The real critics is inside all of us. Thats the true lesson

Critical reviews are a product of their time. People didn't have immediate access for everything via Netflix or spotify like we do now so people would have to look to the chosen critics for recommendations. It's so individualistic in today's climate. If I want to watch or listen to it, I do just that, and make up my own mind. There's less of an adherence to critical thought.

On the other hand, I still appreciate some critics because their thoughts on movies/music is respectful or illuminating. Reading other perspectives is a key way of engaging with others.

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?

They used to be everything
Before social media and album leaks
But now?

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.

I can see a side of your honesty argument but its not translating for me

I'm interpreting what you saying as "I dont like Picasso because of his (haircut) or (sexuality) or something else im insecure about" maybe thats not what youre trying to say and
Its impossible to separate the art from the artist i get it, but at what point do these thing become personal with no journalistic integrity?

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.