How much importance do you put on critics' opinions and how influential are they?
![[Deleted User]](https://wb.vanillicon.com/v2/bfa4a379addfea2d9529f4355a190206.svg)
[Deleted User]
Posts: 471 Forum Member
✭
Basically two of my favourite albums (Born To Die and Electra Heart) of 2012 and probably from the last few years have taken major battering from the critics...and its got me wondering.
Maybe I just have really bad taste but how much clout do critics reviews have?
Maybe I just have really bad taste but how much clout do critics reviews have?
0
Comments
I've only read positive reviews for Electra Heart too, but admittedly I haven't read too many.
Anyways, I like to read reviews, but the thought that the reviewer might have a different music taste to me is always at the front of my mind. If an album (Or a film, etc.) has overwhelming, across the board, negative reviews I'll stay away or listen to the tracks a few times on Youtube to make up my mind. I rarely buy an album after the lead single unless I liked their previous album. I normally wait until 2 or 3 singles in and see how I feel.
But that's about it for me.
Thats how I view it.
I feel like reviews are useful if you understand that they're just opinions of professional critics that may not have the same taste as you do. A critic can tell you if an album is well or poorly produced and cohesive compared to the standards of the respective genre. However, they can't tell you whether you must or mustn't like the album. That said, if an album has been reviewed by 50 professional critics and they all found it awful, then you probably shouldn't spend any money on it.
x 2
If I'd have listened to the critics, I would never have discovered my favourite album.
Some reviewers do a great job, some don't.
In other words you rely on your own prejudices. Critics are a tad more objective than that in most cases actually.
What the critics say and what the public like and buy are two different things.
For me, I take no notice of them...they are an irrelevance.
I agree....most of the time they have hidden agendas (or wads of cash from record labels in their pockets) and I find that what they say never really correlates with what the majority actually like and praise within a particular genre...
There is some truth in that but I have read some good reviews by Paul Morley, Greil Marcus and David Toop that were as inspired as the music they were writing about!
How do we establish what is good music and what is not?
Is popularity the only measure?
Personally I find it far better to find critics I trust and think I share similar taste with, and to then allow them to spend their time listening to the mass of new music that's being constantly released so they can narrow it down to, say, half a dozen albums a week that might be worth me spending my time listening to - and then of course I can make my own judgement on which ones I agree with them on.
So I believe critics have their uses. It's just a question of finding the right ones and using them in a way that helps you.
Yep that's what I've been trying to say as well, you just summed it up better.
A critic's opinion makes no difference once I've listened to something myself, but there's loads of music I simply wouldn't have ever listened to in the first place without first being pointed towards it by a critic.
Agree with the above. Analysis of anything creative will always involve a fair slice of personal taste. What is 'bad' music ? Is it as simple as music that's not liked ? I'm not sure that it is, there are lots of good musicians with small fanbases.
Someone like John Peel was such a treasure to anyone who appreciated music, particularly that he had no concept of popularity in his choices. If he liked a track that no one else in the entire music industry liked, it mattered not at all, he'd play it because the music had something to say, irrelevant of who the band/singer was or what kind of music they played. That several of the musicians Peel advocated turned into big names is something labels should think of this the next time they see a musician with no label who has found an audience from nowhere.
Alot of the music and films i like are often slated and i dont care for critics.
Its sad that some people do and they wanna be like everyone else!
Plus, critics can often succumb to bias (pro and against). One critic gave BTW a metacritic score of 0. I mean. Come on. :rolleyes:
In terms of influence, I think it depends what kind of artist their opinion is regarding. The general public don't care that Katy Perry and Rihanna albums are critically panned. However, if a "credible" artist is, then it's a whole other story.
It's good to see this thread move towards a positive outcome. Some comments are so dismissive of critics without thinking the issue through. Peel is a great example of someone who brought indie and minority music to wider attention without consideration of how popular it might be but how good it was.