[ethan]

huge sales... and I think most artists would choose that, too.

[supertiffany]

Originally posted by Kworb

Huge sales. I'd rather have the public like it than a bunch of article writing snobs.

This. Especially those snobs who are trying to be musical elitists in criticizing songs that are pop.

[WIG-SNATCHER]

Originally posted by i spit on haters

Huge sales. I never cared much for critical acclaim when it comes to music and neither does most of the general public.

^ You aren't lying though.

[jomarr]

Originally posted by RihRihGirrrl

But the general pubic for the most party doesn't care about critical acclaim. They will enjoy the music that is most appealing to the ears.

They don't but in time, with acclaim, the artist with it will solidify his/her ground and would become an icon or maybe a legend. But as what I said, that's what I want to happen to Britney since she's getting so much hate now. She needs to make a groundbreaking album that will strengthen her credibility and gain back the general public. I really can't explain my point right but I hope you do get me. And I'm just talking about Britney. Rihanna and Katy are embraced by the public by their consistent chart topping songs but some artists have already done that and at Britney's stage, 13 years after her career almost 200 million records sold, she doesn't need that. She needs critical acclaim that would put her in a permanent list of the greatest albums and artists. I'm just pertaining to my fave

[Quiqui4eva]

Acclaim, since it gives people a reason to buy your album (if it's good reviews).

[madonnas]

Originally posted by Great Username

It is a critic's job to be able to eloquently put into words their thoughts on an album. That does not mean they know more about music than anybody else.

Well, generally if they've heard more music and know more about the history, they can say they know more about music.

[madonnas]

Originally posted by RihRihGirrrl

NO! Critics don't have an ear or taste for music any better then the average individual. There's no right or wrong way of listening to and enjoying music. They may have more knowledge of the history of music but that doesn't make them any more qualified to judge the quality of music. Not to mention, critics are just as bias about music as the average person. They have preferences and many times they judge an artist's music based on the likelihood of mainstream success (hence why PoP is heavily critiqued).

There is no right or wrong if you want to get specific, but they help suggest albums that are generally forward thinking usually, if you want to listen to new music they're a good recommendation.

[Changes]

Sales, I guess. Don't want to get dropped by the label.

[fabian_phipps]

Originally posted by RihRihGirrrl

pretty much....I never understood why people care about what critics think, I mean can't you judge the music for yourself

What I've been thinking for months now.

[The Night]

Acclaim is a plus . However , it is just a void opinion from an 'expert'
Sales indicate the love of the general public which is by far more important to the artist and their career.
So SALES.

[Rivington Reject]

Just think about this: if people see an album is criticially-acclaimed, wouldn't they be interested in checking it out?

Sales are important, I'm not going to ignore that. But I would prefer acclaim because it establishes your fave's presence in the industry. Plus, lots of critically-acclaimed albums end up having great sales, regardless

[KevinKDC]

Critical acclaim doesn't mean ****..... to anyone !!

[RihRihGirrrl]

Originally posted by jomarr

They don't but in time, with acclaim, the artist with it will solidify his/her ground and would become an icon or maybe a legend. But as what I said, that's what I want to happen to Britney since she's getting so much hate now. She needs to make a groundbreaking album that will strengthen her credibility and gain back the general public. I really can't explain my point right but I hope you do get me. And I'm just talking about Britney. Rihanna and Katy are embraced by the public by their consistent chart topping songs but some artists have already done that and at Britney's stage, 13 years after her career almost 200 million records sold, she doesn't need that. She needs critical acclaim that would put her in a permanent list of the greatest albums and artists. I'm just pertaining to my fave

Lets be honest, for a pop star mainstream success is almost always more important to their careers then critical acclaim. And in Britney's case she needs to get back in the public's good graces before she even thinks about going the 'critical acclaim' rout. If she were to compose an album right now geared towards the critics it wouldn't do much for her public perception because at this very moment she doesn't have the public's interest so they wouldn't even care that she released a critically acclaimed album. Sure her fans would bolster about it here on ATRL much like Beyonce fans do with '4' and Rihanna fans continue to do with 'Rated R' but would the public really take notice? Most likely not and if the public is not interested then it won't make the album a classic or iconic by any means. If you're not generating public interest in some way and the media isn't taking notice of you're critically acclaimed music then it won't do much for your public perception. At least that's the case for a pop artist

[Rivington Reject]

Originally posted by Great Username

It is a critic's job to be able to eloquently put into words their thoughts on an album. That does not mean they know more about music than anybody else.

A critic is certainly going to be more educated in music than the average consumer. Sweety, you're a stan so you'll have some music knowledge but the average Joe on the street will not have it as much as you or a critic. Don't say critics don't know much about music when you happen to be an outlier that does know about music.

[ImpressiveInstant]

Originally posted by Rivington Reject

Just think about this: if people see an album is criticially-acclaimed, wouldn't they be interested in checking it out?

Sales are important, I'm not going to ignore that. But I would prefer acclaim because it establishes your fave's presence in the industry. Plus, lots of critically-acclaimed albums end up having great sales, regardless

I agree. Kanye for example can be a dick, but everyone is aware that the guy knows what he's doing with his music.

He became respected.

[Kang.]

Acclaim by far. That's what gets you remembered after your album stops selling.

[CaptainMusic]

Huge sales EASILY.

I don't really give a **** about what critics think tbh, because a lot of the albums they rate highly are **** IMO.

I'd rather have my fave's next album sell over 10 million with 10% of metacritic and I like it, then it sell 200K with 95%.

[katyperryismylife]

Well Adele seems unbothered by this argument.


For Katy, I think she needs to get some critical acclaim this time. But all in all, I still prefer her smashing so huge sales by miles.

[@joshuamagora]

Huge sales . Artist can't stay in the industry with a lot of critical acclaim but not selling .

[Living Legend]

None. If I like his/her music, I do and I don't give a **** about the rest.

Of course, if the artist isn't successful I don't get the singles/albums I want but I could really delve into this topic but since this is quite a shallow question, none.