Graycap23 said:

I agree.

It's also easier to look at a creation for what it IS rather than what it is NOT when you are an artist yourself. Some non-musicians tend to criticize an album for what it does not have, and I don't really think that's fair.

But critics have their place. I think someone who is paid to listen to stuff or watch movies generally has some understanding of the craft just because they're thinking about it all day long.

And they are maybe more idealistic about what they watch & listen to than say, me, who is somewhat forgiving because I know how hard it is to actually create something.

I play the sax and I see a lot of crazy shit on here from time to time lol.

LondonStyle said:

Prince's music aside, the 80's was just better.

PurpleRain747 said:

this should also apply to positive reviews.

NDRU said:

Interesting response. I wouldnt've thought that the artist might tend to look at it for what it IS vs. what it ISN'T. also, the possible idealism hadn't occurred to me either.

I guess because I'm an artist, I tend to have a more open mind about self expression, rights and other matters which relate to those who share their gifts...vs. those who... well.. have no significant gifts to really share besides their opinions.

I can be very critical in artistic areas which I profess an intricate understanding of the process. But I'm seldom critical for the sake of just having something to say. I try to be 'constructive' in that criticism. This is the part that gets most who lack any significant artistic ability in trouble. They critique and profess to be experts on music, art, whatever... but have no real understanding of what is involved in the creative process. They THINK they do... and this only makes them come across as selfish and self absorbed.

But they will never see it that way.

A true artist creates for 'himself' first. If others happen to enjoy what he shares... great. He may become a rich man sharing his craft with others. But he is never under any obligation to do so. Not even a law binding contract or payment in advance, can 'make' an artist share what they don't wish to. In spite some 'critics' being under the delusion that an artist ever 'owes' them anything.

BigDaddyHQ said:

this also applies to positive reviews.

Big DaddyHQ u make some good points bruh, esp. about what an artist doesn't WANT to share. i wonder how much of P's "vault material" falls into THAT category. i imagine some of it hasn't found the right "project" to manifest in a way that he's pleased with or he just doesn't PLAN on sharing it. The song "The Divine" comes to mind. It seems like a song he doesn't want to TRUST the public with given where he is in his own faith walk. I understand that.

I'm a artist as well. I remember in college when I was in the play Raisin in the Sun and I played the role of Joseph Asagai and after the first night of the play there was a review in the newspaper the next and it said how the play was great but that I should never do another part which called for me to have an accent. The character was an african role and I am an american. I even knew the reviewer and that really kind of hurt my feelings alot. And my director just told me not to let it bother me. I tried not but it did. But a strange thing happen the next day, I was standing in front of the library and a group of Africans came up to me and to my surprise they started talking to me in their native language which threw me for a loop. I was trying to explain to them that I was a American and they were dumbfounded. They said that they had seen me the night before and assumed that I was from Africa. So that was like the best compliment to my acting in that play ever when that happened. My Frat brothers got a great laugh out it though. So I take what a critic says with a grain of salt and realize that it is really one that person's opinion and maybe they also just have an agenda. But I try not to let it bother me.