Interesting

[collige]

It just so happens that some people have a talent for doing that

i disagree on this point.

No true critic would attempt to do such a thing

i find the idea of a true critic laughable, as strange as that sounds.

But exploring one, or a handful of perspectives can give a reader a whole new way of approaching a piece, or an idea.

I can do all of the above by myself, but maybe that's the introvert in me.. i really dont need others to tell me why a song should touch me, lyrically or otherwise

you should read Hume's description of a true critic

in fact there's loads of great philosophical pieces about aesthetics (i took a finals piece on aesthetics at uni, it was one of the best modules ive done)

personally i think the very analysis of critics' work, makes worthwhile having critics alone

its such a cerebral activity, like noways said, analysing work, reading analysis, learning new things about aesthetic pieces and practice you never knew before

you saying its pointless is from the viewpoint of an experienced, maybe natural aesthetic appreciator, maybe you were lucky enough to be surrounded by art when you were younger, most people aren't and need guidance in some form or other, and most people find their feet through critics and find critics whose personal taste reflect their own - hence why they remain popular

its one argument to say that critics lead people's opinions

i think whats closer is to say popular critics reflect the popular opinion

the best critics are simply those whose work on pieces, is the most insightful, interesting, reflective, engaging

you dont necessarily have to agree with them but the perspective they bring to some aesthetics and art is almost an art form in itself

that said there's also a lot of tossers out there who spout out avalanche's of pretentious bull crap and smack of self importance

/irony

This. Unfortunately for Blackdown, Pitchfork reviews fall in the

avalanche of pretentious bull crap

category and kind of hurt the credibility of his column.

[noam]

a lot of what i read of Blackdown's i actually think is bollocks

i rate Joe Muggs

[nowaysj]

Essentially, what I got out of the article is that the London underground largely transcended what we would call 'genres' and it's all a mishmash of influences and styles.

If that is what it was about, then I agree.

That is the start of it, but I can't help but feel the author's desire for a genre to emerge out of this post-dubstep <cringe> field.

[noam]

one of my mates invented a sick genre

he started trying to learn production but all his tracks ended up just being drums

we called it 'drum'

badman

[nowaysj]

Every two months, change the spelling, for example from drum, to urdm, and then murd, and so on and so forth. Keep the google bot off your tail. You could end up with bromurds up in your shit if you're not careful.

[dreamizm]

Who actually cares about critics anymore? For the first time we have sustained new and interesting music, without the constraints of labelling or a genre. As a producer/dj, I wish Martin Clark would recognise this.

You can sum up what is happening and has been happening since late 2009 as:

DJs > Journalists.

if you did a little research you'd know I'm very much in favour of this pan/post genre style, as a journo, DJ and producer but felt it was important to explain the two sides of views on it in that piece.

Lot of hate for Pfork here, all I'd say is don't judge my column by the other content, I don't write to any pfork style nor do they influence the subjects of my columns.

Don't patronise me. The fact that you're calling it a "pan/post genre style" in the first place is what I and clearly many others have an issue with.

I have read previous columns of your's with interest but would be nice if you addressed my point here instead of trying to distance yourself from Pitchfork. Peace