I admit that there have been music writers who have written so passionately and articulately about bands, composers, albums, etc. that I have been turned on to nice new music experiences.

But the older I get and the more well-rounded and eclectic my taste, the more useless Music Crits seem to me.

First of all, most of them now are a joke. They approach music from a lazy, uninformed, superficial angle. They cram magazines like Rolling Stone and Spin with pages upon pages of useless drivel, praising where they should criticize and vice-versa.

I have seen so many reviews that totally missed the mark--to such a degree that years later the selfsame publications will actually 'bury' the old review or replace it with a new one.

What I think it boils down to is not only the subjectivity of the consumer when it comes to any media, but the fact as I see it that Music is the most subjective of all the arts.

Someone can listen to Master P and get arguably the same enjoyment I get from Sigur Ros. It's amazing.

I'm strongly of the opinion that critics are indeed useless. People's tastes in music are so varied that one critic or another cannot possibly put a definitive label on any song, album, or artist that will ring true for a majority of others.

As far as I'm concerned the only critiquing worth listening to is from friends, family, etc. who have similar tastes in music.

I would say yes simply because everyone likes different things. but in that sense, all critics would be useless. right?

Asking if music critics are useless and then citing RS and Spin is sort of like asking if restaurants are useless and then citing McDonalds.

My answer: like anything other part of society, most critics suck. This has always been true, and will always be true. Find ones who don't (and believe, they're out there for any kind of music you care about), and read them.

Nowadays I just use review databases like amazon to get ideas for music, and then go to a file sharing service to get samples. I don't have much need for traditional critics.

I've said this before and I'm sure I'll say it again. Any schmoe with a computer and a website may think that they are a "critic" because they can endlessly spout their opinions to an audience of other schmoes, however, their opinions will carry far less weight in my eyes than those of someone who is well-studied in criticism as well as the topic they are critiquing... whether it be music, film, sculpture, whatever.

Would I consider David Fricke of Rolling Stone a good critic? Not really, but I would put more faith in his opinion of something than some 20-something with their own website who thinks they have eclectic taste because they have Tool and Sarah McLaughlin in the same collection.

Hmmm, well, I don't use music critics reviews when buying my cd's. I think that they are a lot like sports radio hosts. They tend to say things to get an emotional responce. It is what sells for them. So from my standpoint I think they are worthless. I really almost always don't agree with their reviews of concerts either.

Reading some of these responses, I wonder who you guys are reading. Critics are just music fans with a louder voice. They get excited about records and want to tell everyone about them, but they also want to warn people away from things they believe miss the mark.

Don't dislike someone for their opinion. Dislike them for the way they back up their opinion. If their criticisms aren't justified within the review, then by all means write them a letter and say so.

I'm a rock critic. It's what I do for a living. I get lots of hate mail. But most of it is from fans of Band X or Band Y who are upset because I dared to criticize their favorite group. Normally I will write them back and explain why I did that, point to specific paragraphs, and generally they either don't write back or they apologize for overreacting. I have gotten probably 75 emails from my Strokes review alone. And it was a mostly-positive piece!

The fundamental question is whether criticism is worthwhile. It's something that I struggle with too. But I think it is. Half the music I listen to I wouldn't know if it weren't for some favorite writers of mine. That's my goal too. To help the bands that I feel are deserving and to criticize the bands who are undeserving.

There are lots of bad writers. People who are in it for the free records. But you can tell that by reading them. There are many great publications with smart writers who know what they are talking about. The people at Rolling Stone and Spin know what they are talking about, but they have to balance their opinions with the politics of their editors and publishers. That's the reason for their lackluster product.

Depends which critics you're reading. Do I read Rolling Stone or SPIN? No. Do I read New York Times or the St. Paul Pioneer Press? Yes. I don't live in New York or St. Paul, but their rock/pop critics are generally well-rounded, have (reasonably) broad tastes in music, live in cities with great live music scenes, and you can tell really love music.

Yancey, you mentioned how your favorite writers have suggested a lot of the music you listen to, which begs two questions, only one of which I'll ask here -- who are your favorite writers?

Music critics aren't useful because they tell you how bad (or how good) Britney Spears is. They're useful because they can put Britney Spears in the context of today's music and the music that preceded them.

The one danger in reading rock critics for established newspapers or magazines is that you're likely to be reading a middle-aged guy, and, let's face it, middle-aged guys may have different concerns from a 20-year-old college student. But if you're closer in age to the rock critic than to the college student, you may appreciate the critic more than the student. The critic, simply for having been writing longer, may also be a better read.

Critics should be read because they can place things in context and because they're entertaining. You may think Roger Ebert is not harsh enough on mediocre movies (like I do sometime), but he definitely knows his film history and writes well. And that, I think, makes him a good critic. Whether or not you use his thumb to influence your moviegoing is almost secondary.

Good post, SAS. I agree that putting music in a cultural context is important, but it's only something us music geeks really care about.

But my favorite writers. First and foremost, I would say Ira Robbins. He founded Trouser Press in the mid-70s, a great magazine that lasted for ten years. The neat thing is that he and I now work at the same company and he's become one of my best friends and kind of a mentor to me. He's being really helpful and I am very grateful. You should check out the Trouser Press Record Guide. There are five editions, kind of like the All Music Guide for punk, new wave, indie rock, just generally underground stuff.

Other writers include Greil Marcus. He hasn't really turned me onto bands, but he gets me excited about people I like just because he is such a good writer. He is far and away the best at putting music in a cultural context, although his writing can be a bit academic.

Jim DeRegotis is excellent. He writes for the Chicago Sun-Times, or the Tribune, don't remember which. The other Chicago critic is Greg Kot, who is also excellent.

From the old crew, Lester Bangs was certainly entertaining. Reading him you can just feel how excited certain bands would make him. But Nick Tosches was the best of the 70s bunch. His bio on Jerry Lee Lewis, Hellfire, is one of the best books I've ever read. Richard Meltzer is another from that age, and he wrote a wonderful book called Gulcher.

Right now I rely on publications more than anything. I read Mojo every month. On the web I read Pitchfork daily, as well as neumu. Both are good for finding out about good indie bands. I used to write for Pitchfork and I now write for neumu, among other places.

Sorry if this is too long, but I get excited about some of the great writing that's been done about music.

Excellent points. My fiancee is an ex-critic, and while I don't always agree with him, his music knowledge is astounding, which I think makes for a better read and a better thought out opinion.

But while at the paper, after he turned thirty, he was constantly being told, "You're too old to understand today's youth." While that may be the case to a certain (very) limited degree, the 20-yr old replacement listens only to Limp Bizkit, Blink 182 and Korn type music, regards anything pre-grunge as "irrelevant", and prepares for interviews by reading the liner notes and asking where the band came up their cool name. But he has body piercings, so in the eyes of upper management, he's "credible" and more importantly, "marketable."

Most critics are useless for that reason, not because they're critics, but because they're not good music writers. A good critic is getting harder and harder to find...

Michelle

Keep in mind that most journalists don't exactly have 100% control of what shows up on the printed page.


Some favorites off the top of my head:

Chuck Eddy
Kodwo Eshun [edited to add]
Sasha Frere-Jones
Nelson George
Paul Morley
Scott Poulson-Bryant
Joy Press
Simon Reynolds
Ira Robbins
David Stubbs

I agree with all of those. Can't believe I forgot Chuck Eddy, although he gets a little academic too.

But Simon Reynolds and Joy Press are great. I love The Sex Revolts.

Yancey, Pikul, etc., I fully agree and am aware that there are good music writers out there as I said in my original thread-starting post. I've read some of the publications and scribes you listed. I like some of what they write.

Problem for me is, my awareness of new music and judgments about it are just increasingly disconnected from 99% of music journalism. I think the 'laziness' I speak of is all-pervasive; even the cream of the crop and their elect sometimes seem to come into music listening, appreciation and understanding with the bare minimum of attention. They bring their 'outsider/elitist' attitude, or worse, shorthand of preconceptions to everything they write. I.E. "Prog Rock = BAD," "All modern R&B = BAD," "Unsigned Band = GOOD," "Fewer Record Sales = GOOD," etc.

And it's also the matter of a review for music being like a review for a new kind of car. How can you possibly tell what is truly 'reliable,' i.e. of quality, after one listen the night before? (at least this applies to 'substantive' music...)

My attitude when listening to music is to be with it in the moment it travels through the air from the speakers or headcans, and I wish theirs was the same.

Pages and pages of verbiage, no matter how well-done can not substitute for the experience of listening to new music and making up my own mind. In my music universe (lack of my possessing broadband hurts this cause) it should be one big buffet where music is 'hyperlinked' like HTTP.

I think the one point that you are missing is that it's not the verbage that's important, but it's what they say. The good reviewer will try and put the reader into the right context by (for example) referring the reader to the performer's influences.

A good example, for myself, is (and this is pretty broad) the last Neko Case LP. The initial reviews I read were very brief and referred to her just as alt.country, which most know as alternative country. I dismissed the record because I have little interest in another Lucinda Williams-esque artist. However, when I read a better critic's assessment of Neko Case and the mentions were made of Patsy Cline and Loretta Lynn, my interest changed. That particular critic also mentioned that she was in a band called Maow that I was familiar with. I began to wonder if the the early reviews I read had even listened to the record or just spouted verbatum from the press release.

Now this guy took the time to research, or already knew, more info about his subject and provided me with a specific context to get my interest piqued. Instead of throwing out generic buzz words like alt.country, he listened to the disc, probably did some background into her influences, and incorporated them into the review. That's the difference for me.

Well, I think you are generalizing too much with that first paragraph. These are individuals, critics aren't some monolithic, goosestepping army who decide what is good and bad. Personally, I'm not a big prog fan. And I would rather write about a band who don't sell many records because they could use the exposure. I think where you are seeing ulterior motives, it's really a lot simpler.

All music has a history, and part of a writer's job is to place it in that history. So even if what you enjoy (and what I enjoy and Pikul as well) is the sheer listening of it, where it comes from is important. It's ancestors to try and get at the motivations behind it. That probably came across as B.S., but I think you get what I am saying.

No one wants to read about music instead of listen to it, but I find that reading about it can enhance my listening to it. Finding out where things come from, finding out the history of the band, just digging. That's what us music geeks (all critics) love to do. And I read a lot of music writing (not neccessarily criticism) for the joy of it. It's just like any other type of writing for me, except that it is about my favorite subject -- music.

Yancey (and others), thanks for the list of readable reviewers. A few of the names were familiar to me, but many weren't.

My perception as a non-critic of critics is that critics (music or otherwise) do have a tendency to overemphasize their discussion of bands (or movies, books, etc.) that don't necessarily have a high amount of sales, not for evil intent, but because there isn't that much purpose in dealing with music with high sales. I mean, is somebody really going to decide whether or not to buy Britney Spears' latest album because of a critic's review? (Really, who here even had to think about it, regardless of whether you bought the album or swear never to listen to it?)

Whereas if you (the critic) have been listening to a great album by a band on a small label unlikely to get $10,000 of marketing, let alone $1,000,000, you might want to use your power of the press to beat the drum about that great album.

I also think music criticism is also somewhat different from movie/book criticism in that the ratio of good stuff to bad stuff is much higher in music criticism. What I mean is, the movie critic has to watch both Reqiuem for a Dream and She's All That. The movie critic is unlikely to watch Requiem 20 times for every single time the critic sits through All That. But a movie critic might listen to an album they love 20 times for every time they listen to an album they dislike. This may make critics more likely to focus on albums they like.

Finally, Jepthah, I think you may be the exception in how most people approach music (or any cultural endeavor). I don't think most people are as actively adventurous in searching out new music as you are. I consider myself reasonably open-minded in seeking new music, and what I can do as a family man (which restricts both my discretionary income as well as time) to search out new music is much less than what you do. Critics don't tell me what music to buy or check out from the library, but they sure help me validate albums I might have been thinking about as a result of other research. Your approach may be better, but it's unrealistic for me (and, I suspect, the vast majority of music listeners). Bully for you, though. :-)

More wonderful points SAS. I think you should look into doing criticism. You back up your statements beautifully.

Getting lots of promos in the mail, I get so many bad bad bad bad albums. It really skews your vision, makes you think the good stuff is better than it really is. But I think that's fine. I would much rather write a positive piece than a negative one.

And critic's opinions really do matter with the smaller bands. Pikul has been on this board arguing the merits of the Avalanches and Life Without Buildings for a year now. He sold me on them (and he's a very good writer too). Likewise, I have been preaching about Calla, this small NYC band that I got him into. He then gave them a great review on the AMG, which hopefully will get more people into them.

But, as you stated, with larger bands critic's opinions are moot. People know what they like and will not be swayed by someone they don't know. This is fine with me. I love that people have their own tastes, no matter how misguided they may be.

Like others have said, many if not most critics aren't that great. But there's enough who turn me on to great stuff (Nick Hornby, Peter Guralnick, the late Lester Bangs got me hooked on too many bands to list). I think magazines like Spin are the worst thing to happen to criticism in a while - wankfests like Spin's reviews don't even accomplish their goals, which is to tell you, the reader, what the music is like. Most Spin writers seem to think it's some writing exercise and end up writing about their girlfriend's dead cat or something. Too many people reading Lester Bangs and thinking that's something they can do without trying.

As someone who's worked as a music journalist and was once an intern at Billboard magazine, I can tell you that critics get burned out real easily. Imagine getting 20-30 CDs a day to listen to; sure, it sounds awesome, but trust me, listening to 3,000 bands all trying to sound like Limp Biskit can wear you down real fast. So I can sympathize with them, and their search for something new and disdain for some acts.

I listen to critics, but like anyone should, I don't necessarily follow slavishly their opinions. A good critic will tell you his opinion isn't any more valid than yours; a bad critic thinks he knows everything. I often get turned on to good stuff by critics that I might not have ever listened to (White Stripes, Strokes, Beta Band last year, to name a few).

Sadly, I do find I am MUCH more inclined to agree with a critic's opinion than the guy standing next to me at WalMart holding the new Britney Spears CD. Such is life.

Very interesting discussion. I have been greatly influenced in the past by rock critics. When I was 18 in '83 I read about New Order and R.E.M. for the first time. Bought both of those records based on stellar reviews. Completely changed the way I listen to music. At that time when I was eating up new music I was very into criticism... just for opening me up to new sounds. Today, I will admit, the reviews on Spin and Rolling Stone seem lame. When I used to feel I was getting a review from someone with a great knowledge of history, today I feel I'm reading something from someone who doesn't know nearly as much about context.

Ira Robbins. Without a doubt the most consistent reviewer I have ever read. I have found so many good bands because of this man. He's a perfect example of a critic who has been very worthwhile to me. I've seeked out some of his recommendations over the years and grew to understand his views on music. I could read future reviews and get a very good idea what he was writing about without hearing one note of the music. I'm not saying that I rely on a critic to figure out what to buy most of the time. Certainly at times I do this (just like seeing a movie on Rotten Tomatoes getting a 90% rating makes me think that movie might be pretty good). Even though I'm 36 I still love hearing a small band that is not popular yet. It's fun. But I also still get a kick when Greil Marcus over-analyzes why he thinks "King of America" by Elvis Costello is manna for life.

Yancey and others who write. It's worthwhile. We ALL know there are amazing ignored bands out there. Your words might be read by some teenager who doesn't know that there is more out there beyond the radio. Oh yeah, don't forget to mention in every future review that nothing will ever be as good as the Trash Can Sinatras

I showed Ira your comments about him (I hope you don't mind) and he said, "Wow - that's really flattering."

My wet dream is to get some teenager into some new band that I love, to make music an active endeavor that they seek out, not a passive one -- watching MTV and listening to the radio. I have no idea if I have done that yet. I like to think I have.

Thanks Yancey... I think it's cool you showed Ira what I wrote. I don't know how much response you guys get from readers (probably more these days with email). But really, I was just telling my wife right now how cool Trouser Press was to me (still is). Glad he liked what I said because it's true.

Here's a new article written in Atlanta's Creative Loafing magazine exactly about this subject.

http://atlanta.creativeloafing.com/vibes_feature.html

I agree with most of what David had to say in that piece. But I think that most people in this forum would disagree. Their idea of what a critic is (and the reason why they hate them) is exactly what he says should be happening, but isn't. Because I primarily write for zines and websites, I do get to cover the music I want. Although in my day job I have to interview Linkin Park and all sorts of things that go against what I believe in. But I guess I treat my other writings as penance or something. I don't know.

There are so few places to write these days, particularly here in NY. With the dot-com boom a few years ago, all the wannabe rock writers got good paying gigs, but now they're out of a job. As a result, every open position gets hundreds of applicants (a recent MTV assistant job got 1,600 applicants, some from people with 10 years of experience. Yikes!). Also, this creates more people looking to get the same stories in magazines because they need the money. Which makes them more willing to write what the mag wants and what the band wants. It's a vicious cycle right now and I really don't know how to fix it. Maybe if Mojo weren't $8 here in the States and the major U.S. mags had some good competition there would be an evolution. But that won't happen anytime soon.

I wouldn't say useless exactly. However, I don't think that they're any more useful than anybody else giving me their opinion of a song, album, movie, etc. They may be able to express their thoughts a little more eloquently than some of my friends could, but it's still just an opinion.