But the general pubic for the most party doesn't care about critical acclaim. They will enjoy the music that is most appealing to the ears.
They don't but in time, with acclaim, the artist with it will solidify his/her ground and would become an icon or maybe a legend. But as what I said, that's what I want to happen to Britney since she's getting so much hate now. She needs to make a groundbreaking album that will strengthen her credibility and gain back the general public. I really can't explain my point right but I hope you do get me. And I'm just talking about Britney. Rihanna and Katy are embraced by the public by their consistent chart topping songs but some artists have already done that and at Britney's stage, 13 years after her career almost 200 million records sold, she doesn't need that. She needs critical acclaim that would put her in a permanent list of the greatest albums and artists. I'm just pertaining to my fave
It is a critic's job to be able to eloquently put into words their thoughts on an album. That does not mean they know more about music than anybody else.
Well, generally if they've heard more music and know more about the history, they can say they know more about music.
NO! Critics don't have an ear or taste for music any better then the average individual. There's no right or wrong way of listening to and enjoying music. They may have more knowledge of the history of music but that doesn't make them any more qualified to judge the quality of music. Not to mention, critics are just as bias about music as the average person. They have preferences and many times they judge an artist's music based on the likelihood of mainstream success (hence why PoP is heavily critiqued).
There is no right or wrong if you want to get specific, but they help suggest albums that are generally forward thinking usually, if you want to listen to new music they're a good recommendation.
Acclaim is a plus . However , it is just a void opinion from an 'expert'
Sales indicate the love of the general public which is by far more important to the artist and their career.
So SALES.
Just think about this: if people see an album is criticially-acclaimed, wouldn't they be interested in checking it out?
Sales are important, I'm not going to ignore that. But I would prefer acclaim because it establishes your fave's presence in the industry. Plus, lots of critically-acclaimed albums end up having great sales, regardless
They don't but in time, with acclaim, the artist with it will solidify his/her ground and would become an icon or maybe a legend. But as what I said, that's what I want to happen to Britney since she's getting so much hate now. She needs to make a groundbreaking album that will strengthen her credibility and gain back the general public. I really can't explain my point right but I hope you do get me. And I'm just talking about Britney. Rihanna and Katy are embraced by the public by their consistent chart topping songs but some artists have already done that and at Britney's stage, 13 years after her career almost 200 million records sold, she doesn't need that. She needs critical acclaim that would put her in a permanent list of the greatest albums and artists. I'm just pertaining to my fave
Lets be honest, for a pop star mainstream success is almost always more important to their careers then critical acclaim. And in Britney's case she needs to get back in the public's good graces before she even thinks about going the 'critical acclaim' rout. If she were to compose an album right now geared towards the critics it wouldn't do much for her public perception because at this very moment she doesn't have the public's interest so they wouldn't even care that she released a critically acclaimed album. Sure her fans would bolster about it here on ATRL much like Beyonce fans do with '4' and Rihanna fans continue to do with 'Rated R' but would the public really take notice? Most likely not and if the public is not interested then it won't make the album a classic or iconic by any means. If you're not generating public interest in some way and the media isn't taking notice of you're critically acclaimed music then it won't do much for your public perception. At least that's the case for a pop artist
It is a critic's job to be able to eloquently put into words their thoughts on an album. That does not mean they know more about music than anybody else.
A critic is certainly going to be more educated in music than the average consumer. Sweety, you're a stan so you'll have some music knowledge but the average Joe on the street will not have it as much as you or a critic. Don't say critics don't know much about music when you happen to be an outlier that does know about music.
Just think about this: if people see an album is criticially-acclaimed, wouldn't they be interested in checking it out?
Sales are important, I'm not going to ignore that. But I would prefer acclaim because it establishes your fave's presence in the industry. Plus, lots of critically-acclaimed albums end up having great sales, regardless
I agree. Kanye for example can be a dick, but everyone is aware that the guy knows what he's doing with his music.
None. If I like his/her music, I do and I don't give a **** about the rest.
Of course, if the artist isn't successful I don't get the singles/albums I want but I could really delve into this topic but since this is quite a shallow question, none.