@PYITE1979 said:

This isn't necessarily a "they just hate Phish" tirade. Some may, in fact, hate Phish, but that's not the issue here. And I'm not focused solely on this critic, as hollow analysis is apparently germane to these writers. Who cares who likes which band? What I'm about to rant on here happens with every band at one point or another. I'm using Phish as an example because you guys are receptive to this kind of commentary and know how to appreciate music in a way no other community that I'm aware of seems to - at least in modern times.

I guess there's part of me that wonders why the 'music criticism' platform has subsisted in it's ivory tower for as long as it has - with as much influence as it still carries. There are plenty of great YouTube creators who do a far-superior job providing insight into music that steers clear of "I prefer their early work" drivel (no, I'm not one of them). To me, these efforts render the traditional Rolling Stone/Pitchfork guy irrelevant. Why is an authority perspective necessary? Opinion-shaping? It's one thing to stimulate thought/conversation with unique takes. It's another to communicate "this sucks." How is that useful? Give me something that deepens my appreciation, or...if you're gonna be critical - don't just tell me if you like it or spit out the same trope that was tired by 1977. Back it up with a convincing case.

No matter what band is being evaluated, it feels like far too often a reviewer will use this one box (criteria) for what an album must do - regardless of style, historical context, or regard for the psychology behind a project. Songs must not exceed a certain length, the singer must 'look' like he fell out of the Robert Smith family tree, and God-forbid that a band take a risk. The guitar player can't show too much skill or he runs the risk of being self-indulgent. What a horrible perspective. You own the album because you want to hear THEM showcase THEIR skills. The band didn't record the album believing "We don't want to draw too much attention to ourselves or take too much of the listener's time with something other than cynical screeching. Better to not show how good we are." Only in an industry where excellence is looked at as a liability, could this kind of nonsense be passed off as 'informed.'

Safe, safe, safe. Boring.

If it isn't some indie bullsh*t that makes the dude feel like the coolest guy in the room having been first to listen to it, then it's scoffed at. Ok, that analysis is unfair on my part, but...so are they. And I don't mean to come down on indie (what the hell does that mean anyway?) music. There's plenty of good stuff out there. But since about 1990, it's consistently used as the default 'hip-guy' benchmark. Annoyingly dull.

Take this review of Rift below.
"...a tedious listen."
"...an uninspired retread."
"...thematic unity robs Phish of loose spontaneity"

I'm not someone who's tolerant of the "all opinions are valid" mindset. You're free to not like something. I couldn't care less. But there is a such thing as knowing how to listen to/evaluate a piece of music, especially if you're...ya know, a MUSIC WRITER. How is Rift in any way similar to APON? Because the same musicians happened to play on both? Where's the repetition? How was one adventurous and not the other? Uninspired? I guess we skipped over the soloing on Maze. And how the hell does thematic unity rob them of spontaneity? Is this another way of saying "I'll accept Phish as a band that does X (jamming), but now that I've categorized them, any wandering outside that form SHANT be tolerated."

Have an opinion. If you can't justify it with any substance, try harder. I didn't plan on writing this much, but so be it. Your thoughts are welcome if they make sense.

https://www.allmusic.com/album/fuego-mw0002680736

https://www.allmusic.com/album/rift-mw0000617674

The review and the grade are a little off. They still give 4 stars, which is pretty good. So I'm guessing the person is a phish fan who thinks highly of the band but believed that they mostly ventured into known territory in that Rift album compared to the previous one (Picture of Nectar). Albums reviewed by critics is obviously always subjective, but I think by and large Allmusic and Pitchfork are fine. They tend to create baseline for musicianship (which is why Allmusic give 3+ to virtually all Phish albums) and then, since they listen to albums all day, get a bit picky and tends to favor what is new, original or moving into new territories. I think that most Phish albums are fine, but none were truly groundbreaking or very influential. I think their live play is what distinguish them of course, and that's not really what music critic do, but many musicologist or music professor raves about Phish creativity live (re millions of reaction video to Phish or all the posts). So I would say I disagree with you a bit here.