>album comes out>unpopular with the masses>critics shit on it>album develops a cult following>years later it becomes popular with the masses>critics re-review it>now they like itWhy are there so many cases of this happening? Pic related is the first example that came to my mind but there are plenty of others. Shouldn't critics be able to go against popular consensus and recognize something as good from the very start? Instead, they only recognize things as good after the masses have retroactively decided it's good. If critics just follow popular trends of something being hated or liked, then what even is the point of their existence? They should be ahead of the curve, but instead they seem to always be behind it.
>>130088316Critics are retards and no one should ever take them seriously.
>>130088316Music critics are worthless human beings and should be spit on. Maybe amazing "canonical" literature needs a smarty pants to explain the nuance, history, depth found in some long ass novel written by a genius, maybe. A classic greek sculpture can benefit from some faggot in a museum giving you the historical context needed to truly appreciate it. But for modern music it takes 3 minutes to listen to a song and determine if you like it. And the average person "into" music can quickly learn how to track the lineages of certain sounds and recording styles and determine how influential, boundary pushing, etc an album is. The music critic industry is outdated, gay, and is just a job farm for useless nepo babies
>>130088316I think cultural mood matters a lot too, maybe an album doesn't resonate until later or maybe people aren't ready for the sound yet.
Labels are worse>album doesn't come out>unpopular with the executives>label shelves it>album develops a dusty coating>years later it becomes released>critics and masses review it>they like it
>>130088316critics are just peoplewe're critics
>>130088316>Are critics worthlessYes. I don't even know how you get such a career.
>>130089346well said
>>130088316Critics and audiences were right the first time
>>130088316Most "critics" are people that work as taste guides and surveyors for publications. It's more about trend than if they actually think the music is good.
I don’t know why this album was so hated at the time
>>130088316This album fucking sucks I think I hate it more than what comes after.
>>130091263I don't know what other people say but the first one was almost perfect and this one was just grating and obnoxious.
>>130091263they had a mainstream audience after blue album's success that were too mainstream to get into something as raw and emo as pinkerton
>>130088316Negative reviews don't really contribute anything to your life. Look up positive reviews for albums you like, and check out the shit that those reviewers also likedI agree with you ftr, just saying this in case you actually want to find worthwhile critics to read
>>130088316critics are leeches who have contributed to the decline of our culture.https://www.bitchute.com/video/8GffNizSnCnc
>>130092258Even as old school emo goes Pinkerton is just embarrassingly immodest.
>>130092531It's definitely super immature and immodest, but who gives a fuck about lyrics. Some good tunes on there
>>130091263>>130092258Honestly I don't know. It's jsut as good as blue album and not even "out there" compared to the prior album. I assume it's a case of the popular fanbase they got being retarded and not handling a 5% deviation in expected sound.
>>130092610I think it's way more deviated than 5% but even so, there's no "Buddy Holly" type pop single on there and that didn't do them any favors for winning mainstream attention
Blue album was a quirky nerd pop rock and inoffensive, Pinkerton is dour, charmless and nerdy in a creepy way.
