I just got an email from Amazon.com reccommending CDs (rant)

[eyepaddle]

picked by their critics as "the best of the year."

Who else thinks rock critics completely blow? I won't mention any of the albums they were shilling for, because in all honesty they could well be good albums--but to have anything as subjective as music be anointed as "the best" seems more than a little self important.

I should mention that I live in the Twin Cities, which has a vibrant local music scene which consists largely of a pack of inbred drones who go to each other's shows and reinforce the collective perceptions of their own greatness. This is helped along mightily by the local music press which seems to view properly tuning your instruments as a dangerous sign of pretension. God forbid anybody taking the time to learn how to play.

The occasional stripped down band who views theirt message as more important than the medium is refreshing, when that's all you see, night after night after night--it's just band wagon-jumping.

Not that I am against all record reviews, I just think that they should be a little more descriptive and less judgemental. Examples would be "This album is generally uptempo, and eschews guitar solos, the production is simple, but a little bit hissy." Or, "this album is complex, with long songs which undergo many changes, the lyrics are often abstract rather than concrete, etc." We all know what we like and can look at those and say "Hey, I'minterested in that." Or " I think I'll hold off on that--I don't think it's my cup of tea."

Rant off.

[swag]

1. I think Boojie Boy was correct when he told us,

"teachers and critics all dance the poot."

[eyepaddle]

2. I'm not sure what the "poot" is,

but I like that! :D

[northzax]

3. most criticism, in general, isn't helpful

to paraphrase Beloved Leader, 'it's hard work' to be a critic of anything and do it well. The only real way to take advantage of it is to find someone who's tastes are similar to yours and try them out.