Don't blame the critics

[Katie14 4,828]

7 hours ago, Jed said:

But who are you to say that those lyrics are authentic? Just because you're a fan and the lyrics are religious in nature doesnt mean your viewpoint is more valid than the critics. I actually think sinners prayer is an AMAZING song but that doesn't mean I think the album overall is a 4/5 or 5/5

 

maybe y'all should stop making excuses for other people's opinions and start remembering that your own opinion is the only one that matters

Me mentioning christianity and god was just an example. Im not talking specifically about this album. You are missing my entire point. My point in that the quality of music should not be judged based on the perceived authenticity of the artist. 

[kizurl 1,801]

Critics do what they do based on objectivity and with that comes framework and guidelines.

Gaga breaks rules all the time, even her own. She re-invents herself and receives scrutiny for inconsistencies in her work. I think critics are hard on her because they wouldn't be able to judge her work unless they put her in a box, which she is constantly escaping from.

But, I completely get why she gets branded as shlocky or pastiche. Its because of her versatile nature that gets her perceived as 'wearing the music' rather than being the music itself.

 

 

[Ronk 14,761]

3 hours ago, Turbogirl said:

 

You are way too sweet / kind. Honestly your compliment made my entire year!

At some point, the thought popped into my head that I had thrown shade at Pitchfork for being long winded, and then realized my post was also starting to become long winded lol. So I appreciate anyone that took the time to read it.

I should also say, having spent a lot of time in the industry on the media side of things, I've gotten to know a lot of critics as people. And with that, I've gotten a pretty good understanding how certain publications are ran.

Let me just say that, more often then not - most reviews are not the sole opinion of the reviewer. Well, sort of. This gets a bit tricky. But a lot of publications decide ahead of time how they feel about an album. And then they select a reviewer (or someone requests it) that is going to represent that view.

So if a site hates a certain artist or genre, it doesn't matter if a single person on the staff loves it, they are going to go with someone that echoes the group. Now, maybe that's not so bad. After all, don't you think reviews should best represent the entire publication as opposed to one person?

Well, I think it is bad. And here is why. The biggest problem with this way of reviewing, is that it creates echo chambers. You have groups of people that already have pre-conceived ideas of who they like and hate. It means some artists never had a chance in hell to get a good review from that publication. It means they aren't taking each album as its own thing.

But it also takes things away from the individual critic - and their analysis. It becomes more about someone writing to an already agreed upon opinion from a group, rather then it be a well educated critical break down.

Best way I can describe it, is its like high school / college level writing. Like someone just getting an assignment. And I knew a lot of places that did this.

Well regarded newspapers and publications like that - still leave their critics alone. So they are much closer to how criticism used to be. But most major music publications function more like a machine. And a big part of that machine working is hiring interns out of college that are picking up assignments (something for their resume). 

This is a far cry from the past, where critics were expected to almost be scholars and have a deep education / background on the medium. And I think people are really starting to notice the shift in quality of criticism on the whole.

But ultimately, as long as a review is well written, that is the best you can ask for. Even if you strongly disagree with that critic.

From your experience in the industry I now understand why your posts are so scholarly and well thought out.   I love the way you write.  I take many college cinema courses to help improve my work in my hobby of producing videos.  The reading assignments in these courses are not written by reviewers or critics, but instead are written by revered, knowledgeable, scholarly people who objectively write about the art of cinema, the techniques, styles, and approaches.   Your posts are worded much like how they write.

[StrawberryBlond 14,787]

19 hours ago, Jed said:

@StrawberryBlond see I always look forward to responses like yours (specifically from you) but a lot of people on here don't know how to actually read arguments and address points

So, you think what I have to say is valid, even if you don't agree? I know what you mean, though, it can be tiresome to see people who just mindlessly hate without explanation. I believe in saying whatever you want so long as you say it with purpose.

12 hours ago, Turbogirl said:

A critics opinion can be whatever it wants to be, as long as it's well written and their views are articulated well.

While it's easy to say this is just backlash from a dedicated fan base against poor reception, I feel it's actually a backlash against modern critics in general.

I used to be a professional critic in the tv / film industry - as well as the music industry. I've worked for professional outlets, and have thus crossed paths with a lot of well known critics and publications.

So I feel I have some insight. But the "art" of criticism has drastically shifted in the last 15 years. The internet and the era of the "blogger" and social media had a profound impact on the medium.

Critics used to be well educated on the medium they covered. Almost like scholars. Criticism was about placing a piece of art within the context of its peers (and the medium). But criticism has shifted to it being more about the critic who inserts themselves into the review, as the focus is more on their experience and how they feel.

I think those aspects are valid in a review, but should not be the sole focus of one. Too much focus has been shifted to the reviewer instead of them analyzing the art itself.

The other trend, is for critics to talk about the artist themselves - and various outside factors, without critiquing the music itself. Pitchfork is notorious for writing long winded essays that don't connect the actual music being reviewed. But this is something I see a lot of critics do.

And I think people are getting tired of it. To an extent, critics have become tastemakers - and you follow your trusted critics to recommend you stuff. They have become more of a consumer guide. 

Truth be told, anyone can become a critic. You don't need education on the subject you are covering. And that is disappointing. You still have to be a good writer (well not always but lol) - but being a good writer, doesn't mean you have a good grasp on the medium. Which is why I feel most critics revert to talking about the artist personal life and outside cultural elements to try to craft a narrative. Modern critics love narratives, and rely heavily on them.

This isn't to say there aren't fans that are just being salty. Let's be real, a lot of people aren't capable of taking criticism of their favorite things. Even if a review was well written, some fans would still call the review crap.

I actually find reviews that have an opposite opinion of mine - to be more interesting and helpful. Reading reviews that just echo my own thoughts, doesn't tell me anything new. And I don't need validation. People with different opinions can get me to think about my own opinions. They can get me to see the album in a different light (even if we don't end up agreeing).

But I still think most people are tired of modern criticism, and to be honest it's gotten pretty bad.

I understand that a lot and really appreciate your insight. Tell me - is it true that critics can be bribed for good reviews by certain labels? I know it happens in other industries, it must totally happen in the music industry too. I just see too much positivity towards music that is clearly not aimed at critics that I'm tempted to call foul play. To see them praise immature music from certain artists but not others, not mention anything about bad vocals for some artists but criticise them in others, praise generic production from some but criticise layered production from others is just too suspicious. I think some labels care too much about the reputation of certain artists under their care and are too afraid of the wrath of their ego if the reviews are bad.

8 hours ago, Jed said:

AKA I need a charts position to rationalize how I feel about a piece of art.

theres my whole point - y'all find too much meaning in things that don't matter 

That's what a lot of critics do though - let the commercial performance of singles pre-album determine if they will support or put down an album. Same with general public reception of said artist. If you have 2 show-stopping hits pre-album and the public in general have a great image of you, you will get good reviews, fact. But if you're going through a bad patch, the critics happily twist the knife in deeper. I feel like shouting to these people through a loudhailer: "You are a professional with a degree so grow up! You're not in high school! These reviews can make or break an artist's career, here!"

8 hours ago, Naufri said:

Is funny that a lot of indie guys making commercial music in this album aren't accused of selfselling or make music inauthentic music with her, but is her the one is blamed all the time.

At the end is the same old story, pop is a lowbrow genre, and a pop girl only can trascend if she abandon and put totally in charge alternative artists of her album a la Lemonade/beyonce.

If Gaga would have removed all of her tics and signs of identity, and let the guys writing all the stuff, the metascore would be 80 by now.

So true. There are certain people who get treated better in the music industry and being male is a major advantage. You get away with so much sub-par material when you're male. They're just viewed as better songwriters in general. They're also viewed as naturally more authentic, not as willing to sell out as women are, not willing to hide behind a mask. So, they get respected more. But honestly, at this point, I don't know if anything she does can make the critics be fairer to her. My only hope is that she blows up after the SB, people start taking an interest in her like never before and she starts getting long overdue praise (plus, the album with Tony next year will help). That will start to make the critics think twice. Like I said before, critics hate to look like fools in the eyes of the public. If the public embrace Gaga, the critics will start to show her fairness in reviews again. Because they've got no backbone, convictions or minds of their own.

3 hours ago, Turbogirl said:

At some point, the thought popped into my head that I had thrown shade at Pitchfork for being long winded, and then realized my post was also starting to become long winded lol. So I appreciate anyone that took the time to read it.

I should also say, having spent a lot of time in the industry on the media side of things, I've gotten to know a lot of critics as people. And with that, I've gotten a pretty good understanding how certain publications are ran.

Let me just say that, more often then not - most reviews are not the sole opinion of the reviewer. Well, sort of. This gets a bit tricky. But a lot of publications decide ahead of time how they feel about an album. And then they select a reviewer (or someone requests it) that is going to represent that view.

So if a site hates a certain artist or genre, it doesn't matter if a single person on the staff loves it, they are going to go with someone that echoes the group. Now, maybe that's not so bad. After all, don't you think reviews should best represent the entire publication as opposed to one person?

Well, I think it is bad. And here is why. The biggest problem with this way of reviewing, is that it creates echo chambers. You have groups of people that already have pre-conceived ideas of who they like and hate. It means some artists never had a chance in hell to get a good review from that publication. It means they aren't taking each album as its own thing.

But it also takes things away from the individual critic - and their analysis. It becomes more about someone writing to an already agreed upon opinion from a group, rather then it be a well educated critical break down.

Best way I can describe it, is its like high school / college level writing. Like someone just getting an assignment. And I knew a lot of places that did this.

Well regarded newspapers and publications like that - still leave their critics alone. So they are much closer to how criticism used to be. But most major music publications function more like a machine. And a big part of that machine working is hiring interns out of college that are picking up assignments (something for their resume). 

This is a far cry from the past, where critics were expected to almost be scholars and have a deep education / background on the medium. And I think people are really starting to notice the shift in quality of criticism on the whole.

But ultimately, as long as a review is well written, that is the best you can ask for. Even if you strongly disagree with that critic.

That's another great post. I notice this too - I believe the same critic should do all the reviews, quite honestly. There's no consistency if someone with very different tastes reviews an album from an artist that a different reviewer did last time. You can't trust a publication if its tastes are all over the place. That's why I value the reviews of lone critics a lot more, with the exception of Slant Magazine (most of the time). If it's always the same person, there's consistency and from consistency comes trust from the reader.

[Jed 7,716]

3 hours ago, Fantina said:

And i can accept that,but girl you are critiquing the music not the artists behind them.For example as much as I hate Justin Bieber i can't say that his records suck because he is awful towards his fans!

Critics should find a way to make the songs and music anonymous so the don't know who is singing so they can give a fair assessment!I can bet you 100 dollars that if Beyonce made this record the critics would have labeled it as the best record of all time and give it 100/100 on Metacritic!

You can bet however much money you'd like but at the end of the day you'd never be able to cash in because that's an impossible scenarios. If you think this is a 100/100 album that's fantastic but don't let your opinions blind you - Beyoncé isn't to blame (and it's really disgusting that you're the fifth person to bring her up)

[Jed 7,716]

@StrawberryBlond yes I do think you're making valid points - and I don't even disagree with most of them

whats really bothering me now is how many people are somehow blaming Beyoncé now? I'm so sick of people undervaluing her entirely out of jealousy. It's more than not being a fan of hers at this point it's an irrational hatred which I think is rooted in her race TBH

[StrawberryBlond 14,787]

2 hours ago, Jed said:

@StrawberryBlond yes I do think you're making valid points - and I don't even disagree with most of them

whats really bothering me now is how many people are somehow blaming Beyoncé now? I'm so sick of people undervaluing her entirely out of jealousy. It's more than not being a fan of hers at this point it's an irrational hatred which I think is rooted in her race TBH

Well, they're bringing up Beyonce a lot (I haven't done it here but I have done elsewhere) because it's well known that she's protected in this industry. Having Jay as her husband and her manager ensures that she's allowed to do what she wants and that she gets respected. And she's rich enough to buy so much positive PR that the critics love her before she even puts an album out. She gets all the best advertising and promo. She gets an unfair advantage, basically. If she didn't have all this, she probably wouldn't be getting the reviews that she is. When someone like me says something against her, it's met with shock. That's how powerful she is. But I don't care what status someone is - if they need to get criticised, I will do it. I don't undervalue her out of jealousy (though I am frustrated that other much more deserving artists don't get her respect) but just because I don't think her music is all that for the most part and her attitude infuritates me.

Now, about the race thing - it's far too simplistic to put it down to that. Is it really so hard to imagine that someone could dislike a black artist for their music and personality, just like a white artist?  But it's funny, I was just talking about this the other day elsewhere on this forum. I brought up how black artists get more respected by critics. I review so many albums a year that I can easily spot trends and looking through my book of reviews, I note how it's uncanny how white artists encounter a lot more mixed reception as opposed to the overabundance of positive acclaim that black artists receive (particularly white females vs black females). White artists tend to be criticised for inauthenticity a lot more than black artists, who are praised for being honest and real, even when they're making the same kind of record. Black artists are thought to have more soul than whites, not to mention better rap skills. White artists are quick to be called out on bad vocals, black artists not so much (even in the case of certain rappers sounding completely baked and out of it) and black artists can go through a bad image with the public but still get positive reviews unlike white artists. It's not the most PC of observations but it's just what I've seen. If it was eveidence supporting the opposite, I'd say it too (and that conclusion would be accepted). But, unfortunately, it's the conclusion that I, as a non-racist liberal, have to acknowledge. Sometimes, we have to look past what we're told to believe and look at the reality of the situation. I'm not saying that the critics are racist against whites, just that they seem to be exercising a clear bias based on ideals of blacks being masters of music and whites lacking soul. Don't know if that's what Taylor Momsen was talking about in the lyrics: "Oh my God, I wish I was black, wish I had soul and my music attacked, I am so white, white as the sun, just like with Eve, take it down to the one"...but I know what she means. I don't care what someone's race is, I will judge the music fairly, with absolutely no racial stereotypes to guide me. To give allowances goes against your job as a critic.

[Fantina 3,346]

4 hours ago, Jed said:

You can bet however much money you'd like but at the end of the day you'd never be able to cash in because that's an impossible scenarios. If you think this is a 100/100 album that's fantastic but don't let your opinions blind you - Beyoncé isn't to blame (and it's really disgusting that you're the fifth person to bring her up)

You obviously misunderstood me,i LOVE Beyonce and i would never disrespect her in any way.I love Lemonade and it deserves the recognition it gets!What i meant was that some people are just favored by critics and I brought up Beyonce because of how much great reviews the album received.

Everyone knows that some critics dislike(i coudn't find the correct word for it) artists like Gaga for instance and they allow that to interfere with their critiquing!

I don't think Joanne deserves 100/100 I just said that if it was released by another favored artist that it would have gotten a much higher score!!!

Sadly,we live in an era where people are judged instead of their music and i sometimes just can't stand that!!!

 

[Jed 7,716]

2 hours ago, Fantina said:

You obviously misunderstood me,i LOVE Beyonce and i would never disrespect her in any way.I love Lemonade and it deserves the recognition it gets!What i meant was that some people are just favored by critics and I brought up Beyonce because of how much great reviews the album received.

Everyone knows that some critics dislike(i coudn't find the correct word for it) artists like Gaga for instance and they allow that to interfere with their critiquing!

I don't think Joanne deserves 100/100 I just said that if it was released by another favored artist that it would have gotten a much higher score!!!

Sadly,we live in an era where people are judged instead of their music and i sometimes just can't stand that!!!

 

Sorry for the misunderstanding sweetie 

[OMF 3,431]

In the end the album went number 1 in over 70 countries. Score is ok. Keep in mind that Joanne isn't as "fresh" in terms of music sound and some of these reviewers might be familiar with other indie or hipster artists who have produced similar sounds over the year. To them it may not be as new or original, that doesn't mean they don't like it. 

[SilkSpectre0 547]

On 21 October 2016 at 7:45 PM, Jed said:

Actually it puts the album in context. If she's switching the genre that inspires her and they think it's an inauthentic transition they have to mention the past transitions that they've made

But gaga has said many times she doesn't see her albums in the context of the others. Each one is a fresh journey

[SilkSpectre0 547]

20 hours ago, giskardsb said:

The issue is "authenticity" isn't something that can actually be known.  Only the artist knows.  When a critic uses it against Gaga it automatically means they are assigning motivations to her based on their own biases about her.

This. I have yet to see them give an example of what's inauthentic about Joanne. And like you said why does it matter? They called gaga inauthentic when she wrapped her message in loads of metaphors and yet if she makes it more direct she still isn't authentic! I don't get it. 

[StrawberryBlond 14,787]

@Jed I hope you didn't take offence to what I said regarding black artists. Please realise that I have full respect for any talent regardless of race and there are lots of great black artists out there, some of which have made albums that are on my list of all-time favourites and who I consider to be some of my favourite albums. Please don't see what I said about a racial bias in reviews have been a defence of white artists but rather, a defence of art and the way it's reviewed. I think if a black artist makes a good album, it should be praised, but as should an album by someone of any other race, if it's of the same quality. But if a black artist makes a bad album, it should be criticised just as harshly as an album from someone of another race. I don't believe in judging anyone based on anything other than their character and in this case, talent. I have actually spoken up about perceived racism in the industry before but I also believe in calling out perceived inconsistency and unfairness in the industry in many other ways too. There's so much shadiness in the industry and I think it should all be called out. I really hope you haven't read anything racist into what I said, but just know that this is not the way I intended it to come across.

And for the record, I think Lemonade's ok, but not amazing (apart from Don't Hurt Yourself).

5 hours ago, SilkSpectre0 said:

This. I have yet to see them give an example of what's inauthentic about Joanne. And like you said why does it matter? They called gaga inauthentic when she wrapped her message in loads of metaphors and yet if she makes it more direct she still isn't authentic! I don't get it. 

That's because critics are unfair to pop artists, wanting them to stay in that genre. The idea is that if you do pop, you've sold out, so you're therefore fake. And it doesn't matter what you do afterwards, the idea that you were once pop is going to follow you, you can't be a serious artist who's in it for the music. Someone who had made music like Joanne all their career would have had much better reviews if they had released it because the critics have a handle on who they are and have already decided that they're authentic. Critics can be a bit more favourable to a manufactured male popstar having an artistic makeover (Justin Timberlake) but not a manufactured female (not even Xtina's Stripped album, which is considered by many to be her magnum opus, could get decent reviews from critics, a fact that has baffled me). Being a pop female is very tricky, unless you're Taylor Swift. You get the perks of hit singles, big album sales, big tours and every fan-voted pop award going...but also the lows no Grammys wins or even nominations, your label refusing to let you go in a new direction, disrespect from the older generation of the public and a much more frosty reception from critics. I find it all quite sad that critics have such a close-minded view of artists, that they can't wait to put them in a box and never let them out. That they think what they are is what they'll always be, that they cannot grow up and develop their music into something much better.

[Jed 7,716]

@StrawberryBlond don't worry I wasn't offended I just know that to give the responses your posts warrant I need to actually carve out five minutes so I can give it my full attention

i think white artists making "black music" isn't as much of an issue when the music is really good. I can't think of as many modern examples but Lily Allens Alright, Still was received well and people said her personality came off as genuine.

in R&B there was this singer Teena Marie and she did very well in the genre despite being white. In fact part of the way they marketed her involved not showing her face so black fans could connect with her before realizing she's a white girl lol 

also now that I'm thinking about it MANY African Americans online were highly praising Gaga's Stevie Wonder tribute!

but I agree with you completely that pop stars are held to a different standard especially when they are white.. but I don't think Beyoncé singing this album over Gaga would make it a better received album I just don't 

[donutellha 13,819]

I'm perfectly fine with critics disliking or enjoying the album, even though the ARTPOP comparisons are redundant but when one of them goes around asking "why didnt they react to my troll review yet), it spoils the professionalism of the whole bunch.