Discussion: Is acclaim the worst excuse for flop eras? - Page 6

Bey_Rihstan

Lol the GP knows more about what's acclaimed than how much something's selling

Hey Gurl Hey

not really, music isn't about the sales so if it does lukewarm in the sales department but great in the acclaim then that's great. Y'all really need to get over worrying about music sales and live your life.

Trent W

Quote:

Originally posted by KillingYourCareer

Yes, because the opinion of millions who buy your work > the opinion of 10 critics

This is what I've been trying to say all the thread

Hey Gurl Hey

Quote:

Originally posted by KillingYourCareer

Yes, because the opinion of millions who buy your work > the opinion of 10 critics

I agree

Lucyyyyyyyyy

Quote:

Originally posted by KillingYourCareer

Yes, because the opinion of millions who buy your work > the opinion of 10 critics

this lmao

Trent W

Quote:

Originally posted by swissman

10 critics with credentials, who are hired to talk about music for a reason, who have spent years listening and analyzing music with a critical ear for quality, progression, and innovation. They’ve listened to thousands of albums in full from various genres. Their opinion is of value.

It’s not some person being like “that song is cute lemme buy the album” or a blind follower of what society tells them they should think is cool, or whatever.

That is totally subjective, it doesn't matter how you twist it is still an opinion.

I'm not saying that acclaim isn't important, I'm just calling out the people that feel superior because they hear music that the 10 critics told them to hear, and discredit other artists that find a massive success and connect with the masses.

Artemisia

Quote:

Originally posted by 50thStateofMind

the fact that people canʻt tell the difference in quality between an album like Teenage Dream & 1989/Emotion is mind boggling to me...

yup, i literally dont get it

Artemisia

Quote:

Originally posted by Sazare

I don't really understand the question. Acclaim isn't an "excuse" for anything. If anything it's the other way around: people try to excuse artists making ****** music by saying "BUT IT SOLD WELL" or "THE GP DISAGREES".

Exactly. How does an album's critical reception in any way justify or put into perspective its commercial failure?

Floyd Mayweather

Quote:

Originally posted by swissman

10 critics with credentials, who are hired to talk about music for a reason, who have spent years listening and analyzing music with a critical ear for quality, progression, and innovation. They’ve listened to thousands of albums in full from various genres. Their opinion is of value.

It’s not some person being like “that song is cute lemme buy the album” or a blind follower of what society tells them they should think is cool, or whatever.

At the end of the day it's their opinion of the artists work. I'm sure whoever is judging the work have their can be biased towards certain genres, artists and styles of music.

Quote:

Originally posted by Trent W

That is totally subjective, it doesn't matter how you twist it is still an opinion.

I'm not saying that acclaim isn't important, I'm just calling out the people that feel superior because they hear music that the 10 critics told them to hear, and discredit other artists that find a massive success and connect with the masses.

This

Trent W

Quote:

Originally posted by 50thStateofMind

the fact that people canʻt tell the difference in quality between an album like Teenage Dream & 1989/Emotion is mind boggling to me...

Teenage Dream and 1989 are basically the same, and I don't say this like an opinion. It's the same bubble gum pop. Katy Perry can sing the entire 1989 album and Taylor could sing the entire Teenage Dream album in a concert and it would be exactly the same.

The only difference between these 2 is that Taylor is more marketed like a song-writer and Katy as bubblegum pop star with huge ****.

That's it. That's how easily fooled can these credited critics be.

Floyd Mayweather

Quote:

Originally posted by Bey_Rihstan

Lol the GP knows more about what's acclaimed than how much something's selling

How can anyone be aware of how acclaimed something is?
I'm not saying they know much about sales either

Floyd Mayweather

Quote:

Originally posted by Trent W

Teenage Dream and 1989 are basically the same, and I don't say this like an opinion. It's the same bubble gum pop. Katy Perry can sing the entire 1989 album and Taylor could sing the entire Teenage Dream album in a concert and it would be exactly the same.

The only difference between these 2 is that Taylor is more marketed like a song-writer and Katy as bubblegum pop star with huge ****.

That's it. That's how easily fooled can these credited critics be.

I don't think I have ever agreed with you this much

Trent W

Quote:

Originally posted by Floyd Mayweather

I don't think I have never agreed with you so much

swissman

Quote:

Originally posted by Trent W

That is totally subjective, it doesn't matter how you twist it is still an opinion.

I'm not saying that acclaim isn't important, I'm just calling out the people that feel superior because they hear music that the 10 critics told them to hear, and discredit other artists that find a massive success and connect with the masses.

Yes, it's their subjective opinion that is based on years of experience.

I agree though that discrediting something because it's popular is stupid, but something being popular doesn't really give it credit until it moves on from it's moment of popularity and is still a valid form of music.

swissman

Quote:

Originally posted by Floyd Mayweather

At the end of the day it's their opinion of the artists work. I'm sure whoever is judging the work have their can be biased towards certain genres, artists and styles of music.

I'm sure they are biased sometimes but that's why one critical opinion does not make an album critically acclaimed.

50thStateofMind

Quote:

Originally posted by Trent W

Teenage Dream and 1989 are basically the same, and I don't say this like an opinion. It's the same bubble gum pop. Katy Perry can sing the entire 1989 album and Taylor could sing the entire Teenage Dream album in a concert and it would be exactly the same.

The only difference between these 2 is that Taylor is more marketed like a song-writer and Katy as bubblegum pop star with huge ****.

That's it. That's how easily fooled can these credited critics be.

this is hilarious.

Don't say it's not "like an opinion." It's LITERALLY an opinion.

Also, Katy was marketed as a songwriter with OOTB and was still panned...so...you tried.

KillingYourCareer

Quote:

Originally posted by swissman

10 critics with credentials, who are hired to talk about music for a reason, who have spent years listening and analyzing music with a critical ear for quality, progression, and innovation. They’ve listened to thousands of albums in full from various genres. Their opinion is of value.

It’s not some person being like “that song is cute lemme buy the album” or a blind follower of what society tells them they should think is cool, or whatever.

yes but we're comparing millions of people to ten people, and the main accomplishment for an artist is to sell their work

MissedTheTrain

Quote:

Originally posted by Trent W

I swear everytime an artist has a flop era, some stan bases get that ''BUT IT WAS ACCLAIMED'' excuse.

No one in the GP knows about acclaimed eras or metacritic scores

What do you think?

That's not an excuse.

And smh at the bolded.....it would be sad if an artist solely made music for popularity. Making music and getting praise and respect for what you created is far more fulfilling and satisfying for some people.

ks_dollar

Quote:

Originally posted by sneakymonster

Carly what's good