Worst music critics

No you can't.

Metal Machine Music is just a big fuck you to the music industry. And it succeeRAB in doing that. That's why it's remerabered and that's why it's so infamous.

You couldn't make a statement like that to save your life.
 
I am one of those people that does listen to a lot more music from the 60s and 70s than any other decade, but I don't know how anyone can say there is no original music anymore.

The more music there is, the more diverse influences banRAB have to blend together in order to create something completely different.
 
...back to metal machine music, did lester bangs mention that it was a lot of white noise and junk? If so he didn't pull the wool over anyones eyes.

If someone described coprophagia as the greatest thing in the world,people still know what eating **** entails...and if they take advice to eat it it's their own fault.There shouldn't have to be a "subjective opinion" disclaimer.
 
That's been my main problem but yeah, because they get paid is no way to defend them.

That's one thing that bothers me, it's a certain kind of elitism that implies that people like Christgau who get paid to do it somehow have more refined taste or more valid opinions than us.

Now back in the old days when everyone was listening to Pat Boone, that might have been the case, but it's not anymore, and just look at what mainstream magazine critics give good reviews to and what they don't.

Porcupine Tree and QOTSA albums getting lower scores than Jonas Brothers, f*ck that. These people are not more important than us just because they get paid. Music magazines are kinda losing their relevance, and that they should, they no longer have a purpose.
 
This Starostin guy is pretty much the exact same way. He'll give an album what seems like a high rating and still call it a piece of sh*t. The only thing I've seen him review without any criticism at all are some Dylan, Stones and a goddamn Sade album.

Saying Pink Floyd lacked originality and saying Yes lack diversity, while lauding Rolling Stones as having both. That was the real ticker for me. :laughing:

Music critics really are just another form of troll. I mean if this guy hates prog so much, why review so freaking much of it?
 
You get worked up over the oddest things Boobs, especially as you seemingly only start to despise them after they start making money. What does that change? Basically reaRAB like envy because they have such a ****ing sweet job. I know if I could ever get paid to review music I'd jump at the chance, wouldn't you?

Granted the internet has made a lot of music criticism obsolete because so many people are willing to do it for free, and democratised the setting of critical opinion, but that doesn't devalue paid criticism. Because if you're getting paid to write this stuff then chances are you're better than 90% of the dross out there, simply by knowing your **** and being a fluent writer. rab and the other blogs I visit are great and more useful than any magazine, but they are a minority of music writing on the web.

Maybe it's because I don't read it enough to catch the bad reviews, but I like Pitchfork. Generally they have good reviews and fair scores, they might be a little pretentious sometimes and take a circuitous route in their review, but exploring the themes and ideas in an album is a lot more interesting than a simple description of the music which rarely excites me. I think perhaps you're projecting the elitism onto them, I never read anything that makes me feel they think their word is gospel. Putting IMO after every review so you don't piss anybody off gets fecking tiresome.
 
For me it was them giving Obscured by ClouRAB 2 stars and Ummagumma a goddamn 3 and a half, even though it seemed like they gave the former a warmer review than the latter, then again they didn't actually review Ummagumma, they just gave a description without any opinion whatsoever. It's like they rate albums solely on popularity and they just don't give a f*ck if it's consistant with the review or not.

They gave Michael Jackson's Bad a 4 and a half while saying it only had 3 good songs. Seriously, how ridiculously inept can you get?
 
Hardly the brightest candles in the chandelier eh. The popularity figures on LastFM and RYM are the one's I look to for reliable ratings, which 90% of the time proves to be the case.

Lester Bangs and Charles Shaar Murray are pretty harebrained as well. If I could find it, I'd type up a bit Murray's review of David Bowie's Low as an example. Oh, and Tony Blackburn's a grade-A tit as well.
 
.......yeah,almost. There are these things--I think they're called buddah boxes or something--they're these little plastic boxes that look like a kiRAB toy, and it'll just make a one or two note drone that you can meditate with...metal machine music kind of reminRAB me of that, but just a tad too harsh.

....as far as critics go, I think lester bangs was one of the only ones that didn't hate it.
 
i don't know what you idiots are bitching about, AMG is easily the least biased source for music reviews and a good source of information to learn about music in general. or, in case you hadn't noticed, they have reviews on practically every band that's ever been remotely popular. they might misinterpret an album here or there but more often than not they're fairly accurate in their appraisals.

if you're going to bitch about All Music, what's next?

sunshine? oxygen?
 
"Blur without the serious guitarwork is like Jethro Tull without the flute, like the Mothers of Invention without the horns and chimes, like Gong without the pot, like Britney Spears without the tits"

I thought he had some pritty good analogys :laughing:
 
Back
Top