What do you think is the most important at the end of the day: critical acclaim or commercial success? Discuss.

commercial success buys you critical acclaim

 

with all the fakeness in places like rotten tomatoes or bought reviews from music critics or bought grammys, acclaim is pointless

Commercial. 

 

You dont go to the grocery store with reviews 

A combination of both, tbh

If you're acclaimed but unknown, then you're not getting much from it. Money will always be more important than recognition. 

I mean Taylor wasnt really taken seriously until Folklore yet she was making $200M a year when she was touring... so probably success

Acclaim makes an artist last longer. Fiona Apple’s Fetch The Bolt Cutters charted higher than Katy’s Smile, and Fiona only has 1 song that charted on the hot100

acclaim is what gives you a legacy

Nobody cares about your music if they don't know it exists

Acclaimed albums (without big initial success) tend to be discovered by the GP in the long run like NFR and somewhat folklore 

Both are necessary but…

critical acclaim = respect

at the end of the day only one of  the two can truly be bought

53 minutes ago, KatyPrismSpirit said:

acclaim is what gives you a legacy

said this as a Katy stan 
teenage dream only has 52 metacritic score

Edited September 11, 20233 yr by LiamVillain

depends what kind of artist u are

28 minutes ago, idkwiam said:

Acclaimed albums (without big initial success) tend to be discovered by the GP in the long run like NFR and somewhat folklore 

meanwhile Born To Die had neither and look at it now 

Ideally it would be a combination of both but otherwise it’s commercial success by very far. I’d rather have a Katy Perry like career than a Mitski 

Edited September 11, 20233 yr by Ratviolo

I would rather have my music be enjoyed by millions of people than one guy at pitchfork.  

Ideally though I would like to be like Taylor, Beyoncé, SZA, Adele, Billie, Dua and Olivia and have both. 

15 minutes ago, Kiss It Better said:

meanwhile Born To Die had neither and look at it now 

Omg BTD was kinda panned when it was released. 

 

8 minutes ago, Ratviolo said:

Ideally it would be a combination of both but otherwise it’s commercial success by very far. I’d rather have a Katy Perry like career than a Mitski 

This too. To be a respected artist you have to have some GP classics and ideally 2-3 acclaimed albums.

success lbr. fiona apple isn’t known by gp to care for her music. 

If we really should choose only one then success.

Metacritic scores (while nice to have) don't pay the bills. 

Be Gaga and get both 

14 minutes ago, Feanor said:

Metacritic scores (while nice to have) don't pay the bills. 

Well I'm sure Weyes Blood and Joanna Newsom aren't sleeping on the streets every night 

That's a funny question because both can be controversial, but I think commercial success shows more of the audience's reaction to the work than critical acclaim. A lot of the biggest artists of recent history had bad critical reception with some of their best works but were acclaimed by the audience, which reflects directly on the commercial success

Success by FAR, it’s an indirect form of acclaim because if everyone is streaming/purchasing your songs it means they’re enjoying the music. And at least you get a new house out of it. 
 

vs Acclaim, which is SO subjective to begin with, + do ppl really care that much about Pitchfork (and all the other review sites), I haven’t read one of their reviews in a long time  

Success

 

no one remembers the 100 metacritic score in 50 years.
They do remember the songs they are still listening to