salty like sodium 1,807 Posted June 28 Share Posted June 28 (edited) 1 hour ago, Ziggy said: What? they usually have a pretty deep knowledge, understanding and education of music. Yall get so bent out of shape for even a GOOD review just reading any review of Born to Die from 2010 is enough to know half of them didn't know what they were doing. Pitchfork even regraded some albums because they admitted they were biased in the past and had to fix their embarassing mistakes... the reality is that music critics (like jobs in most industries) had predominantly been white straight men who had little appreciation or understanding for music that wasn't designed for them (i.e. music for black audiences, female audiences, or queer audiences). thankfully that's changed now but there's still a lot of bias and subjectivity. pitchfork reviews in particularly can say an album is "worse" than the previous one by the same artist but also somehow give it a better grade. Edited June 28 by salty like sodium 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
CyanDante 6,061 Posted June 28 Share Posted June 28 More than I expected. And this is coming from someone who absolute loves Lorde. Liked it less than solar power. Hopefully it changes with multiple listens. I'm not very good with Social Mediaᵀᴹ Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ziggy 11,679 Posted June 28 Share Posted June 28 41 minutes ago, banjosnap said: I dont have any interest in lorde or her music. These "critics" may have some knowledge but what they also have is human flaws & preferences. They do not have the time or effort to properly research the subject matter... otherwise all critic scores would be the exact same. A critic is just a spectator with a louder voice. How do you know that though hahahaha such a strong assumption when do you know a thing about the critics either? Pitchfork typically makes references that indicate a strong level of research or knowledge about the subject. Have your opinions but maybe make them less broad or high minded when the evidence would indicate mostly the opposite of your assertions Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RAMROD 108,958 Posted June 28 Author Share Posted June 28 4 hours ago, banjosnap said: OK but music critics are pretend. There can be food critics, for example, as there is a correct and incorrect way to prepare food. However, there is no incorrect way to make music. It's such a vast, infinite universe of sounds & combinations paired with limitless emotional projection that being a "music critic" and giving a ranking out of 10 is, undoubtedly, absurd. A music critics would need to study the roots, the process, the intention of that piece, but would also need to be an expert in poetry, composition, production & storytelling. They are none of those. They're just.. random men. Well, opinion is just that, an opinion. It is up to each individuals to take seriously or not. That's how discussion or a discourse started. The ones that get so famous or so revered in each decades for their opinion usually are having their think pieces aligned with the masses. (ﾉ◕ヮ◕)ﾉ✧*:･ﾟ 𝘸𝘰𝘶𝘭𝘥𝘢 𝘴𝘩𝘰𝘶𝘭𝘥𝘢 𝘤𝘰𝘶𝘭𝘥𝘢, 𝘥𝘪𝘥𝘯'𝘵 (*´艸｀*) ♡♡♡ 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ziggy 11,679 Posted June 28 Share Posted June 28 4 minutes ago, salty like sodium said: just reading any review of Born to Die from 2010 is enough to know half of them didn't know what they were doing. Pitchfork even regraded some albums because they admitted they were biased in the past and had to fix their embarassing mistakes... the reality is that music critics (like jobs in most industries) had predominantly been white straight men who had little appreciation or understanding for music that wasn't designed for them (i.e. music for black audiences, female audiences, or queer audiences). thankfully that's changed now but there's still a lot of bias and subjectivity. pitchfork reviews in particularly can say an album is "worse" than the previous one by the same artist but also somehow give it a better grade. Sure! Not altogether perfect but I think it’s critic to critic. Like one of them atm is a friend of mine who like has a masters in vocal choral something or other and has played various instruments all his life. HUGE music nerd. I don’t say this to fluff up my friend but more or less to just say that I think pitchfork is one of those places where it’s more about the specific critic than the institution itself 2 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
salty like sodium 1,807 Posted June 28 Share Posted June 28 (edited) 19 minutes ago, Ziggy said: Sure! Not altogether perfect but I think it’s critic to critic. Like one of them atm is a friend of mine who like has a masters in vocal choral something or other and has played various instruments all his life. HUGE music nerd. I don’t say this to fluff up my friend but more or less to just say that I think pitchfork is one of those places where it’s more about the specific critic than the institution itself i think the biggest issue I have with most critics is that they're incapable of doing the very thing they're critiquing. and I think you shouldn't be allowed to criticize something you don't know how to make yourself. Making art is such a personal, vulnerable and brave process and having some random a**hole who doesn't even know how to write a song come in and tell you you're doing it all wrong and how and why is just rude and arrogant imo. Yes I'm sure some have some training in playing or singing like you said, but making music is really such a unique process that I think it's not something that most people can understand without having done it themselves. For example when I criticise 143 it's because I've personally written lyrics that I found more interesting or made sounds I liked better. But most of the critics who roasted it wouldn't even be capable of doing a cover version of one of those songs. Edited June 28 by salty like sodium Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
banjosnap 316 Posted June 28 Share Posted June 28 30 minutes ago, Ziggy said: How do you know that though hahahaha such a strong assumption when do you know a thing about the critics either? Pitchfork typically makes references that indicate a strong level of research or knowledge about the subject. Have your opinions but maybe make them less broad or high minded when the evidence would indicate mostly the opposite of your assertions How do I know that it's a matter of taste and an impossibility to give a grading based on intricacies that go beyond what's possible with a 1-10 grading done by someone who is a human with likes and dislikes that go beyond objectivity? Because I live on earth. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jakesnyders673 41 Posted June 28 Share Posted June 28 The album is fine lyrically but sonically it's a bit of a snoozefest. I think she played it too safe Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
andy232000 11,282 Posted June 28 Share Posted June 28 Amazing! The score went down to 84. Virgin no longer is the most critically acclaimed female album. She re-ties Mayhem. I just need 2-3 more reviews to give 60-70 for this album to finish at a 80. That way Mayhem has a comfortable lead yup yup yup Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
JustJames 950 Posted June 28 Share Posted June 28 2 hours ago, banjosnap said: How do I know that it's a matter of taste and an impossibility to give a grading based on intricacies that go beyond what's possible with a 1-10 grading done by someone who is a human with likes and dislikes that go beyond objectivity? Because I live on earth. Right which is why music, and by extension the industry that surrounds it which includes critics, is considered entertainment. If it’s so important for you to only engage in topics that are black and white or wholly objective, that’s your prerogative. But, clearly, the vast majority of people who participate in music - actively or passively - prefer it being something that isn’t objective and provokes conversation and ideas, even those that aren’t aligned with theirs. Otherwise, critics wouldn’t have a job and you wouldn’t be here on a music forum. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
JustJames 950 Posted June 28 Share Posted June 28 2 hours ago, salty like sodium said: i think the biggest issue I have with most critics is that they're incapable of doing the very thing they're critiquing. and I think you shouldn't be allowed to criticize something you don't know how to make yourself. Making art is such a personal, vulnerable and brave process and having some random a**hole who doesn't even know how to write a song come in and tell you you're doing it all wrong and how and why is just rude and arrogant imo. Yes I'm sure some have some training in playing or singing like you said, but making music is really such a unique process that I think it's not something that most people can understand without having done it themselves. For example when I criticise 143 it's because I've personally written lyrics that I found more interesting or made sounds I liked better. But most of the critics who roasted it wouldn't even be capable of doing a cover version of one of those songs. The concept we can’t have opinions on things we aren’t experts on is ridiculous. It doesn’t even matter if certain critics happen to be “educated,” the point is they don’t need to be. Their opinions and ideas are just as valid, and they’re free to share them, just as you’re free to disagree with them or ignore them. It’s amazing how non-experts’ money is “good enough” for musicians when it comes to CDs, streaming services, and ticket sales; but, when it comes to sharing a criticism of that product being fed to us, we’ve crossed a line? Nobody is forcing anyone to read, let alone be influenced by, critics or fans opinions. What a boring world some of you want to live in where everything is dictated to you by “the experts.” Like, if Pitchfork reviews are THAT triggering, maybe you should - I don’t know - just block their account? Somehow that’s the more radical idea? Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
JustJames 950 Posted June 28 Share Posted June 28 And at the end of the day, labels provide these AWFUL non-experts with albums in advance so they can review them because it’s good promotion for the artists. In a day and age where it’s increasingly difficult for artists to earn money and break through the noise of streaming platforms, you all think you’re really helping them by wanting to dismantle one of the proven channels they have for getting their name and work out there. I’ll defer to “the experts,” but I’m sure 99% of them would prefer having a few harsh words written about their new album vs. squashing any and all online discourse over it in the pursuit of “objectivity.” Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
salty like sodium 1,807 Posted June 28 Share Posted June 28 (edited) 25 minutes ago, JustJames said: The concept we can’t have opinions on things we aren’t experts on is ridiculous. It doesn’t even matter if certain critics happen to be “educated,” the point is they don’t need to be. Their opinions and ideas are just as valid, and they’re free to share them, just as you’re free to disagree with them or ignore them. It’s amazing how non-experts’ money is “good enough” for musicians when it comes to CDs, streaming services, and ticket sales; but, when it comes to sharing a criticism of that product being fed to us, we’ve crossed a line? Nobody is forcing anyone to read, let alone be influenced by, critics or fans opinions. What a boring world some of you want to live in where everything is dictated to you by “the experts.” Like, if Pitchfork reviews are THAT triggering, maybe you should - I don’t know - just block their account? Somehow that’s the more radical idea? No one said you couldn't have opinions, but as someone I know always says: "opinions are like a**holes, everyone has one". Just because you have an opinion doesn't mean it's good. 50% of the USA had the opinion that Trump should be president. It's ridiculous to think someone who has no idea how embroidery works should be able to assess whether a hand-embroidered garment was well embroidered or not. So why should music be any different? You're also equating fans sharing opinions on a forum with journalists from a position of authority being able to influence how audiences will respond to a work. For example, take Miley's latest album: it's one of her best albums (and I'm not even a Miley fan), but because critics didn't get it, the narrative in the mainstream is that her album was "bad" and no one will listen to it. Critics are not just random voices in a fan forum, their opinions do get read by many people for better or for worse. Saying no one is going to be influenced by reviews is just silly since that's the entire reason reviews exist in the first place, if people didn't care about them or want to read them newspapers wouldn't pay people to write them – there are plenty of free reviews from fans on sites like GagaDaily and IMDB. It's amazing how you just come in here to try and dictate how people should feel about critics. We have different opinions on the topic yet you felt entitled to and empowered to barge in here and assert my opinion was somehow less valid than yours. Edited June 28 by salty like sodium 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bronco 10,439 Posted June 28 Share Posted June 28 4 hours ago, salty like sodium said: just reading any review of Born to Die from 2010 is enough to know half of them didn't know what they were doing. Pitchfork even regraded some albums because they admitted they were biased in the past and had to fix their embarassing mistakes... the reality is that music critics (like jobs in most industries) had predominantly been white straight men who had little appreciation or understanding for music that wasn't designed for them (i.e. music for black audiences, female audiences, or queer audiences). thankfully that's changed now but there's still a lot of bias and subjectivity. pitchfork reviews in particularly can say an album is "worse" than the previous one by the same artist but also somehow give it a better grade. A highly respected music critic for Rolling Stone magazine reviewed Bronski Beat's debut album the Age of Consent and complained that it lacked any emotion. This being the album that featured Smalltown Boy. So yeah fully agree with you, music critics are bullshit 2 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
monstertoronto 9,823 Posted June 28 Share Posted June 28 (edited) 9 hours ago, banjosnap said: OK but music critics are pretend. There can be food critics, for example, as there is a correct and incorrect way to prepare food. However, there is no incorrect way to make music. It's such a vast, infinite universe of sounds & combinations paired with limitless emotional projection that being a "music critic" and giving a ranking out of 10 is, undoubtedly, absurd. A music critics would need to study the roots, the process, the intention of that piece, but would also need to be an expert in poetry, composition, production & storytelling. They are none of those. They're just.. random men. I actually think good critics have a deep knowledge about the subject matter they’re reviewing and can sometimes offer context about the influences they can spot in a work which is interesting. However, of course not all critics are this educated and many are indeed somewhat random people. A very prominent culture publication/website in Toronto once was advertising for a film critic and I almost applied but I told a friend about it. She was a tech writer at the time and trying to write a screenplay herself, like so many aspiring filmmakers. She had never gone to film school or had any formal education in film but she loved movies and she and I would talk about them a lot. She actually ended up getting the job. She did a good job, I mostly liked her reviews, but it really made clear to me that anyone really could be a critic. Sometimes she would bring me to free preview screenings for critics, and after the movie was over she and the critics from all the other newspapers and websites would get together and chat about the movie. Sometimes I would join in but I def got the sense that because I wasn’t being paid as a critic they sometimes would basically dismiss my opinions but sometimes they would agree. And it was surprising because it worked like any other social dynamic. Someone would float an opinion and then maybe one of the more established ones would contradict it and then every one would end up agreeing with the loudest voice. They actually seemed to all want to be on the same page before writing their own reviews. They didn’t want to be the odd person out with a different opinion. So I realized reviews were no more or less valid than any other persons. Edited June 28 by monstertoronto 2 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Featured Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.