in the internet age, the point of music reviews, especially on those in the underground, shouldn't be to provide "feedback" on an artist's work anymore. that feedback is now so much more easily received directly from the audience or from trusted collaborators/other artists. (1/6)

music critics should instead use their platform to empower underground artists by shedding a light on artists they believe deserve more recognition, directing their audiences towards underappreciated musicians. (2/6)

everyone nowadays can call themselves a critic, and everyone nowadays can actually gain the knowledge and repertoire formerly required to be able to call themselves a critic. what's one dude's opinion worth when artists can easily find and ask for thousands on social media (3/6)

and why should that one dude's opinion be amplified over everyone else's, when there are so many other regular people without platforms that can rival or even outmatch knowledge that critics have. the democratization of music access and knowledge has changed things. (4/6)

i'm not even going to get into critic cultism and score culture, both of which i despise heavily, and are perpetuated by music critique that aims to "help improve the work of the artist". your 5/10 won't help artists get better, it'll make your fanbase dogpile on them. (5/6)

in the internet age, music critics/reviewers/outlets should function like a signpost: a way for people to find their way into genres, scenes, and artists that they may have never known about otherwise. some critics' current way of going about things is antithetical to that. (6/6)