The point of the comparison was: people can justifiably complain when someone gives a judgment that they think is partial, exaggerated or unfair. Saying if you like X, then you should just be oblivious to other people's judgments about X, just does not fly in many contexts. (Maybe it works for ice cream preferences). Not with judgments of music, and not with judgments of persons either. The alternative is to say musical judgments are purely subjective -- you like what you like, and i like what i like -- then why have music reviews or discuss them?
Deal with these questions, instead of evading them by insinuating I am equating the reviewer to a misogynist.
"There seems to be a correlation between how much a band sucks and how shrilly their fans will screech at any criticism."
Is there supporting data? Are there reliable ways to measure the relationship between 'band suckiness" and "shrill screeching fans"? I wouldn't know, I don't have a subscription to the Quantitative Journal of Sh*t Music.
"Really, if you like it what do you care if someone else doesn't?"
Compare: I tell you that your girlfriend is a whorish bitch, and list her alleged shortcomings in obscene detail. If you like her, what do you care if someone else doesn't? Answer: because the characterization may be partial, exaggerated or unfair.
Even if the review made some good points -- especially if one is profoundly concerned about whether a band is authentically southern (whatever that means) -- the obvious relish (and name dropping) expressed in the finding-fault and over-the-top criticism does little to enhance the credibility of the reviewer. It is hard to see that Delta Rae's music is 'pornographic', but easy to see how this review could be considered masturbatory.
Indy Week • 302 E. Pettigrew St., Suite 300, Durham, NC 27701 • phone 919-286-1972 • fax 919-286-4274
RSS Feeds | Powered by Foundation