I've been thinking a lot about the moral implications of writing "high-profile" reviews a lot lately. It seems absolutely ridiculous that one review could have so much weight in, truly, the future of a band. I think in some cases it is very true though. Many artists know this. Even Kanye West, seemingly surprised, profusely thanked all of the "magazines" that gave him good reviews. I'm positive that those reviews factored into album sales. In the current musical climate, there is simply too much music to NOT read reviews as recommendations that will help you sift through the pile. In the case of pitchfork, many artist who had low profile beginnings, got excellent scores on the website and ended up getting major label contracts because of the hype generated around them from a single review (surfer blood, etc). I do believe that Trail of Dead has suffered because of Pitchfork. I think their reviews are incredibly pretentious, opinionated, and caught up in appearances and trends. However, I still read them because they are informed and interesting takes on music that other sources can't offer. Anyway, in order to truly be an esteemed critic, you would have to have no qualms about crushing the dreams and aspirations of others for the sake of others, based on your opinions of it. This disturbs me. I always think of that line from Rattatoille-
"The worst piece of art is still infinitely more valuable than the best piece of criticism."
No comments:
Post a Comment