I just discovered these type of videos this year. If true, as far as their status as first time listeners, I love watching and hearing about their experience with songs I have heard decades ago, because I had great joy as a teenage music fan listening to these songs. And because these were cool songs


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vw7n4aG0wcw


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LoNntOkr7X0

You do realize that this is as lazy as it gets, right? They're glomming off the work of other people. Also, we're supposed to be AMAZED that some black guy has even heard a Led Zeppelin song, much less actually likes it. They're gaming viewers, and it's for nothing but clicks. Just clicks. Clicks = $$

You know those litte white birds that sit on the backs of water buffalo while the water buffalo lumbers around? You know those sucker fish (or pilot fish, whatever they're called) that latch onto some huge shark?

Well, that's what this stuff is. It's not homage. It's not symbiosis. It's parasitism. Think about it. All they do is sit there and play someone else's music, or a video clip of some comedian, and make really lame comments. Hell, sometimes, they don't even make comments. I've seen several of these 'reaction' videos featuring Bill Burr's standup routines, and all those two guys do is sit there and laugh. Oh, and one of them said "It's true, it's true," in reaction to some sharp bit by Burr. That's the depth of this stuff. Paper thin

Oh, and you know why you just discovered these kinds of videos? Because youtube is sticking them in your face all of a sudden. These kinds of videoas are suddenly appearing in my 'suggested videos' as well.

I've been watching these for quite some time, not necessarily music but movies and TV shows. Para is certainly entitled to his opinion, but I enjoy them. People started putting these videos out several years ago. People started watching them. Enough viewers started watching them that the YouTubers were able to make money by presenting them. It's called capitalism. If you don't like it, don't watch it. Simple.

Another part of capitalism is making informed choices, and, on top of that, you really don't need to point out the obvious to me. You've missed my point entirely. There are lots of legal ways of making money that are to some degree unethical. Try reading and comprehending my post before you comment on it.

quote:

Originally posted by parabellum:
You do realize that this is as lazy as it gets, right? They're glomming off the work of other people.

Yeah, I totally realize that these folks are not the creators, that they are simple entertainment "critics" of stuff that was popular when I was young, but really does not get any airplay in the modern music world. And if some of these young people in these videos actually let their audience know that not only is the song really good, but modern artists can't even compete with the old stuff, I don't see it as a total waste in bandwidth.

Simple entertainment criticism, glomming off of other's work, has been around for a long time, some good, a lot bad. Even though Gene Siskel & Roger Ebert wrote some great stuff in their newspaper columns, their Sneak Previews show was different in their "thumbs up" "thumbs down" approach to film criticism. I remember some high brow critics at the time thought their approach was "fast food film criticism", how dare they, but I actually thought they brought a more entertaining alternative to Pauline Kael, whose writings, right or wrong, I enjoy.

My point is that glomming off of someone else's film, song, book, etc has been a bone of contention with artists for eons, and some of it can be entertaining, and some of it crap.

Are you actually comparing the film criticism of the greatest film critic of the past 40 years with the utterly empty commentary in these mindless 'reaction' videos?

Aside from a Saturday afternoon film show for the average viewer, both Gene Siskel and Roger Ebert provided some of the most astute film criticism of that generation. But oh, I see, this one consumer-targeted syndicated half-hour show negated the bulk of their work. Just throw it all out the window.

Huh??

Roger Ebert's film observations were on-target and are unmatched by anyone since. You're equating amateur videos on youtube with a master film critic, and if I criticize the meaningless stuff these people on youtube spew, we have to throw out legitimate film criticism as well. So, no more film critics, huh? This thread got silly really quickly.

^^^

Notice that I wrote that Siskel & Ebert wrote great criticism. However, their TV show Sneak Previews was a consumer friendly dumbed down version of "film criticism" based on entertainment values, and later when they left PBS and went to the bigger leagues, I'm sure "clicks" or ratings was an important factor. But I watched and enjoyed their TV shows, knowing it was different from their actual writings. Same impulse why I enjoy some of these reaction videos. It's just entertainment, nothing more.

Sure thing. What I said at the outset of this silly exchange is correct- these people sitting in their living room or kitchen in front of an iPhone are attempting to make money in the cheapest, lamest, emptiest way possible. Quite frankly, shit this stupid insults my intelligence.
Big damn deal that a couple of top-tier film critics had a syndicated show that presented film criticism for the lowest common denominator. Big deal. On my bookshelf, I have an entire volume of Ebert's film criticism, and the guy was so incredibly observant, that his writings are unparalleled. Here's just one example, and I cite it because I have committed it to memory. Ebert commented that Charles Laughton's Night of the Hunter is one of the great American films, but it's so very different than anything else produced during that period, that no one knows how to classify this film, and since it defies classification, it gets left off of lists of greatest American films.

Now, Goddamn if that isn't spot-on. This film had, in years past, been left off of many such lists, and if you know this film, you know that it defies classification.

And that's just one example. Read his review of Dreyer's The Passion of Joan of Arc. The guy possessed something no one else of his generation did, and that's why he was at the top of the heap.

Meanwhile, back in Joe Shmoe's living room: "Ha ha, that's funny" and "Oh, man, what a great song." Meaningless blather, but oh, 'capitalism' yadda yadda. I'm sorry, but whether you like this mental bubblegum or not, what I'm saying about this silly stuff is true- these videos exist only for clicks, and it is the laziest way to get clicks. There's no thought to them at all. They just sit there and laugh or say 'wow', while someone who worked a long time to get to where they are gets used like a wash rag.

Hell, even the vacuous females who shake their tits and ass to get clicks, under the pretense of a "bikini swimsuit try-on" are shaking their own tits and ass, not someone else's. They don't sit there and hold up their latest copy of a Victoria's Secret catalog.

quote:

Originally posted by parabellum:
Try reading and comprehending my post before you comment on it.

Thank you for sharing. Have a nice day.

Para, I have not posted at any time of Roger Ebert's or Gene Siskel's inability to watch a film, analyze it, and write about it. The stuff I have read, very astute, articulate, and intelligent. Certain film criticism is well done, putting a more intelligent spin on basically just movies. Hell, James Agee, a legendary film critic, was one of the writers of Night of the Hunter.

My reason of bringing them into this is that the accusation of "glomming off an artist" certainly were levied at film critics, everyone from Pauline Kael to Michael Medved.

It really is nothing more than, despite the clicks and commercialness of youtube, my enjoyment of these some of these reaction videos.

Jesus, man. When Roger Ebert was alive and publishing his criticisms, people who read his column couldn't wait for his next set of reviews. To compare the legitmate observations of critics at the top of their game, to people sitting there with a goofy look on their face in a youtube video? 'Glomming', my ass. It's not the same thing, and saying 'well, film critics have long been accused of the same' is not a valid argument. What it is, is a cop-out. Paper airplanes vs F35 fighters. Ridiculous.

quote:

Originally posted by henryarnaud:

quote:

Originally posted by parabellum:
Try reading and comprehending my post before you comment on it.

Thank you for sharing. Have a nice day.

What do you expect when you come at me with shit like this?:

quote:

It's called capitalism.

That's about as useful an observation as the grunting which emanates from these 'reaction' videos.

quote:

Roger Ebert's film observations were on-target and are unmatched by anyone since.

I agree completely. Besides astute the reviews were quite entertaining. He did not like certain popular films at the time and clearly explained why. I am a big fan of his. He is a University of Illinois alum and they have a festival every year in his honor.

Many of the other film critics at the time simply gushed over films, deferring to whatever the public wanted. Roger also liked some pretty horrible films, but again he explained why.

I would rather watch you tube videos of people blowing stuff up with tannerite than this crap.

quote:

Originally posted by ZSMICHAEL:
Many of the other film critics at the time simply gushed over films, deferring to whatever the public wanted.

Michael Medved, the king of the hacks, and he gushed over films because he didn't have the courage to call out Hollywood studios and their corporate masters on the crap they produce. He was and is a shill.

Something has to be pretty shitty to not even be worth a dollar a month. these clowns fall into that category. don't understand who would value their opinions on anything.