Music criticism in Web 2.0

that has a Wordpress account and writes about music. I don't consider myself a critic, and certainly have no pretensions as to how meaningless my opinion is to anyone other than me.

I still don't understand however, what the problem is with people having somewhere to offer their opinions? I've stumbled across blogs which have been a damn sight more entertaining than a lot of stuff I read in magazines, and I certainly think that (save for personal vendettas) the blogosphere is capable of offering a much more balanced and fair perspective of the music, considering it isn't under as much pressure from PR companies and advertisers. After all, what good is a critic if they can't write what they feel (I know it's the wrong format, but the Gamespot/Eidos scandal a while back justifies that question)?

At the end of the day, I write about music and artists that I've come across in various ways, and I write about them to inform others. People might not (well, won't) care what I have to say, but as long as I have the chance to say it I'm happy. If someone then goes on to enjoy the music I've written about, then that's just a fantastic bonus.

I simply do not have the time to sift through the wheat and the chaff, so in my humble opinion professional music critics do a valuable job for music lovers.

the answer is simply this: Pitchfork is covering the same stuff as Rolling Stone as Spin as Drowned In Sound as Fader as Gorilla vs. Bear as Brooklyn Vegan as NME as the Guardian, etc. etc. Stop covering what the industry is shilling through paid publicists and start covering what is genuinely good, insightful and DIFFERENT. Blogs are the only place to find new music, and therefore, good writing or not, until "pro" sites change their game, the blogs will remain an indelible part of music.

"You can rest assured that when a musician armed with a bedroom studio and MySpace account makes something worthy of your attention they will be shouting about it so loud you’ll hear them down your fibre optic cables."

Indeed, the only problem is that everyone will already have heard about it (and heard it) through the blogs beforehand. I found it personally comical when critics wanted to sing the praises of Bon Iver 3 months after everyone else already had.

There are countless millions of people able to do the critics job effectively. They do not lack the wits, they lack the penmanship. This is where professional criticism has gone astray the last couple decades, through poor penmanship.

The incessant rants of critics who once had salaried jobs is becoming pandemic online. I feel bad for them, because like me, they are jobless in a lagging economy. But let's cut the crap. Many, many bloggers are accomplishing the critical task just as well as the professionals ever did, and the proof is in the endless amounts of traffic data. It doesn't matter if pro-critics think the bloggers suck, because the masses think they're just swell. And frankly, the masses are all that really matter.

Laura you're absolutely right we need or rather we deserve that musical sat nav more than ever. Yet I wouldn't be so quick to dismiss all these "amateur" writers out there. Each opinion is valid. Even if it's the most uninformed, illiterate fluff ever, as long as its got integrity it's got its place online. Take Last.fm for instance, millions of music fans can post their reviews of gigs, discuss albums on forums or post their top new underground discoveries in their journals - who better to trust than your musical mate, who as a true fan might well be the best informed - though not always the most literate - person on the planet.

isn't the point of criticism, music or otherwise, to champion the good, destroy the bad, pop the hyperbole bubble, pull back the curtain and challenge listener and artists perceptions when necessary? I'm not sure if there are really enough bloggers stepping into this role.

I grew up reading Meloday Maker (not NME !) and really appreciated the insightful language that often filled the pages. Writers like Simon Reynolds. David Stubbs, Chris Roberts, - really, really good - economical but coney their views and the music so well. Allan Jones too. Reading about music on the web just isnt the same - there's no quality control. I want something different and often people are trying too hard to write in a "new" way to get your attention. MM had loads of different writers with different styles and the more you read them the more you got used to their likes and dislikes and you would read their reviews first - cos when you found a common bond you would stick to it.
There isnt that on the internet. Its too split and vague with no continuity. I love the internet but for music criticism it sucks big time.

agreed.

Obviously the evolution of the World Wide Web has lead to a dramatic rise in online users instantly becoming publishers via their own platforms, whether this be via their own blog or social network but I'm yet to be pursuaded that this is a bad thing. Particularly when we sit so comfortably in a world of self discovery, viral opinion sharing and our current demand for information online to be as immediate and upfront as possible.

Who are these critics that we're supposed to adore and trust in for their god like genuis attempts to 'sell' their readers what we're lead to believe are their own opinions? Why is their opinion more important than my own or that of my friends or that of my mum? Where did this online socialism and hierachy in music publications come from?

The critic no longer holds any relevance due to not only the amount of information that can be sourced online but for a multitude of other reasons that have failed to be touched on in this article.

To a number of people critics are not viewed as tastemakers and it's obviously apparent that they do not have their 'fingers firmly on any pulse' enough to be my main source of music discovery. They no longer hold any value or credibility with a number of my peers, especially when we're reminded that our own discovery of music online and our own tastes are of a greater value.
Ultimately it is true that you do end up reading the same reviews in each and every publication and at the end of the day it's just one persons opinion and usually not the voice of the site as we see in such sterling outfits as the NME who don't enforce continuity, always contradict themselves with the acts they feature and are consistantly lead by their advertisers.

Lets not forget that critics are of course human beings and aim to be paid regularly and employed by publications and there for ultimately how far can they actually go with their own 'views' and can they be bothered when facing piles of hundreds of promo cd's and endless copy to write before they shoot to the pub to catch the footie? But how can an online audience be expected to respect their opinion if the critic isn't reviewing music to that of their own taste?

I see both sides to this article, I just don't agree that we need to be told what we should be listening to - but then again maybe some people need/want that, I certainly dont.

with Mr Ben Myers - trouble is, there are so few magazines that seem to do that and so few bands/artists that generate the good tales!

this "death of music journalism" series is meant to be an ironic statement, right? go do real features on bands and stuff. maybe bands and new music that people haven't discovered! shock horror, the effort involved would be horrendous. it's like an extended Guardian music section on here sometimes.

Although Laura Nineham's article is attractively cynical it's completely unfounded. Yes 2.0 plays home to infinite ammounts of unsolicited shit but to posit that we're worse off because of it is a pitiful way to think. There is more good writing online than in print, there are more good writers online than in print. Glass half full.

How is the problem with local journalism similar? Is it only because it too can house unprofessional writing? Why is the traditional media more suceptable to 'keeping PR guys sweet' surely less critical with a wordpress account and 3 PR contacts is more vunerable? Why shouldn't everyone reserve the right to be a critic?

The biggest drain on music critisism is that poeple believe the talent is in say what is good/bad and not why something is good/bad. This article is peppered with so many assumptions and empty statements it fails for the same reasons.