Why is /mu/ so triggered by critics?

>>71644569
Is this a post or a fucking novel m8 ? didn't read.

>>71644569
>there would be no mediators to discern content of actual quality and value
I can do that myself i don't need some cult personality to do it for me.

I enjoy reading reviews and getting opinions from people, even if they're pretentious or stupid

But I'm basically laughed at if I ever bring it up so I don't

>>71644569
Most of your post is "here is why /lit/ is better than /mu/" but in response to your question: music is a lot more subjective than books. Sorry that there isn't an easy way to say what's "good music" and what's "bad music" like you can with books, but you'll just have to deal with forming your own opinion on things.

>>71644569
My biggest complaint with /mu/core albums is that they're usually composed by people who are not really good composer.
When I listen to Ravel I know that every single note in there has a precise meaning, and that Ravel had a full understanding of every other alternative to that note. Nothing is left to chance, yet the result is sincere, personal and insightful (which is not what you would expect from such meticolous composers).
When I listen to Swans album, instead, I can see its beauty, essence and atmosphere, but at the same time I really can't believe that such bad composers are making such good music. Every theoretical aspect of that music is a mess, to a point where I'm almost 100% sure that these guys really don't know what they're doing, so they just go with the flow.
That is still worth something, but deep down I know that it will never be as valuable as what classical music has to offer. I can see through it, and I can see how these guys don't love music enough to study and live it. These guys are living of atmospheres instead, the notes bear no real meaning.
I could take any Swans song and switch notes and reverse every theme, and it will still make sense, since the core of that music is percussions, timbres and dynamics. These properties are inherent of most classical music too, but here every note has real meaning, and it can't be substituted without altering the meaning of the entire piece.

What I'm saying is that I want modern non-classical composer to study melody, harmony and counterpoint and really make something out of it.
By the way if you think that this will hurt the originality of these guys you are dead wrong: studying these fields will make you able to magnify every style of music and, more specifically, every sort of musical ideas, regardless of its context.

>>71645063
>That is still worth something, but deep down I know that it will never be as valuable as what classical music has to offer.
that's fucking retarded, and you are retarded. assigning value based on adherence to theory makes very little sense.

>>71645164
>that's fucking retarded, and you are retarded. assigning value based on adherence to theory makes very little sense.

Have you read the last thing I've written? There is no such thing as adherence to theory, if anythign a lack of theoretical knowledge causes more often than note blind adherence to theory, without the ability of seeing its limits

What I'm talking about is not ''adherence to theory'', what I'm talking about is that there is a complete lack of insight in the notes that are being used.
What you're talking about is one of those things that disgust me the most, which is why I can listen to maybe 3 or 4 prog albums without feeling disgusted.

I want musicians to be knowledgeable of every alternative to every possible choice they can make, and I want them to compose in the most deliberate way, knowing full well what they're doing and what else they could do. This is what I want, not adherence to theory.

File: xscreen-2012-10-08-01h13m08s1.jpg (48KB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

48KB, 1280x720px

>>71644569
Music is easier to consume, so it will attract a lot more crossboarder shits and normalfags.

On top of that, every board is regurgitated ideas written condescendingly and shit memes and assholery being repeated ad infinitum with small intermissions of insightful posts which is the second reason most people are here second to shitposting.

Also what >>71644654 said.

But a critic is just someone who's listened to a lot of music, correct? why do some people deserve to choose what's worth listening to, and others don't? And how would people decide who gets to choose what the masses should listen to?

>>71645338
>
I want musicians to be knowledgeable of every alternative to every possible choice they can make, and I want them to compose in the most deliberate way, knowing full well what they're doing and what else they could do. This is what I want, not adherence to theory.

Very cool way of looking at creating music. Interestingly enough I think this is how I make music. Not every alternative is considered, but I try many alternatives until I feel that I've found the "best". Of course, that's not all of my stuff. That's usually when I get really into what I'm making.

>>71644569
Sorry but you fail to understand that literature criticism is far more of a niche medium than music criticism.

Anyone can listen to a new Hip Hop record, dig the beats, and empathize with the lyrics, then slap some socially aware score on the album. This doesn't mark a release as objectively quality, it means that it resonated with the normies that occupy mainstream music criticism, 90% of whom lack formal musical training.

The corollary to literature would be CLASSICAL MUSIC where the critics are almost always trained musicologists and theorists (except for Alex Ross, who nonetheless generally agrees with these experts). Classical music critics like David Hurwitz are legitimately informed and while disagreement can still arise, it's not about the objective musical content but rather just the critic's assessment.

TL;DR: You're wrong about pop music criticism, correct about academic music criticism.

>>71645434
In classical, contemporary and jazz music critics make sense.
In everything else... eh. It's just taste, there is nothing objective and the music that sites such as p4k review is so diverse that it makes this whole ordeal utterly useless. There is too much diversity and artistic freedom nowadays to do so. These critics should feel ashamed of themselves.

By the way, while his reviews of recent music are worthless, Scaruffi's old reviews and writings on the history of rock are extremely valid. I know that he is a meme, but he is probably the only already known minor celebrity that should be respected here on /mu/

>>71644569
Rock critics do not judge based on the same criteria. Basically, whatever is the most inoffensive, accessible, widely tolerated music is what most rock critics value. For example, try to think of what is the Ulysses of rock music. Do you think that the rolling stone has recognized anything like that?

>>71647158
this

>>71644569
(((critics)))
>oy vey goyim listen to my opinion

>>71644569
>Why is /mu/ so triggered by critics?

Because they don't understand the "cultural curator" aspect of the critic profession. When their favorite album is slammed by a critic, they either take it personally or discard it as "just an opinion", despite the fact that it's neither (regardless of the fact that Fantano says "it's just my opinion").

File: 4676570.jpg (37KB, 500x392px) Image search: [Google]

37KB, 500x392px

>average consumers are far too stupid to distinguish good art from bad art

you probably can't distinguish good art from bad art but I definitely can because I'm not a fucking retard.

>>71644569
Though I kinda disagree with what you say about pop music (just a little, classical and jazz are indeed better), but other than that I agree 100%.

Sometimes I wish I liked literature as much as I like music so I could go to /lit/ more often than I do.

>>71644569
I don't know, if you come on to /mu/ and say Miles Davis and Eric Satie are worthless trash and Ed Sheeran is the greatest musician you would also get laughed off the board.

In my view, criticism is absolutely necessary for an art form. However for music the metrics for a objective "good" piece are hard to agree on. You suggest axioms for what constitutes quality music, and I bet you I'll disagree with at least some of them. It's true in all art, but music seems to suffer (or enjoy) this more than other mediums.

Also, I would be wary of your argument of the crucial part of the critic. Again, criticism is important but the critic him/herself is irrelevant. A great piece of art will exist regardless of the critic's involvement. In fact I would argue that review en mass is probably the purest form or critique as it will filter out an individual's personal preference.

Anyway, I personally don't mind critics. I will get a sour taste in my mouth when they begin to make claims of their grand importance in art though (a la Scaruffi).

File: tfw.jpg (60KB, 700x700px) Image search: [Google]

60KB, 700x700px

>mfw normies with poor taste have ruined good rock music criticism with their shit opinions

>>71645405
>Music is easier to consume, so it will attract a lot more crossboarder shits and normalfags.

This desu, you don't really need to put that much effort into listening to most music, so /mu/ will obviously be filled with people with no formal training in either musical or literary theory.
>>71644654
Well, arriving on a consensus on what the best books were took a lot of effort and analysis. Just because it's difficult doesn't mean that we should just not try.

>>71649768
>Just because it's difficult doesn't mean that we should just not try.

Alright. You start. Hit me up when you don't get fucking anywhere. There are people on this board alone that dismiss June Of 44 and Rodan as Slint ripoffs and don't want to discuss anything else about them other than an asinine dismissal.

>>71649889
I don't have the education or experience to do that, sadly. Maybe one day?

>>71645063
Theory is just a language used to categorize certain quantifiable aspects of music.


>When I listen to Ravel I know that every single note in there has a precise meaning

You aren't respecting the abstract aspect of art enough. Even if Ravel did place each individual note with a deliberate, specific intent (not that that makes it good or that that's the only way to map out a phrase), the intent, at best, could only amount to "I like how this sounds" or "this sounds like what I'm trying to communicate". Notes, rhythms, timbres, dynamics, etc. are all interesting to be conscious of, but really what we're talking about come down to this: they're all just aspects of noise, and the art is simply about making noise that you like or evokes something you'd like to communicate. Art, ALL art, including literature, is by nature an intuitive pursuit, and it really is true that there are no works of art that are in and of themselves good or bad, they simply are. The way we decide that something is good or bad come from a bunch of different things. Do I relate to this? Does this communicate something to me? How does this make me feel? How do I feel about this in comparison to other things?

Now, this is not to say that appraisal is entirely arbitrary. You also have to take into account that there is an instinctual aspect of music. People gravitate towards music that is on the outer limit of what they can comprehend. Not so simple that they feel it's redundant because they already recognize the patterns it's using, but not so complex that it sounds vapid or random. The more theory you know, the more predictable and familiar simpler compositions are to you, so you start to expect and appreciate music that displays a broader range of ideas. So you've come require a broader range of ideas, which is usually made by people that have spent time studying the quantifiable aspect of music. The math behind it. But no math is good or bad. I'm out of room.

>>71644569

because we cant formulate our own opinions/get insecure when someone challenges opinions we do manage to have on our own

>>71644569
So you're saying Gravity's Rainbow, Blood Meridian and Ulysses are good just because critics say they're good?

That's the stupidest shit I've ever heard in my life.

>>71650788
Good post

pop music is derivative garbage, and so whatever genres of it you genuinely enjoy just so happen to be garbage you enjoy.

Because music is the hardest art form to point out objective problems. With a book, you can pull out a passage and the average person can just know if the passage is poorly written or not. In movies you can point out bad lines and bad acting, and video games you can point out glitches, things being boring and so on. In music it's all these kinds of sounds mixed together with an under appreciated amount of work to sound right. You can point out bad lyricism, but then you get someone like ADoseOfBuckley that acts like lyrics are one of the only things that matters (hes not a bad video maker I'm just not a fan of his reviews).