can we stop taking music reviews seriously already? seriously, ALL of them are bad, there literally is no point to them unless you use it to find new music, music is fucking subjective so you can just go and listen to it and form your own opinion rather than caring about what some old pedophile piece of shit thinks about an album
>>61550548 I don't understand the individualistic mindset some people have when it comes to reading criticism. You'd never hear of a student of classical music refusing to look at their history textbook for fear of being brainwashed into liking something or other. The entire notion is silly.
You only encounter it in people who listen to pop music. I can only assume it's an overcompensation for an insecurity. Like, they know that the main basis of their preferences is social or other conditioned behavior, and by refusing to read reviews they can push the cognitive dissonance out and will themselves back into believing they're special snowflakes.
Bottom line: if you don't read music criticism (and criticism and "reviews" are separate, as one is corporate-sponsored and the other is academic) you are more ignorant than someone who does.
>>61550569 i know you're trying to distance yourself from your dad right now and carve out your own identity, so i'll let it slide. give it a few years, give appetite another spin, and you'll see that i'm correct. good night and god bless.
I mean a joke around and exaggerate on /mu/ why "Guns 'n' Roses" are shit lol" but I actually see why people like them even though I personally don't. Tons of good reviews properly explaining their viewpoints
the point of music criticism isn't to be told what to like, it's to engage with another perspective on a work of music. kind of like discussing an album with a friend, or, i don't know, posting on fucking /mu/. the difference between that and a music critic is that (ideally) the music critic is more intelligent and knowledgeable and can provide a more interesting perspective than your average music fan.
>>61550570 A scholar writing a history textbook has far better credentials and will presumably be writing in a more impartial way than a pop music reviewer with no formal education and in the case of Scaruffi, doesn't even know how to play an instrument, let alone describe an artist's work in any meaningful critical way. You can place value in what little he has to say if you wish, but comparing him to an academic's review of a period or artist is ridiculous because they're not the same thing.
why do you people only care about the numbers? it's the texts that are the real pearls: >Appetite For Destruction (1987) was as harrowing an experience as being catapulted into a dark narrow alley of the worst Los Angeles neighborhood. [...] indulged in unbridled concertos of screeching and reckless riffs. The noise, the energy, the lyrics transformed each song into a bloody fistfight. sounds pretty cool but alas this is not what the album does >Use Your Illusion (1991) added artistic pretensions to the rebellious spirit of their performances, and, in a sense, declared the band's mission impossible. artistic pretensions my ass. now adding synths and violins is artistic? ffs scruffy
>>61553250 van halen is pretty funny too >In the United States a band bridged, like no other, the worlds of new wave and of heavy-metal: Van Halen, destined to become the first heavy-metal band ever to top the charts. Formed in Los Angeles by Holland-born virtuoso guitarist Eddie Van Halen (an acrobat of hammering chords, exhausting vibratos, melodic riffs and Hendrix-ian glissandos) and vocalist and sex-symbol David Lee Roth, they streamlined the genre on Van Halen (1978), making it more appealing to the everykid [...]
so basically he sees afd as something really scary and original but van halen as just pop metal
>David Bowie turned marketing into the essence of his art. All great phenomena of popular music, from Elvis Presley to the Beatles, had been, first and foremost, marketing phenomena (just like Coca Cola and Barbie before them); however, Bowie turned that into an art of its own. With Bowie the science of marketing becomes art; art and marketing become one. There were intellectuals who had proclaimed this theory in rebellious terms. Bowie was, in many ways, the heir, no matter how perverted, of Andy Warhol's pop art and of the underground culture of the 1960s. He adopted some of the most blaspheme issues and turned them upside down to make them precisely what they had been designed to fight: a commodity.
>Bowie was a protagonist of his times, although a poor musician: to say that Bowie is a musician is like saying that Nero was a harp player (a fact that is technically true, but misleading). Bowie embodies the quintessence of artificial art, raises futulity to paradigm, focuses on the phenomenon rather than the content, makes irrelevant the relevant, and, thus, is the epitome of everything that went wrong with rock music.
This is the most appropiate review ever. I dont know why do you guys never talk about this review.
>>61555968 i really like that but i don't get why he concludes it is "what went wrong with rock music". rock music was always commercial. even the most rebellious ones wanted to make money (lou reed and iggy pop come to mind). only when punk showed up did that become a thing.
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.
This is a 4chan archive - all of the shown content originated from that site. This means that 4Archive shows their content, archived. If you need information for a Poster - contact them.
If a post contains personal/copyrighted/illegal content, then use the post's [Report] link! If a post is not removed within 24h contact me at firstname.lastname@example.org with the post's information.