How do I become a music critic?

It’s a perfect storm when some self-proclaimed critic writes reviews for an online outlet, praising local bands they happen to be buddies with—or worse, taking kickbacks from those same losers to hype them up as the next big thing. In reality, nobody benefits from their mindless scribbling except themselves. It gets even uglier if this gentleman just happens to be employed by, or connected to, one of the record labels. At that point, it’s a total disaster, and calling him a "music critic" is just a joke.
My take? An album should probably be evaluated by a panel. One could judge the production, another the technical skill, and so on, eventually forming a consensus.
At the end of the day, every single one of their comments is just their own subjective opinion anyway....

Megan Brooks91 said:I honestly think it would be better if they evaluated an album from several different angles—like, one person focuses on the production quality, another looks at the technical skill behind the playing, and so on—so they could eventually come together to form a collective consensus.
At the end of the day, though, every single one of their comments is just their own subjective take anyway...

I don't know, dissecting music that way seems kind of pointless to me. It’s almost like saying you need one art critic to judge the quality of the canvas, another to analyze the pigment composition, a third to talk about the figurative content, and a fourth to debate the social impact of the piece.

Sure, I suppose having multiple perspectives helps build a fuller picture, but an artistic work is—for the most part—an indivisible whole. Trying to specialize by slicing it up into tiny pieces just feels a bit futile, if you ask me.

Kyle Jackson54, you're sticking strictly to painting today... 😁

hmmmmmmmmm
music critic
an interesting job, I suppose
but people, let’s be realistic... a music critic can spend an entire career without ever making ACTUALLY DOING ANYTHING CONCRETE AT ALL!!!!

there are several absurdities regarding the whole concept of a music critic:
1. the first and most vital point is this: subjective opinion >>>>>> objective opinion
I mean, what the hell... just browse this forum for a minute and you'll see exactly what "subjective opinion" looks like
the undeniable fact that nobody can argue against is that everyone thinks they are the smartest person in the room, and that their own taste is somehow more valid or superior to everyone else's
of course, that applies to music critics too
have you ever actually written out a reasoned critique about a band—comparing the highs and lows, weighing their better works against the mediocre ones—when that band doesn't even particularly appeal to you?
of course you haven't
instead, the moment a band isn't your cup of tea, you immediately label them as bad, childish, simplistic, soulless... when that very same band might be someone else's absolute dream
sure, music critics are professionals, supposedly objective individuals, but let's be real... subjectivity always wins out, and no one has ever been 100% objective...

2. corruption and manufactured exposure—just like how the media can turn someone into a superstar in five days without them having accomplished anything at all, critics can just as easily launch someone to the heavens or bury them alive
if someone's album gets trashed by the press, you can bet it won't get much airtime or move many units
critics are the ones giving statements on TV and in major newspapers, which is practiced constantly... it's incredibly rare to see regular people providing official opinions on an album or a song...
hell, I'll buy the new Iron Maiden album or whatever else (haha, I don't have any other bands left to mention because they've all died off in my mind...) regardless of what the critics say, but others won't
take one example; Metallica isn't one of my favorites, I listen to them here and there, but if the critics had called their new album good or great, I would have at least listened to a few tracks... but hearing this, it's not worth wasting my gas money... and you have to consider how many people think that way about bands that aren't their favorites, and estimate the difference in sales volume...

how can critics line their pockets quickly? just think about it,,, both the musician and the critic care about money; they're still human beings after all. one promises the other a percentage of the profits if the review is positive, and then everyone is happy and satisfied, right?

3. stagnation—the reality is that a music critic doesn't actually know that much about music, at least not nearly as much as professional musicians do
if you ask me, I wouldn't let anyone comment on an album for a newspaper or a show unless that person was a professional musician themselves

whose musical opinion would you value more? a legendary icon like Stevie Ray Vaughan, or some critic—someone you've never even heard of
obviously the first one
when someone like Eric Clapton, Brian May, Bruce Dickinson, or anyone else says something—it's immediately taken as gospel, which is natural and desirable because believe me, one Clapton knows more about music than all of us on this forum combined...
(though even there is a flaw, since colleagues are mostly just looking out for one another, because they'd all fail without each other)

just ask yourselves this: if someone loves music so much, and knows so much about it, and is so immersed in it, why aren't they a performer themselves???
clearly, they aren't on that level...

that's about it

Kevin Chavez3 said:totally irrelevant 🤷—and honestly, she loses all credibility when she starts acting like the Boomtown Rats were some kind of geniuses 🙂

Look, back then, the Rats actually seemed like they had potential—nobody realized at the time they’d just fizzle out after one big hit and that Geldof would end up running for office instead 🤷

And even those of us reading the book back then had no clue the author would be praising Red Hot Chili Peppers in a few years 😂

Regardless, I think the book holds up for its era. As one of the first deep dives into punk globally, it really nailed the power dynamics and predicted how important certain bands would become, even if they only had an album or two under their belts at the time 🙂

The only chapter that feels like filler is the one about Robinson—but hey, if you look at what people from the Sex Pistols and The Clash have said about how much that guy influenced them and shaped the whole British punk scene, I guess I can live with it

A total highlight in the book is that interview with Strummer—they ended up stuck together at some airport in Italy because of flight delays and spent the whole day hanging out. I mean, seriously, imagine being lucky enough to hang with Strummer 🙏

But the thing that actually cracks me up is the dedication in this new edition:

"To dear wanderingraven20,
who was the main reason I kept
dragging myself
into music stores during the 2000s,
G.D."

Well, there goes my reputation for being totally unshakeable 🙂

Kyle Jackson54 said:Analyzing music this way is pointless. It’s like saying you need one art critic to judge the canvas quality, another to talk about color composition, a third for figurative content, and a fourth to weigh its social impact.

I suppose you need multiple perspectives to see the whole picture, sure, but an artwork is generally an indivisible whole. Specializing just to dissect pieces of it seems pretty useless to me.

Music and visual arts aren't even comparable. I was just suggesting there should be more objective ways to review an album—maybe that's the only way to dodge pure subjectivity.
Instead of having one critic who happens to love a band or has some connection to them and puts them on a pedestal while everyone else disagrees...

wanderingraven20 said:Look, back when it first came out...
and even for those of us who read it back then...
regardless, I still think the book was ahead of its time...

Fine, but you can't claim that "it hasn't lost an ounce of its impact even thirty years later" if that's the case. 😉

Back in the day, as they say... 🧐

wanderingraven20 said:Regardless, I think the book was ahead of its time. Back then, it was one of the first major works globally on punk, and it did a great job mapping out the power dynamics. It also correctly predicted how vital bands would become, even when they only had an album or maybe two or three 🙂

Well, "ahead of its time"... 😉
To me, the book feels totally dated. Honestly, I suspect the only reason it ever got a reissue is because the publisher is owned by the author's son 😁

At the end of the day, you don't learn how to be a real punk from some textbook. You learn it in the parking lot behind the club 🙂 :cuburbija:
...

Megan Brooks91 said:Music and visual art just don't work on the same evaluation scale. I was just thinking—maybe more people should look at all those obscure ways to rate an album, because honestly, that's the only way you'd ever escape the trap of pure subjectivity.
Not having one critic absolutely worship a band because they have some personal connection there, while another critic thinks they're garbage...

Let me say this again—you can't just dissect music or fine art into basic little components like it's some kind of math problem. It doesn't work that way. I mean, look at some of the incredible modern indie releases where the production is intentionally lo-fi, sort of gritty and raw. What then? Should someone give it a failing grade for "production quality" instead of realizing that the production is actually serving the overall vibe of the song—or the album—as a whole piece of art?

I definitely agree that we need more voices offering critical perspectives on every piece of art out there, but I disagree with breaking it down so each person only judges one specific element. If you do that, you're just handing a monopoly over certain technical aspects back to a handful of specialized critics. In a way, you're just dividing the unfairness into smaller pieces.

Susan Clark10 said:I honestly think the only reason they even bothered with a reissue is because the publisher is owned by Glavan's son—what a joke! 😁

Hell no. ☕

So, get this—there was already a reissue lined up last year, but some publisher out in Chicago backed out because they still owed the author money from some old deal. Typical. But then, wouldn't you know it, the son stepped in to save the day! 😉

Look, Dragaš nailed everything in his foreword—there’s really nothing left to add or take away. Honestly, I’ll stick to reading Pasolini or Lester Bangs instead. Their stuff is actually funny and feels way more authentic than all those cheap, later attempts at reconstructing history. 😳

Jerry Rogers2 said:You just don't get it—I'm definitely not going to pay any mind to critics or reviewers. And I certainly don't care about reviews for albums or artists I don't even listen to anyway.
Besides, I highly doubt you have any reason to listen to tens of thousands of albums, especially artists you don't even like! 😉

But how exactly are you supposed to discover new music then? It's not like that happens by magic. For instance, if you're into a specific subgenre and hear about a great band, that’s where the review comes in. Think of criticism as a tool for curation; it's there to help guide your selection. You shouldn't take it personally, but you shouldn't ignore it entirely either.

Always be the last one to leave the bar...

Listen, you need to immerse yourself in every genre imaginable from an early age. You want to reach that point where you hear a track on the radio and instantly know the artist and the title. Go into journalism for the sake of general culture. Read plenty of books, study other critics' reviews, and then start writing. Write for yourself—express what you actually think, not what you feel obligated to say. Don't let the internet trolls get to you; it’s obvious you just need to find one critic whose perspective aligns with yours most of the time and treat them as your benchmark. Everyone's looking for a different voice, after all.

Don't bother finishing that journalism degree—you aren't actually going to learn anything about the industry there.

Adam Moore said:Don't bother finishing that journalism degree. You won't actually learn anything useful about the trade.

+1
Speaking from experience.

Music critics are basically just niche hustlers peddling nothing but hot air; anyone with an ounce of actual taste can tell what’s good and what isn't without all the unnecessary overthinking, so there's really no point in bothering with them. Honestly, I'd value a sanitation worker from Waste Management twice as much as any critic, since they actually contribute something useful to society while these guys just sit around playing intellectual. It's all just empty noise.😂🤣😁

I actually tried my hand at writing for this ancient
digital zine
NetPlugged
Does anyone else even remember that thing?
I still have my old press pass tucked away somewhere loldiv>

Is the crew still at it? http://www.netplugged.com 👍

So, I decided to finally jump back onto the forum today after reading some critic’s little takedown of my favorite band... honestly, it sent my blood pressure through the roof. All that talk about how they just follow trends and whatnot... sometimes I actually feel a sense of relief knowing that most Americans are perfectly content listening to mindless pop radio, because it means they aren't bothering to read what these "famous critics" have to say. They really are just arrogant windbags who spend their days sipping cheap beer and acting like they're experts... probably because they had nothing better to do than listen to ten thousand CDs back in the day when nobody wanted to hang out with them as kids... so now they think they're authorities on everything. I'll just leave it at this: A. Dragaš, you can take your opinion and shove it somewhere far away.