Associating that to my original comments about making up my own mind of what I like or dislike, regardless of others’ opinions, seems disconnected.

By the way, I am A-OK with anyone who writes critiques and has an audience that will listen/read. Nothing wrong with that.

As I have said, the benefit I have had from reading after others is to be introduced to new artists that I otherwise would not have known. However, I simply pick up the name and do my own listening regardless if one tells me it is good or not before I have ever had a chance to listen for myself.

If that is part of what the accepted definition of a music critic is, then I will accept that part of it. But not one’s opinions concerning the viability and quality of said artists.

And that last half-sentence basically sums up why I read (good) critics!

And in addition to being knowledgeable (and writing well), critics also have to have insight into the music, not just knowledge of it. That’s why it’s still worth reading Pauline Kael’s writing about movies, or Ellen Willis’s on rock, or Lester Bangs on punk, or G.B. Shaw’s on theater: they help to define genres, deepen our understanding of what’s going on, and challenge the artists to do better and more.

Matt and Jon brought up what I consider to be one of the essentials of music criticism: context. Whether I’m on the writing end or the reading end of this stuff, I don’t see much worth in opinions floating around in the ether. The criticism I like to read, and hope to write, situates music within a performer’s career, a musical tradition, a genre’s history, the broader, genre-spanning musical landscape, a cultural moment—something bigger. Then it’s not simply an issue of liking/disliking a song, but trying to get at what impulses are at work in that piece of music, what it’s responding to or contributing. To do that well, I think, takes not only knowledge but interpretive skill. The writers I read on a weekly basis, I read because I really want to know what they hear going on in this or that performance. And to answer your question, SamB, I agree wholeheartedly with Barry that taking seriously what the audience cares about can, and frequently should, be a part of this.

I’d add, Kent, that there are a number of music critic’s—Ann Powers being one of my faves—who make a habit of actively, thoughtfully engaging with what you call “light fluffy pop,” if that’s something you’re looking for.

What questions about the music in question I’d even bring up, or understand that I’d better clarify or explain before going further with, is going to be different at, say, small specialist publications or sites with particularly well-versed readers (and commenters), a site where the knowledge base and interest in acquiring one appear less vigorous, paper with, say, a couple of million readers, or a book marketed in particular directions.

And then–then–you have to be unafraid of being subjective; this is not science, and having worked out, articulated ideas is not a curse or an insult to anybody. My own experience is that artists with smarts and passion who care about the direction of their own work generally appreciate the thought, and almost always–the attention.

There are commentators in most fields of art who have contributed to the field’s direction and to opening up possibilities, just as there are artists who have–and also those who haven’t. It’s not always in the job description.

Don’t necessarily believe every bit of belligerent “opinions are like a-holes, everybody’s got one” posturing, not unknown around the country field, as either the truthful or the full feeling of the mouth emitting the noise. It just might not be.

Secondly though, a critic is someone who helps me find new music that I’m going to like. It very much helps to be familiar with a writer and their taste, as Rick alludes to, as it can give further insight into what I’m going to like and not like. I’m generally familiar enough with a few of the writers here and on other sites, people like Juli, Ben, Blake, Kevin, to be able to put what they write into my own context. I know they have their own taste which sometimes overlaps with mine and sometimes doesn’t, but as I’ve learned about these people, I’ve become better able to judge the likelihood that a song or album will be to my taste.

One question I’ve often thought about in regard to critics – do you always review based on your own opinions and prejudices when it comes to music? Or is there an aspect of ‘well, I don’t really like this, but I can see why it’s good and why others would like it’?