Alot of artists want to be respected for their work..some just not into the fame
So these people who pour all of their time, effort and energy to make music don't want their product to reach as many people as possible? Please.
Some people aren't willing to change their work to get fame, sure. But I don't know many people who want to only be known in the pages of Filter magazine or Pitchfork. If I am artist, the best thing that could happen is having a legion of people appreciating my work.
So these people who pour all of their time, effort and energy to make music don't want their product to reach as many people as possible? Please.
Some people aren't willing to change their work to get fame, sure. But I don't know many people who want to only be known in the pages of Filter magazine or Pitchfork. If I am artist, the best thing that could happen is having a legion of people appreciating my work.
oh please..what i meant was alot of people do not want the lady gaga,beyonce,rihanna type of fame..
oh please..what i meant was alot of people do not want the lady gaga,beyonce,rihanna type of fame..
Well right...some people aren't willing to compromise the way their albums sound and are put together in order to become that, so they maybe make a less commercial album. But they still want the fame and the appreciation and respect.
Even Bey this era clearly doesn't give a **** about how successful she is...she came for critical acclaim and for what felt right for her. But that doesn't mean she wouldn't be thrilled to have it be successful as well.
Because critics are ****. What they say matters very little because it is only their opinion. Quality is subjective and I haven't met one critic that I agree with 100% of the time. imo Bjork is **** and Robyn is an untalented heaux. Nothing a critic says will change my mind.
The general public is a better indicator of what's "good" than critics imo.
Because critics are ****. What they say matters very little because it is only their opinion. Quality is subjective and I haven't met one critic that I agree with 100% of the time.imo Bjork is **** and Robyn is an untalented heaux. Nothing a critic says will change my mind.
The general public is a better indicator of what's "good" than critics imo.
You're complaining about how a critics opinion isn't important, but I'm still trying to figure out what's so important about yours. (since you're throwing out these claims)
Because critics are ****. What they say matters very little because it is only their opinion. Quality is subjective and I haven't met one critic that I agree with 100% of the time. imo Bjork is **** and Robyn is an untalented heaux. Nothing a critic says will change my mind.
The general public is a better indicator of what's "good" than critics imo.
LIES!!!
There's many more underrated artists. (Santigold, Uffie, Sia, etc.)
They're not really pop and radio-friendly, that's why they're ignored by the public. Most of the time the critics know what good music is, the public doesn't.
Your tea is 100% rotten, gorl!
... because what matters to critics is substance and what matters to the general public is catchiness . I'll take rihanna as an example . Rated R is her album with the highest score yet the second least succesfull album , you know why because it filles with deep ballads , whereas LOUD while having a decent score , failed to outdo RATED R critics-wise , because it was more catchy (i'm not saying it didnt have any substance )
You're complaining about how a critics opinion isn't important, but I'm still trying to figure out what's so important about yours. (since you're throwing out these claims)
Absolutely nothing. You either take my opinion or leave it. Lawd knows I left your opinion.
Quote:
Originally posted by Drowned_World
LIES!!!
There's many more underrated artists. (Santigold, Uffie, Sia, etc.)
They're not really pop and radio-friendly, that's why they're ignored by the public. Most of the time the critics know what good music is, the public doesn't.
Your tea is 100% rotten, gorl!
None of those acts you mentioned are good. Stay mad and off topic though.
I think we all should know Adele sings well, her music is good, and hell yeah! She has topped Billboard on OUR TIMES, where dance-pop music is dragging the **** out of all of the other genres, but she's very overrated. What else beside her voice caughts your attention? Adele is good. That's all. She ain't no Aretha, and she's making no changes.
Because critics are ****. What they say matters very little because it is only their opinion. Quality is subjective and I haven't met one critic that I agree with 100% of the time. imo Bjork is **** and Robyn is an untalented heaux. Nothing a critic says will change my mind.
The general public is a better indicator of what's "good" than critics imo.
I shall comment on this.
Critics are supposed to know the art of music more than anyone. Their duty is to study every single genre of music, or the type of music they're reviewing, and criticize not only the skills of the artist, but the capability of the artist to push boundaries. A critic should never, NEVER, give any personal review of the material, since the review is to share publicly to show the audience what kind of work the artist is making. So yeah, bad and good reviews shall exist, to make the artist know whether his/her work is, in other words, commercial-attention-seeking-garbage, or its worth all the money spent.
What I see today, is that many reviewers don't care about the artistic background, the references, the thoughts and the message and quality of the song. They just care about the commercial side of it, and that's why we are used to listen to same crap always: we listen to them, and we hail them. We have forgotten that music is art, not only entertainment, and that is more than singing about having sex while drunk on the ceiling without a reason. People should do their homework before judging someone else's work, it's not ours, we didn't create it. Otherwise we are just being basic bitches.
Because with the exception of Robyn, they don't make pop music.
The main problem with all of them is none of them have an "accessible" image. GaGa is about as "weird" as pop audiences will tolerate. These gurls (all Queens/Goddesses) are too committed to their art form to be popular.
It's too "weird" and too powerful not "fun" enough to be on the radio.
It's the same reason Bloody Mary is widely considered one of the best on Born This Way but will probably never be a single.
I agree with you, but I think this thread begs the question: WHY are they too weird? When and why were these standards of musical acceptance created?
I agree with you, but I think this thread begs the question: WHY are they too weird? When and why were these standards of musical acceptance created?
See, Lady Gaga has created a new trend in pop music, so every female artist must try to reach a level of Gaganess without looking too Gaga-esque in order to expose her work to the market. And the real difference is that Lady Gaga does it for art and for the sake of reviving the spirit or real entertainment while the others just do it because they are competing against her, and in order to gain attention they must try to outdo her.
This is where we'll disagree again. Just cause an artist had very little to do with the crafting of a song doesn't mean they shouldn't be credited for it.
I don't - I legit don't - think that Avril could handle many of the tracks on 21. Have you listened to the album? I'm not the biggest fan - it's very Starbucks, and lacks the true grit and wit of a Back to Black or It's Not Me, It's You - but, just vocally speaking - I cannot envision a world where Avril would pull off an I'll Be Waiting or One and Only.
And Avril is more versatile than Adele? A better singer than or even as good as Adele? Really?
Ms. Avril has been doing the same "pop-rock/just don't give a ****/anti-Britney" **** since 2002, and that's why she's flopping in 2011. And she's not a very good singer at all.
People didn't write her off before her album was released. She released mediocrity, and no one responded.
She's absolutely more versatile. Adele is lovely but she's a one-trick pony. You won't see Adele going very far outside of her comfort zone that is 19/21. Avril may not have evolved too much, image-wise, but she can strike a nice balance between mature, slow stuff and poppy upbeat music.
Critics are supposed to know the art of music more than anyone. Their duty is to study every single genre of music, or the type of music they're reviewing, and criticize not only the skills of the artist, but the capability of the artist to push boundaries. A critic should never, NEVER, give any personal review of the material, since the review is to share publicly to show the audience what kind of work the artist is making. So yeah, bad and good reviews shall exist, to make the artist know whether his/her work is, in other words, commercial-attention-seeking-garbage, or its worth all the money spent.
What I see today, is that many reviewers don't care about the artistic background, the references, the thoughts and the message and quality of the song. They just care about the commercial side of it, and that's why we are used to listen to same crap always: we listen to them, and we hail them. We have forgotten that music is art, not only entertainment, and that is more than singing about having sex while drunk on the ceiling without a reason. People should do their homework before judging someone else's work, it's not ours, we didn't create it. Otherwise we are just being basic bitches.
So well put! For all the random posters questioning why a critic's opinion matters more than theirs, read this.
Because critics are ****. What they say matters very little because it is only their opinion. Quality is subjective and I haven't met one critic that I agree with 100% of the time. imo Bjork is **** and Robyn is an untalented heaux. Nothing a critic says will change my mind.
The general public is a better indicator of what's "good" than critics imo.