Worst music critics
 

What a stupid "profession", thanks to the internet we now live in an age where good recommendations aren't hard to get, because you can always find people who are compatable with your tastes.

And thus this makes "professional" music critics pretty much worthless, then again they always have been. Obviously most of them wouldn't know good music if it bit them in the ass so consumer advice is obviously not what they excell in. So what is their job? If it's being a huge music snob that doesn't know sh*t about the subject, then they earn every penny.

Thanks to blogs and music journals, it won't be long until these overpaid c*ntbags will be long forgotten, but in the meantime, let's look back on the ones that really boil our piss. It seems like all they were ever good for was describing everything but the actual music, instead they just make stupid generalizations about the artists backgrounds and intentions which usually end up being far from the truth and falling into the horrible misconception that the only way to review a song is talk about it's lyrical content.

A lot of them don't even give more than an incredibly brief description when it comes to the actual music, it's a lot of linguistic masturbation and what better example than Pitchfork? It's as if talking about the music is too goddamn easy and straightforward, they have to be pretentious chodes about it and rant about how music quality is somehow tied to superficial things like class and "authenticity". Music is the last thing they have on their mind.

If they only talked about what the music means to them, it would be ok. But they don't, they try to be objective, and by that I mean try to pass of their clearly subjective opinions as objective facts. A lot of them these days don't use a vocabulary all too different from the average internet troll.

Most of the members of this forum could do better than these idiots, seriously.

Lester Bangs, Robert Christgau, Rob Sheffield, Jimmy Guterman. Raging retards every last one of them, the fact that they are considered the deans of western music critics is nothing short of horrifying.

I used to say Christgau was the absolute worst, that is until I found this guy.

Only Solitaire: George Starostin's Music Reviews

This guy is a linguistics researcher and apparently one of the brightest in his field. But yeah, being smart at one subject can't prevent you from being a total retard at another. As this guy's other hobby as a music critic clearly proves.

So let's see. He rates artist's whole careers on letter grades. And thus The Beatles, Stones, Dylan and The Who are the only A grade artists in rock music history. Black Sabbath, The Residents and Pretty Things are a D, and Syd Barrett is an E. And ABBA a C. What more needs to be said? :laughing:

His reviews are even worse, I won't quote them, I let you find out for yourself if you're willing to endure the blinding stupidity.

Robert Christgau, does this guy even like music? Honestly every review Ive read by him he makes the album sound like its crap yet he gives it an A. I dont think I've ever read anything by him saying something positive about an album. Fuck this guy.

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?

you're worse than each and every one combined

Thank ya.

A defence of music criticism is that it offered the only written dialogue about music--which was valuable as long as you didn't take it as gospel truth. It's kind of futile now with the internet.

That sonic youth song "I destroyed robert christgau with my huge fucking ****" pretty much sums up what I think about the guy. Half of his reviews are just a bunch of non-sequiters that only his circle of friends might get...plus he gave thin lizzy a c+ and all the steely dan records A's.

On the other hand I enjoy hearing other peoples opinions. Some people can express there opinions more clearly than others and that's why there is paid music critics just like newspaper columnists...music critics should piss people off...otherwise people wouldn't buy music magazines and the likes. I read the newspaper editorial everyday so I can be pissed off at someday.

....and authenticity isn't a superficial thing...using somebody's else's definition of it instead of your own intuitive sense is.

Christgau couldn't argue music worth a damn, if he tried posting here Jackhammer or Urban would rape the f*ck out of him.

Using the thesaurus like it's an obsession doesn't translate to better reviews, quite the opposite. Music critics really don't have anything to say, a great deal of them just use fancy words to mask what are in fact very brief and mostly invalid descriptions, which are just based on subjective opinion.

Lester Bangs told unsuspecting people that Metal Machine Music was the best album ever made, it's obviously not about consumer advice. And it's just insulting, the very idea that we can't just do what we know we're capable of, use word of mouth and recommend music to each other. Like we really need some overpaid, overprivilaged c*nt telling us what to listen to and telling us that we're stupid for liking so and so.

...of course it's subjective opinion...and they shouldn't have to put a disclaimer on any piece of music criticism saying "this is subjective opinion". I like it because I can get pissed off or wholeheardetly agree with what they're saying....there's passion involved.

I think music would probably suck if an objective opinion existed on it, and music was reviewed just like car brakes were. ..having some guy...it doesn't really matter whom, praising or talking badly about an album gives a human face to a music mag...and makes it seem like I'm not just reading a catalogue or "consumer reports".

Overpaid?..they take however much the magazine is willing to pay them, just like I would. Since it is just subjective opinion you can't really put any kind of price tag on it.

I know it's a dubious distinction to be "the" critic that get's there opinions heard...but I'm glad there is some kind of opinion.

its really not a compliment at all

Oh but it is.

Most of the people on allmusic.com

They gave every Beatles album save for "Let It Be five" stars, including "Beatles for Sale", but I've only seen one or two albums from any artist during the last 15 that they've given that score.

They're also hideously inconsistant, I've seen them give albums 4 and a half while pretty much calling them pieces of shit.

I stopped taking allmusic seriously after they gave Faith No More's King For a Day 2 stars and called it underrated.

For me it was them giving Obscured by Clouds 2 stars and Ummagumma a goddamn 3 and a half, even though it seemed like they gave the former a warmer review than the latter, then again they didn't actually review Ummagumma, they just gave a description without any opinion whatsoever. It's like they rate albums solely on popularity and they just don't give a f*ck if it's consistant with the review or not.

They gave Michael Jackson's Bad a 4 and a half while saying it only had 3 good songs. Seriously, how ridiculously inept can you get?

Hardly the brightest candles in the chandelier eh. The popularity figures on LastFM and RYM are the one's I look to for reliable ratings, which 90% of the time proves to be the case.

Lester Bangs and Charles Shaar Murray are pretty harebrained as well. If I could find it, I'd type up a bit Murray's review of David Bowie's Low as an example. Oh, and Tony Blackburn's a grade-A tit as well.

i don't know what you idiots are bitching about, AMG is easily the least biased source for music reviews and a good source of information to learn about music in general. or, in case you hadn't noticed, they have reviews on practically every band that's ever been remotely popular. they might misinterpret an album here or there but more often than not they're fairly accurate in their appraisals.

if you're going to bitch about All Music, what's next?

sunshine? oxygen?

I'm a big fan of allmusic as well, though I do question their ratings from time to time.

I am NOT a fan of Pitchfork media at all. They gave Dan Le Sac Vs. Scroobius Pip's 2008 debut Angles a .something out of 10 because of one part in the song "Thou Shalt Always Kill" where Scroobius Pip says:

"Thou shalt not put recording artists on ridiculous pedestals no matter how great they are or were: The Beatles... Were just a band.
Led Zepplin... Just a band.
The Beach Boys... Just a band.
The Sex Pistols... Just a band.
The Clash... Just a band.
Crass... Just a band.
Minor Threat... Just a band.
The Cure... Just a band.
The Smiths... Just a band.
Nirvana... Just a band.
The Pixies... Just a band.
Oasis... Just a band.
Radiohead... Just a band.
Bloc Party... Just a band.
The Arctic Monkeys... Just a band.
The Next Big Thing.. JUST A BAND.


That stanza seemed to negate the songs about how suicide isn't the answer or the one about how you should take a step back and evaluate all the angles to a situation before you take a side, or an open letter from God to Man about how much we've done to fuck up this planet, or the spectacular one just littered with advice on how to live a positive lifestyle. But no, Mr. Pip you didn't agree with me and my self-righteous attitude concerning 15 bands so therefore your entire album is crap. **** off you miserable twats

Music journalism is something I'm very passionate about. I'd love to right for a magazine one day but for now I'm writing for blogs and such.

I don't think music critics are outdated, we need reviews and recommendations. I just dislike obviously biased reviewers, like say Robert or anyone down at Rolling Stone.

I'm not talking about music critics.

Just the so called "professional" music critics who have to rely on their educational background to concince people that they know what they're talking about even when they don't, critics for magazines and newspapers who actually make a career out of it.

I'm not talking about bloggers, online music journals or user reviews on websites and stuff like that. That stuff actually IS helpful.

Davey Moore's (along with many other posters here) writeups alone are better than anything I've ever read in any magazine or on any website.

Yeah, I'd say most people here are better at describing the music than Christgau, Sheffield or any of those douchebags.

But I have to say I don't consider myself to be very good at reviewing albums, I have a habit of just describing the music in a very specific way and don't really try to make analogies or stuff like that.

But I consider that to be better than not talking about the actual music at all, which is my main problem with magazine music critics, or anyone who tries to emulate the style of those critics.

Pitchfork especially do those kinda impersonal reviews that are not concerned with trying to get you into to the albums at hand, it's just some good ol' ego stroking based on whatever obscure music they discovered that they know is gonna inspire a bunch of idiots to rave about it regardless of how indisputably horrible it is. It's like they're trying to be as pretentious as humanly possible.

Their job is to get bring attention to whatever organization is paying them. More attention = more advertising $$ so if music critics get attention (for any reason) they are earning their keep.
It's all just business. Employers of critics give no sh*t about the critics' opinions or their writing.

"Rock journalism is people who can't write, interviewing people who can't talk, in order to provide articles for people who can't read."

^^^
I was just about to post that. Just not directed towards anybody.

It is.

Why worry? I take no notice of reviews by professionals and I have never visited allmusic or read much on Pitchfork. In this day and age of downloading it's easier to just download and judge for yourself. The only people I take notice of are people who post on forums or blogs etc. I put my faith in them a lot more.

Good thing I don't want to be a rock journalist. Jazz is my thing :)

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!

i only came across RC when i heard on the radio he'd slammed Macca's Ram. I read the review and it was harsh. Then i came across hiim again when i read the review from the link on wiki for Alan Parson's Project-Eve album which he accused of being misogynistic. I've not heard it so i can't comment. I have heard Ram though and it's a great inspired and thoroughly enjoyable album as is the easy listening version Macca recorded as Percy 'thrills' Thrillington

SHIT, CAT!



Yeah, Ryan Schreiber's a wanker.

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.

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.

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.

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.'

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

That's just plain stupid.

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

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.

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.