Why do you read music critics?

I find it difficult to find critics whose taste is similar enough that I can trust their judgment. But as I keep saying, I'm probably never going to have enough money to buy all the music I already want.

Apparently I don't look when I write it!

oh i used to think these critics were useful, put me on to new stuff (ie new ideas, but their tastes are often so easy to tag to them that something interesting they'll usually miss and find boring being set in their ways

fashion victims, sycophants to the oh so cool industry (an industry/citics niche itself generally not able to be able to pick anything new or interesting because the more they get comfortable with their own tastes the more locked in they get)

and then there's the nepotism, probably more cuddly and self-satified with these triumphant indie labels even than in some big ass-licking corporate scheme, which is hypocrisy typical of those confusing fighting the underdog with getting their name in print

ok, there are some good critics out their despite their obsessions (tastes), but more and more music is being released every year so it's still just an industry, big or small

yeah, there are some decent objective literate educated reviews/opinions out there sometimes even understanding of the greater historical sweep over music from the last 40 years with all the geo/eco/political and sexual implications of these works of art -- pity that they're 5% of the total critic population though, isn't it

can we trust a critic to get comfy and objective with some new album if (a) there'll only be so many listens 'til the reveiw deadline and (b) that they didn't have to fork out any earned money for this piece of art in the first place ?

but most of all i read critics to criticise them back, argue with them, remind them that they forgot "this" or are making a fetish out of "that" etc. -- they're a touchy bunch too, as i've had several stupidly vindictive emails from (often self-appointed) "critics", as though they can't actually take criticism of their own critiques -- as in general life, they can give it out but they can't take it -- and we all know people like that and how so often they turn out to be hacks defending their low-self-esteem based outbusts

one critic in particular i can think of stands out as the most narrow-minded industry-licking self-appointed wannabe (Post/pOST ..) modern day dandy i've ever met, with a mono-syllabic talent when it actually comes to talking about music face to face good-humouredly (as one tries to) with all the intrigue, wit, talent and basic modus operandi of a widget salesman -- and i'm just the guy who comes out and critiques this person, "outs him" if you like, when everybody else is saying the same thing about him behind his back -- Does this paragraph read as vindictive, nasty, unpleasant ? a redundant rant to fill space and portend worldliness ? Sorry, i'm just adopting the great one's own personal (i'm so witty, ha ha)(ha)(t)(ck)(ch)(i)(e)(t) style

i agree that getting away from the strict review by review scheme of tacky hacky yesterdays papers often just filling space (or part of marketing campaigns) would be a good thing

i like the more general banafish style "look what we've got in this bag of new releases -- let's compare them with each other and with all the music that already exists that might well be at least equally as good (and talk about music more generally while we're at it)"

ok b~fish is a mag -- the beauty of the web sites is that you can email the people who wrote it, talk about it, maybe make a new musical friends or find some common interest

ok that's like the grand old print tradition of letters to the editor, which for example the editor of opprobrium (website) would be at pains to avoid ('cause he doesn't have the answers) -- no offence to most of his reveiwers, but you're often going to have a salaryman or dilletante in administrative positions -- the point being that the mag/"sight" is good except in the case of the bilious opinions of the editor, who should stick to the push the button on the photocopy machine dayjob and leave the reveiws to experts (in my humble opinion)

or the wire or b~fish, and forced exposure (if it's ever published again), all mags that could take the ante to the max in the reader vs. editor dept. (which is where the fun's to be had, the coffee table discussions of the merits of this vs. that where you can get into detail, the detail you want) and all these mags do more general essay type crit.

but let's face it, this place ILM is a pretty good resource for anything you want to know -- just email the opinionated snot and get to the bottom of whatever..

that's when we work out how to run searches on this new host of course

Writing "Oh, yeah, this is Joe Schmoe from Lameband's solo project, it's on indieschmindie label and it sounds like Spacemen 3 jamming with The Orb" might get me interested enough to borrow/download a copy of the song, but you know, I can get advice like that from any of a number of friends or emailpals. I'm not going to pay good money for that.

Writing "This album makes me feel like I'm 16 years old, flying down the hill on my friend's bicycle, drunk on ripple wine for the first time in my life, arms stretched wide coz those beats make me think I can fly as well as dance, the tremoloed guitars rippling like the cornfields in the distance..." will not just get me interested enough to buy the album, but it will also get me interested enough to waste £3.50 on a magazine, coz, you know the writing has to be pretty damn GOOD before I'll spend more than the cost of a drink on it.

Oh, and full colour glossy pictures of cute BOYS helps, as well.

I'd agree with this. and there are not many writers who can do it. I want to know what their body and mind are feeling. and as roger says, if they can make you laugh then that's good as well.

1. To look for suggestions as to which new records are worth purchasing.
2. To read a well-written piece on a subject which interests me.
3. To laugh at their poor arguments and laughable writing style.

1. To entertain myself when my hand is tired
2. to find music that I would enjoy that I would otherwise not be exposed to (this assumes that I find a 'critic' that has similar tastes- Im still looking.
3. To educate me in the history/progression of music, i.e. band X's influences were bands A, T, R-
4. To laugh at some of the tripe that passes for 'music journalism' (i.e. most Pitchfork reviews).
5. See No. 4

Hurrah. ;-)

Writing about music to provide someone with a buyers guide, to provide a reader with an insight into the reviewers thoughts, heck to just create something that delights in itself, these are all fine decent and often wonderful activities. Writing to self-agrandise the writer by some weary hand wringing about how a work isn't quite good enough just sucks.

There is yet another of those 'I would have done this better' moment near the end of the 24 hour party people review on pitchfork (http://www.pitchforkmedia.com/record-reviews/sdtk/24-hour-party-people/24-hour-party-people.shtml) (and it has a non-ironic use of the idiot-word 'rockist'). Whats the point of this review? Its hopeless as a buyers guide, the author assumes an authority in his pronouncements that makes it opaque to the authors own actual thought process (an authority I would question, but thats irrelevant and just me being self agrandising). Its not even very entertaining reading.

To tell you the truth i enjoy reviews from amateur critics, like on amazon, because they actually care about the album they are reviewing and took their own free time to write it. These are the reviews that usually convice to buy an album.

It takes a very special type of person to be so concerned.

But, as in real life, most of these special types are ignorant, egotistical, shallow-narrow-minded buffoons/like a different arrangement of notes to me.

So, eg now: discopunk means it's got a guitar and a bass and sounds like ESG; Beach Boys means its got a melody; blues means it hasn't got a bass/is from Detroit; dance means house; techno means dance that's not house; classic means it's from more than ten years ago/is from less than ten years ago but is something only the writer and his smug friends enjoyed/something from this year that got into the charts and is therefore ironic.