Professional Critics

Professional critics are for the most part, idiots who have no idea what their talking about. Take for instance, All Music Guide. And then take something which I've spoken of frequently before, say St.Anger. What a terrible album by a formerly great band (well, I guess not formally since the new album is actually good). AMG gave this 3 stars, which is the equivallent to a 6! Thats a hesitant thumbs up, that ridiculous. If you love low-tuned guitars, a drum with a terrible snare sound, a non-existant bass, no solos, and terrible compositions where the guitar is just an extention of the awful drums, this is it. I like the stuff Metallica did in the 80s, I have the first 5 albums (plus Death Magnetic) I don't have Load, Reload, and definatly not St.Anger. This is clearly nott the band that made Master of Puppets. But AMG doesnt think so, no, AMG does its typical idiocy. AMG uses alot of descriptions and nonsense to try to sound like they know what their talking about. So many descriptions. Useless. The fact they thought this was a decent album shows their idiocy in itself. To compare, listen Master of Puppets first, than listen to St.Anger. Compare the two songs, and I think you'll come to the same conclusion I did. But it's not just AMG, its the Rolling Stone. An organization run by very biased people who refuse to give anything not from their day (probably the 60s or 70s) a fair chance. It's not just music either, movie critics have no idea what ther talking about either. National Security, a hilarious movie i love, got a bad score. How can you not laugh at this scene? Movie citics don't know what good movies are. Professional critics don't know what their talking about. What the problem is?