[The Horrible Esthete]

Be that as it may, I find it baffling how much stock we put in critics. WHY do we allow so many hundreds of people to make a lot of money off being critics?!

It does seem inane, and I share your general disgust. I wonder how often advertising $$$ and other business contracts influnce how favorably critics treat their subjects.....

All that aside, I suppose that critial reviews sell copies of whatever publication prints them, and that just goes to show how low the societal common denominator is. Publications benefit from creating an illusion of trendiness, and the name of the act / show / screenplay / establishment alone tends to pique the intrest of the average shmoe who jumps at any chance to stay a step ahead of the Joneses. Besides, many believe everything they read, and few seem to be able to form an original opinion by themselves. They'd rather be told what to think, and regurgitate it as they see fit.

Take that piece of toilet tissue called Rolling Stone, for example. They are revered by the masses as the be-all and end-all of musical insight, but their critics have balked time and time again at the chance to be astute in their reviews of many talents who fly below the MTV radar. Like, for instance, the "100 Greatest Guitarists of All-Time" travesty they retched upon us this year. Have Hipbasers taken the opportunity to shred that irreverant stream of sludge? Eddie Van Halen at #70? David Gilmour at #89? Angus Young at #96? Huh??? All three are seated behind people like Joni Mitchell and Ike Turner! Oh, the humanity! Slash and Lindsay Buckingham were snubbed altogether! Geez, I'm a HUGE Neil Young fan, but he was ranked at #83, and that's just plain wrong.....I think I may even be a better guitarist than ol' Neil.....(I wish I was one-hundredth the songwriter he is, though)....

"Anyway. Critics are silly". How very true, often times.....