Music Banter - Worst music critics

Music Banter (https://www.musicbanter.com/)

- General Music (https://www.musicbanter.com/general-music/)

- - Worst music critics (https://www.musicbanter.com/general-music/42889-worst-music-critics.html)

omg hiu is back. Wait...have you been active all this time?

I just remembered my password lol

ah. they just unbanned me like, a month ago.

Quote:

Originally Posted by boo boo (Post 711698)

This Starostin guy is pretty much the exact same way. He'll give an album what seems like a high rating and still call it a piece of sh*t. The only thing I've seen him review without any criticism at all are some Dylan, Stones and a goddamn Sade album.

Saying Pink Floyd lacked originality and saying Yes lack diversity, while lauding Rolling Stones as having both. That was the real ticker for me. :laughing:

Music critics really are just another form of troll. I mean if this guy hates prog so much, why review so freaking much of it?

Nevertheless, I experience George (the anglisized version of his forename, I can´t spell the "genuine" Russian version) Starostin as being a fascinating read. He has interesting opinions (and I agree that they are only opinions).

I really enjoy visiting and revisiting Starostin´s (first) site!

Quote:

Originally Posted by galt54 (Post 1724368)

He's name is Georgiy Sergeevich "George" Starostin. "Georgiy" is a homophone of the two English words "gay + orgy." In other words if you say "gay orgy" real fast that is how you would pronounce his name.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Neapolitan (Post 1724371)

No it isn't.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Neapolitan (Post 1724371)

:laughing:

I'll take your word for it.

Pretty much agree with every word of the initial post of this thread.

I always enjoyed Mark Prindle's reviews, though, but just because I think he's an entertaining writer in general, and of course it helps that he didn't take his reviews too seriously.

Other than that, there have been some magazine-employed record reviewers who have been closer to what I ideally want from reviews. Downbeat (the jazz magazine) had some good reviewers, and so did Option (a magazine that focused on more "outside" music, including avant garde/experimental stuff).

All I really want from reviews is a more or less factual description of the music (and who is playing on it, etc.) along with some similarity comparisons. That's all I need to know to tell me if something is worth picking up for me. I couldn't care less about the reviewer's opinion usually, and I definitely don't want them to talk about lyrics, or the artist's personal life or politics, or the record's broader cultural or historical context, or use the review as an outlet for their frustrated creative writing ambitions, or anything like that . . . which, given how folks typically write reviews, is another way of saying that in my opinion, most reviewers have sucked.

Quote:

Originally Posted by galt54 (Post 1724368)

I've read through a lot of Starostin's reviews in the past and found them interesting, but more in the way in which one finds a trainwreck interesting.