Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Everyneurotic
but there's a mental process going around, porky; sure, a critic, at certain points in one's life, has heard and knows more about music than us, yet you can read his/her opinions and take them apart, why does he say the album is good/bad? there's reasoning behind it and by understanding this, you might agree or disagree with it, and those are basic things one doesn't require to listen to tons of music to know (critics who just name drop and compare music to obscure artists and leave it at that are just people who know squat about writing and shield away in their snobby record collections, just like writers with extensive vocabularies who can't seem to tell a simple tale).
in my opinion, a good writer/critic can explain what a band/album is in a way one can understand, no matter how many albums you own, while at the same time giving his personal opinion about it, getting it clearly out and separated from the actual description.
in essence, what i meant was that one needs to read the review and accept it as one guy listening to the album and giving his thoughts along with (hopefully) an in depth look and not just see what the rating a certain thing has been given.
|
Agreed. Obviously you don't just read someone's reviews and take them for granted. As i previously posted, the more you listen to a lot of music ,the more you get a definite idea of what you like and what you don't like, therefore the same critic you admire might be raving about a record that you won't like based on the previous experiences that you've had listening to the same band's records. You take from someone what you bring with you. Cliched, i know, but it's still that simple.