Freaking out over music reviews

>freaking out over music reviews
>i.e. pitchfork/fantano
>letting another person's opinion affect whether or not you like an album

See your doctor

Fuck, this post really hit close to home. I think i'm gonna stop listening to music forever now.

Thanks for the wake up call, user.

That was not my point

I know this is a shitpost but this is an opportunity to get something off my chest

>not letting another person's opinion affect whether or not you like an album
Without the dialogue and without the conversation music is nothing but masturbation. A series of self-serving, fleeting highs for you and your own insular little world.

If there's a proper exchange of ideas, thoughts and beliefs that come up in the wake of a piece of music you should embrace it open-mindedly and honestly. If someone offers a perspective you don't have or makes a point you hadn't considered it makes you a more informed listener.

Right now we need informed listeners. The public dialogue on music is fucking trash because there are too many hopelessly insecure people like you who want to be the sole dudebro with his totally subversive and self-defined opinions.

Not all reviews will change your mind (most won't actually) but you should be open to the idea that they might and embrace it when they do.

P O L A R I Z I N G

Saving this pasta

accurate, but i think OP was talking about people that don't form their own opinions and just blindly listen to others, which is equally as bad.

The problem is that music reviewing in 2016 is way over politicized. I'd say the public dialogue is trash because people are coming to realize what a charade it all is. We should be talking about those fleeting insular highs, but those highs are always going to be what they are. No amount of conversation is going to change the essence of that experience, and if you do let conversation change that for you, then it shows in the way you talk about music. It's not something real anymore, it's social currency.

forgot to quote

Certainly. Ideally reviews and comments should augment your own opinion rather than override it completely. To be honest I don't actually encounter a lot of people who do blindly follow one publication or one reviewer so much. At least outside of the whole Rolling Stone/dadrock glitterati and the public dialogue there is crippled for a lot of other reasons.

I'm actually okay with using art as a springboard to make social issues as long as there's full disclosure. When you purport to write a review of an album and it turns out to be soapboxing it comes off as cheap, exploitative and opportunistic. Otherwise I don't think it's an inherent issue.

But even outside of lyrics you can still talk about the craft of music. The methods the artist used to achieve that fleeting high is what I was referring to when I was talking about a public dialogue. Lyrical themes and content to a lesser extent. I don't think that has any pretence and I certainly don't think it's a less "real" appreciation than the base immediate gratification.

And honestly for a lot of music it kind of requires it. That kind of visceral appeal can only get you so far, I think.

DUDE IF THIS SHIT GETS A 10 FROM PITCHFORK DONT PRETEND THAT YOU WONT REACT SHUT YOUR BUTT

desu

Good music critics, like Lester Bangs and Christgau, have genuine insight into music, are knowledgeable, and have very developed tastes. They can smell bullshit a mile away because they've been fed it year after year since the 60s.
Bad critics, like Memetano and Pitchfork, just spout buzzwords and try to stay up on what's trendy. They tend to confuse faux-artyness with the real thing and weirdness with quality, and have a weird obligation to be tastemakers

You said what I've been struggling to explain to people why I read reviews in general, and I tried to be varied at that. Even if there is bias or even holes in someone's reasoning when reviewing music and its significance as a piece of art, I still like to hear what everyone has to say. Because you like said, you might come across something you might not have ever considered when you listened to an album. Pitchfork and Fantano, as annoying as they may be at times, still hold some value in their criticism because I always learn something new from them, even if I don't agree with them overall.

It's less real when you talk up an album that has nothing original or interesting going for it besides being palatable and fashionable, which Pitchfork and Fantano do all the time. When people echo these views it's obvious and disingenuous. Reviewers risk the integrity of their own voice by catering to an audience to maintain their following and job. Talking to people who are carving their own obscurantist (which isn't to implicate obscure music only) line through the medium is by far more valuable for me.

I get your point, I just don't think the tastemakers OP is referring to have any purpose anymore. Maybe I'm too hard on Fantano (fuck pitchfork though), but at the end of the day he's just some guy with some opinions like the rest of us. I'd like to see a greater variety of music reviewers talked about on here at the very least. As it stands he's a stale meme.

>It's less real when you talk up an album that has nothing original or interesting going for it besides being palatable and fashionable, which Pitchfork and Fantano do all the time.
That's dangerous thinking and it also implies that fashionable albums don't have anything original or interesting to say, which is the definition of contrarianism. Sometimes things are popular for a reason.

Besides, you're kind of missing my point. YOU say that Album X by The Reverb White Boys is unoriginal and uninteresting and you've drawn a hard line on that. You need to be open to a perspective that might make you reconsider that.

Worst case scenario you can shut them down in a more informed way.

>When people echo these views it's obvious and disingenuous.
I agree up to a point. If some people got legitimately turned around by it you can't exactly say they're wrong. That's the problem, knowing whether folks are being trendy or whether they have seriously considered their opinions.

>Reviewers risk the integrity of their own voice by catering to an audience to maintain their following and job.
Again, it sounds like you've made up your mind already that these reviews are valueless, which makes it a self fulfilling prophecy. Even if you're right you can't let a couple of bad apples spoil the whole concept for you. That's absurd.

continued.

>Talking to people who are carving their own obscurantist (which isn't to implicate obscure music only) line through the medium is by far more valuable for me.
The only value of a critic is how well informed they are, how they resonate with you and how good their writing is. Whether they're part of the cool kids club or a nobody toiling away on a blogspot dedicated to obscure 70s krautrock don't mean shit. That's quite hypocritically shallow on your part.

>I'd like to see a greater variety of music reviewers talked about on here at the very least.
Abso-fucking-lutely. The problem isn't "Pitchfork and Fantano are bad" it's that they're overexposed. Can't have a healthy, changing dialogue when you pull from the same two genre-specific sources.

Personally speaking I don't care for either of them. But they don't write for me, so I can only get mad at the people who keep spamming them.

yeah

Alright you've changed my mind on the first point, I was overgeneralizing.

>You need to be open to a perspective that might make you reconsider that.
The fact that you think I have to is what I'm talking about when I say
>if you do let conversation change that for you, then it shows in the way you talk about music
The thing is, if it doesn't resonate with me, that's it. I don't NEED to do anything, my perspective is what it is, as is yours. Further listening and life experience on my part might, but hearing you talk about it probably won't do much if I'm already disinterested. Talking about music is like dancing about architecture as they say.

>it sounds like you've made up your mind already that these reviews are valueless
They're not valueless, they're equally valuable to the review of anyone else who's able to express themselves well.

>The only value of a critic is how well informed they are, how they resonate with you and how good their writing is. Whether they're part of the cool kids club or a nobody toiling away on a blogspot dedicated to obscure 70s krautrock don't mean shit.
My point is that I care about people who are listening to music in a self guided way rather than letting someone else lead them. That really does mean something. Writing quality can be copped from others. Resonance is subjective. Being well informed is important, yes. But ultimately you can have all of those things and still be listening to shitty music! I AM IN IT FOR THE FUCKING MUSIC.

>The thing is, if it doesn't resonate with me, that's it. I don't NEED to do anything, my perspective is what it is, as is yours. Further listening and life experience on my part might, but hearing you talk about it probably won't do much if I'm already disinterested.
That's fair, I suppose. I just can't identify with the idea that you wouldn't want to. If I listen to bad or unfulfilling music the conversation is possibly the only thing I can get out of it.

>ultimately you can have all of those things and still be listening to shitty music!
I mean, after you've said you're unwilling to hear them out it's hard for me to take any of this seriously, dude. Also it's "listening to what I consider shitty music". Blindly going against something without considering it or knowing why isn't any more inherently noble than blindly following something. You are arguably as bad as the people you're condemning.

>I AM IN IT FOR THE FUCKING MUSIC.
Good for you. That's a really pretty way of saying "I'm in it for the immediate appeal and nothing else". It's also the same exact rhetoric used by Rolling Stone Magazine and a host of YouTube commenters to discourage critical thinking. Wanting to be a more informed, more open minded listener and participator in the conversation does not preclude "BEING IN IT FOR THE FUCKING MUSIC". Only people who want to de-legitimise critics and academics think that.

You don't need to read any reviews of music ever

It is literally just some hand hold thing to make sure you don't listen to something that is considered bad and dumb for people who are 15 and actually worry about that

My post descended into obtuse sarcasm, my apologies.

>after you've said you're unwilling to hear them out
What? When did I say that? Are you implying that comprehension of someone's perspective requires you to adopt it? What kind of binary thinking is this?

>"listening to what I consider shitty music"
Yes.

>Blindly going against something without considering it or knowing why isn't any more inherently noble than blindly following something
Like I mentioned
>(which isn't to implicate obscure music only)
I'm not condoning contrarianism, only authenticity...

>You are arguably as bad as the people you're condemning.
You are entitled to argue that.

>"I'm in it for the immediate appeal and nothing else"
No, god dammit, I never said that. My point is as simple as "think for yourself".

>Only people who want to de-legitimise critics and academics think that.
That is exactly what I'm doing. The internet has reduced the value of the professional critic to the value of any informed music listener. Academics are not even relevant to this conversation. Who ever said Pitchfork writers or Fantano were academics? No one with a brain.