Worst music critics

Mr Sensitive · 07-30-2009, 06:23 PM

SHIT, CAT!

Yeah, Ryan Schreiber's a wanker.

Davey Moore · 07-30-2009, 06:31 PM

I hate Christgau. It's like a ****ing paragraph. He rarely elaborates.

I like Lester. He's just a great writer in general so I appreciate that.

I also like Pitchfork, despite the hate they get. They have a lot of talented young writers. Basically, I relied on their 100 greatest lists as a plunge into indie and many music forms, so I owe them a big debt. I dont much care about their actual reviews, but the paragraph or so they have when they do a list is usually really good.

Also there are a few reviews like the Funeral review by Arcade Fire that is just a fabulous piece of writing on it's own. I wish my Funeral essay was that eloquent.

I hate the Rolling Stone reviews. Their lists at the end of the year are better and more accurate of a critcal mass, but usually the album reviews are retarded, because some reviewers will give a Jonas Brothers album five stars, while Animal Collective and St. Vincent will get 3 1/2. In fact, the most critically aclaimed albums so far this year have gotten like a 3 1/2 at best from Rolling Stone

But to Christgau's credit, the Pazz and Jop list is pretty useful.

I feel that critics alone are idiots, but as a mass or a whole they usually get it right.

Son of JayJamJah · 07-30-2009, 06:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Piss Me Off

I think the problem with music critics isn't so much them themselves but how they are perceived as having to be a musical honcho who's opinions are the be all and end all. I take reviews off of Allmusic and the like as equal to the ideas of someone on here, at the end of the day it's all opinions no matter how eloquente it is. We get classic rock bores like Christgau here all the time but i wouldn't give either of them a harder time, even though i don't share their ideas. The fucker's have to get some credit because most of them end up getting paid!

This was pretty much what I was going to say when I started reading the thread, I don't think it's fair to criticize them because really it's about taking the time to relate your experience to others and folks like Lester, Cristagu and even generic multi author sites like AllMusic and Pitchfork have emassed amazing collections of music reviewed, they'd be held in high esteem I believe if they posted their reviews here like we do instead of for major publications.

IHuman · 07-31-2009, 03:17 AM

The other thing is about Christgau and his review of Macca's Ram is that critics back then saw Lennon as being the one saying something intellectual which meant they could use their reviews to say something serious and therefore get satisfaction from feeling like they were intellectual.

Astronomer · 07-31-2009, 03:27 AM

Like they say, if you can't do it, critique it.

Most music critics I can think of are failed musicians. Just like most food critics are failed chefs. No doubt they do it to make themselves feel more worthy.

I agree, they suck. Luckily, as you said, in the age of the Internet and 'information highway', they are becoming 'obsolete.'

Piss Me Off · 07-31-2009, 04:42 AM

It would be a pretty cool job though. Just for the option later in life i think they can stay!

boo boo · 07-31-2009, 05:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Piss Me Off

I think the problem with music critics isn't so much them themselves but how they are perceived as having to be a musical honcho who's opinions are the be all and end all. I take reviews off of Allmusic and the like as equal to the ideas of someone on here, at the end of the day it's all opinions no matter how eloquente it is. We get classic rock bores like Christgau here all the time but i wouldn't give either of them a harder time, even though i don't share their ideas. The fucker's have to get some credit because most of them end up getting paid!

That's been my main problem but yeah, because they get paid is no way to defend them.

That's one thing that bothers me, it's a certain kind of elitism that implies that people like Christgau who get paid to do it somehow have more refined taste or more valid opinions than us.

Now back in the old days when everyone was listening to Pat Boone, that might have been the case, but it's not anymore, and just look at what mainstream magazine critics give good reviews to and what they don't.

Porcupine Tree and QOTSA albums getting lower scores than Jonas Brothers, f*ck that. These people are not more important than us just because they get paid. Music magazines are kinda losing their relevance, and that they should, they no longer have a purpose.

Fruitonica · 07-31-2009, 09:26 AM

You get worked up over the oddest things Boobs, especially as you seemingly only start to despise them after they start making money. What does that change? Basically reads like envy because they have such a ****ing sweet job. I know if I could ever get paid to review music I'd jump at the chance, wouldn't you?

Granted the internet has made a lot of music criticism obsolete because so many people are willing to do it for free, and democratised the setting of critical opinion, but that doesn't devalue paid criticism. Because if you're getting paid to write this stuff then chances are you're better than 90% of the dross out there, simply by knowing your **** and being a fluent writer. MB and the other blogs I visit are great and more useful than any magazine, but they are a minority of music writing on the web.

Maybe it's because I don't read it enough to catch the bad reviews, but I like Pitchfork. Generally they have good reviews and fair scores, they might be a little pretentious sometimes and take a circuitous route in their review, but exploring the themes and ideas in an album is a lot more interesting than a simple description of the music which rarely excites me. I think perhaps you're projecting the elitism onto them, I never read anything that makes me feel they think their word is gospel. Putting IMO after every review so you don't piss anybody off gets fecking tiresome.

Engine · 07-31-2009, 10:06 AM

I believe there are very, very few people making an actual living by writing music critiques. The profession is writing, not reviewing music. Maybe the folks who write for Pitchfork get some extra beer and rent money for their efforts (and damned if they don't get plenty of attention for it - remember no publicity is bad publicity) but to really 'make it' a writer will be writing all kinds of freelance things just to get by. The pitchfork staff will one day grow up and most likely scrape for any kind of writing/journalism work - or end up getting some other crappy job like everybody else.

boo boo · 07-31-2009, 10:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fruitonica

You get worked up over the oddest things Boobs, especially as you seemingly only start to despise them after they start making money. What does that change? Basically reads like envy because they have such a ****ing sweet job. I know if I could ever get paid to review music I'd jump at the chance, wouldn't you?

No, I despise them because they have an undeserved sense of self worth, or else they wouldn't expect to get paid to be stupid, closed minded c*ntbags.

Quote:

Granted the internet has made a lot of music criticism obsolete because so many people are willing to do it for free, and democratised the setting of critical opinion, but that doesn't devalue paid criticism.

Actually, it does, most people who do it for free do it a hell of a lot better than people who don't. Mainly because the internet can actually offer you helpful reviews that come from the heart and aren't knee deep in snobbery and pretentiousness.

Quote:

Because if you're getting paid to write this stuff then chances are you're better than 90% of the dross out there

That's just plain stupid.

That's like saying Nickelback are better than other bands because they make more money.

Quote:

simply by knowing your **** and being a fluent writer. MB and the other blogs I visit are great and more useful than any magazine, but they are a minority of music writing on the web.

I don't think so, Rate Your Music and LastFm also has some very knowledgable peeps, even Amazon does from time to time despite a high concentration of idiots.

Quote:

Maybe it's because I don't read it enough to catch the bad reviews, but I like Pitchfork. Generally they have good reviews and fair scores, they might be a little pretentious sometimes and take a circuitous route in their review, but exploring the themes and ideas in an album is a lot more interesting than a simple description of the music which rarely excites me. I think perhaps you're projecting the elitism onto them, I never read anything that makes me feel they think their word is gospel. Putting IMO after every review so you don't piss anybody off gets fecking tiresome.

I've never seen them give a review that didn't make me cringe, even when it's a positive review for an album I like, or vice versa.

07-30-2009, 06:23 PM	#31 (permalink)
Mr Sensitive Hyperkinetic Rabbitything Join Date: Nov 2005 Location: In the Noodle Mines Posts: 811	SHIT, CAT! Yeah, Ryan Schreiber's a wanker. __________________

07-30-2009, 06:31 PM	#32 (permalink)
Davey Moore The Great Disappearer Join Date: Apr 2008 Location: URI Campus and Coventry, both in RI Posts: 462	I hate Christgau. It's like a ****ing paragraph. He rarely elaborates. I like Lester. He's just a great writer in general so I appreciate that. I also like Pitchfork, despite the hate they get. They have a lot of talented young writers. Basically, I relied on their 100 greatest lists as a plunge into indie and many music forms, so I owe them a big debt. I dont much care about their actual reviews, but the paragraph or so they have when they do a list is usually really good. Also there are a few reviews like the Funeral review by Arcade Fire that is just a fabulous piece of writing on it's own. I wish my Funeral essay was that eloquent. I hate the Rolling Stone reviews. Their lists at the end of the year are better and more accurate of a critcal mass, but usually the album reviews are retarded, because some reviewers will give a Jonas Brothers album five stars, while Animal Collective and St. Vincent will get 3 1/2. In fact, the most critically aclaimed albums so far this year have gotten like a 3 1/2 at best from Rolling Stone But to Christgau's credit, the Pazz and Jop list is pretty useful. I feel that critics alone are idiots, but as a mass or a whole they usually get it right. __________________ The Edge... there is no honest way to explain it because the only people who really know where it is are the ones who have gone over.

07-31-2009, 03:27 AM	#35 (permalink)
Astronomer we are stardust Join Date: Oct 2008 Location: Australia Posts: 2,894	Like they say, if you can't do it, critique it. Most music critics I can think of are failed musicians. Just like most food critics are failed chefs. No doubt they do it to make themselves feel more worthy. I agree, they suck. Luckily, as you said, in the age of the Internet and 'information highway', they are becoming 'obsolete.' __________________

07-31-2009, 04:42 AM	#36 (permalink)
Piss Me Off Moodswings n' Roundabouts Join Date: Apr 2006 Location: At the corner of Dude and Catastrophe Posts: 4,512	It would be a pretty cool job though. Just for the option later in life i think they can stay! __________________ Last FM Rate Yr Music Muxtape

07-31-2009, 03:17 AM	#34 (permalink)
IHuman Groupie Join Date: Jul 2009 Location: UK Posts: 42	The other thing is about Christgau and his review of Macca's Ram is that critics back then saw Lennon as being the one saying something intellectual which meant they could use their reviews to say something serious and therefore get satisfaction from feeling like they were intellectual.

07-31-2009, 09:26 AM	#38 (permalink)
Fruitonica Pale and Wan Join Date: Aug 2008 Location: Aus Posts: 917	You get worked up over the oddest things Boobs, especially as you seemingly only start to despise them after they start making money. What does that change? Basically reads like envy because they have such a **ing sweet job. I know if I could ever get paid to review music I'd jump at the chance, wouldn't you? Granted the internet has made a lot of music criticism obsolete because so many people are willing to do it for free, and democratised the setting of critical opinion, but that doesn't devalue paid criticism. Because if you're getting paid to write this stuff then chances are you're better than 90% of the dross out there, simply by knowing your ** and being a fluent writer. MB and the other blogs I visit are great and more useful than any magazine, but they are a minority of music writing on the web. Maybe it's because I don't read it enough to catch the bad reviews, but I like Pitchfork. Generally they have good reviews and fair scores, they might be a little pretentious sometimes and take a circuitous route in their review, but exploring the themes and ideas in an album is a lot more interesting than a simple description of the music which rarely excites me. I think perhaps you're projecting the elitism onto them, I never read anything that makes me feel they think their word is gospel. Putting IMO after every review so you don't piss anybody off gets fecking tiresome.

07-31-2009, 10:06 AM	#39 (permalink)
Engine air quote Join Date: Jun 2009 Location: pollen & mold Posts: 3,108	I believe there are very, very few people making an actual living by writing music critiques. The profession is writing, not reviewing music. Maybe the folks who write for Pitchfork get some extra beer and rent money for their efforts (and damned if they don't get plenty of attention for it - remember no publicity is bad publicity) but to really 'make it' a writer will be writing all kinds of freelance things just to get by. The pitchfork staff will one day grow up and most likely scrape for any kind of writing/journalism work - or end up getting some other crappy job like everybody else.