ITT: Criticisms that tell you when to stop taking a critic seriously.
>There's nothing new here
whenever the word 'blistering' is used for a metal album
...or a review with the phrase 'Brian Eno' in it
>It replaced lusty negro attitudes with cute white-kid smiles.
>boring
It's ok to call an album boring when you're casually talking about it, but I feel like it's such a lazy criticism when legitimately reviewing an album
>taking critics seriously ever
Most hack profession of all time.
>trap influenced beats
>>61056016
Woah Anthony Fantano word a shirt with /mu/ on it?
>>61056023
He is a /mu/ster
>>61056016
Why are you posting static gifs.
>>61055919
All the negative reviews of one of my favorite albums, drukQs, saying "there's nothing new here" helped me to stop being a critic drone. If that album had come out a couple years earlier with Windowlicker as the lead single it would've gotten "eclectic! ambitious! landmark album!"rave reviews but because Aphex was on their bad side and starting to be a recluse they had to act disappointed
These days I read reviews to relieve boredom but I don't listen to an album just bc it gets 9.0 on pitchfork
>The critic is the real artist
>using terms like cultural appropriation to criticise a band or album
Mainly because it's used to look for criticism when they can't find anything wrong with the music. I also don't see anything wrong with appropriation.
>played it safe
There's a fine line between consistency and safety, and most critics can't find it.
>anything referencing a previous album to criticise the current one
Just because it sounds very much like or very different from a previous album does not mean anything.
>referencing an artists public antics to criticise an album
Varg being a nationalist or Kanye acting like a moron has nothing to do with the sound of an album. Weak criticism imo.
Tldr is that the sound of an album is the only important thing, not context.
>>61056088
dunno it must have saved in a weird way
thanks for replacing it anon
>>61056165
>using terms like cultural appropriation to criticise a band or album
Name one fucking review that isn't on kotaku or tumblr do this
Fucking do it, I bet you can't
>>61056253
When Vampire Weekend started out they received backlash for incorporating afrobeat and were called the "whitest band on the planet" all over the place
>>61056165
>anything referencing a previous album
I guess you mean a general reference to their previous work without detailing, right?
Because sometimes referring to lyrical work, production or consistency in the instrumentation of previous works can legitimately emphasize the critic's review
>>61056340
Well I stand corrected
>>61055919
>"It's not a bad album, but it's a bad [artist name] album"
>Proceeds to give the album a shitty score when that's the only criticism in the review
This happens surprisingly often.
>>61056344
I mean in the sense of
>last album was so good, this one is not as good, so I score it lower than I would have because I liked the last one better
I think you should focus on the sound of the current album you're reviewing as a critic
>>61056253
I don't automatically discount reviews from specific sites, so when a reviewer on kotaku pulls bullshit like this, I then know that their opinion isn't valid.
I'm no /pol/ conspiracy theorist, I realize this doesn't happen often, but I still consider people who do it to have no relevant opinion.
>critic hates the eagles, coldplay and supertramp
