Why do critics review musicians, underground or mainstream, and they give them either bad or good reviews, but some artists that are well known don't get any attention from them? (Ex, Ed sheeran, imagine dragons etc) like they don't give em bad reviews, they're just ignoring them
Comments
[deleted] t1_j20r0qu wrote
[deleted]
HomerThompson15 t1_j20r2c7 wrote
It jus b dat wey
dog-pussy t1_j20ynu6 wrote
Play it Leo!!!
Metal_Monkey42 t1_j2109f3 wrote
The artists you mentioned are already way too over-saturated in the first place. Why do they need a good review from some paper to get tickets sold to their concert?
I'm glad if their spending their time on acts that might not get that kind of attention otherwise!
DeadEyeMetal t1_j2111co wrote
They probably assume that most people already know what to expect from mainstream artists. Perhaps they get better engagement from readers/viewers when they draw attention to newer stuff.
guiltycitizen t1_j21p39r wrote
Critics are turds that load up op-ed’s with trendy superlatives and attempts at wokeness
127phunk t1_j20qxls wrote
Probably because they consider themselves art critics, and those musicians aren’t artists (to them).
I love Phish and have the same issue. Critics are full of themselves.