The accuracy of critical acclaim

[flyaway 15,350]

When it comes to music or films, I sometimes check the critic's advise so that I get an idea about the work. 

While sometimes it may be accurate and I end up enjoying it, other times it doesn't really connect or represent what I would call an acclaimed work. It may be a personal view on the work, or sometimes critics just give the project a good rate because of the artist. It happened with COCC by Lana Del Rey, which I didn't find to be as good as its predecessors. 

What's your opinion on critic's reviews? Do you read them before to get an idea of the work?

[ARTPOP GAGA 884]

The Fame Monster should have had 92 on Metacritic, not 78.

[Bleachella 2,932]

I don't think your opinions of the work should be influenced by whatever critical acclaim it does or doesn't have, but I think that reviews are still interesting to read. 

I think in general sometimes people put too much stock into them whenever it's convenient (ie: when their fave gets acclaimed), or suddenly decide they're worthless when it's not (ie: when their fave isn't acclaimed)  there's never a middle ground sometimes of just reading the reviews for their own thing. 

[bionic 37,884]

I don't really look at reviews for things other than shopping products, and even then I only look to see if it breaks quickly, etc. Objective things.

Subjectivity is too much 

[Guest]

It really comes down to one individual reviewing it and publishing a review under a brand, which should not and cannot represent the quality of someone's work.

Like, there's a reason a lot of reviews are being updated as time passes. 

[TheDemonIClingTo 1,018]

There's plenty of critically acclaimed stuff I don't like, so not really

[djBuffoon 11,640]

There's no such thing as accuracy when it comes to critical consensus on art, whether it's film, music, etc. It's not science, it's all completely subjective. What I find interesting is looking at the specific points of praise and/or criticism of a project to see if I agree.

[Cruelty 5,887]

Nothing is ever objective. As much as critics want you to think their judgment carries extra weight, the only legitimacy any critic has is their way with words, and their position of authority. Criticism satisfies our desire to look to authority to carve out our own decisions - should I listen to this album? should I watch this film? what do the reviews say? - and it only matters if we all agree that it matters.

The truth is all judgments are subjective, likely biased (whether unconsciously or not) and indubitably a product of their times — as we saw just the other week when Pitchfork re-rated a selection of albums. To take the example of Born To Die, they conceded that they had underestimated Lana’s influence on the burgeoning 2010s alternative pop movement, and bumped up the score to reflect the album’s enduring popularity.

The only thing that matters is whether you like it. That’s why critically vilified stuff does well, because people like it and tell other people to go listen to it/watch it.

[Dr Fudge 8,339]

I don’t take reviews by critics too seriously. At the end of the day it’s still a subjective piece of work and opinions vary. I will, however, look at critical reviews after I’ve already formed my opinion just for the fun of seeing how my opinion compares to a professional’s. 

[MadreMonster 2,584]

I mean I use it as a guide but I also look on Reddit and see what normal movie/music/TV lovers think.

Credible critics also look at movies with a different lens than most people. Like The Green Knight - I saw all the hate online for it but the critics loved it. I enjoyed it a lot but critics also have a different understanding of the symbolism and cinematography than the average movie goer who is looking to be entertained.

[StressedOut 544]

I strictly only read reviews after I've formulated my own opinion, don't like to be swayed too much either way beforehand.

I enjoy reading what specific things people do and don't like, and seeing where we might be the same/differ from one another. 

[Cello 49,531]

I think reviews can be a good indicator of quality if they are written by someone reputable and knowledgeable. Generally I don't take them too seriously though. I do take a look at movie reviews more so than music ones. 

[HuffsAhoy 7,433]

As long as they're praising my faves, I don't care about the accuracy. I just live for that applause. 

[salty like sodium 786]

1 hour ago, flyaway said:

When it comes to music or films, I sometimes check the critic's advise so that I get an idea about the work. 

While sometimes it may be accurate and I end up enjoying it, other times it doesn't really connect or represent what I would call an acclaimed work. It may be a personal view on the work, or sometimes critics just give the project a good rate because of the artist. It happened with COCC by Lana Del Rey, which I didn't find to be as good as its predecessors. 

What's your opinion on critic's reviews? Do you read them before to get an idea of the work?

COTCC is definitely great. But some albums get acclaimed when they shouldn't, some don't get acclaimed when they should. Same with movies, ASIB, though decent, was definitely not the most amazing film I've ever seen in my life (and neither was La La Land) – both have pretty boring plots imo, don't hunt me down.  Critics are just people with opinions who in most cases wouldn't ever be capable of achieving even 1% of the quality of the work that they are reviewing if they were asked to compose a song/direct a film. So take it always with a grain of salt.

[gumzy3000 6,467]

I do read reviews before watching or listening to something but I still try to go in with an open mind.

Also, I realized that long time ago that most critics are quite snobby and have there own set preferences. I remember seeing pop girls getting really bad reviews but various bands getting decent ones. When I saw the critics, most were plain old white straight men. Is that fair? I don't think critics fairly evaluate work as a whole collective group.

For example, Blackout by Britney is not supposed to be a masterpiece like Ray of Light from Madonna, but it is one of the best pop-electro-dance records in its league and should be praised for that. Critics don't see things in the overall culture and context and I think that's important and they end up thinking something like Blackout is unauthentic or cheap.