What makes a critic's opinion more credible than someone else's?

What makes a critic's opinion more credible than someone else's?

Other urls found in this thread:

robertchristgau.com/
youtube.com/watch?v=OTCZq_n-5qA
twitter.com/SFWRedditGifs

Their popularity and reach.

The only thing I can think of that would make someone a bad critic is constantly being a contrarian for every release made. And luckily I don't think there's a critic like that.

Literally nothing.

literally nothing also that guy is not a critic he's a vlogger

the amount of soy they consume

Nothing does. Also Anthony doesn't give real opinions anymore. He rates albums based on his audience's tastes in order to maximize views and ad revenue.

robertchristgau.com/

knowledge

critic is an informated opinion.
I don't care about critics for the opinion part but for the information and insights they provide.

Nothing. Critics are worthless. People who worship them are less than worthless.

FUCK FANTANO

The value of criticism comes not from the "credibility" or "correctness" of one's opinion, but rather the consistency of one's opinions, and your ability to interpret their opinion on a new work within the context of their previous opinions. This is why Youtube critics have more cultural sway than writers for traditional publications, because every Tony Fantano opinion comes from him and him alone.

how much are they posted on Sup Forums

knowledge. what makes a (good) critic's opinion different from your average joe is that they've listened to more music and thought about it more. the ideal critic has exceptional knowledge, both on the more esoteric and the more basic aspects of something's appeal, and is adept at expressing their perspective. Having the opinion isn't enough, the best critics are able to articulate it well. This is why the melon is such a success, because he has more knowledge than even your average Sup Forumstant, but even beyond that he's very good at expressing his opinions in a clear, easy-to-understand way.

The sixth album by this neocommunalist, neopsychedelic quartet improves on 2005's Feels, flashing more shards of tune to lure the coeds with the Coleman PerfectFlow InstaStart Lanterns over to their adamantly unkempt campfire. The welcoming "Peacebone," the energetic "Chores" and the elated "Cuckoo Cuckoo" might get a young leisure consumer to risk conversion at one of the grotty neoprimitivist orgies their shows are bruited to be. Then again, the ninety seconds of weirded-up solo organ ostinato that then underlies or swallows three minutes of incomprehensible singing on "Winter Wonder Land" might inspire the same normal to stay home and watch Seinfeld reruns. It depends on how he or she felt about the six-minute centerpiece, "For Reverend Green," where the listener strains to hear frontman Avey Tare rave, "I think it's all right to feel human now." Great, really. But didn't we know that already?

The more important question is
Why does a critic's opinion having more sway or importance than the average joe's bothers you?

well there's nothing inherently superior about a critic's opinion, but generally the reasons that people read/listen to their opinions are:
-the critic has an encyclopedic knowledge of the style of music that they're analyzing (for a rock critic this would mean being aware of important artists in all relevant genres/subgenres, so that they could provide historical context, like "artist X is clearly influenced by the work of artist Y, who was a pioneer in the German psychedelic movement in the early 70s)
-academic understanding of musical theory (the critic can explain the way that a song is structured by breaking it down into it's technical building blocks- time signatures, scales, dissonance, timbre, etc.)
-insightful and interesting writing (sometimes it isn't just about what the critic says, but how they say it- Lester Bangs is a good example here, even when you disagree with his evaluation of an artist, the writing is entertaining enough to make you care about his opinion)

He is definitely less harsh on more popular albums than he was used to, and I'm sure he's said that he hardly has time to review the albums he wants cause his audience is so demanding. it been awhile since he gave an unpopular rating like MBDTF and Choose your weapon

People naturally defer to people who are more eloquent than them

>it been awhile since he gave an unpopular rating like MBDTF and Choose your weapon
The DAMN. review was just last year.

Don't ask me, what makes a critic's opinion more credible than someone else's to YOU?

people who unilaterally hate critics seem to think that the only way to interact with their work is to blindly accept and parrot their opinions

The trust and audience the public gives it.
People WANT to be told what is good or bad since it makes things easier.

I also think in my opinion the star/rating system can only screw you in the long run because eventually people compare past scores to whatever you score in the future and naturally your taste can change and shift so it can't reflect that opinion.
I thought about approaching it from a more laying down the groundwork maybe discuss the artist mindset or the general sound have some comparisons instead of outright 'reviewing'.

Because it was market proven. Lot's of people of releasing videos with their thoughts on albums but none of them are noticed by mu. I just like him as a person and find his videos entertaining but i don't go to his videos to find the objective and ultimate categorization of music by degree of musical aptitude or whatever

youtube.com/watch?v=OTCZq_n-5qA

Their knowledge about music, just like any critic.
Because they know more about it, it means they know what is good and bad in music.

The fact that critic's mere existance triggers some people is odd.
People choose to give more credibility to a person about music, it's no big deal.

nah dude because if you ever read someone else's opinion on a piece of music you're being brainwashed
in fact whenever one of my friends begins to discuss music i tell them to shut up because only idiots listen to other people's opinions about music

Their ability to criticize art eloquently

when people actively search for opinions on music they are trying to get more educated opinions, which objectively do not matter. It only helps the experience of the listener. I can guarantee you that people who watch SOYBOYFANTANO! broaden their music tastes for the better. Same reason there are loads of chart threads and so many active users on Sup Forums. Everyone broadens their taste through experience.

Critics have many many publicly stated opinions. It's because they are prolific.

the only popular music critic i trust

whether or not people care about it

A wider range of knowledge than the average listener. Also, good critics are usually more intelligent than the average person.

Actual arguments

Pic unrelated

I don't think his opinions are more credible. I disagree with a lot of what he says. But I like having that disagreement, because then it helps me refine my opinions and taste.

the only real answers

there ability to see shit as art and other faggy shit

nothing does, nobody's opinion is better than anyone else's

a reason or set of reasons given in support of an idea

These their opinions are not gospel but i'd rather listen to them for recs than your average person since they have heard so much music and are good at articulating why they like or don't like it

Fantano is great for getting into different genres of music. Although I've disagreed with alot of his reviews I do like his classic reviews

>DAMN
>Lil Pump

experience in said industry

...

If you don't understand criticism then you should avoid discussion. Critics are knowledgeable about something in particular and analyse things through the perspective of their area of expertise. It's really important to have criticism in creative work. Brainlets don't understand criticism and conflate it with preference like absolute morons.
Fantano isn't a critic, he's a vlogger who makes videos congratulating himself for liking and disliking things without any critical value.

underrated post.

>fantano
>different genres of music
lmao

>without any critical value
I disagree, though his criticisms are usually don't go that in-depth, with more weight on opinions and preferences (which is a shame).

Still, he's a YouTube entertainer with lots of albums to go through per week. It works for him, so I can't blame him from doing it the way he does.

But is the meme about him pandering to his audience correct?

If so, does that then mean his "opinion" is really just his opinion of his audience?

>Anonymous
He panders to his audience when it comes to which albums he reviews, but not really his opinions or anything like that

Accidental quoting there

While its obvious he panders to his audience in terms of what he reviews, its not obvious if he does in terms of scores.

If it became clear that he was altering his takes on albums based on what he thinks the audience wants, then his reviews will stop being valuable.

Nothing, but it has more power due to people believing it is more credible.

The Ooz