Well I made this thread to discuss anything you want about music critics. Which ones you like, which ones you hate.

 

Since I got into music as a teen, I used to get happy when I read good reviews of albums that I liked or get offended of reviews bashing artists that I liked. Now, I just don't care anymore, really. I don't know why I used to take their opinion so seriously (Rolling Stone, Pitchfork, NME, Q, etc.)

 

So what's your opinion about music critics. Do you follow them. If yes, which one/s?

 

I read Pitchfork a lot just to discover new music. That's it.

I really don't care. I do always read the reviews of concerts I've visited, but I always have my own opinion, and it's not being changed by the reviews.

Well, I often buy and read Q magazine and I love to read the reviews. I love to review music myself too.

I enjoy reading what these critics have to say and what their take on all the latest and greatest albums and songs are:).

If I read a review I disagree with, I don't automatically hate the critic, they just think differently to what I do:).

However, I purchased the January 2013 issue of Q the other day and they gave Coldplay: Live 2012 DVD 3/5, I wasn't happy about that:|.

 

Reviews never change my opinion, EVER. I like what I like, some one saying they don't like them won't change that. It would be like walking down the street and some-one saying "I don't like Coldplay", that wouldn't make me dislike Coldplay so what's the difference if it's in a magazine?:)

I read Pitchfork daily but their opinion mostly doesn't effect my opinion about a certain album/song/etc.

no

I read them to see what are other people's thoughts about the music, sometimes it can bring some new light into it and make me see the album on a different perspective, but If I like something a critic say it's shit I won't change my mind because of that.

I read Pitchfork daily but their opinion mostly doesn't effect my opinion about a certain album/song/etc.

Same.

 

Pitchfork's fantastic for new discoveries, as their reviews are often a starting point for a lot of bands' initial buzz. If an album gets a "Best New Music" honor from Pitchfork, I'm probably gonna check it out. Of course, they also have vendettas against many popular bands, and that's why I also enjoy Consequence of Sound's reviews a lot, since they're both thorough and tend to reflect my own opinions more than anyone else.

 

I disregard most of the others these days, though. NME purposely inflates the British artists who are successful only because of NME's hype (just look at their 2012 top album list - half of it mediocre NME-raised artists who don't appear on anyone else's year-end lists). Rolling Stone's reviews are 3 sentences long, and that magazine's less about music these days than MTV is. And I've never given Q much thought or cared.

Like a lot of the others, I read what magazines have to say mostly for discovering new music. It's all online, though; I don't have paper copies of magazines or anything.

 

As for which ones, I've discovered quite a bit of music via SPIN magazine and the free mixtapes they give out to those on their mailing list. :awesome: Pitchfork is good for that, too, even though, as Michael said, they tend to be prejudiced a lot of the time. I like NME as well, just because I think I identify a lot with the British music scene, and they talk about a lot of my favorite bands. I'm not as familiar with Q, but I don't think I mind it, either. I don't really mess with Rolling Stone, though.

 

I'm not familiar with Consequence of Sound, I don't think. I'll have to check them out. If Michael likes them, I'm bound to, also.

Good reviewers don't publish opinions, they publish facts. They tell you what songs sound like. The only opinions you'll see are the number of stars, and whether they think the songs work. You can't fabricate much else; you can't say "The XX are breaking new ground on Coexist" when they're clearly not, can you?

 

I enjoy reading reviews because I like how other people can sum up how I feel about a piece of music, or teach me something new about it. I don't think anyone actually bases their opinions on reviews, but the music press are vital, especially in today's world. We can download any old shit these days, the world needs experts to show us decent stuff.

 

However, I purchased the January 2013 issue of Q the other day and they gave Coldplay: Live 2012 DVD 3/5, I wasn't happy about that:|.

 

The guy who did that, Niall, I met him when I worked at Q. Good bloke. He gets so much mail, it's unreal.

I read music reviews to first and formost discover new music and like Michael and Fran said, Pitchfork is really good for that. Even though they give an album a lukewarm review I can tell whether or not I'll be interested. I also read stuff like Uncut and Drowned In Sound whose tastes are closer to mine. The rating means a lot, but usually it's the description of the album that counts the most.

Since I got into music as a teen, I used to get happy when I read good reviews of albums that I liked or get offended of reviews bashing artists that I liked. Now, I just don't care anymore, really. I don't know why I used to take their opinion so seriously (Rolling Stone, Pitchfork, NME, Q, etc.)

 

 

At risk of being captain obvious: companies/magazines do not have opinions. Individuals have opinions. For example, each pitchfork review is written solely by a specific individual, and if you read reviews of consecutive albums by a band, you may be scratching your head at the disparity of perspectives.

 

I couldn't name a current critic if I tried. I'm unaware off hand of an looming Roger Ebert equivalents in the business. However, I quite enjoy reading reviews, as they help me engage intellectually with the music, and sometimes summarize works in ways I otherwise could not.

I´d rather wacth theneedledrop. Reading is for losers :)

that guy is annoying

that guy is annoying

 

that is the 12th time ive said that i like something and you hate it

sorry i love you really

It can make me really happy if a reviewer agrees with me and it can put me down a little if they don't, because then I feel like I need to change my opinion. Which is ridiculous.

 

I'm trying not to be influenced by what reviewers (or people in general) think, but they often do affect my opinion. And with reviews, it's hard for me to see that it's just one person who wrote it.

The only music magazine I now read is Q, and that is only because I can hire it from the library.

 

Reviewers is just one person's review of the album, which sometimes could be subjective rather than objective.

 

The only other reviews I read is the Friday's review page in the i Paper.

I would read some reviews to get a general idea of an album of an artist I'm not too familiar with.

But for bands I like, I wouldn't read them very often at all :nice: I just don't think about reading them.

I wait a month or so to take a look at the Amazon reviews.