Terrible s***ty ass opinion and is probably why there are so many s***ty ass reviewers and critics. The critic could be purposely or unintentionally misconstruing the content of what is being reviewed giving either a heavily positive or negative view than they would otherwise. Also a critic/reviewer can be relatively unbiased in their opinions and not be boring, vague, and use strong colorful language while doing their jobs and if they can't they are bad at it.

Also why do you need another nigga to tell you what you like or don't like. Just consume the content and decide for yourself.

My opinion on music relies solely on how much bass it has

Never saw the point in reviews honestly.
Movies is different, but who genuinely listens to an album because of a review?

Yes but it’s always nice seeing someone’s HONEST opinion on something because art is about sharing and evoking emotion. Something. But many critics just spout whatever will get the most clicks or get on peoples good side

Other views have interest only after fortifying your own. Honesty alone gives value. An individual experience brings insight. Insight is particular--a bias. If you do not like Drake because of his haircut, say that, don't lie. That this causes anger reflects insecurity. People would rather be condescended to than told the truth.

If you love who you are, you prize your own experience. You share it. The more it conforms to who you are and what you uniquely felt, the more value your sharing contains & the more others can receive from it. Lying, shuffling cliches, appeasing the insecure -- tiresome.

This about fantano correct

No. Fantano is unfortunately unbiased.

That's why I said relatively unbiased because it's impossible to escape being somewhat biased. You can stay true to your particular experiences, political beliefs, cultural beliefs without being overtly biased and if you can't maybe being a journalist where you're main task is to consume media and to give a informed reliable opinion on it is not for you. You're approaching it as if to be unbiased it to be pandering or disingenuous when that's not the truth. A person can hate a piece of art while recognizing it as good, but does not appeal to their own tastes. Just as a person can love a piece of art and it being objectively bad due to it either being weak in a respective area. For an example a movie with a bad plot or a song with weak lyrics and a generic chord progression.

To be unbiased is to be insecure. It's thinking: 'I hate this artist because he is ugly. Because I am scared of what people will think of me if I say this, or because I am scared of myself, instead I will say (nonsense).' Critics default to saying nonsense under the pretense of universal criteria, a fiction. Doing this destroys yourself and your review. 90% of them have this infection.

If anything a person hating someones music because they are ugly sounds more insecure than anything else they can critique the music for

It's like Kanye on TCD: honesty about insecurity transcends the insecurity. Extreme examples for definition's sake. It usually comes down to cliches, thoughts from other people, phrases that have no meaning, crutches.

But then what's the value? That's just an opinion w/ no merit.

It even makes the "critic landscape" more illegitimate.

The examples aren't important. 'Journalistic integrity' is a misnomer. Corporate agendas make people flock to independents, like Fantano. To the extent you can make such an extreme statement -- 'I do not like him because he is ugly' -- is to the same extent that I can trust your review. Journalists cannot, which is why cynicism is healthily attached to places like Pitchfork.

Then why hold critics to a higher regard or have music publications at all. I can see the same bad opinions on social media and on here that qualify to those same standards and that are just as, if not more entertaining

I agree with you! I'm putting (most) critics down here.

Fantano can say that but that doesn't mean he isn't influenced by any agendas either.

I honestly couldn't tell what your position was tbh

True. Fantano sucks.

They can put you onto to something that you probably wouldn’t have experienced on your own terms or an algorithm wouldn’t have offered to you because of prior listening habits

But I guess it can also go both ways

Glad we found common ground

I doubt that most people listen or read reviews in order to form their own opinion, but rather to see someone else's point of view on music, TV shows or film. maybe there's something you missed on first listen/watch, etc. now, if you're basing your music taste based on a reviewer's personal choice, then that's on you. I sense a lot of people on KTT like and dislike certain albums because Fantano feels some type of way about it, for example.

Great question. If Fantano followed the criteria I've set itt and hated black people, there wouldn't be a need to respect his opinion: he would say 'I hate black people' and it would be over. It's only if Fantano hates black people and pretends to not hate black people--if he seeks some pretentious field of unbias--that his hatred becomes hidden, that everyone who reads his reviews become confused, that we are all worse off.

No you need some random nerd to tell you what’s ok to like it’s the rules bruh