I've always been slightly jealous of critics. They get paid to listen to music, go to movies, read books and see plays. They are also afforded a certain amount of social prestige, as if their opinion counts for just a little more than a mere mortal because they are paid to give it.
On the other hand, I've never had much use for them. A lot of people use critics as gages for their own tastes: "If Roger Ebert likes this movie, I'll hate it.," Etc. I don't use critics at all and rarely read a movie review or music review unless I am interested in the movie or the musician being criticized or reviewed. We wouldn't have read it (at least I wouldn't have) if it hadn't been about Joni Mitchell, and we definitely wouldn't be discussing it. The New York Times review of Travelogue was well-written and everything that a critique should be: long-winded, slightly pompous, critical (ahem!) and trying, earnestly, to be interesting. I've never read a critic's work that wasn't in some way trying to sound worthy of being read. There's nothing wrong with that - it's the nature of the artform. If the writer had said: "Travelogue is bad. Don't listen to it," would he be a critic? No - just a regular joe saying he thinks this record sucks, which is really what every critic is behind their white-collars, good vocabulary and rhythmic syntax. Just some thoughts on criticism. -Andrew Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now
