MotownSubdivision said:

Seriously, what has happened to journalism in music? Never before have music reviews felt more pandering and biased than today. The way critics rarely seem to criticize artists, especially those with big names is almost insulting and it's ridiculous how unabashedly patronizing the average album or show review is to read now. I've been looking at scans of old Billboard magazines from the 1980's and opinions on artists then felt much more authentic and objective. For example, in the 1985 Talent Almanac (the December 22, 1984 issue of Billboard) which served as the year end retrospective for the year of 1984, there were excerpts of live concert reviews that took place thoughout the year and one was on The Jacksons' Victory Tour; specifically the opening show in Kansas City. It noted how the performance felt stiff and manufactured instead of spontaneous and genuine. The writer even notes how they rehearsed 80 times for the show, showing their tremendous effort but also noted the underwhelming execution. Another excerpt was on the Purple Rain Tour at the Joe Louis Arena in Detroit. The writer said how the tour was supposed to expand beyond the happenings within the film yet Prince failed to even even follow the boundaries of the film (when performing "Purple Rain", he uses a brown guitar when in the film he used a white guitar and upon finding his mistake, switches over to the white guitar). It's a nitpick but that's the job of a critic. They're supposed to fuss over the details; they're not supposed to blindly sing the praises of every big name artist. Everyone has opinions that they're entitled to express but I hate how music journalists make artists today out to be perfect entities that can do no wrong whatsoever. Nobody is perfect yet we're suppose to believe that the Taylor Swifts, Beyonces, Justin Timberlakes, Adeles, Bruno Mars', Weeknds, Rihannas, Drakes, etc. are when their much more acclaimed and far bigger predecessors weren't? I don't buy it. This article touches on my feelings with today's music journalism: http://m.thenational.ae/a...d-to-blame [Edited 8/7/16 11:27am]

so goes the music, so goes everything else.....

the music industry is finished.....

let me correct that

when the recording industry became the music industry, that's when the decline started.....and its' a difference between the two

My point of view on this is that journalists have to praise artists and be pandering & to not say anything derogrative or face being blackballed by the record label. Say a journalist did a negative piece on somebody like T-Swift. Her fanbase would be up in arms on social media (another thing which journalists have to take into account too where every word would be dissected and taken out of context), her record label, Taylor herself and unless they were freelance and couldn't care less if they wanted another job their magazine/newspaper etc which employed them would give them their walking papers. I think thats why we have a crop of "superstars" who don't even deserve the tag like the names you mention because of the music journalists not wanting to push their noses out of joint. I mean many of todays artists are reminscent of the endless talent show fodder from X-Factor/American Idol etc. The music industry needs real true superstars again but I don't see a new Prince, MJ, Stevie, Sly, James Brown et al on the horizon. Plus if there is they'd have to work with the hot producers/rappers on the day and become a parody of themselves. But I don't think they'd allow somebody like a Prince to develop musically today. Back in the day the music industry had a ton of stars and even superstars too. Now I think most of todays stars you wouldn't cross the street to meet if you didn't know who they were because the likes of Adele, Ed Sheeran, Sam Smith et al don't really look like stars or have the "X-Factor". The plaudits Adele gets really belong to Amy Winehouse, she had the potential to be a huge star with the talent to back it up plus she made some great songs. Adele, I only like the Bob Dylan cover but even then there's a strong vein of melancholy in her music and I think most folks want to listen to music which is uplifting. Everyday life with the troubles in the world mean you want escapism type music not listen to something which will make you feel down. Just my 2 cents.

I don't think it's true that journalist never criticize artists anymore. In fact, I've read reviews that are personal, nasty and unfair.

I think a lot of reviews go too far to either extreme. Either the concert or the album is perfect and a work of genius. or it's horrible with no artistic value. There's less nuance in musical journalism than there used to be.

I think most artists have their positive and their negative qualities and reviews should feature both. But the problem is particularly newspapers and magazines today don't give journalists enough space to write a detailed thoughtful review. They want the quick soundbite.

I've noticed so many times in reviews where journalists get very basic things wrong like the names of people in bands or the names of songs. It's become too careless.

But I don't agree with the idea of being negative for the sake of being negative. I think journalists should avoid personal attacks against artists. Constructive criticism is fine.

But you do have to realize that the vast majority of artists put a lot of work, blood, sweat and tears into their albums and shows. I don't think it's cool to tear down other people's hard work with contempt.

How would you feel if someone who had never met you started tearing apart your work and saying they could do it better?

I think critics should be aware what they write is only their opinion. Music more than any art form is very subjective. Some critics to me act too pretentious like their view is the only correct one and anyone who doesn't agree with them is stupid or has bad taste in music.

Also critics aren't as important as they used to be, because now anyone can go to youtube and hear and see albums and concert for themselves before buying.

So we don't need critics to tell us what to buy anymore. Every individual music consumer can decide for themselves.

Glindathegood said:

Glindathegood said:

avajane said:

I think music journalism is suffering from the same problems of journalism as a whole.

It used to be that journalists' stock in trade was information and analysis.

Now, it seems that access is what all journos trade in. That affects how they report.

Journalists are just about igniting their careers as writers. They talk about music but in a creative way. Guys like Christgau actually are having a hard time getting hired.

They just seem to want people who make bullet reviews and not much else. Style has become passe. The art is now reduced to a consumer alert.

Christgau is all over the place. He can really be wrong about Black Sabbath and Van Halen, but be more right than most about our Prince. He also hates No Doubt, which is odd.

How can you like Britney, but not No Doubt?

Most critics tend to really overrate most rap. Christgau even defended Soldier Boy. wow.

I check Metacritic which usually has more fair and balanaced reviews

namepeace said:

MotownSubdivision said:

namepeace said:

I think music journalism is suffering from the same problems of journalism as a whole.

It used to be that journalists' stock in trade was information and analysis.

Now, it seems that access is what all journos trade in. That affects how they report.

True. That has to do with hiw society is structured now with everything being instant and much more accessible. This has caused attention spans to be at an all time low and that's why click-bait has taken over actually reporting and analyzing data. Soon there may not even be album reviews at all. Star ratings may even cease to exist in the future and music critics/ journalists will probably just be forced to leave an inexplicable + or - next to an album. [Edited 8/8/16 11:48am]

Good, fair points.

MotownSubdivision said:

Seriously, what has happened to journalism in music? Never before have music reviews felt more pandering and biased than today. The way critics rarely seem to criticize artists, especially those with big names is almost insulting and it's ridiculous how unabashedly patronizing the average album or show review is to read now. I've been looking at scans of old Billboard magazines from the 1980's and opinions on artists then felt much more authentic and objective. For example, in the 1985 Talent Almanac (the December 22, 1984 issue of Billboard) which served as the year end retrospective for the year of 1984, there were excerpts of live concert reviews that took place thoughout the year and one was on The Jacksons' Victory Tour; specifically the opening show in Kansas City. It noted how the performance felt stiff and manufactured instead of spontaneous and genuine. The writer even notes how they rehearsed 80 times for the show, showing their tremendous effort but also noted the underwhelming execution. Another excerpt was on the Purple Rain Tour at the Joe Louis Arena in Detroit. The writer said how the tour was supposed to expand beyond the happenings within the film yet Prince failed to even even follow the boundaries of the film (when performing "Purple Rain", he uses a brown guitar when in the film he used a white guitar and upon finding his mistake, switches over to the white guitar). It's a nitpick but that's the job of a critic. They're supposed to fuss over the details; they're not supposed to blindly sing the praises of every big name artist. Everyone has opinions that they're entitled to express but I hate how music journalists make artists today out to be perfect entities that can do no wrong whatsoever. Nobody is perfect yet we're suppose to believe that the Taylor Swifts, Beyonces, Justin Timberlakes, Adeles, Bruno Mars', Weeknds, Rihannas, Drakes, etc. are when their much more acclaimed and far bigger predecessors weren't? I don't buy it. This article touches on my feelings with today's music journalism: http://m.thenational.ae/a...d-to-blame [Edited 8/7/16 11:27am]

Excellent post and thread. You are one of the smartest ones on here, you must know that I will comment when I get some time.

namepeace said:

The degradtion of music journalism is a reflection of the pandering and payola of today's industry. As you also mentioned, things such as social media has a lot to do with this as well. I would say a good 98% of music journalism today is not objective or authentic journalism. They either are a) paid to pander and endorse an artist by the label or artist themselves ; b) want more notoriety so pander to want is popular; c) too afraid to be objective, so remain neutral or make safe opinions. All of this reflects the fall of the industry and the golden period of music. I have read SOOOOOOOOOOOOO many pandering articles on some of today's most overrated pop stars. For example, I thought it was outrageous that Rolling Stones gave Beyonces Lemonade 5 stars and apparently this is the first time a Black women has ever received 5 stars from the magazine I mean what kind of bullshit!?!?! So Janets Rhythm Nation or Aretha Franklin's album were shit then???? I do notice though when it comes to certain artists of today music critics are more critical when the artist is not a "token" or industry favorite. For example, Drake's new album is the biggest selling album this year and has the biggest number one hit single. Despite this all the music critics hate it and talked about how poor the album was but the album continues to sell and Drake set a record will the longest number one. So what this tells me is that despite what the critics say, the general public determines what is good and what is not. I have always felt more than ever in this generation the industry tries to dictate to much what is quality and what is not Often times, the artists they award and fond over do not reflect the opinions of the general public. Everything just seems so fake and manufactured now with the industry. Overall, todays music journalism and critcs "play favorites" and pander to industry favorites and token artists. If Michael Jackson, Prince OR even Madonna had made that dumb Lemonade album... the critics of 1980's and 90s would have laughed at them...thats the sad part. WHY is it that todays pop stars can get away with making shitty ass music when LEGENDS couldn't get away with being shitty and mediocre. I can't stand the music industry of today, makes me sick

MotownSubdivision said:

namepeace said:

Good, fair points.

Thank you. I will admit, I do tend to exaggerate but I didn't mean to come off like literally every single review under the sun is overly positive. However, the overall majority of reviews these days, especially those for the top acts are nothing but glad handing, sycophantic pandering. Money plays a part in this but I also think it's a matter of not ruffling any feathers (of fans, the labels and the artists themselves) and being more "open-minded" and "accepting" which more often than not today means that you should like something. I never see any albums on the mainstream front now garner generally negative reception, something that was far more common in past decades where there were LP's that were panned at the time of their release yet are considered classic, quintessential works now. Most of today's most critically acclaimed projects I don't see being looked back upon as classics like some of the maligned works of the past are now.

The music reviews these days IMO don't even feel like music reviews. Its just straight pandering and ass kissing. I don't think you were exaggerating on that front. Besides Drake, I have literally not seen any bad music reviews on any of today's pop stars and your right. None of todays most acclaimed works will be classics IMO. No matter how many awards you throw at an artist or how many pandering reviews you make, that does not determine what becomes a classic and what does not. That does not determine who becomes a legend or not. Its just too much manufacturing and creating an illusion of greatness with todays stars that is not authentically there.

MotownSubdivision said:

namepeace said:

Good, fair points.

Thank you.

I will admit, I do tend to exaggerate but I didn't mean to come off like literally every single review under the sun is overly positive. However, the overall majority of reviews these days, especially those for the top acts are nothing but glad handing, sycophantic pandering.

I think internet communities (like here!) and non-traditional music news sites (okayplayer, SoulBounce, etc.) provide decent feedback. The music sites are generally neutral-to-positive in tone, and only very gently negative. But that's okay if I can judge for myself.

But on the flipside, back in the day, we often needed a review as a compass to decide whether we were going to drop that 10 bucks on a tape or 19 bucks on a CD for an album. Now, we can stream it, or listen to snippets, and make up our own minds.

For listeners like me, the voices of fellow listeners and non-traditional sites became far more relevant.


Money plays a part in this but I also think it's a matter of not ruffling any feathers (of fans, the labels and the artists themselves) and being more "open-minded" and "accepting" which more often than not today means that you should like something. I never see any albums on the mainstream front now garner generally negative reception, something that was far more common in past decades where there were LP's that were panned at the time of their release yet are considered classic, quintessential works now. Most of today's most critically acclaimed projects I don't see being looked back upon as classics like some of the maligned works of the past are now.

True. The last music rating that mattered to me was the Mic Rating of The Source, a generation ago. That publication, much like the Spins and Rolling Stones of the 80s and 90s, pretty much called "balls and strikes" on any given recording. IT seems less so now.

[Edited 8/8/16 15:01pm]

mjscarousal said:

MotownSubdivision said:

Journalists seldom criticize a lot of artists and the more popular an artist is, the more they are protected. For every negative or critical review I've seen for a major release, I've also seen several times the amount of positive reviews. Rarely do I see negative reviews. Fans are more critical these days than the actual critics as evidenced by many a forum (such as this one) and comments section where the fanbases of the reviewed artist ban together to take down the big bad critic who dared to do their job and take their idol to task.

I don't think that's true. I've read many critical reviews. Are you saying every review to be good and doing your job has to be harsh and critical? Are people not allowed to like something anymore?

I think online fans go too far in the opposite direction. They literally like nothing and tear everything apart. They take the joy out of music.

If fans of an artist disagree with a critic's review, they have every right to give their point of view.

The job of a critic is to be fair and give their opinion, not take artists to task and find things wrong with what they do.

It seems in some circles it's not cool to like anything. Some people enjoy being negative. It makes them feel important. So it becomes proving how clever they are, not about the merits of the artist.

You say take to task. At the end of the day, these artists are entertainers. You either like it or you don't. It's not like they are politicians with the fate of the world in their hands. so is it so essential to hold them accountable?

Glindathegood said: