Music critics: music quality vs. music preference

[StrawberryBlond 14,579]

I've seen this idea circulating for a while ever since Joanne was released to a lot of mixed reviews. Some believe that as professionals, critics should be judging the music impartially. As a professional will have studied the art of music, they should know about what is credible and what is decent music from an unbiased point of view, respect the talent of the artist making it regardless as to what they personally think of it, etc. Essentially, the idea is that a critic provides a view that is based on complete objectivity. Subjectivity is left to the public. Seems like a pretty sound way of working...

But I'm not buying it. If this is indeed how critics are trained and encouraged to be, a lot of them are not doing their jobs correctly. If it is all about objectivity, Joanne would be rated a lot higher for its musical depth and there would be none of the personal dragging that goes on in reviews of her work, providing more a history of Gaga and her work (and a character and artistic assassination at that) as opposed to actually reviewing the album in question. If critics are so objective, why do they continuously praise albums where the singer has appalling vocals? Ear-splitting production? Generic, basic beats? Lyrics that a teenager would find too stupid to take seriously? Lyrics that should be in the dictionary under the word 'cliche'? Hailing albums as groundbreaking when they're clearly based on work that came before? There is no objectivity here. There are two types of critics - objective ones and ones that get bribed for good reviews. Don't pretend it doesn't happen.

But here's the thing - subjectivity is, in my opinion, the whole point of being a critic. I'm an amateur critic and I have always been proud of sharing my 100% unfiltered opinion on what is good and bad. I don't care if you're a legend or new on the scene. I don't care if you're young or old. I don't care if you're considered generic or artistic. I don't care what your reputation is like is a person. Just give me good music. I pride myself on having a very realistic, down-to-earth way of reviewing music. I don't hesitate to call out pretentiousness or trying too hard. I believe there's such a thing as 'good generic.' I think albums should be understandable and not wrapped in bizarre phrasing to confuse listeners. I think more critics should realise that a lot of people buy albums based on their reviews and unfortunately, their take on things is too high faluting for the everyman. There doesn't seem to be a real 'people's critic' out there. I think rating an album based on anything other than how it made you feel personally, is dishonest. If a critic can't give an honest opinion, how are the public supposed to judge how good it actually is? And besides, there is no such thing as complete objectivity in music. Our ears interpret sounds differently and we simply can't be forced into thinking something's good if our ears aren't agreeing. I think some of you know by now the very harsh opinion I have of professional critics, so I won't elaborate too much. Even I think some of the sexual analogies I used went a bit far.

Share your views and any rants about critics here.

[Roanoke 337]

Who read that out ....not me ....but I think Music preference Is more important tho , in the case with Joanne . First page thoo YAAAS effortless promo. But ya..Im gonna read it out to see what mess I just posted.

[gagzus 15,655]

I personally don't see the point in critics at all they're simply paid to give an opinion and are as credible as reviews from the public just using better wording and formats and that's simply it. You can't gain an opinion of something unless you try it yourself and often your own opinions of a person personally get in the way. For example ARTPOP- reviewed by people trying to do clickbait simply by following the trend of hating on gaga, Joanne's reviews are very clouded (from the ones i've seen) with opinions of things unrelated such as her attitude and style.

I can oblige for this and admit I haven't heard all of Katy Perry's or Madonna's music but I don't plan to and already know I will find it **** because I can't get passed their annoying, fake and self-important personalities. But still I know critics love madonna and hate katy for her uninspired stuff, but it's all personal preference. Something stans don't get at all.

[Bio 23,538]

I think the idea of that is very utopic. It doesn't exist in the real world. You can't ignore the artist's personality while judging the music because it's all intertwined. Especially in Gaga's case, where she made the image just as important as the music. People were very pissed off critics kept bringing up the meat dress in every review but how can you not? This is how Gaga handled her image for most of her career and it's extremely relevant to talk about where she is now.

On top of that, the concept of good music is very subjective on itself. A pop song can be very well produced with deep meaningful lyrics but if it doesn't appeal to the masses then it's not a very good pop song. 'Cause that's the core of it. Pop music is supposed to impact as many people as possible and it is supposed to sell as much copies as possible. A great pop song tho is supposed to make people listen to it even though they didn't even know they wanted it. Like Thriller, like Bad Romance, like Toxic, like Vogue. Songs that changed the game and influenced everything that came after it.

With that said, as long as I love Joanne and it's probably my favorite Gaga album, I don't think the lyrics are that deep and I don't think Gaga goes far enough for it to be considered iconic or game-changing. And that's ok 'cause in my opinion she didn't want to go down that route again. She just wanted to make music.

[JHS 4,714]

16 minutes ago, StrawberryBlond said:

And besides, there is no such thing as complete objectivity in music. Our ears interpret sounds differently and we simply can't be forced into thinking something's good if our ears aren't agreeing.

Totally agree on that 

[Oriane 20,510]

I see a lot of people praising Joanne just because it's "quality music" because this is her raw voice, there are real instruments etc so it's real music. I just don't get the scorn for pop, electro, modern genres and techniques in general. No matter what your taste is, ARTPOP is musically more complex than Joanne, which is simple in terms of melodies, mixing of musical elements, genres etc.

(I'm not saying this against you, I'm just saying this in general because I see a lot of "quality music" lovers who come now and say they like this album and what she did before was trash just because it was pop and electro)

[Guest]

Gaga is and has always been polarizing. Critics will never judge her work objectively. 

That being said, I agree that there isn't such a thing as being an objective critic. Music and art in general connects with people on an emotional level, it will never be possible to rate something from an unbiased point of view.

[Lucas 25,697]

I posted that a few weeks ago, about Joanne's metacritics, that preferences shouldn't matter, and I think YOU almost punched me in the face that it should matter 

[StrawberryBlond 14,579]

18 hours ago, gagzus said:

I personally don't see the point in critics at all they're simply paid to give an opinion and are as credible as reviews from the public just using better wording and formats and that's simply it. You can't gain an opinion of something unless you try it yourself and often your own opinions of a person personally get in the way. For example ARTPOP- reviewed by people trying to do clickbait simply by following the trend of hating on gaga, Joanne's reviews are very clouded (from the ones i've seen) with opinions of things unrelated such as her attitude and style.

I can oblige for this and admit I haven't heard all of Katy Perry's or Madonna's music but I don't plan to and already know I will find it **** because I can't get passed their annoying, fake and self-important personalities. But still I know critics love madonna and hate katy for her uninspired stuff, but it's all personal preference. Something stans don't get at all.

A good viewpoint I heard was that the point of a critic is to say things that no one else has said, they notice things that the public might not because they have a better ear for music after being qualified in it. But honestly, I still don't think it's effective as so many of them simply parrot what each other is saying. It's like they all networked beforehand to agree to all say the same thing. I don't have much explanation as to why so many critics think basically the same for every album. It's impossible for such a wide range of people to rate it the same. And yes, a lot of them just follow whatever the public think of the artist currently. If they're on top, they get a good review. If they're flopping, they get a bad review. It's outrageous that professionals are doing this.

I've listened to all of Katy's and Madonna's music and yeah, I think the public definitely over-rated it. For Katy, Teenage Dream is good, but everything else needs serious work. And as for Madonna, I think she only has a handful of good albums over her entire career and hasn't released anything good since 1998. Yet, the critics always give her good reviews even though so many of her fans hate her new stuff. I think they fawn over her because she's a legend. I, on the other hand, don't give a stuff. If you're a legend, I actually consider it an even bigger offensive if your music is bad.

17 hours ago, Bio said:

I think the idea of that is very utopic. It doesn't exist in the real world. You can't ignore the artist's personality while judging the music because it's all intertwined. Especially in Gaga's case, where she made the image just as important as the music. People were very pissed off critics kept bringing up the meat dress in every review but how can you not? This is how Gaga handled her image for most of her career and it's extremely relevant to talk about where she is now.

On top of that, the concept of good music is very subjective on itself. A pop song can be very well produced with deep meaningful lyrics but if it doesn't appeal to the masses then it's not a very good pop song. 'Cause that's the core of it. Pop music is supposed to impact as many people as possible and it is supposed to sell as much copies as possible. A great pop song tho is supposed to make people listen to it even though they didn't even know they wanted it. Like Thriller, like Bad Romance, like Toxic, like Vogue. Songs that changed the game and influenced everything that came after it.

With that said, as long as I love Joanne and it's probably my favorite Gaga album, I don't think the lyrics are that deep and I don't think Gaga goes far enough for it to be considered iconic or game-changing. And that's ok 'cause in my opinion she didn't want to go down that route again. She just wanted to make music.

Well, the meat dress is nothing to do with music, so no, it shouldn't have been brought up. Yes, Gaga made the image important but image and music are different. This is music critiquing, not fashion critiquing. I always found it ironic how so many people called Gaga superficial yet they superficially would only talk about her crazy looks and not her actual music (and by God, would they not shut up about her coming out of an egg, as if it was the weirdest way an artist had ever taken to the stage, gimme a break). They couldn't even get it into their heads that some people don't care how she looks, they love her for her music. Yeah, I got into a lot of arguments with people like that in the early days.

And sorry, no, I completely disagree that a pop song can't be good if it doesn't appeal to the masses. Good music is good music, it doesn't matter what genre it is. A lot of pop fans are smarter than they're given credit for but a lot of them need to get more cultured and stop accepting genericism and turning down real art. I think all music should be designed to appeal to the masses, not by being generic but by being good.

And really, you don't think the lyrics to Joanne are deep? I think it's her most personal work to date and it's most definitely different from other pop albums, that in itself makes it a game changer. I don't even truly consider it pop. But how much you sell depends on if you'll be iconic or a game changer, ultimately.

17 hours ago, LoisLilMonster said:

Totally agree on that 

Thanks. I've always wondered why we view critics as people who can objectively state whether music is good or bad. What, are they forced into liking and disliking stuff at music college? Music critics are just a bit more articulate when discussing their opinion, that's all. I don't think a degree or lack thereof makes you any more or less qualified to state an opinion on music. Which was why I was surprised you even needed one to become a professional.

17 hours ago, Oriane23 said:

I see a lot of people praising Joanne just because it's "quality music" because this is her raw voice, there are real instruments etc so it's real music. I just don't get the scorn for pop, electro, modern genres and techniques in general. No matter what your taste is, ARTPOP is musically more complex than Joanne, which is simple in terms of melodies, mixing of musical elements, genres etc.

(I'm not saying this against you, I'm just saying this in general because I see a lot of "quality music" lovers who come now and say they like this album and what she did before was trash just because it was pop and electro)

I like all the stuff she made before too and I do like AP, I gave it the same score, actually. Yes, some people are a bit snooty when it comes to what they believe is real music (although I personally think you have to incorporate some level of instruments, not soundboards, to qualify it as music as opposed to computers) and like something just for the mere fact that it appears 'natural.' I think there's good music to be found everywhere, in many forms and to focus on just one type as good is a bit limiting.

17 hours ago, GagaInTheZone said:

I posted that a few weeks ago, about Joanne's metacritics, that preferences shouldn't matter, and I think YOU almost punched me in the face that it should matter 

Is that good or bad? Some people think objectivity should rule in reviews, that's all. But art is supposed to be about moving someone emotionally, therefore, you can't be objective by design.