Why do critics still exist?

C.M. Jones

Well-known member
While he is correct, he's also a bit off topic.
Not to be too critical of his critique of critcism, but the OP was referring to professional music critics, not people simply expressing their opinions about things.




I believe the term is "sheeple". Sheep + people = sheeple.



And in the words of Marcel Duchamp, "Not everyone is an artist, but everyone is a fu#*ing critic". :)

The most prominent benefit of professional criticism is that it can spur us to process a work of art in a way we may otherwise have overlooked. At the same time, I'm highly selective in the critical perspectives I take seriously. Propaganda is abundant. The ability to distinguish between substance and blather is paramount.
 

MrInsanePolack

Platinum Member
I think there's a difference between being a critic and being critical. I want to hear people's differing opinions on this forum, but I'm questioning the need for someone who has the label of critic and is trying to earn from it. I trust the people more on this forum than any critic I've ever read because 1) pretty much everyone on here plays and 2) no one on this forum is trying to make a buck with their opinion. When you throw money in the mix you get people with questionable motives. Is that a genuine opinion or is it controversial clickbait? Is there some incentive being provided for a review? Is this simply a hipster who hates everything remotely popular? That sort of thing.
Again, that is our fault. They only make $$$ because people are willing to listen to and place some sort of value upon it. If no one listened, the critic would not make any $$$.
 

J-W

Well-known member
Ah but that's exactly what professional critics do, they express their opinions about things. They just choose to do it to a specific subject.

The difference is in getting paid for their opinions. Not speaking for the OP, but I think that was his bone of contention. I could be wrong. I often am.
 

MrInsanePolack

Platinum Member
The difference is in getting paid for their opinions. Not speaking for the OP, but I think that was his bone of contention. I could be wrong. I often am.
As I said above they wouldnt get paid if no one listened. Their opinion is obviously valued to someone, so they get paid. Thats the only difference.

When I was gigging, we were reviewed in numerous metal magazines, fanzines, and websites. The reviews were always the same, "love the band, wish they would go faster". At some point I stopped caring because it didnt matter. The only difference was the medium. The review in Metal Maniacs was by a paid critic as it's a publication. Website reviews not so much. But the opinion was the same. The only difference that I could tell is people pay for a magazine, and therefore the staff gets paid. Otherwise I don't see it as any different. If the magazine doesnt sell, those folks make no $$$.

And that is my non-paid opinion lol.
 

Odd-Arne Oseberg

Platinum Member
Music critics have always been strange to me as they've always seemed like people who didn't even have the slightest clue of what they were talking about. Pretty much everything sucked apart from REM which they seem to have to love to be taken seriously.

Now there are two types of critics and they represent two different functons. The ones that simply are there to make you aware and informed about something you might like I'm all for. True reviews and a bit of education, not just stupid childish and uninformed opinions with a dice number.

In general it's much better to just subscribe to a music magazine for a while, learn about the influences of you heroes, read all the articles not just what you know about and are interested in right now, give everything a chance and go from there.
 

Odd-Arne Oseberg

Platinum Member
As I said above they wouldnt get paid if no one listened. Their opinion is obviously valued to someone, so they get paid.

The question is if they really listen and i it's about anything else than being part of a community on a pretty shallow level.

Sadly, that describes to much of the world in general sometimes.
 

GruntersDad

Administrator - Mayor
Staff member
Back a few years, Rogers and Ebert, the two thumbs guys were credible. They did movie reviews and were serious about it. As was their followers. Not there is the Onion that I don't think does possitive reviews. They dislike most things and tell you why. Also the Razzies, who pick bad movies and give the worst one an award. Now with the internet, whether it be movies, books, music, whatever there are tons of critics. Try Rollingstone magazine if you want music reviews.
 

MntnMan62

Junior Member
I think the OP hit the proverbial nail on the head. I don't think critics deserve any "airtime". We have brains and opinions of our own and can make up our own minds what we like and what we don't like. This thread just gives them the attention they crave. I will not say another word for fear of making myself more of a hypocrite than I already am.
 

MntnMan62

Junior Member
Hmmm. I can recall several instances where I should have spoken up but didn't. Then again, I worry about a lot of things I should just forget. I guess the name for me is "worry wort". Neurotic is another one.
 

C.M. Jones

Well-known member
Back a few years, Rogers and Ebert, the two thumbs guys, were credible.

They were also entertaining. I didn't always agree with them, but that's not the point of valid criticism. It's goal is to ignite thought, not impose consensus. A good critic promotes discussion. Readers or viewers cause the fallouts that follow.
 

someguy01

Well-known member
Stephen Hunter, author who wrote the book the movie "Shooter" is based upon, was also a movie reviewer for the Washington Post back in the 90s. His reviews were always solid with a touch of humour. He never berated a movie or said you should never see it, just honest advice.
 

GruntersDad

Administrator - Mayor
Staff member
Remember, critics used to work for newspapers, magazines, TV, Radio stations, and not just clever people out there being trolls. If they didn't produce, or were way off base too often there were job hunting.
 

J-W

Well-known member
...silence can be golden

That's an excellent point and advice I'll certainly take. I'm obviously horrible at communication here as my words too often seem to either be misunderstood or misconstrued. Thank you for the reminder.
 

someguy01

Well-known member
Dignified silence can be golden. I've never regretted something I haven't said, though certain scenarios might call for outspokenness from an ethical standpoint.
Like the saying "tis better to be assumed a fool then open one's mouth and remove all doubt"
 

C.M. Jones

Well-known member
That's an excellent point and advice I'll certainly take. I'm obviously horrible at communication here as my words too often seem to either be misunderstood or misconstrued. Thank you for the reminder.

Speak up, J-W! It wouldn't be much of a forum if we all sat back and spectated. All misunderstandings can be clarified if a spirit of friendliness prevails. That might be a lot to ask for in 2021, however.
 
Top