Quote:
|
Originally Posted by sarramkrop
That's a very interesting thing that you are saying, there. I was in fact thinking of something similar about music criticism in general because of those reassestment threads. A good music journalist would criticise the music simply for what it is, regardless of their perceived feelings of what it is or what it might be, when it's simply not what they might think it is. Also, attacking the music because the reviewer doesn't have simpathy for the musician is one of the worst acts of unprofessionalism ever. Who gives a toss if such and such musician is a real arsehole? For as long as they make good music, it's all fine by me. Then you have cases when both the musician and the music are shite, and in that case they don't stand a chance. In general, music journalism is one of those professions that's being shat upon for so long and so many times, that it became really hard to find out who's doing a good job, rather than being a haven where people flash their own arrogance around.
Another thing is people who improvise themselves as experts in music simply because they have a big record collection, or because they have half an idea of this or that. They are the worst, same as those people who have access to gear and want to make music, but fail to sit down and truly think hard about the amount of talent that's in them. Sorry for this long rant, but it's a quiet day at work.
|
Well i just reckon theres a certain culture of it at the moment, and i suppose in a way because of the internet it means that people who did sit up and think "Hang on, The Neon Bible really wasnt that much cop" have an easier way of finding people who agree, and just appreciate a more objective methodology of reviewing. I do think theres a load of vested interests informing the way the mainstream press reviews music at the moment. Then again i could be reading too much Private Eye.