"masterbatory rants"

If you're going to use big words, you'd be better off learning how to spell them first.

You can attack my spelling all you want, i want to see my ideas questioned

Here's a question on your ideas... did you listen to a single word that he actually said, or did you just decide to post a "look at this dinosaur" rant and grabbed the most recent video you could get your hands on.

I'm 6 minutes in, and so far he's praised the music web for pulling the fake curtain of expertise from the old world of music criticism, plugged his completely twitter-based review project, and said that music reviews longer than 140 characters are useless. Where's the blowing hard, again?

Sorry... got to the rant. He's right. Fleet Foxes suck, and the blogosphere does widely promote the midrange indie crap. See what happens whenever someone mentions any kind of hip hop artist on Stereogum or BrooklynVegan . . . or a crossover rock group on Nah Right or Allhiphop. Everyone has depth (which is certainly cool), but there SEEMS to be very little breadth (I could be wrong).

His ultimate point wasn't even "wah, the internet", it was the little P.S. that you gave at the end (that you agreed with). Yay, listening comprehension.

I took a needing gatekeepers thing from the speech which i find insulting, I stand by my above criticism. Trust me I think Fleet Foxes are crap as much as the next guy, but I don't blame the net Twitter for their popularity. I blame people having a cerebral reaction to them.

Totally fair to stand behind what you write, I just think that a lot of your anger is based on one minute of the video (around 6:20 to about 7:30), while everything else seems to accept (even to praise) the new paradigm. I took the comments about him losing his job as simply a humorous framing device, and I agree his idea that of the modern music discovery world is based on tunneling deeper into your pre-selected musical spheres, rather than truly fulfilling the promise of unlimited access to unlimited spheres. I think everyone's generally more satisfied in the end, but by avoiding the risk of being turned off, I think you miss the opportunity to get turned on to things you might normally have never sought out.

He does express hope at the end, though: you don't need more than 140 characters to do things right, if you take the time to explain why you like something. I think we can all agree with that.

I'm gonna venture to say that people say things like "Fleet Foxes suck" (which I disagree with completely - if you wanna pick on an overrated band, how about Grizzly Bear) because of sites like Pitchfork and Stereogum over-hyping them. If you would have discovered them yourself, you would most likely be singing a different tune. Weingarten is drowning in his own hypocrisy. He praises Twitter and then tries to justify the need for credible critics? Please. He is just now catching on to what thousands of bloggers have been doing for years, for free and with less pretension. Nice try, d00d.

The more we dismantle this ivory tower of musical dorks the better. And personally, I don't want to read any album review that is 140 characters. I want to hear an album for myself. I only take music advice from people I trust and certainly not some alt_bro in a Zelda tshirt or whatever he's wearing.

Good criticism can enhance the experience of any art form. It can offer perspective, historical significance and facts. Not saying that Weingarten has accomplished that..don't know I've ever read anything he's written...but there has been some great criticism over the years that translates as pure and great literature itself. George Bernard Shaw started as a drama critic. George Orwell was a literary critic. Patti Smith and Chrisse Hynde were rock critics. Bogdonavich was a film critic. Again, good criticism can enhance an experience. That's the truth. Lester Bangs. Nick Kent (check out his book, The Dark Side; it's ****ing great). Pauline Kael. Andrew Sarris. Don't know there's a lot of great criticism, if any, these days, though. But there's more to it than just saying you like something but having no idea whatsoever as to why you like it or to even coherently express why you like it. But, man, there's sure plenty of that these days -- bad writing and opinion from people who have no perspective or historical knowledge whatsoever.

All this talk of "gatekeepers" and "ivory towers" reads a lot like sour grapes to these eyes. It's not at all true, historically speaking, that music fans have always hated music critics, btw. Not even remotely true. (See, that's the difference between opinion -- the province of most blogs -- and fact.) Research a little (as good critics of the past have been known to do). Explore what CREEM and CRAWDADDY meant once upon a time. There are opinions. And then there are FACTS. The two don't need to be -- and probably shouldn't be -- mutually exclusive.

Punk rock as we know it would've never existed without Lester Bangs. And that's also a fact.

I have no quarrels with the fact that rock criticism has been and always will be important and is needed. But album reviews have become a near useless utility and if you don't feel this is popular opinion we must walk in very different circles. Now is it a relationship similar to man and woman where they bemoan each other yet hop in to bed together and watch each other from a far on a regular basis? Absolutely!

Music Reviewers/ Rock Critics are not the worst gatekeepers and trust me I do my fare share of it on this blog, and love me some Lester Bangs

David Fricke reviews, the review sections of Pitchfork, Spin, Magnet, etc. do not bring the majority of musicians or music fans any joy (at least the ones I meet), they inspire ire as our time is wasted with show off sentences etc.

I am never one to glorify the past but give me the short reviews of early Maximum Rock N Roll any day over any of that but personally in the time I am reading a review, I can now sit on my couch listen and decide for myself. I can look on Brett Easton Elliss's Twitter and see if I find a kinship with his musical taste since i love his writing and decide if I trust him as a tastemaker, rather then a music writer who I feel no kinship with whatsoever since all they have ever done for me is write for cash (Lester Bangs never had to give Christina Aguilera a fair review for the sake of ad dollars) and waste my time with long sprawling pieces.

Anyone who writes for Idolator doesn't deserve a job as a writer. Its a site run by arrogant, ignorant, college grads that feel entitled to a paycheck. Real writers don't cry about not having a job. They should read Greil Marcus and realize that nobody in current rock journalism has protected that legacy.
Idolator is littered with fictional articles that they would be libel for if they had any money or any foundation. Good riddance.