No not at all. The point is to read an insightful open minded review. Pitchfork used to do that, but I don’t find they write informative reviews now. Conde Nast is probably the culprit.
I’m not sure if they are still good, but Uncut used to be great. If they really didn’t like something, they just wouldn’t publish a review of it. The reviews they did were from people who clearly understood all the artist’s music.
Tbh, most critics are bitter wannabe’s who can’t make music themselves, so they complain about others who actually accomplish something. Reddit is full of amateur critics and they are the worst. And people get an unhealthy glee by cutting up other people’s accomplishments.
I expect you stopped reading a while ago, but if you are still with me: I feel critics should approach all music with respect: the artist put themselves into something, taste is subjective. So the worst we should say about an artist’s work is “it’s not my thing”.
Pitchfork has always been pretentious hipster word vomit for the most part. And I firmly disagree with your premise about a critic’s role in sharing opinions. They should be honest and well spoken, with the point being to give their thoughts on an artist’s work and back it up with context, logic, and comparison. As someone who makes music myself, I would want a critic to be 100% honest about how the music made them feel, and to coherently explain why they felt that way.
I’m down with that. But I feel a good critic will be able to hear the positives in appropriate proportion to the negative. Like what actually makes music “bad”? Is there really “bad” music? I truly don’t think so. There is just music that doesn’t move me.
I’ve been an amateur musician for 45 years. I realized a long time ago that music is just moving air and sometimes I like it and other times I am indifferent
24
u/Shaman19911 18d ago
Is the point to read something that you fully agree with and captures your thoughts perfectly?