Critics: What do they say behind your back?

Message Bookmarked
Bookmark Removed
What is the general public opinion of critics (music or otherwise)?

dleone, Thursday, 6 June 2002 00:00 (twenty-three years ago)

New answers from you wannabe rock stars. I mean, cultural elite. No wait, I mean wannabe authors.

dleone, Thursday, 6 June 2002 00:00 (twenty-three years ago)

In criticism there is always this tension between "I am talking about the performance" and "I am the performance". How each particular critic reacts to this tension can be seen in the degree to which they efface themselves or inject their ego into the proceedings. Generally, for critics to themselves become the performance requires a level of creativity that many critics think they have but fewer actually do.

o. nate, Thursday, 6 June 2002 00:00 (twenty-three years ago)

There's no such thing (that's my opinion, not the general public's) (At a guess I'd say the general public read criticism for entertainment more than for recommendations).

Tom, Thursday, 6 June 2002 00:00 (twenty-three years ago)

I read music reviews primarily to find out about albums I haven't heard yet. However, there are a few reviewers who I would read just because I enjoy their writing.

o. nate, Thursday, 6 June 2002 00:00 (twenty-three years ago)

Yeah but you're a music fan not the 'general public' - of course you're part of the general public but if you allow for the separation of 'critics' from 'public' then you have to concede the separation of 'fan' from 'public' too.

Tom, Thursday, 6 June 2002 00:00 (twenty-three years ago)

We're all critics - and of course making music can be 'critical' too...

Andrew L, Thursday, 6 June 2002 00:00 (twenty-three years ago)

separation of 'critics' from 'public'

Hmm, I don't mean to separate these things. But professional critics (ones who do it for a living, or at least as a major hobby) are a small part of the public. The public can comment on itself, or parts of itself, right? So, what do the folks who are not prof-critics think?*

* - this doesn't mean I'm only accepting answers from non-critics

dleone, Thursday, 6 June 2002 00:00 (twenty-three years ago)

recently my friend got het up about a death cab for cutie review. the critic, who hadn't seen them live, said 'I bet they are crap live' or similar.

I find the self-celebrated arrogance of NME irritating

sam, Thursday, 6 June 2002 00:00 (twenty-three years ago)

The general public doesn't think too much about critics beyond "oh, that Roger Ebert likes some strange movies".

dan, Thursday, 6 June 2002 00:00 (twenty-three years ago)

The NME are a collection of the most tragic individuals on this planet, united in their arse-numbing twattishness. Similar to the kids at school who couldn't comprehend that the reason people hated them wasn't because they were impressed or jealousof them , but because he was a twat.

Dom Passantino, Thursday, 6 June 2002 00:00 (twenty-three years ago)

A singular twat? Oh my.

bnw, Thursday, 6 June 2002 00:00 (twenty-three years ago)

"Similar to the kids at school who couldn't comprehend that the reason people hated them wasn't because they were impressed or jealous of them , but because he was a twat."

Funny you should say that, I know someone who's after an NME job and is just like that. He's also in the worst indie band in London, and that's saying something.

DG, Thursday, 6 June 2002 00:00 (twenty-three years ago)

Re: The NME are a collection of the most tragic individuals on this planet, united in their arse-numbing twattishness

the worst guitar band ever to get on the front cover of the NME - The Libertines ! - see this week's NME

NME staff must be tone f-ing deaf if they think Libertines are worthy of praise.

DJ Martian, Thursday, 6 June 2002 00:00 (twenty-three years ago)

Yes, but they're a new band consisting of scruffy fuckers with some pseudo-realistic notion of "cool", and they swear during their interviews, so obviously they're the best band ever.

I think we could easily do a whole anti-NME rage thread, to be honest with you...

Dom Passantino, Thursday, 6 June 2002 00:00 (twenty-three years ago)

The only thing of value that a critic can provide (as proven by science) is in the entertainment value of their own writing.

Because they create a space which enables the reader to consider the item under discussion then they appear to add to the enjoyment of the media being reviewed. This relationship is an illusion.

Alexander Blair, Thursday, 6 June 2002 00:00 (twenty-three years ago)

The general public mostly think critics are a bunch of pompous, pretentious twats who pretend to like intellectual stuff and it's all crap and not as good as Sting/Lord of the Rings/Star Wars/the X-Men (mentioned because I am an old comic critic).

I value criticism very highly. Of course there are loads of bad critics, but the good ones don't just entertain me and sometimes point me towards good things or guide me away from bad ones, they help me understand it all better and they illuminate music (or whatever) and make it all more exciting and fun and meaningful. I also think there's an indirect benefit to me, as I know that good criticism can feed back into the artform, and the artists themselves benefit and improve by it.

Martin Skidmore, Thursday, 6 June 2002 00:00 (twenty-three years ago)

aren't all of our threads anti-NME rage related?

Dave M., Thursday, 6 June 2002 00:00 (twenty-three years ago)

Yes.

Norman Phay, Thursday, 6 June 2002 00:00 (twenty-three years ago)

Most people are hypocrites. They love to read good reviews of the things they like and slaggings of the things they dislike. If it's the other way round, particularly if a favourite band gets trashed, cue the 'critics are talentless scum' letters.

David, Thursday, 6 June 2002 00:00 (twenty-three years ago)

My dad likes Michael Medved solely because he gave "God's Army" a good rating.

1 1 2 3 45, Thursday, 6 June 2002 00:00 (twenty-three years ago)


You must be logged in to post. Please either login here, or if you are not registered, you may register here.