Is it all just a matter of opinion
Posted by: Guido Fawkes on 13 April 2011
I was in a library searching through books on the best ways to mix charcoal amd Salt of Petra, as you do in these days of imminent parliamentary reform, when I happened across a book entitled 1001 Albums You Must Hear Before You Die
Now whilst many of the selections were reasonable, some were very strange choices indeed; I would not recommend Robbie Williams to anybody as I think there are 1000s of more worthy artists, but then again I have similar views on Frank Sinatra. I know some forum members like him and Robbie, but I have never understood their appeal and probably never will.
Nobody will ever convince me that any album listed in this book is better than Eldorado by the Electric Light Orchestra, but that record is not even mentioned. There are no Half Man Half Biscuit entries and nothing by Shirley Collins or Sandy by Sandy Denny, no Moody Blues, no Desperate Bicycles or Delia Derbyshire, no Unthanks and so it goes on.
Perhaps all this means is the critics views differ from my own.
So is it all entirely subjective and should we even bother with reviews? What purpose do they serve? I can see the value of reviewing recording quality, but reviewers in magazines such as Rolling Stone attempt to say one record is better than another - are the journalists clueless? I picked Rolling Stone as it seems to me particularly poor and irrelevant as a guide to contemporary music; Record Collector is vastly superior as enthusiasts of a particular artist write about that artist.
So the conclusion I'm reaching is that for me, the opinion of a journalist in reviews is valueless or am I wrong ....
Does anybody have a different experience and has found reviews in a book/magazine useful ...
All the best, Guy