Music critics?!

I find myself increasingly incensed by the sheer audacity displayed by certain musical critics in our national publications. It is my firm belief that it is fundamentally impossible for a single critic to possess the requisite depth of knowledge to evaluate every conceivable genre of music with any degree of legitimacy. We see this happening far too frequently in the American press, where one individual is granted the authority to pass judgment on everything from avant-garde jazz to heavy metal, as if they could possibly master the nuances of such vastly different sonic landscapes. Such sweeping pretension is not merely an error in judgment; it is a profound failure of intellectual honesty.
I find myself in the position of being unable to offer a legitimate professional critique regarding music that falls entirely outside my typical listening habits.
They lack any sense of discernment because, to them, everything is essentially the same.
It is my firm belief that such music is far too frequently subjected to inaccurate assessments and misguided descriptions.

Melissa Long said:What do you guys think? Can one single music critic really be expected to judge every single genre out there? It feels like that happens all the time in our local American newspapers lately.

No way.

...pop music critics are just a bunch of clueless hacks, usually nothing more than washed-up, bitter musicians who couldn't make it themselves... honestly, I’ve never once understood what their actual job is supposed to be... unless, you know, they're getting paid off (by some major label) to hype up a mediocre album...🙂 🙂 🙂 👎 🙂

Nonsense.

The whole idea that critics are just failed artists is nothing but pure delusion—a little way for frustrated "creatives" to feel better about the fact that actual critics don't even like their work. 👎

Music critics (just like any other kind of critic, really) are people capable of spotting genuine quality, originality, and raw talent in a piece of music.

Now, does that always hold up in the real world? And do every single idiot out there call themselves a critic (especially here in the States)? That’s a different conversation entirely... 😢

If I actually listened to music and film critics, I’d never step foot in a theater or bother buying an album.

Jacob Johnson70 said:If I actually listened to those music and movie critics, I’d probably never step foot in a theater or bother buying a single album.

Seriously, tell me about it!👍

I recall a critique from some local rappers where the esteemed N. K. Jemisin was arguing that rock had died and that this new wave of hip-hop was the peak of music. And yet, there’s been a hip-hop superstar dominating the scene for twenty years now...

coastalpanther43 said:Total garbage.

That whole idea that critics are just failed artists? Pure nonsense. It’s nothing but a pathetic coping mechanism for those "artists" who can't handle being told their work sucks by the very people they despise. 👎

Real music critics—and honestly, any actual critic—are people who actually have the ears to recognize quality, originality, and raw talent when they see it.

Now, does that always hold up in the real world? Does it mean every hack with a blog is a critic? Especially here in the States? Yeah, that's a whole different mess... 😢

…first off, I was talking about the critics in our own backyard… and second, believe me, I know what I’m talking about… I’ve dealt with plenty of them… and look, one guy, D. V. Smith (a total legend in the Middle East rock journalism scene), was actually fair in my book and used to lend me some rare vinyl once in a while… that was it… I tried to talk shop with him once about music… and he shut me down immediately…

🙂 🙂 🙂

If critics who review the reviewers get called out for being just bitter, washed-up musicians—then what does that make those meta-critics? Aren't they actually way worse than the original critics?

dustyscout53 said:If critics who review other critics get called out for just being washed-up musicians with nothing left, then what does that make those meta-critics? Aren't they actually way worse than the original critics?

Nah, they aren't, because it's basically just a double negative. 😬

Benjamin Morris36 said:they aren't—I mean, that's just a double negative, right?😬

Man, these are honestly my favorite kinds of chats. 👍 😁 😁 😁

dustyscout53 said:Man, I live for debates like this. 👍 😁 😁 😁

…I mean, what part of this is confusing you? 😢 Musicians are the affirmation… critics are the negation… and critics of critics? That’s just the negation of the negation… honestly, have some shame… I thought... you were my hero…😢 wearing that big fancy badge like you actually know something… but you don't even grasp the basics of dialectical materialism… you aren't some legendary figure like Walter who defended Chicago… you're just some random, mediocre actor…🙂 🙂 🙂

Benjamin Morris36 said:...I mean, what part of this don't you get? 😢 Musicians represent affirmation—critics are negation—and critics of critics are just the negation of negation... honestly, give me a break. I thought... you were my hero...😢 rocking that star on your chest... but you clearly haven't even touched the basics of dialectical materialism... you aren't some legend like Walter who defended Chicago... you're just some random actor...🙂 🙂 🙂

I totally get where you're coming from, though—I just love these kinds of debates, wasn't being cynical or anything.

dustyscout53 said:Look, I get where you're coming from, but I actually dig these kinds of debates. Wasn't trying to be cynical or anything.

whatever. 😁

dustyscout53 said:If critics who critique other critics get called out for being nothing more than frustrated, washed-up musicians themselves, then what does that make those critics of critics? Aren't they actually even worse than the original critics?

Right?! Exactly! It’s like if you go after someone just because they’re attacking your family—you end up looking even worse than the guy who started it in the first place.

It’s also kind of funny how language works—in some specific dialects or ways of speaking, a double negative doesn't actually flip the meaning, it just stays a single negation (like saying "I don't have nothing" just means you have nothing).

And honestly, regarding critics... I’ve never been a huge fan of them. They always seem to kill the vibe before I even get a chance to enjoy something, so I usually just skip reading them altogether!

dustyscout53 said:If critics of critics get called out for being nothing more than frustrated, washed-up musicians, then what does that make those meta-critics? Doesn't that actually make them even worse than the original critics?

I just want to know who the hell these critics actually are??????

:-))

(Don't mind me, I'm just wasting time on this forum when I really should be studying.)

Honestly, if I actually listened to music critics, I’d probably toss 90% of my collection in the trash. Back when I was a newbie and didn't know any better, I used to rely on them way too much. There were times I'd buy a CD because the reviews were glowing, only to listen to it and think, "Man, both this band and this critic suck." 😁
Seriously though, it shouldn't be okay for certain critics to weigh in on just any genre. I've seen some reviews of metal bands lately...
...where these guys clearly have zero clue what style the band even plays. They'll mislabel them as something completely different, yet they still feel entitled to give
their "expert" take and influence everyone reading their stuff.
Bottom line: if you don't know what you're talking about, just stay in your lane! 😉

I don't get one thing. How can some music critic spend all day talking trash, acting like a philosopher, and being impossible to please, only to turn around and start a band that absolutely crushes everything he claims is bad?
How?

Michael Mitchell said:I just don't get one thing. How can you have this music critic who spends all day talking nonsense, acting like some deep philosopher, and being impossible to please... and then they go and start a band that's actually a million times better than all the "good" music they claim to love?
how does that even work?

Is it a specific person or just... what? 😁

mayhem said:It’s honestly pretty messed up how certain critics feel entitled to judge every single genre, especially when I see reviews for metal bands
where the writers don't even grasp what style the band actually plays—they just swap it out for something completely different—yet they still get to dish out
their "critique," which basically just shapes what everyone else thinks.

I mean, if you ask me, metal reviewers and those big music sites overrate stuff way too much, especially when it comes to the "legendary" bands. Take Manowar on Rolling Stone, for example:

1982 - Battle Hymns > 10/10
1984 - Hail To England > 9,5/10
1984 - Sign Of The Hammer > 10/10
1987 - Fighting The World > 10/10
1988 - Kings Of Metal > 9/10
1992 - Triumph of Steel > 7,5/10
1996 - Louder Than Hell > 10/10
2001 - Hell On Earth Part 1 DVD > 9/10
2002 - Fire and Blood > 9/10 -
2002 - Warriors of the World > 9/10
2002 - Warriors of the World > 7/10
2002 - Warriors of the World United > DVD 5/10, CD 8/10
2002 - The Dawn of Battle > 6,5/10

Sure, maybe you can give them a pass for the early albums, but after that? In my opinion, nothing justifies scores like these...
There are plenty of other examples too...