Critics: Love 'Em or Hate 'Em?

[Tequila Cowboy]

Ok this is inspired by a response in the DBT forum stating that most reviewers/critics are idiots. I'm not singling out the person that said it because this has become a pretty common response in recent years with movie critic actually showing up in a list of "most reviled professions" last year. I don't get it, I mean I really don't. I would never go and see a movie or read a book without reading or seeing a review first. I just don't have that kind of time to risk hours of my life without any idea of what I'm getting into. Now, that being said, I know the critics I like and barring knowing the critic I know to look for some kind of consensus. If a movie is overwhelmingly praised by a variety of sources then the chances are good that I'm not wasting my time in seeing it, the reverse is also true. Now that's no guarantee as I've seen heralded movies I've loathed and stumbled upon critically panned films I liked a lot, but as a general rule it works and given that I see 4-5 movies in the theater every year and another 4-5 on cable, DVD or whatever it's a good filter. Books are a similar deal given the expense and time involved. Word of mouth is important as well and I rely on that and people on my internet haunts too. Music is a bit different. I'm more likely to take a listen to something on Spotify or a promotional stream because I can do it while I'm working, surfing or what have you. Even given that most of my music choices are from word of mouth from places like 3DD, FB, musicians I admire and the like. Time is valuable and we can't experience everything so in my mind critics and reviewers are not only valuable they're essential and for the life of me can't figure out why they take such a beating. Pitchfork is a perfect example in that they are despised despite being fairly credible and filling a necessary role.


Oh and I'm not talking about the brouhaha that went on in the DBT forum this week. That's just people with opinions. I'm talking about professional reviewers in magazines, blogs, papers, etc. just wanted to clarify.

[RolanK]

I agree there is a difference between movie critics and music critics that probably has to do with the medium itself. Movie critics I can live with, and for some reason I find I tend to a agree with them in more cases than I do with music critics.

The problem I have with music criticism in general is perhaps that in it's form it is attempting to appear as something it can never be; Journalism. The ideal of the journalist as an objective observer, delivering to the reader/listener facts and analysis from a neutral point of view is just not possible with music imo. OK, I am not saying that "real" journalists are never affected by their own point of reference, but I guess to a much lesser degree because they in most cases will have to report about things they have no problem maintaining an objective distance to. Music is different. By nature it appeals to our feelings. To some degree I guess it may be possible to try not to be grabbed by those, and review something objectively, but music critics become what they are because they feel strongly about music in the first place, and I find it hard to believe that they will ever be able to free themselves from this completely. I think this "dilemma" shines through in most reviews, and for that reason I find it difficult to take it more seriously than any other bloke's opinion on a discussion board.

I enjoy reading articles and features about music and musicians, for instance interviews with artists that have just released a new album, but when it comes to finding out if should buy or not, I skip the pages with reviews, instead I prefer hearing the word from friends and other non-professionals (for instance this board) and then make up my own opinion.

[beantownbubba]

Like most things, it depends. To me, good critics are invaluable, but they're also damned hard to find.

I don't think critics are supposed to be objective, RolanK. I think they're supposed to define an aesthetic and have clear, relatively consistent opinions influenced by all the usual factors, but also incorporating reasonable knowledge of relevant history, cultural setting, techniques of movie/music making etc. At the extreme, it shouldn't matter if u generally agree or disagree w/ a critic. Once you know his/her taste and the particular ways s/he will describe different subjects, you can tell whether you're likely to agree or disagree w/ the critic and both are pretty much equally valuable.

W/out question Robert Christgau had more influence over my developing musical tastes than pretty much anybody except a few particularly influential friends and he is nothing if not opinionated. But he has reasons for his opinions which he can explain in understandable language, and his tastes are informed by an understanding of the particular musical genre, the cultural setting, etc of a particular album. And in those cases where the music justifies it, he can also help "explain" the music. The easiest example of that would be something like a complex Dylan lyric but it goes much further than that, like helping me understand WHY Al Green is so great (I already knew he was, but I didn't really get all the musical choices and approaches that go into the finished product). Because he was such an influence on me, i was much more likely to agree w/ him than not, but even so, I learned which genres or subgenres he was more likely than i to like and which catch phrases he used which would serve as signals to head directly to the record store w/ money in hand w/out passing go or to head directly to go, passing directly by the record store w/out stopping (this was back in the dark ages when u couldn't hear before you bought).

Dave Marsh has fallen pretty far, but when he was good, he was really really good and what he was especially good at was placing music in its political context.

Griel Marcus can give anyone a headache, but when you can understand him, he does the same thing as Marsh but with respect to cultural and musical historical context. All these things greatly increased the pleasure i get from listening to music.

Andrew Sarris and Pauline Kael basically re-wrote the way we understand movies. That's pretty powerful stuff for "mere critics." It was so much more than "it was funny, i liked it" or "it was boring."

There are many reasons why no critic today has the kind of high profile or influence of the people I mentioned. But the fact that they don't is one reason people don't like critics. If everyone calls themselves critics but only 10% of them are qualified to do it right in the ways i've described, that 10% is going to get completely lost. And the "critics" most people do get exposed to aren't worth the name. It's also pretty difficult being a critic in 50 or 100 words as opposed to 500 or 1000, so all those capsule magazine/blog reviews don't help much (Christgau's monthly consumer guides were a huge exception but there were good reasons for that which I won't go into now). Also, reviewers at well-known magazines and blogs change over so often it's impossible to get a good read on them, to get to know their tastes and quirks.

I admit it: I have a whole shelf full of books by rock critics and I consult them fairly regularly. So yeah, I think good critics are important and helpful.

[RolanK]

Like most things, it depends. 1) To me, good critics are invaluable, but they're also damned hard to find.

2) I don't think critics are supposed to be objective, RolanK. I think they're supposed to define an aesthetic and have clear, relatively consistent opinions influenced by all the usual factors, but also incorporating reasonable knowledge of relevant history, cultural setting, techniques of movie/music making etc. At the extreme, it shouldn't matter if u generally agree or disagree w/ a critic. Once you know his/her taste and the particular ways s/he will describe different subjects, you can tell whether you're likely to agree or disagree w/ the critic and both are pretty much equally valuable.

Two points highlighted above.

1) Yes, this is the main problem. Really good critics are hard to find. Of the ones you mention I only know of Christgau (and his almost legendary status). It may be a cultural thing, but over here there are non of such caliber. There used to be a couple of decent one's but that is almost 20 years ago.

2) I am not saying they are supposed to be objective. Rather the opposite. I would like them to admit to the fact that they are not, and then do their reviews on those terms instead. The problem I have with most critics (again there may be cultural or regional differences) is that I get the impression that they pretend (or believe) that it is possible to be objective about it and that they are schooled about music in a way that makes their opinions and reaction to the music of higher value than the average listener.

[Tequila Cowboy]

Like most things, it depends. 1) To me, good critics are invaluable, but they're also damned hard to find.

2) I don't think critics are supposed to be objective, RolanK. I think they're supposed to define an aesthetic and have clear, relatively consistent opinions influenced by all the usual factors, but also incorporating reasonable knowledge of relevant history, cultural setting, techniques of movie/music making etc. At the extreme, it shouldn't matter if u generally agree or disagree w/ a critic. Once you know his/her taste and the particular ways s/he will describe different subjects, you can tell whether you're likely to agree or disagree w/ the critic and both are pretty much equally valuable.

Two points highlighted above.

1) Yes, this is the main problem. Really good critics are hard to find. Of the ones you mention I only know of Christgau (and his almost legendary status). It may be a cultural thing, but over here there are non of such caliber. There used to be a couple of decent one's but that is almost 20 years ago.

2) I am not saying they are supposed to be objective. Rather the opposite. I would like them to admit to the fact that they are not, and then do their reviews on those terms instead. The problem I have with most critics (again there may be cultural or regional differences) is that I get the impression that they pretend (or believe) that it is possible to be objective about it and that they are schooled about music in a way that makes their opinions and reaction to the music of higher value than the average listener.

Yes, this would be what Pitchfork tries to do. Basically they consider themselves the arbiters of cool. I guess my response to them on that is knock yourselves out. I don't care what you think is cool or not cool. There's been talk this week about their review of the new Son Volt record and they obviously find Jay Farrar to be uncool. I'm very grateful for that because I'm not looking for my singer songwriter troubadours to be cool. Frankly I don't think he wants to be cool. That's what I meant by choosing my sources. I still think Rob Sheffield writes a pretty good review for Rolling Stone, I don't agree with him all the time but I read him anyway. David Fricke is goofy as hell but still can say in two lines what takes other reviewers six graphs. I mean they are still out there.

Movie reviewers are harder to come by these days but I still think David Edelstein is pretty good as is Richard Roeper. Edelstein is rough on big budget popcorn munchers so if you think you might enjoy Transformers 37 by all means don't listen to what he has to say. Roeper is a sucker for crossover chick flicks. If a movie aimed at women is even borderline acceptable for men to like he's going to love that shit. On those I'm not taking his word for it. Roger Ebert is barely functional physically but he does still write and he really loves movies. His reviews are descriptive so regardless of his opinion it's pretty easy to tell if you're going to jibe with him or not. I read and enjoy all three of those guys.

My thing is I just don't understand where the hate comes from. If a guy/gal is a movie or record reviewer that's their JOB. They make a living doing what the rest of us do for fun. They're also experts because they spend way more time at it than we do. Like any other expert though there are degrees of competency which is completely normal. I applaud that people make a career out of these types of jobs but obviously some others have contempt for that. To each their own, I just don't understand.

[beantownbubba]

If I had to guess about why people hate critics, I'd think that the elitist and condescending attitude of so many would be a huge factor as would the related bit about all the insider references. Also, as w/ schoolteachers, "everybody" thinks they can do it, so they devalue it considerably. Less likely but possible is jealousy: How does that guy get paid for doing that while I gotta buy my tickets and stand on line like everybody else.

Rolan I guess i misunderstood you because as far as i know, the arts pages (i.e. review and criticism) of just about all magazines, journals, etc in the US are expressly exempt from whatever journalistic principles of objectivity the publication might try to follow in its other reporting. Again, as far as i know not having worked in the field, reviewers/critics are expected to express opinions (preferably refined, knowledgeable ones) and bonus points if you can "break" a band or new craze/movement (i.e. be influential). So perhaps it's a cultural thing.

[RolanK]

About movie critics; I guess I am in a phase of life (kids) where we seldom get the chance to go to the movies, and hence I don't bother with the reviews of movies I will never get to see anyway. However, back in the days there used to be a show over here on the national broadcasting TV channel every week or so with a guy who was very well respected (he is now dead). His reviews were very informative and interesting; like he would comment not only on the script and acting but spend time on photography, how the camera moved etc. He was also very good at noting where the current directors and photographers had their influences from, which led the viewer into digging up old movies and discovering things by himself. The kind of details that not only provides an opinion (good/bad/average) but at the same time educates the viewer. I guess this is analog to what BTB says about music reviewers like Christgau on Al Green and Dylan.

In music I guess I developed my modus operandi before the internet became the source of information it is today (I remember my first encounter with the internet in the early '90s on Unix machines, "surfing" via ftp and something called Gopher, then came a program called Mosaic developed at CERN and everything started changing very fast). At that time there were the occasional local music monthly, as well as foreign ones like NME and Rolling Stone. Apart from a few exceptions the local ones were full of the bullshit I describe above, and my impression was that NME and Rolling Stones was the equivalent of Pitchfork today. So I stopped taking notice of the critics. I don't hate them, I guess I am just indifferent and don't bother with them anymore, except for the occasional link that pops up on this board, where I get my prejudice confirmed in most cases.

I am pretty comfortable and happy with were I am today and how I discover new music without having to rely on critics. However, if I find a critic that operates the way the movie critic I mentioned above, I might start taking notice again.

[Clams]

I trust the people on this board way more than any fucking music critic, that's for sure.*

*except for Crustyharp, he knows his shit.

[Lone Wolf1]

i don't hate 'em or really think they're idiots, they serve no purpose for me. it just opinions

[Bill in CT]

I agree with TC and btb that critics can serve a valuable function.

I enjoy reading David Fricke in Rolling Stone and have found that our tastes are fairly similar.

For classical music, I rely on the critics in Gramophone magazine. I don't buy much classical and I trust their staff so when I want to buy something I consult what they have thought about recordings of a particular composition through the years.

I've always loved reading Lester Bangs but don't necessarily look to him for ideas on what to buy. Part of that is that I'm already familiar with much of the music that he was writing about and have ideas about whether or not I will like that music. Though I did check out a Peter Laughner CD years ago based on a piece he wrote that's in the first collection of LB's writing and still love that disc to this day.

Unlike btb, Christgau's writing style never really clicked with me and I didn't rely on his Consumer Guides for ideas on music to buy (though I did read them for years in the Village Voice).

As for movies, most critics either promote highbrow, middlebrow, or lowbrow movies. If you know where they're coming from then you have a good idea what they're going to like and dislike. There are some exceptions to this rule.

One exception is my favorite movie critic. His name is Tim Lucas. He and his wife Donna run a great magazine called Video Watchdog out of their homebase of Cincinnati. There are other fine writers for the mazine but Lucas is my favorite. He is a lifelong fan of popular European cinema (Mario Bava, Jean Rollin, Jess Franco, etc). He wrote the definitive English language study of Bava's life and career. It's the most impressive book that I own. He is also a fan of arthouse cinema. For example, he is a big supporter of the work of Krzysztof Kieslowski. He writes equally well about any kind of cinema that he chooses to address. He is erudite without being dull. His writing is accessible to the layperson who enjoys movies. I'll include some links below for folks to check out.

Video Watchdog (homepage for the magazine)
http://www.videowatchdog.com

Video Watchblog (TL's first and still functioning blog)
http://www.videowatchblog.com

PAUSE.REWIND.OBSESS (TL's 2012 screening diary)
http://www.vwpro.blogspot.com

Bava Book Blog (blog about TL's Mario Bava book including photos of people with their copies of the book)
http://www.bavabook.blogspot.com

[beantownbubba]

I'd never argue w/ anyone who couldn't get into Christgau's style. Maddeningly obscure at times, snobbish, elitist, exclusionary, too clever by half and makes you work too hard would all be at least partially true descriptions. I usually thought he was worth the effort but I can definitely understand anyone who didn't/doesn't.

[Kudzu Guillotine]

If there is a movie I want to see bad enough I don't tend to let a bad review (or reviews) get in the way. The same is true of music. In a lot of cases, I also don't want to know too much about a movie before seeing it so I may glance through a review or two but I don't want to have the entire plot given away to me beforehand. A recent example of this would be The Hobbit. A lot of the criticism leveled at it turned out to be true but I was going to go see it anyway. Even though I agreed with some of the critics, I still enjoyed the movie. In other words, sometimes I just have to find out for myself as I may like a movie the critics hate (or vice versa, which I believe TC pointed out in his first post). Sometimes, like in the case of Skyfall, I didn't read a single review before seeing it. I knew from the previous two Bond movies with Daniel Craig that I was probably going to like it and I did. Even a bad review probably wouldn't have stopped me from seeing it. Some of that same criteria applies to buying music. Like a few others have said, I think word of mouth among friends also plays a huge role. As far as rolling off a list of critics, I don't really keep up with them that closely though but I do enjoy reading a lot of Fricke's work in Rolling Stone, even if I never buy the album he's talking about. When it comes to DVD rentals, I hardly ever read any reviews beforehand but I will check out some of the customer reviews at Amazon afterwards just to see what others think.

[Zip City]

I usually read reviews after I buy the record or see the movie. I like to form my own opinion first, then see how that opinion lines up (or doesn't) with the critics

[Kudzu Guillotine]

Back when Hitchcock first came out at the theatres I avoided it due to this review from Durham's Independent Weekly, who referred to it as a "travesty". Around that same time, a friend, who's opinion I trust, said he didn't agree with the review, that he enjoyed it. Still, I held off on seeing it and thought I'd just wait for the DVD release. Well, I watched it over the weekend and enjoyed it very much. Afterwards, I read the review again. I have to trust the reviewer did their homework in regards to the fabrications the filmmaker (Sacha Gervasi) resorted to. While I agree that those fabrications were unnecessary (same case with some of how Argo was altered for the big screen), I still enjoyed the movie. The reasons I enjoyed it had to do with Hitchcock's triumph with Psycho as well as his relationship with his wife Alma, neither of which were tinkered with by Gervasi. I guess it boils down to not wanting to risk spending $10 to see it at a theatre versus risking $1 on a rental. It's not exactly the sort of film that is best seen on the big screen but I don't think it would have been a wasted $10 at all. I also didn't completely buy Anthony Hopkins as Hitchcock but I'm not sure who else I would have chosen to play him either.

[Kudzu Guillotine]

A retrospective of Creem by someone that wasn't actually around to enjoy it during it's heyday.

[Tequila Cowboy]

Odd that you brought this thread up again. I almost did the same yesterday with all the discussion in the DBT forum. Thinking about reviews and such I come to conclusion that what I really want out of a rock review, a film review or whatever is that the reviewer is (or at least appears to be) smarter than me. I mean this what they do for a living, or at least as a partial living. I seem to be disappointed 9 times out 10 these days. Serious question; is this too much to ask in 2014?

[tinnitus photography]

my favorite music critic of all time is easily Byron Coley.

i used to read a ton of zines in the 90s (and boxes of copies are up in my attic), and i never read any mainstream press... btb is right; latch onto someone whose tastes somewhat mirrors your own, and go from there.

i don't read much music criticism anymore these days, but i really really really enjoyed reading the Breaking Bad reviews that the Onion's AV Club did. those were outstanding. if you liked the show (and honestly, is there anyone who didn't?), it's not a bad use of time re-reading them from the start:
http://www.avclub.com/tv/breaking-bad/?season=1

[bigdex]

I don't have a favorite music critic

but I definitely follow those that have a similar taste to my own, or at least have similar touchstones.

for example Bugbee and I have alot of common ground, but we veer off in wildly different directions, and that's really cool, because I have discovered a lot of cool shit just because he has mentioned them.

and I know he has a vast appreciation of Def Leppard and Van Halen because of me!

[bigdex]

I have also discovered that the asshat at Pitchfork who usually skewers gbv/pollard records is generally a full point below me almost exactly on every album that we both review.

Paul Thompson is his name

HI PAUL

[bigdex]

between the guided by voices message board, and back when I was on the old nine bullets board, there were enough people there that I was constantly discovering new stuff that was right in my wheelhouse.

I trust people like us, when it comes to music. no agendas, no advertising dollars, no editorial review board, just fans who love music

[LBRod]

I trust people like us, when it comes to music. no agendas, no advertising dollars, no editorial review board, just fans who love music

Well said.

[StormandStatic]

Pitchfork my (may) work that way, but everywhere else I've written for doesn't. I've never had an editor tell me to bump up a score or change a review, partially because I try to keep my writing free of invective, and partially because most editors seem to value clarity of belief as opposed to its content. For instance, I've torn up albums other people loved, but no one told me to change anything. I think we have a pretty skewed view here of how critics think because we don't have many critics to say so. I've never met one who believes in their own objectivity. On the other hand, as Jim DeRogatis points out here, most music writers are essentially just fans, and lack actual journalistic experience and training, and can't do, for lack of a better word, 'hard' journalism. I straddle both lines in what I do, because I do both straight reportage and opinion frequently. I personally like some of Pitchfork's reviews because they are at least interesting to read. I couldn't be less interested in reviews that just list every song and what it does. If music is art we have to find themes and through-lines and everything. That's the role of a critic. Hence why I love Griel Marcus.

[Tequila Cowboy]

Pitchfork my (may) work that way, but everywhere else I've written for doesn't. I've never had an editor tell me to bump up a score or change a review, partially because I try to keep my writing free of invective, and partially because most editors seem to value clarity of belief as opposed to its content. For instance, I've torn up albums other people loved, but no one told me to change anything. I think we have a pretty skewed view here of how critics think because we don't have many critics to say so. I've never met one who believes in their own objectivity. On the other hand, as Jim DeRogatis points out here, most music writers are essentially just fans, and lack actual journalistic experience and training, and can't do, for lack of a better word, 'hard' journalism. I straddle both lines in what I do, because I do both straight reportage and opinion frequently. I personally like some of Pitchfork's reviews because they are at least interesting to read. I couldn't be less interested in reviews that just list every song and what it does. If music is art we have to find themes and through-lines and everything. That's the role of a critic. Hence why I love Griel Marcus.

Well, you seem to think along the same lines as I do on music criticism. Interesting you bring up DeRogatis though (I really don't have the time to read the linked piece right now) as he was famously fired from Rolling Stone for giving a poor review to Hootie and the Blowfish. He's also a horse's ass but that's a personal bias I have with him from living in Chicago all my life up to last year. I was talking to a friend of mine who has reviewed albums more recently than I (it's been 20 years for me, 3 years for him) and he's never felt any pressure, although he said he tended to turn down reviewing records he thought he would hate. His editor was cool with that.

[tinnitus photography]

I don't have a favorite music critic

but I definitely follow those that have a similar taste to my own, or at least have similar touchstones.

for example Bugbee and I have alot of common ground, but we veer off in wildly different directions, and that's really cool, because I have discovered a lot of cool shit just because he has mentioned them.

and I know he has a vast appreciation of Def Leppard and Van Halen because of me!

don't forget Big Dick!




actually, they are worth checking out...thanks Dex!

[StormandStatic]

Pitchfork my (may) work that way, but everywhere else I've written for doesn't. I've never had an editor tell me to bump up a score or change a review, partially because I try to keep my writing free of invective, and partially because most editors seem to value clarity of belief as opposed to its content. For instance, I've torn up albums other people loved, but no one told me to change anything. I think we have a pretty skewed view here of how critics think because we don't have many critics to say so. I've never met one who believes in their own objectivity. On the other hand, as Jim DeRogatis points out here, most music writers are essentially just fans, and lack actual journalistic experience and training, and can't do, for lack of a better word, 'hard' journalism. I straddle both lines in what I do, because I do both straight reportage and opinion frequently. I personally like some of Pitchfork's reviews because they are at least interesting to read. I couldn't be less interested in reviews that just list every song and what it does. If music is art we have to find themes and through-lines and everything. That's the role of a critic. Hence why I love Griel Marcus.

Well, you seem to think along the same lines as I do on music criticism. Interesting you bring up DeRogatis though (I really don't have the time to read the linked piece right now) as he was famously fired from Rolling Stone for giving a poor review to Hootie and the Blowfish. He's also a horse's ass but that's a personal bias I have with him from living in Chicago all my life up to last year. I was talking to a friend of mine who has reviewed albums more recently than I (it's been 20 years for me, 3 years for him) and he's never felt any pressure, although he said he tended to turn down reviewing records he thought he would hate. His editor was cool with that.

I know nothing about DeRogatis personally, but he's a hell of a journalist and his nose-to-the-ground work on the R. Kelly stuff is invaluable, and proof that most music writers know shit about journalism. This is because a good number of music (and more broadly culture) writers today don't come out of journalism programs, or even have much experience with research and reporting. They come from cultural studies programs, where the strength of an argument is often more theoretical than based in fact. As you might sense, as someone who trained it history, this can be a little annoying for me; reading a cultural studies paper is basically reading synopses of a million other books and papers. A lot of people rejected the R Kelly stuff out of hand, believing it to be a basic case of 'white man accuses black man of rape,' a charge that led to thousands of lynchings in the past. But there is so much proof and data and groundwork to what DeRogatis did. He checked up every source, and did real reporting. Music writers as a whole seem to know nothing about that.
Also, I tend not to review albums I'm not interested in, which normally are things I think I'll hate. But like the review I linked, I was interested and hated it, so it works both ways I guess.

[PonyGirl]

I don't think it's really fair to have this conversation without mentioning the current state of the publishing industry. In earlier days I worked for a couple of arts weeklies so I have a lot of friends who are journalists and critics and a lot of them are really struggling. Both of the papers I worked for no longer exist and salaries and jobs for journalists dwindle continuously in terms of numbers. Many of my friends opted out of the game entirely, and a couple of them became professors, which is kind of a sad irony to me because the kids who enroll in their programs are going to graduate with about the same level of opportunity as their peers who signed up for "Advanced Abacus Equations." These days a lot of arts writers either have a side job or they are working at a frenzied pace to try to keep on top of things financially, so I tend to be a little forgiving. Such mistakes as referring to Mike Cooley as Dave Cooley remain egregious and unforgivable (though that was the most entertaining thing about that piece), but expecting a contemporary critic, writing a sidebar item, to remember that Rob Malone was in the band way back when, is just unrealistic. It isn't fair to expect them to listen to the entire discography, watch the doc and do loads of research for what they are being paid, a lot of the time. Though a minority of them are being paid well and their work should reflect it.

At the end of the day it doesn't hurt to remember that the main job of the critic is to serve their readership, not to nurture artists. Most people are short on two resources; time and money. One of the critics goals is to help their readers figure out how to spend those limited resources, which is why I a agree with all those who feel that the best approach is to find a critic whose taste coincides with yours and follow that person. Their other job is to be entertaining. For me, a good critic has a razor sharp wit, so sometimes I follow people just because they are fucking hilarious and even though they are writing about some Norwegian metal band with six guitarists and no vocalist, I still read because the writing is great, despite my lack of interest in the subject matter.

I just wanted to chime in because I LOVE my journalist friends so much and I worry about them. Plus they are such a smart, talented bunch and somebody should stick up for them here.

Of course there will always be a few arts writers, who are lazy, self-serving little fuckwits, whose cumbersome and sophomoric writing leads me to believe that when they jerk off, they have a thesaurus in the other hand. I'm not oblivious to that side of it, and those people aren't the ones I'm defending and obviously they aren't friends of mine either. Though sometimes they are the successful ones, which is irritating to say the least.

[Given to Fly]

Of course there will always be a few arts writers, who are lazy, self-serving little fuckwits, whose cumbersome and sophomoric writing leads me to believe that when they jerk off, they have a thesaurus in the other hand.

Fantastic!

[Tequila Cowboy]

I don't think it's really fair to have this conversation without mentioning the current state of the publishing industry. In earlier days I worked for a couple of arts weeklies so I have a lot of friends who are journalists and critics and a lot of them are really struggling. Both of the papers I worked for no longer exist and salaries and jobs for journalists dwindle continuously in terms of numbers. Many of my friends opted out of the game entirely, and a couple of them became professors, which is kind of a sad irony to me because the kids who enroll in their programs are going to graduate with about the same level of opportunity as their peers who signed up for "Advanced Abacus Equations." These days a lot of arts writers either have a side job or they are working at a frenzied pace to try to keep on top of things financially, so I tend to be a little forgiving. Such mistakes as referring to Mike Cooley as Dave Cooley remain egregious and unforgivable (though that was the most entertaining thing about that piece), but expecting a contemporary critic, writing a sidebar item, to remember that Rob Malone was in the band way back when, is just unrealistic. It isn't fair to expect them to listen to the entire discography, watch the doc and do loads of research for what they are being paid, a lot of the time. Though a minority of them are being paid well and their work should reflect it.

At the end of the day it doesn't hurt to remember that the main job of the critic is to serve their readership, not to nurture artists. Most people are short on two resources; time and money. One of the critics goals is to help their readers figure out how to spend those limited resources, which is why I a agree with all those who feel that the best approach is to find a critic whose taste coincides with yours and follow that person. Their other job is to be entertaining. For me, a good critic has a razor sharp wit, so sometimes I follow people just because they are fucking hilarious and even though they are writing about some Norwegian metal band with six guitarists and no vocalist, I still read because the writing is great, despite my lack of interest in the subject matter.

I just wanted to chime in because I LOVE my journalist friends so much and I worry about them. Plus they are such a smart, talented bunch and somebody should stick up for them here.

Of course there will always be a few arts writers, who are lazy, self-serving little fuckwits, whose cumbersome and sophomoric writing leads me to believe that when they jerk off, they have a thesaurus in the other hand. I'm not oblivious to that side of it, and those people aren't the ones I'm defending and obviously they aren't friends of mine either. Though sometimes they are the successful ones, which is irritating to say the least.

You couldn't be more correct. Those few that keep their jobs are underpaid and a lot of times they're working without editors at all. I get all of that. In fact in talking with the friend I mentioned above he told me that he stopped freelancing for a arts/entertainment weekly when they told him that they wanted him to keep writing for them but they were no longer able to pay him for his work and then acted hurt when he declined their "generous" offer. It's tough out there.

[dime in the gutter]

good thread.

why is it not in the music forum?

[Tequila Cowboy]

good thread.

why is it not in the music forum?

I think it's taken a music turn but I was including film criticism when I started it as well.