Re: Country Music Critics Poll - 2002

Date: 10 Feb 2003 00:02:13 GMT
Newsgroups: rec.music.country.western
Size: 1,596 bytes

>This isn't an award, it's a critics poll. They are voting on who they think
>is the best, not on what the public likes the most. If they don't like Toby
>Keith, they would compromise the integrity of the poll by voting for him.
I presume, of course, you're using Toby Keith as a hypothetical example of
someone excluded from this poll, as I have not identified by name who it is
that I feel was wrongly excluded.
As for the later point of work not being "critically acclaimed," I like the
observation made in the other thread about Kim Richey about what that means.
Now, I'd like to stop talking about my observations about the poll itself, and
instead comment on the panel. I don't know how the rest of you feel, or if you
read Country Music, but their critics' reviews seem to favor only those albums
that don't have a prayer of making any money. If George Strait releases an
album, they give it a lukewarm, "Try something new, George" review. If Kenny
Chesney releases one, they respond with, "Keep trying, one day you'll get it."
Ricky Van Shelton would warrant either a "Talented artist still turning in
quality work" or "It's sad to see someone still trying to hang on," depending
on whether the critic liked RVS. On the other hand, until such time as Lucinda
Williams has a name, face and sound recognized by more than a few thousand
people, she can do no wrong. The Country Music articles and interviews tend to
be worth reading, but I find myself rarely satisfied with their album reviews,
mostly because they're entirely too predictable. Just a personal view, of
course.