Why are music critics shills?

>>73398841
>masterful
>infectious
>has the magic
>captivating
>sexy, alluring, catchy
>great song
>intelligent guitar use
>pretty genius

My god, with all those epithets I expected some Song of The Decade next-level shit, where in return I got an unbearable piece of crap I couldn't listen to longer than 30 seconds

Yes, many critics are paid to give positive reviews. You shouldn't give any credibility to major publications.

>>73399180
Not the same person, but you also shouldn't take music reviewers in general very seriously.

>>73399235
>but you also shouldn't take music reviewers in general very seriously.
why not?
a good reviewer can put out things in a song/album that the average person would never figure out. or even recommend albums that are similar or sometimes superior.

File: 1448313282922.jpg (7KB, 231x218px) Image search: [Google]

7KB, 231x218px

i'm listening to the song right now

>why do people who are paid to express their opinion express their opinion??
>why do people who are paid to express their opinion in an age devoid of journalistic integrity let money sway how they express their opinion??
free market at work you retard

>>73399259
That's what I meant - recommendations, not taste or preference. If you later happen to agree with said music critics' recommendation, even better.

>>73399259
>good reviewer

Doesn't exist retard
Anyone titled a "reviewer" is a half-brained moron

>>73399314
fedoratippinglad.mp4

>>73399235
True. The best reviewers are individuals basically sharing their taste and talking about stuff they find interesting. Anyone who calls themselves a critic or journalist can be ignored. I've found way better music from RYM users year-end lists and niche blogs than from Fantano or whoever.

>>73399340
He's kind of right though, most people who call themselves reviewers are boring as fuck. I find the more knowledgeable critics don't set out to be critics in the first place, they just share new and interesting music -- then people come to consider them critics.

>>73399290
I'm not sure if you use RYM or not, but in ~10 minutes you could find with literally the same ratings and same albums Scaruffi has in his best albums lists. Not to mention the contractions he's made over the years. Christgau is even a worse offender. Someone could probably provide links for this, but in the end, the majority would probably be upset.

>>73399396
Find profiles*

>>73399343
that is exactly what fantano is

you just don't like him because he gets paid to do something you would like to get paid for

i don't really dig his taste or his personality but he is an individual basically sharing his taste and talking about stuff he finds interesting

>>73399396
>Someone could probably provide links for this, but in the end, the majority would probably be upset.
And that's when you know you're taking music reviewers too seriously. If you however find these contradictions entertaining and manage to explore more genres and extract more recommendations, again, even better.

>>73399429
>i don't really dig his taste or his personality but he is an individual basically sharing his taste and talking about stuff he finds interesting
maybe couple years ago but not anymore. he didn't even bother to review elseq.

>>73398841
> too much attention paid to commercial phenomena (be it grunge or U2) and too little to the merits of real musicians. If somebody composes the most divine music but no major label picks him up and sells him around the world, a lot of rock critics will ignore him. If a major label picks up a musician who is as stereotyped as can be but launches her or him worldwide, your average critic will waste rivers of ink on her or him. This is the sad status of rock criticism: rock critics are basically publicists working for major labels, distributors and record stores. They simply highlight what product the music business wants to make money from.

change rock with pop or music and that's it.

>>73399488
Holy. Shit. I have ridiculed that pasta my whole life, but this paragraph makes so much sense in the context of this thread. Nice find.

>>73399488
And let's also not pretend that U2 is high above pop.

>>73398841
lurk moar op

>>73399266
And what did ya think?

>>73400035
utterly garbage, no redeeming qualities at all.

>>73399286
yup, use your freedom of choice to either support them or ignore them, if you despise what they do don't give them traffic and hope they die or are forced to change

>>73398841
Lmao, and in latin america that song sounds like every other bullshit that comes out in the radio.

Its an objectively good song. White people shouldnt be allowed to talk about reggaeton.

>>73399391
>I find the more knowledgeable critics don't set out to be critics in the first place, they just share new and interesting music -- then people come to consider them critics.
the very existence of these people is what I had in mind when I replied to his retarded post

People never understand how reviews work.

Critics at publications are NOT PAID to give positive reviews to albums. That's bribery and almost never happens (when it does, there's a big snafu). What they do is more subtle: they fit their reviews to adapt to their audience.

A publication cannot get directly paid by Interscope for promoting someone like Nicki Minaj. However, if the readership predominately listens to Nicki Minaj and similar music, the publication can manipulate their clicks with this. They give the reviews of Nicki Minaj to people most likely to pander to the audience. They score it in a similar way. Their language is framed in a way to pander.

A great example of this is Gamespot's embarrassing review of Breath of the Wild, with its constant lofty, non-factual "criticism" culminating in a 10/10.

A musical example would be Pitchfork giving MBDTF a 10/10. Look at how Ryan Dombal constantly refers to gossip rather than music, cult rather than culture. This is calculated: Pitchfork was capturing the minds of the Hip Hop generation.

It's thought control and manipulation through marketing, just like everything else in our Post-Internet society.

>>73401173
Good post overall, but seriously, using MBDTF as an example?

>>73400257
True, we have gotten stuff like this for the last 10 years.
>>73399547
That pasta is ridiculous but it has always been right about some things, which is why it got popular in the first place.

>>73398841
Most critics aren't good, so you should always approach them with a degree of scepticism before deciding they are or are not worth taking seriously.

>>73398841
That isn't a bad pop song though

>>73402804
It's fucking shit, friend.

>>73399429
No way. He markets himself as a reviewer, he has a YouTube channel with solid production values, and is paid money. Maybe in the old days he was more legit but now he's Pitchfork Junior.

>>73401173
Shut the fuck up boldfaure

DES - PA - CI - TO
E
S
-
P
A
-
C
I
-
T
O

Actually a good pop song.

But you will continue to seethe on the sidelines while we'll grind on the dancefloor with the girls.

>>73403536
>implying he hasn't surpassed p4k

>>73398841
They're owned by the same companies that make the songs they promote. Mix that in with poptimists and you get this