Music critics?!

finalnifantazista said:Benjamin Morris36, I think you totally missed the mark on this one... 😁

yeah, honestly, that's kind of how I'm feeling too... anyway, thanks for looking out...👍

Benjamin Morris36 said:…but I’ve crossed paths with Perković a few times, and he seems perfectly fine to me…

😁

He's great... but seriously—how was he supposed to know Dan Colley was a guy? God, what an absolute idiot...😠

Jesse Wells8 said:God, what an absolute idiot...😠

Man, I always figured people who listen to Morphin weren't this narrow-minded...👎

coastalpanther43 said:Man, I always figured people who listen to Morphin weren't quite this narrow-minded...👎

You really can't judge someone by their playlist, you know? 😁 😁 🙂

Look, I was just speaking out of turn—you know, in the heat of the moment...😁

3 steps ahead said:What do you all think? Can a single music critic realistically judge every conceivable genre, much like we see happening so frequently in our American newspapers?
In my view, it is impossible to offer a professional opinion on music that one doesn't even listen to regularly.
They lack the fundamental understanding of what works and what fails because, to them, everything sounds essentially the same.
Consequently, they far too often misinterpret and misjudge the music they cover.

As an average listener, anyone can voice an opinion on any subject. If they possess the literacy to articulate that opinion effectively, then the basic prerequisites for becoming a critic have been met. Now, since we all possess varied tastes—though that isn't the point here—we will naturally hold differing views on the subjects we write about. Furthermore, occasionally we might find common ground with someone else's palate. In those instances, we tend to agree more easily. We won't mind if such a critic writes about a wide variety of albums because, quite likely, our perspectives will align. Conversely, if someone's taste is vastly different from ours, we simply won't enjoy their writing.

A secondary issue arises if the individual is a poor writer; I would certainly agree that the ability to express oneself clearly is far more vital than the critic's specific taste. The idea is that people read to think. However, if the prose is substandard, we never actually reach the underlying thought.

There is also another pitfall in criticism: many people engage in it solely for the paycheck. In other words, they remain superficial, merely transcribing others or copying existing sentiments. That isn't a critic; that is a reporter. Such work should be framed accordingly (using phrases like: "...as noted by the critic at that particular magazine...").

To be a true music critic means possessing knowledge that extends beyond mere personal preference—after all, everyone knows what they like and dislike. One must understand technical proficiency, recording quality, and the nuances of production. You need to be versed in dimensions that transcend simple taste. Even then, objective criticism remains an impossibility. What such expertise provides is the weight of authority—the ability to hear when a drummer is off-beat, to recognize poor vocal technique, or to sense when the lyrics were penned by some half-literate amateur. The vast majority of critics lack this depth. Therefore, they aren't really critics at all; they are just rambling. 😉

Ugh, seriously?!