3 Doors Down Say Best Critics Are Fans

3 Doors Down is one of rock's most consistent representatives on the Top 40 chart, and their albums are continually atop the Billboard 200 chart. Yet with this success, comes a lack of respect from the magazine and newspaper writing community.

While the band has never gotten the respect it deserves, we asked singer Brad Arnold about the lack of critical acclaim.

Video clip :

Watch video: 3 Doors Down On Critics

"You know what? Critics are critics because they can't do it. As long as the fans always love it, that's the only people I'm worried about. They can say whatever they want to about us, but ultimately it doesn't bother me. I don't lay in bed at night wondering what an article writer wrote about me that day. Now if a fan says something that they don't like, that upsets me a little bit, but as far as a critic, it doesn't concern me in the least."

3 Doors Down's self-titled album is getting ready for release in the U.K. on June 30. It will come with an extra song "Who Are You." 3 Doors Down is working on rescheduling European dates that were postponed late last month. They'll still hit the U.S. this summer with Staind and Hinder. Check 3doorsdown.com for more details.

Comments

[JudasTheGuide]

"You know what? Critics are critics because they can't do it." - Brad Arnold. This is so well said.

I think the system is wrong... Why do critics review albums; albums are made for fans, so the best logical reviewers are other fans.

[bushey37]

critics are critics because they know what they're talking about. Music critics actually have some musical knowledge, unlike most of the musicians being reveiwed by them. Critics are rarely wrong, and this is a case where they are not.

[rygun091]

bushey37 wrote:

critics are critics because they know what they're talking about. Music critics actually have some musical knowledge, unlike most of the musicians being reveiwed by them. Critics are rarely wrong, and this is a case where they are not.

couldn't have typed it better myself

[JudasTheGuide]

bushey: I'm not sure whether you've written in response to my post or the main article, but either way, I think you've missed the point. If a critic is critical because he/she has no interest in the specific thing they're reviewing, the review is worthless. Hence the fans are the best critics.

Plus there's the fact that critics by generalisation (not talking about all of them here but a fair few) are two faced morons who put their profits over the way good music is received, and the number of people who get to listen to it. Examples: Listen to 'Get in the Ring' by GnR & 'Mr. Writer' by the Stereophonics, or read pretty much any Bruce Dickinson interview.

[bushey37]

I disagree with you Judas. A critic is critical because they understand what they're revieweing. There is such thing as good and bad music. If a critic wan't interested in the differnce between the 2, they wouldn't be critics. Critics know the difference between good and bad music, average fanboys don't. And what you said about critics being two faced morons who put their profits over music is much more relevant to musicians than critics. Bands like 3 Doors down are nothing but economic tools used by their record company. They are famous because their label knew they were marketable. It had nothing to do with the quality of music.

And fans make terrible critics. If only fans review a band they like, the review is completely biased and irrelevant. Add on to the masses complete lack of understanding about music and the thought of fan reviews is laughable.

And maybe if Axl Rose didn't run around on stage in diapers and the Stereophonics didn't suck than they would have gotten better reviews.

[smileyface]

The "respect they deserve"? Am I the only sane person left in the world? 3 Doors Down are on the same level artistically as Hilary Duff and Brittany Spears. Actually, they are probably lower, because those aforementioned pop stars are merely catering to the supply and demand market of 12 year old girls, while 3 doors down is just catering to the people with the sophistication of 12 year old girls. By the logic on critics that he foolishly spouts, Brittany Spears and Fall Out Boy must be great, because lots of stupid people like them. Critics are essential to music actually, they provide a criteria to separate the annoying filth like 3 Doors Down from important artists. Critics are essential to all art. I say it cause it's true.

[JudasTheGuide]

bushey: You make some good points. I agree with the need for some music knowledge in certain circumstances (for example with Nickelback and American HiFi who churn out the same songs time and time again under different titles). But not always; I think most music is meant to be enjoyed rather than studied.

You say that greed is applicable to musicians as well, and then say it's not the musicians at all, it's actually the labels. Which I can understand (and totally agree with), but I don't think it's particularly pertinent here.

My main point is that a critic will often aim to sell as many copies of his review as possible rather than to make an honest appraisal of an album. Getting the opinion of someone with the same views as me (i.e, another fan) as to whether they enjoy an album or not would be far more meaningful to me than a critics review, because experience tells me that I should take what critics write at face value.