One thing I hate damn near more than ANYTHING (and always have), is the term "hate/hater/hating/etc."..shit annoys me to no end. Sort of like "playa" and "beeyaatch" used to drive me crazy in the 90's when cracker ass crackers wouldn't shut the fuck up with that shit. So yeah..I HATE that shit.
Also, I don't HATE Drake like yall do..although I tried to not like any of his songs when he first came to my attention (because I think he is a cornball). Some of his songs on the So Far Gone mixtape is straight with me though (haven't heard the album).
I think if someone can articulate their hate it's fine. The lastthing we need is some bullshit, everybody gets a trophy mindset, which people think is the only alternative to "hating". This is especially true in a lot of music journalism/criticism. After noticing that in the papers around here I had never seen a negative review, I asked some of the journalists involved why that was the case. I was told that it was better to ignore bands and acts they didn't like instead of writing a bad review. Personally, I feel that is some passive agressive shit, pretending an artist doesn't exsist...also who is going to take your skills as critic seriously if every review you write is positive? A little articulated hate is very useful IMO
HarveyCanal"a distraction from my main thesis." 13,234 Posts
There's a clear point where being critical devolves into being a hater. I don't know why such a concept would irk anyone. I mean, I guess we could just call them assholes...but that isn't as specific.
HarveyCanal"a distraction from my main thesis." 13,234 Posts
The_Hook_Up said:
I think if someone can articulate their hate it's fine. The lastthing we need is some bullshit, everybody gets a trophy mindset, which people think is the only alternative to "hating".
Huh? We are nowhere remotely near an "everyone gets a trophy" mindset...nor is that something anyone is suggesting.
This is especially true in a lot of music journalism/criticism. After noticing that in the papers around here I had never seen a negative review, I asked some of the journalists involved why that was the case. I was told that it was better to ignore bands and acts they didn't like instead of writing a bad review. Personally, I feel that is some passive agressive shit, pretending an artist doesn't exsist...also who is going to take your skills as critic seriously if every review you write is positive? A little articulated hate is very useful IMO
I somewhat agree, but it depends on if it's an established act that has a track record of good. They put out a stinker and it might be important to let people know that the new product isn't up to par with their previous.
But for newly emerging acts...just leave them out of the mix if they suck. No need to bash them when you could instead point out x number of other newly emerging acts that are more worthy of peoples' attention...especially considering the ever-dwindling amount of space for such things.
Comments
I hate 'haterade' - shit puts me in a rage.
Huh? We are nowhere remotely near an "everyone gets a trophy" mindset...nor is that something anyone is suggesting.
I somewhat agree, but it depends on if it's an established act that has a track record of good. They put out a stinker and it might be important to let people know that the new product isn't up to par with their previous.
But for newly emerging acts...just leave them out of the mix if they suck. No need to bash them when you could instead point out x number of other newly emerging acts that are more worthy of peoples' attention...especially considering the ever-dwindling amount of space for such things.