tull metal? Speaking of Tull...

4. ALL PROGRESSIVE ROCK SHALL BE DESTRUCT! When was the last time you saw a critic talk about the greatness of Mars Voltas current album? I've only seen them talk about some album realesed by King Crimson as if they made a massive research, but then comment to the fact that, "progressive rock is dead..."

5, and last. Saying that Sex Pistols were untalanted is a mortal sin. I don't dare to carry a shirt saying that Sex Pistols sucks, I'm afraid to get my ass kicked by some twatt.

[kikii]

In all honesty I think critics have their reasons for making a negative or positive statement. although saying that most are just douches who wouldnt know a killer album if it tore their eardrums out.

Jet is a prime example of critics taring a band apart - granted their music was less than inspired, but it was their first album.
They were then thrown in to the "one hit wonder" bin and given no leaniancy to grow as a bad. As far I have not heard of any more pieces created by the band.

Listen to music for your own, not someone else's biased opinions. The greatest music lovers are those with unbiased choices.

[Profane Methane]

In all honesty I think critics have their reasons for making a negative or positive statement. although saying that most are just douches who wouldnt know a killer album if it tore their eardrums out.

Jet is a prime example of critics taring a band apart - granted their music was less than inspired, but it was their first album.
They were then thrown in to the "one hit wonder" bin and given no leaniancy to grow as a bad. As far I have not heard of any more pieces created by the band.

Listen to music for your own, not someone else's biased opinions. The greatest music lovers are those with unbiased choices.
Jet were crap though, and people didn't like them because people didn't like them. I know very few people who's opinions are swayed or changed by critics.

[Pelican Man]

As far I have not heard of any more pieces created by the band.

Any more since when? Since "Are You Gunna Be My Girl"? "Cold Hard Bitch"? Or one of their other 3 singles?

[spaj]

Critics are just that much better than we are at expressing their point of view. That's why we read their reviews; they always seem to have this innate ability to compare it to loads of bands you've never fucking heard of while simultaneously being able to tear down a piece of music to bits (or alternatively, placing it on a sky-high pedestal).

[Oofie]

The fact is that many music critics are on a neverending quest to out do each other with the most obscure music possible, often forgetting that THERE'S A REASON IT'S OBSCURE. I know this because I'm an on-off music critic who has worked with these cardigan wearing, tight trousered, rediculosly big haired fags on quite a few occasions. I hate it when they put on some rediculous samey crap and insist it's giving them an actual orgasm.

I may have read this the wrong way, but are you suggesting 'obscure' bands remain 'obscure' because they're not as good as mainstream ones? That's a shit way of justifying liking Blink182 and Sum 41 Quaddy. Lets take a look at the most popular music in terms of charts today. (http://www.mtv.com/music/charts/) Are you suggesting that music like this is better than Animal Collective or some other 'obscure' indie (I know you're primarily attacking indie) because it's better known?

I've had music reviews published too, but I tend to write about lesser known bands to encourage people to listen to new music, as opposed to writing reviews of bands everyone has heard songs from a thousand times over.

I may have just gotten the wrong end of the stick reading your post though. In which case nevermind :)

EDIT: also, didn't you hate Foals until you listened to them enough to write a review? Then you realised they are actually pretty awesome?

[Quadros]

No I'm saying it's better because it is.

[Oofie]

Leona Lewis and Usher are better, by your logic then, than Sonic Boom Six?

[Quadros]

What I'm saying is that a band being obscure doesn't make them good.

[Oofie]

That's not what you said at all. :indiff:
'THERE'S A REASON THEY'RE OBSCURE' implies 'no-one's heard of them because they're shit'.

.. But we're kind of getting off topic here. Yay critics.