Music Critics

I try not to read music reviews. For several reasons.

First, the review is generally about some obscure band I have never heard mentioned before. Second, if I recognize the band name, nine times out of ten they are playing some genre of music that does not appeal to me. Thirdly, in the rare event of it being about a band I do know and, even more unlikely, enjoy, then the review is sure to be tremendously negative. Why is that?

Do music critics have something against melodious, well crafted, excellently produced music? It often seems so. A song that sounds like somebody fell down a stepladder into a drum set, and hitting the keyboards on their way down, will often get glowing reviews as innovative and exciting. Well, falling down a ladder may be exciting for the one falling but for the audience it lacks sustaining interest. Once you know the person survived the trip with no bones broken, that's it. A replay adds nothing and soon the noise will start to grate on the ear and we ask the person to fall down their ladder elsewhere.

Now, if instead the song is played properly on the keyboards, has a good tune to hum along with, a great beat to tap your pencils to and flawless production; then it is a piece of crap, boring and commercial exploitation of the audience. Never mind if the artists sell millions of copies of their albums and their every show is a success. It is as if a song becomes a big hit then something must be wrong with it. There got to be an ignominious reason for its success. It cannot just be a good song. What a large segment of the populace likes must be bad. Only one conclusion to be drawn from this. Music critics are big snobs.

So I don't read music reviews no more.