Well, you'd be right about Dylan, but wrong about the Beatles.knell wrote:Honestly though, i don't understand music reviews/journalism in general... who honestly thinks that some people have a better objective view of a song/album's quality as opposed to random people on the street?
People have been telling me that Bon Dylan and the Beatles have written the best songs of all time, when I disagree.. who's right/wrong?
Can a journalist write an article that includes every perspective of a piece of music? Do they write from the perspective of every socio-economic standpoint? Every point of intoxication? Do they take into account a person's mindset when they hear a certain genre? If they've been abused? Whether they like the color blue?
Really, why should I listen to one persons opinion over another just because it's more readily available? That goes for anything, not just music.
This is a rant against most music opinion pieces, not the arbitrary summary in question in the OP.
Criticism is vital in the arts. Art, unlike just about everything else humans do is consciousness expanding, and arts criticism can greatly help expand understanding of art work. There are critics that fancy themselves opinion makers, trend makers, whatever, that is for people who follow, and there are enough of them, it is inevitable, that whole situation is a lost cause so who gives a fuck, but real and true criticism is itself a creative act that expands consciousness.
It is silly to ask was the criticism written from every perspective. No true critic would attempt to do such a thing, or claim to do such a thing. But exploring one, or a handful of perspectives can give a reader a whole new way of approaching a piece, or an idea.
You don't have to listen to anyone's opinions if you don't want to, but if you encounter someone's opinion and it broadens your perspective, opens your mind, and allows you to enjoy new things, what is the problem with that? It just so happens that some people have a talent for doing that, so their opinions become more readily available, it doesn't make the opinion more or less valid for you, for your own understanding. Your consideration and rejection of the opinion is even a positive event in that it increases your understanding of the underlying idea or work. To put it in an arena you might be more comfortable in, the opinion of a critic is just a hypothesis, something that can be tested and evaluated, by you, for your own benefit.knell wrote:Really, why should I listen to one persons opinion over another just because it's more readily available? That goes for anything, not just music.
. people are gonna read this kind of shit regardless of how good it is. What harm does it do to have someone who actually knows what he is talking about writing for a popular website?
