Quote:
Originally posted by Hazard
Preach critics are no better than stans, in fact most are stans, like people give them too much importance  objectively ANTI>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Booty Juice. |
nnn not gonna be stan war'd but I will continue this conversation and give a rant about journalism
A lot of these people have no formal education, and I'm not saying every successful writer must attend University or anything but they won't even do the basic work. They haven't studied music writing/journalism of the past, half of them can't even be bothered to listen to music itself of the past. It is kinda mind-blowing. Like how do you decide to become a music journalist without dedicating time to anything about it
We have reached the point where anyone can get anything published online regardless of writing ability or importance.
I find some music reviews interesting but don't necessarily value their opinion more than anyone else's. There's literally no reason to-- most aren't offering new ideas, more context, or interesting writing so how is their opinion worth more than mine or yours?* Regardless I can't act like the above issues are relegated to the music world. Journalism as a whole suffers under this new market where there needs to be constant articles and clickbait to fill space. It's quicker and easier to let a depressed/neurotic/druggie 20 or 30 something year old write whatever comes to their mind than paying someone to actually research and revise a piece of writing. I like that more narratives can reach the mainstream but the negatives are so so bad
people literally have pieces published where they make statements with NO explanation or evidence, how do these editors get away with that mess?
I hope I don't sound like a ~back in my day~ old person because I'm pretty damn young but
this **** really bothers me
* tl;dr
music is subjective, so what if a balding critic doesn't like it? makes no difference to me!
