Critics

[kaleb]

The poll says it all.

 

I don't like the idea of professional music critics at all. That should be left to the people.

 

It's somebody else telling you whether or not to buy an album. Last I checked, that wasn't up to anyone besides yourself. I don't need a "professional's" opinion.

 

And this doesn't just apply to music.

[dem00n]

Only really this guy, because he always want peoples music views to be based neutrally. A very true way to view music is what he tries to teach other people, to listen not judge by looks or what other people tell you; judge for your self.

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-tfzOugUmCA&feature=g-all-u

[kaleb]

Only really this guy, because he always want peoples music views to be based neutrally. A very true way to view music is what he tries to teach other people, to listen not judge by looks or what other people tell you; judge for your self.

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-tfzOugUmCA&feature=g-all-u

 

I love some of those Youtube guys. But I loathe "real" critics. Rolling Stone, Creem (is that still around?), Circus, anything like that can go jump off a ledge.

 

Maybe critics are okay for "sophisticated" forms of music, but as far as rock n' roll and heavy metal go, it's a people's game.

[Murph]

"The reason music critics all like Elvis Costello is because they all LOOK like Elvis Costello." Diamond Dave......

[ShredAstaire]

This is where people get it wrong...

 

Everyone is a critic...everyone. You like what you like and you don't like what you don't.

 

These cats just get paid to write about it. They aren't telling you what to like and what not to...they are telling you how THEY feel about the song/album/band in question. Who are you to dispute their opinion even if it doesn't match yours?

 

Whining about critics is about as productive as doing whippits...I don't get it.

[DanvillRob]

Opinions are like butt holes....every body has one!

[Namvet]

Opinions are like butt holes....every body has one!

 

Very true. As individuals, we each like what we like. Personally, I don't appreciate someone else telling me or suggesting I need to like something.

[ShredAstaire]

Very true. As individuals, we each like what we like. Personally, I don't appreciate someone else telling me or suggesting I need to like something.

 

Wait...so if someone suggests that you might like a band, you don't check them out? Just on principle? That sounds silly.

[zigzag]

If a critic does his job properly, he can be of some value, but not much, to the music industry. A critic has two responsibilities: 1) as someone who can relate an artistic experience to someone who is unable to experience a piece first hand, 2) as someone who can assign the significance and relevance to a work of art.

 

A critic's primary function is to describe how successful an artist is at satisfying certain relevant interests involved in a work of art, period. If he fails at this, he is useless.

[LPguitarman]

Any critic business, music, movies, etc... is stupid IMO. What makes one person's opinion better than anyone else's.

 

But that's just my opinion. No better or no worse than anyone else's.

[rct]

"I made 40 million last year. I care about a 40 thousand a year critic?"

Lars Ulrich

 

 

rct

[Vega1]

I don't really listen to them, but i don't have a problem with their existence either.

 

The ones that do bother me most are the ones that drone on and on and then at the end you have no idea whether they liked what they were reviewing or not (I'm looking at you movie critic on "CBS Sunday Morning").

[milod]

Well...

 

As one who technically might be said to have been a music critic...

 

There are a cupla problems involved here. "We" tend to look at it from the musicians perspective and no, the "classical" musicians are also up for criticism, sometimes far nastier than anything one might see for "pop" genres.

 

Here's the deal: A record? What's it like? Is it consistent within the genre or if different, how? How's the mix? Does it seem to drone on and on? Is it "new" either in terms of its genre or is it breaking a new ground for the band/solo artist?

 

Live performance? Even assuming it's an old favorite artist/band, how did it work in the venue? Could you actually hear it well? What was the crowd like and their response?

 

In some cases, was the artist/band late or were there performance issues either on the part of the performer/band or the venue and/or venue management?

 

Guys here have been very, very critical of Clapton at least at some stages of his career. Functionally that's also being a "critic" who is getting published because "we" have read about it here.

 

Ditto criticism of "old" Mick Jagger still performing on stage. Etc., etc.

 

So at least with reference to many of us, to criticize many of those who write about performances, especially if there is an ongoing local series... I don't see the problem.

 

I've been on both sides. As a performer of one sort or another since I was a very young child, I personally never tried to be nasty even when I've had performers be personally nasty to me - luckily a very, very rare occasion. But I think if there's going to be a repeat performance or you're selling a record, a given readership has a right to know more or less what's there. That's enough to fill a daily newspaper column by itself.

 

Also, I don't think I look at all like Elvis Costello, nor am I particularly a fan.

 

m

[J.R.M.30!]

I like seeing people challenge or inhance the ideas the artist comes up with. To me good art shares a breadth of knowledge that sometimes the artist can't vocalize on their own. These critics bring out points through their own experiences/knowledge to help with the audience in deciphering art work. It's not totally black and white, as if you like it or not. A good critic can actually help the public rather than scorn the artist.

[kaleb]

Here's my example...

 

Say what you want about KISS, but the critics that bash them absolutely do not get it. It's supposed to be fun and corny. Maybe they are bubblegum, but that's okay. I get a kick out of "Yummy Yummy". Do I take it seriously in the same manner that I would a Thin Lizzy or Rush song? No, I don't. But I understand. They call it bubblegum for a reason. It's the same with KISS (it takes some growing up to admit that), just not as bubblegum. And the critics (Rolling Stone magazine) don't get it. Yet, they will praise Madonna and Michael Jackson when it's just as entertainment over music as KISS.

 

And the critics calling Rush "pretentious" back in the day was totally uncalled for as the critics seem to be pretentious, Go figure, they hate KISS!

[heymisterk]

In general, I often find myself agreeing with critics, even if I am not a huge fan of the band: R.E.M., Radiohead, and Bruce Springsteen come to mind.

 

The bands I love - Beatles, Zeppelin, Pearl Jam, Bon Iver, Rolling Stones - generally get very good critical reviews, at least now.

 

I think a lot of hair bands from the '80s were rightfully scorned by the critics.

 

I don't like KISS or Rush, though I at least respect Rush.

 

On the other hand, I still regularly listen to John Denver's Greatest Hits, so go figure!

[kaleb]

In general, I often find myself agreeing with critics, even if I am not a huge fan of the band: R.E.M., Radiohead, and Bruce Springsteen come to mind.

 

The bands I love - Beatles, Zeppelin, Pearl Jam, Bon Iver, Rolling Stones - generally get very good critical reviews, at least now.

 

I think a lot of hair bands from the '80s were rightfully scorned by the critics.

 

I don't like KISS or Rush, though I at least respect Rush.

 

On the other hand, I still regularly listen to John Denver's Greatest Hits, so go figure!

 

Well, even KISS and Rush are getting good critical reviews now because they've lasted this long. RS1976 is right, KISS is like McDonalds. You don't need a critic for your opinion.

 

I don't care for none of those three....R.E.M. bores me to death, Radiohead I just don't care for, and Bruce Springsteen is overrated IMHO. All of his songs sound the same to me.

 

There's two kinds of hair bands: the ones that took their cues from Van Halen and Zeppelin (Dokken, Ratt), and the ones that took their cues from KISS (Motley Crue, Poison, Bon Jovi, etc). The former usually is good, and the latter is what made hair metal a bad term (although I like Motley's first two records).

 

I personally don't care for "alternative" rock. I love the more underground scene of hard rock and heavy metal. All these newer groups (like Graveyard, Skeletonwitch, and Mastodon), plus older bands like Y&T and Tesla.

 

And I like Twisted Sister. They have class. They have a couple things in common with KISS (makeup, anthems), but I think they're more like Alice Cooper than KISS. IMHO, Dee Snider was (still is) the Alice of the 80s. On That Metal Show, Jay Jay French lambasted KISS for their marketing stuff. And I'll always respect what Dee has done for metal in general with all the PMRC crap.

[milod]

My memories include dozens of accusations of musicians, especially the folkies, getting too commercial, marketing, etc., etc.

 

But the ones who actually made enough cash to eat without their friends and/or followers supporting them as though they were Buddhist monks were the ones who realized they hadda please an audience one way or another.

 

For some reason I think that ain't changed much whenever "we" have attempted to make our living from music, whether we're a a lute picker or a baroque composer or...

 

But that's true regardless of the art and the life of an artist. Me, I always liked to know if possible where my next meal might come from. Given there have been times I didn't know when or if, perhaps I'm not terribly judgmental of those who have taken a combination of audience appeal, luck and ability into a decent lifestyle - at least after they realized they didn't want the initial successful lifestyle to kill them first.

 

m

[Izzy]

I belong to a site called Goodreads.

The whole point to it is, after you read a book, you mark it as read, give it stars and review it.

You can see other people's reviews on all the books they've read.

 

I LOVE it because I can press a button that compares what I have read to what another reader read and it tells me what they thought of the books we both read. If we have a high compatability, say we both hated the same books and loved the same books, I can see what other books that person loved and I will most definately consider reading them.

 

If you find a critic that shares your views repeatedly, their reviews can be a marker for things to discover.