Any particular pattern of behavior that's brought you to this conclusion? Or are we going to start in on the "X Sucks! Y Rules!" repartee common among morons?
Damn you, CNET. (I should just make this my signature.)
Posts: 1652 | Location: Philadelphia, PA | Registered: 15 September 2004
Wellity, Mister New England intellectual, as critics they're about as accomplished as the average guitar hero wannabe down the pub. I don't know anyone who takes them seriously except people who worship The Libertines and think rap music is the devil.
___________ Without a trace; you'll never find me now.
Posts: 15 | Location: Brisbane | Registered: 28 September 2004
In their review of Art Brut's 'Bang Bang Rock & Roll', they're unsure whether the band are making fun of everything DiS holds dear, or if they're just another catchy 'indie' band that make some nice tunes to dance along to with a shaggy mop top:
But every letters page, messageboard and heckle that’s been about them since Rough Trade unleashed ‘Formed A Band’ all those months ago has come across like the proverbial line in the sand. On one side there’s those saluting their scattergun tunes expressing pent-up modern suburbia and adolescent frustration, and on the other there’s those who think that they don’t mean it, that this is all some sort of joke, and have hence dismissed them as the pseudo-ironic, intermediate Ikara Colt. I’m with the former, and after hearing debut album ‘Bang Bang Rock And Roll’ I can say that, if it is some sort of joke all along, I’m not so much laughing as dancing like a monkey on fire.
So long as there's a guitar and some tunes, right?
___________ Without a trace; you'll never find me now.
Posts: 15 | Location: Brisbane | Registered: 28 September 2004
Wellity, Mister New England intellectual, as critics they're about as accomplished as the average guitar hero wannabe down the pub. I don't know anyone who takes them seriously except people who worship The Libertines and think rap music is the devil...In their review of Art Brut's 'Bang Bang Rock & Roll', they're unsure whether the band are making fun of everything DiS holds dear, or if they're just another catchy 'indie' band that make some nice tunes to dance along to with a shaggy mop top
I'm not a "New England intellectual." (I live in the Northeast, some might say Mid-Atlantic.) And all we expect around here is a reason for the opinion you're expressing, which you gave (and with quotes!) after some prodding. I don't have any love for Drowned in Sound either, but you won't engage too many people in a worthwhile discussion if you can't spend the time to reach a point. So, thanks. And welcome.
Posts: 1652 | Location: Philadelphia, PA | Registered: 15 September 2004
Originally posted by Filmore Holmes: I'm more offended by any press being left out. The more the merrier. If you think DiS sucks, write better reviews yourself.
Well, if you want to criticise us on behalf of DiS, I hope that you can write reviews as good as theirs (or better).
Posts: 688 | Location: Adelaide, South Australia | Registered: 01 January 2005
Originally posted by Filmore Holmes: I'm more offended by any press being left out. The more the merrier. If you think DiS sucks, write better reviews yourself.
Well, if you want to criticise us on behalf of DiS, I hope that you can write reviews as good as theirs (or better).
I can and do but I'm not criticizing on behalf of anyone but myself so I guess that's irrelevant. I'm just saying for the amount of time people like you and I spend here bitching about who and what sucks, we could be out there making something better. In this case, reviews are pretty fucking easy. It doesn't take much to spew 200 words about a CD every month. So I guess I'm saying most people are lazy and mags like Rolling Stone and AP are part of the music journalism world which shouldn't be censored because you and I think they suck ass. If metacritic is to be at all useful and truly live up to the meta prefix, they should get reviews from any and every sight and source they can find regardless of ratings (Mags with no rating shouldn't be given one arbitrarily and, while we're here, it'd be nice to read the whole review from the magazines if that could ever be possible).
Originally posted by Filmore Holmes: I'm more offended by any press being left out. The more the merrier. If you think DiS sucks, write better reviews yourself.
Well, if you want to criticise us on behalf of DiS, I hope that you can write reviews as good as theirs (or better).
I can and do but I'm not criticizing on behalf of anyone but myself so I guess that's irrelevant. I'm just saying for the amount of time people like you and I spend here bitching about who and what sucks, we could be out there making something better. In this case, reviews are pretty fucking easy. It doesn't take much to spew 200 words about a CD every month. So I guess I'm saying most people are lazy and mags like Rolling Stone and AP are part of the music journalism world which shouldn't be censored because you and I think they suck ass. If metacritic is to be at all useful and truly live up to the meta prefix, they should get reviews from any and every sight and source they can find regardless of ratings (Mags with no rating shouldn't be given one arbitrarily and, while we're here, it'd be nice to read the whole review from the magazines if that could ever be possible).
Point taken. But I still feel at liberty to give my opinion on terrible rags like Rolling Stone and Alternative Press.
I'm not sure whether I could write better reviews than them (haven't tried), but by the logic of your first post, should a music critic be allowed to pan a new release unless they can prove that they put together a better record themselves?
Posts: 688 | Location: Adelaide, South Australia | Registered: 01 January 2005
Originally posted by Bobthespirit: I agree that no reviewer's opinion should be censored. But I have doubts that Rolling Stone reviews reflect the reviewer's actual opinion. Edit: Same with Pitchfork, but in the other direction. And *certainly* with Amazon.
Originally posted by Biggles: I'm not sure whether I could write better reviews than them (haven't tried), but by the logic of your first post, should a music critic be allowed to pan a new release unless they can prove that they put together a better record themselves?
They should be able to illustrate with words why they think it rocks or sucks, which is what writing reviews is, and you'd think any decent critic would at least have a mild interest in making music of their own. I know I do but I'll spare you from hearing my Reason tracks. In any case, you can never 'prove' your work is better than any others. I just meant if you think something sucks, make what you think is better. Don't just sit back and rag on people who are trying without throwing your hat in the ring 'cause that's chickenshit. I wouldn't think someone who has no desire to ever make music would make a good music critic. Regardless, all I said was if you think DiS sucks, write something (you think is) better. I wasn't starting a debate on the merrits of criticism, I was just saying don't be some random negative sloth. If you don't like anything in the world, change it and make something better, make the world better. All it takes is time, what else are you going to do?
I hear what you're saying, Filmore Holmes (by the way, great name, seriously), but all of us here have our opinions and just like to express them, freely. If we weren't doing it here, we would be doing it with our friends - which we do anyway - in the record stores, on the phone, etc...And you're wrong when you say - I'm paraphrasing here - that if a critic has no desire to make music then he or she won't make a good critic. There are many ways and from many standpoints music can be looked at and listened to, noy just in a technical sense. And besides, if someone - a band or artist - is willing to release something to the world, then they better be prepared for praise, which they'll gladly take and actively seek, and dissapointment.
Metacritic Forums 
