We Love (To Hate) Everything

B-boys break up electro boogaloo!

It depends how you see magazine reviews. Do you read them as journalism in their own right, or as buyers guides for music? If it's the latter then what's the point of battering some up and comming artist no-one has ever heard of? You only have limited page space, save it for positive reviews or for bigger artists fucking up.

And as a postscript: The only album I have ever really slated is Sophie Ellis Bextor's 'Read My Lips'.

Anyway, something I've always wondered, does writing about music/art/literature and offering your opinion automatically make you a critic?

Ripping stuff apart was always what I found easiest and most fun. It's where you can go wild and entertain. However, I always thought that the most positive reviews were probably the most important. It's a far more interesting challenge to explain why something is great and deserves really high praise. If all criticism did was tear down it would be of far less use to consumers and artists than if it could highlight the best, not just for promotion and as a guide to consumers, but also because a good critic can strengthen and extend the vocabulary and understanding of the form in a much broader sense, and the best chance to do this is when writing about Joyce or Kurosawa or Picasso or Dylan, say.

Bad critics suck, what do they think they're acheiving other than self aggrandisement? Is it such valuable skill to see the bad elements in everything, how dire. Its a virus learnt in university ( among other institutions ) that is very hard to shake.. and just because im being negative dont discount the facts. People posing as buyers guides- what is that anyway? have you heard of subjectivity? are der brains.

This is a shitty rant from an oversensitive creative obviously. I have stopped reading critics picks and the like because I have a mind of my own. Ok Ive calmed down . Constructively, there needs to be more description and comparison rather than value judgements. A little less confrontation a litle more reaction. But I do still wonder what critics think is their role other than stirrers of shit from hades.

A zine I used to be involved with had a policy of only publishing good reviews. I thought this was a bit suspect at the time, but their reasoning was sound - they did this for fun, and why waste time and money on giving free publicity to things that you hate? Also (being mostly Canadian) they were keen to appear nice.

I found it a difficult but rewarding task to only write positive reviews. It's lazy to rely on vitriol. The best writing is inspired by passion, but hatred is not the only passion that there is.

TS: people who are known for their enthusiasm vs. people who are known for how much they hate stuff

Catty criticism is more fun. The 'accuracy' of a critic is always going to be relative anyway.

:(

nickname, right?

TS: picky eaters vs. people who will try any food at least once

"I find them both equally pleasing. I wouldn't like to denigrate either"

^ See? That's a shitty review.

i admire people who say yes to anything, which is why nicolas cage and samuel l jackson are the greatest actors of all time.

I wasn't really thinking in terms of arts criticism, more about sour people vs sweet people...
xpost

people who are really only one of either are the worst, i pick both

i don't really hate everything, people think i am nice irl

yeah sure, ANYONE could say that.

I guess people who like every cuisine can be as tiresome as people who don't like anything when it comes time to pick where to go that night for dinner.