So you're saying 90% of the music critic industry has no right to exist
that is correct. music is one of the most subjective forms of art out there.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
GAF-Hop |OTX| Long Live the Watcher
- Thread starter Esch
- Start date
- Status
that is correct. music is one of the most subjective forms of art out there.
Of course critics have a place, you're argument doesn't make sense. It's like your insinuating that critics have a history in objectivity or that the measure of all arts isn't a subjective thing and that's kind of ridiculous. The sheer number of albums and mixtapes released in this day age makes for an even greater need for quality criticism to sift through everything. Critics can give you good hints and suggestions for finding new music without having to waste time going in blind. Critics don't just exist to confirm or support personal opinions, that's also ridiculous.
PhoenixDark
Banned
She was 18 after she left Kells, but I'm going to go ahead and warn you. Keep coming at me on that race tip and you'll end up in the bargain bin of this forum with swagjesus and //b1g
There are a lot of rumors of her and Jay being involved before then, same with Foxy Brown. Not saying they're true but yea...it's crazy how much underage shit goes down amongst music artists across genres.
No need to catch feelings my dark skinned brother, we're on the same team.
why do you need validation to what is good or bad? who values opinions that much? critics exist to feel important. "i want my opinion to be heard by the world". bullshit.
who says THEY have taste, or have an ear towards what i like or what is right soniclly. everyone hears music differently.
Yeah there are obviously people that use critics as a form of taste confirmation bias but there's a place for them. I just wish there was a critic out there that fit my ideal proportions; 30% music theory and gear knowledge, 30% culture/referential, and 40% personality. Lots of personality and culture guys out there but not a lot of theory heads that aren't too pretentious/can grasp or enjoy music made outside of the western music elitism paradigm.
Not horrible. Boring though.
This sounds really bad. Not like it's a bad song (it's not great either), just low fidelity. Like something you would have gotten off limewire circa '03. Kendrick off that screamo flow though.
I like music critics since outside of threads like this, most people rarely go in depth about why they like a certain piece of music. I'm sure some critics are bad at this too, but their platform at least gives them the potential.
The pretension in most Pitchfork type outlets doesn't really bother me either. In fact, I'd say I look forward to it. Criticism that includes stuff about the artist's history or the evolution of a particular sound helps add much needed context that can inform how well the album has been received.
So yeah, I read reviews of stuff I already have an opinion on because it's fun to know what others think about it. Just a more formal version of what we already do in this thread.
For the most part, if something has been reviewed on any publication, most likely you've already listened to it as well. Am I not right?
The same goes for the general populous that reads Pitchfork / watches Fantano. They're usually the same people that uses what.cd and are up to date throughout various media outlets. Something gets reviewed because it's already been bubbling throughout the internet. The only thing that Pitchfork can do is make more people listen to it or tell people not to, but if it gets reviewed by them, it'll still get a listen so the audience can see what the writer was talking about.
I've never really cared for reviewers / critics. Analysis of the music (the more technical the better) itself is fine but that's just me and people would never want that. Publications are already limited enough, word count wise, as it is.
The same goes for the general populous that reads Pitchfork / watches Fantano. They're usually the same people that uses what.cd and are up to date throughout various media outlets. Something gets reviewed because it's already been bubbling throughout the internet. The only thing that Pitchfork can do is make more people listen to it or tell people not to, but if it gets reviewed by them, it'll still get a listen so the audience can see what the writer was talking about.
I've never really cared for reviewers / critics. Analysis of the music (the more technical the better) itself is fine but that's just me and people would never want that. Publications are already limited enough, word count wise, as it is.
Most people, reviewers or otherwise, do the same.
In fact more of the time people's first impressions are posted up as reviews. They might as well be the same thing with how fast music moves today.
and this is my issue. your mood, state of mind, etc greatly influence music. how your brain processes it. ive returned to albums that i thought were pure shit, and found them to be amazing. first impressions should never been taken at face value. this goes for all factors of life. stuff needs time to settle in. become a part of you. get your full attention.
Exactly. With leaks so prevalent in the music industry today, outlets need to get the review out there asap for the ad sense dollars while the album is hot.
If anyone out there knows websites that do in-depth looks into albums, let me know.
For example, something like this, a making of OutKast's Aquemini.
Man so true. Especially if it's really dense or experimental. I really hated Obscura and XXX the first 3-4 times I heard them both. I didn't care for Grief Pedigree upon first listen either.
But man nobody has patience for that shit. The mark of a truly dope album/musical piece of work is if you're getting something new, musical or lyrical epiphanies from it years later.
The Artful Dodger
Member
I've definitely had albums I hated the first time around and then had them grow on me. Sometimes that first impulse is correct though.
Generally with a hyped album I'll give it a listen or two when it first drops and if it hasn't got me hooked, I'll return to it a month later to see if it's any good.
There are some albums that are only good for that first time or so, and then they immediately start expiring. Rick Ross is kinda like that for me. I like listening to some of his stuff, but I rarely go back to it.
god he's such a fucking nerd.
I find new stuff through reviews regularly. I use them differently than you guys I guess. I don't get bothered by first impressions not all things need a bunch of time to settle in. I loved GKMC from the very first moment I heard it. I feel like my first impressions of Niko Is were spot on, though maybe this is self confirmation bias. Not all critics are driven by ads, you're beef is with major publications not critics.
MorisUkunRasik
Member
that's crazy talk.
The Artful Dodger
Member
I love reviews that do breakdowns and find links and like really sink their teeth into a project and discuss it on terms of what the album was trying to do and did it do it well as oppose to what they wanted it to be.
I guess for me that's the real key difference between a random reviewer and articles I genuinely enjoy about music.
I guess for me that's the real key difference between a random reviewer and articles I genuinely enjoy about music.
With the associations he had with A$AP and TDE, yeah, I think so.
Tokubetsu
Member
discovering new rhythms in old albums, is one of the most pleasurable things in life.
bless.
I actually hate Pitchfork, but they definitely helped Danny eat. They helped a bunch of relatively unknown artists eat, or at least they used to, and I think you under estimate how hard it is to keep up with releases in even just your most favorite genres. You don't know about everything that comes out. Not even the most obsessed guy on /mu or What knows about everything. Don't kid yourself
IrishNinja
Member
Watch cheddahz just bootleg the last OP lol
Also I don't fuck with critics much these days, easier to follow cosigns from GAF hoppers with similar taste...kinda do this on gaming side too now that I think about it
Also I don't fuck with critics much these days, easier to follow cosigns from GAF hoppers with similar taste...kinda do this on gaming side too now that I think about it
Discotheque
Banned
i do that with everything, including movies. fuck a rotten tomatoes.
IrishNinja
Member
The subtitle is 5 years out of ringtone rap, mod can change it later #leggo
IrishNinja
Member
Well sure but when you go see new spider-mans and someone tells you the RT is lower than it was for spidey 3 don't act like you don't get nervous haha
Also DP cause fuckyalife
IrishNinja
Member
I mean I do but personally I'm not looking up stuff about artists or projects I'm interested in when I can just hear their works
Des made some great points on the role they play
but why are these 100 hundred people special in the realm of music. have they ever sold a record? been in a band? worked in the industry?
You don't need to have done those things to have an appreciation for music or to be able to breakdown an album in a manner in which you can give a reader a glimpse of what to expect from an album.
Reposting:
GAF-Hop |OT11| Five Year Nation
GAF-Hop |OT11| Furious, Five Years Later
GAF-Hop |OT11| DJ Khaled Instagram Watch
i still value an opinion from somebody that has done it, than someone who merely glimpses from the fringes. in everything in day to day life.
there are very few critics who are active in the scene beyond going to concerts and downloading mp3's. this is why i value any blog over a paid publication any day of the week. yes lots of blogs are on the pay, but i think im hitting the correct ones.
jakefromstatefarm
Member
GAF-Hop |OT11| 5 Years and Still No Act II
Blog critics are still critics. Anthony Fantano was in a metal band and plenty of Pitchfork reviewers have been in the industry or worked within labels and those dudes are the most biased and crooked ones.
- Status