Why is music criticism and journalism such a joke? It's literally the worst of all form of media...

It's because it relies on emotions and seldom does criticism actually describe what's happening in the music. They use empty platitudes, similies, and metaphors that are only grounded in the emotions a bit of music elicits rather than determining why a section of music makes them feel that way on a foundational, theoretical level.
Empty words from empty people.

Isn't it funny how Pitchfork's logo is dangerously similar to the Three Arrows, which are supposed to be against all authoritarians but is in practice used by only tankies?

Couldn't imagine a more useless profession. If you have EVER used pitchfork, rym, or youtube personalities to rate or discover music you are a complete fake. Just listen and let your ears guide you and if you happen to like something uncool, WHO CARES

so how do you discover music then if you dont use anything?

>nooooo you can't just listen to music!!!! it has to be screened for inclusiveness, diversity, and social acceptability by the media first!!!!!

Scruffy has written like 20 books about music.
he rates anything high if it's unique and well executed.

What the fuck? You are on the internet. Just fucking press play on Spotify until you HEAR music that resonates with you. Some dipshit trying to make a name for himself as an influencer (the critics) plays no part in it.

Because they don't care about the music. Pitchfork, like most American media, is a cultural trend setter. Most reviews are literally just anecdotes, references to the making of the disc, tidbits about the title, some fragments of the lyrics in contrast with the context of the making of the album, and never a single word about the mixing, the sound, the instrumentation, nothing, they just tell you vapid useless shit that says nothing about whether they listened to the album or not

this is just autistic take. I'm gonna sift through random songs until find one worth my while?

I don't think music is "more subjective" than movies or vidya, but it's harder to talk about the objective elements, which means journalism has gradually focused more on identity politics. This extends to "music focused" critics who still say nothing substantial, like Scaruffi. I agree with the other user who thinks christgau is slightly better; he at least embraces the non-musical approach and basically just shitposts. I don't think you have to necessarily have a huge historical context or musical background to focus on musical things and explain why stuff works or doesn't, but it just doesn't sell because of all the shallow precedents music being relatively hard to talk about has set

>listening to music is autism
>needing parental guidance to find music is not autism
bruh. if you really need help finding music just ask someone you actually know what's a good band to check out

But again, the issue is that Scaruffi doesn't actually know enough about music and doesn't have a good enough ear to identify uniqueness and sophistication in music. He thinks he does but he's extremely sophmoric.

Music is an art. It requires study to understand what's occurring and practice thereof to appreciate/sympathize with the musicianship.
I'm sure the painting/drawing world has some of the same struggles where uneducated critics improperly describe what's occuring in a painting or what an artist was doing because they don't have the education in history, theory, or technique.

SJW LIBS AHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH THEY'RE RUINING THINGS AHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH ARGGHHHHHHHHHHHH

Whether it's music or film or any other artform, critics these days are pathologically obsessed with issues related to gender, race and various (perceived) forms of oppression. As a result, they manage to find ways of inserting their socio-political bullshit into everything.

fuck you. music was around a lot longer than these youtube professors started lecturing us about modes you dweeb. to even attempt to gatekeep something primordial to the human condition makes you worthy of contempt

Correct. The SJWs on either end of the political spectrum are pure cancer.

Nah. The issue here isn't about gatekeeping around listening to music or even making music, the issue is gatekeeping into the world of criticism, which is absolutely justifiable because without a deep knowledge of music you have no meaningful basis by which to judge music in a way that is useful to other people.

Film journalism > Art journalism >>> Music journalism >>>>>>>>>>> Vidya journalism

Also it's mostly due to a lack of understanding of the musical medium and a struggle to articulate their opinions in a way that's artful or at least interesting

I think you underestimate how much can be intuitive, or picked up on through unprofessional exposure. Knowledge absolutely can only help- but to place the emphasis on that is to ignore the bigger problem, which is the emphasis on qualities of music, be that comparisons, artist credentials, unexplained "theorist approval," musical elements or moods that signify some scene or place in life people can relate to, or whatever, which are pointless in themselves, rather than anything that attempts to link these and explain why musical or other elements of the art are effective in affecting someone

It's not about gatekeeping.
These critics speak authoritatively about a subject they literally don't understand and they influence people's decisions on what they listen to.
It's fine to have an opinion, anyone can have those, but if you're trying to be an authority and criticizing music in the service of normies without actually knowing what you're talking about, then you can fuck off.

For instance, it's a lot easier to say "this is brilliant because it subverts this form" than to describe the effect the subversion of the form has

Obviously no one is going to dissect pop music for people, but like you suggested, an educated critic can explain why a certain phrase in a song is significant or makes them feel a certain way on a surface level.

what are some good music critics?

*You* said that an educated theorist could. I say anyone can. But what I really disagree with you on is "obviously"- how defeatist. This is why criticism sucks

Pop music doesn't warrant piece by piece analysis in the way classical music does because so much of it is repetitive.
The things I would look for in a review is just the highlights, is there an interesting part of the song that uses a cool chords progression or contrary motion etc. then what's the mood that's trying to inspire.

Only good response ITT

Ive seen metal sites give good reviews to literally everything they review. This critics stuff was never meant to be taken seriously.

I don't know if I'd find that a good review, the mood and a reference to some random theoretical parameter? That said, I agree desu in a way and was taken aback for a second because I'm also not too invested in pop journalism, so now I'm wondering if either of us are actually too invested in the topic, lol