There has been many remarks about the uselessness of the music critic because it gains little traffic, and because of its singular voice, but this thinking undermines the very idea of artistic discourse. If anything this is an argument of inclusiveness, that everyone should have a take on the music’s meaning, but that simply isn’t the case. In a time when the varied disciplines have been collectively over worked to understand the current burgeoning technological development and its subsequent effects, it should be clear that the music in this era too would be deeply coded and to respond to this the critical investigation of it, should become more heighten and academically-bred. While it is fine if a critic enjoys an album, it would be much more beneficial for the artist and reader to know if an album is objectively good, and more so what the album means in relation to the current times’ convoluted nature. A more strong and organized system of methodology is needed for criticism to stay relevant in a time in which everyone is an author and anyone can be a critic. To solve this problem, the issue of the artist and subjective experience as commodity will be exposed and fleshed out while implementing a more objective structure in its place.
There is a distinct absence of the evaluation of the structure and form of an album, causing musical merit to be bypassed in favor of the opinions of supposedly elevated intellectuals who define music by current ideas and trends rather than musical aesthetic – the ideas behind the sound – allowing the unknowing reviewer to run rampant with subjective experience and an imagined narrative of music history. The structure of criticism in this way has been tainted by the solipsistic motivations of trend-driven bloggers who act as omnipresent influences vociferously shouting, not whispering as the music fan initially had, their opinions and quoting their right to enjoyment: music for them is owned not a priori.