Lots of critics will praise albums that very little of the public knows solely for that reason. I originally said there are two issues every music critic has to deal with and while vast generalizations based on other reviews is a large one, the other is related to the point I just made. In turn this questioning leads me to be less forthcoming with the bands that I feel are amazing. But, when someone whose tastes consist of solely groups representing what I believe to be the downfall of modern music starts referencing a band I fawn over, like say, Off Minor, it does make me question my own legitimacy. I am not going to say this is a negative thing, I believe everyone is allowed to gauge what is important to them. In just examining 2008's releases so far, Protest the Hero's "Fortress" has been heralded a classic almost unanimously amongst seventeen year old boys who probably spend more time playing Call of Duty 4 than they do artistically appreciating records for doing nothing but creatively combining a bunch of other band's ideas into an hour long "epic". In my opinion, vast generalizations that are linked through the mainstream and underground music communities towards records are usually just bull***.
One, the writer will most likely alter his opinions based on other reviews: a record like My Bloody Valentine's "Loveless" may have never gained as much press as it has recently if some reviewer hadn't commented on Kevin Shields' ridiculous spending budget, or the fact that the group supposedly perfectly defined and destroyed the "shoegaze" genre. Inherently in the realm of music criticism, two issues will always become extremely evident in most reviews. Review Summary: contextually awe-inspiring, a lo-fi masterpiece