They actually pay me for this

First off, shut up! No, I'm right and you're wrong so hush that jazzy mouth." \n"I just think it's stupid that you get paid to talk about other people's work."\nThat's how it all started. A friend of mine was debating with me on the importance, or as he put it, lack of importance of the critic. I'll admit I often disagree with what the other critics say and even the way they say it. Still, I can think of several times that I should've listened to them -- the M.C. Hammer incident comes to mind. The point is critics can save you some hard earned cash by letting you know what's not worth your money and what will actually be something you'll enjoy listening to for years down the road. \nCritics become the news for the Arts. The effect of the critic in the Arts is felt in a similar way to the effect journalists have had during this country's past. Of course, we can all have our opinions on whether what is happening in music is good or bad. But without the critic it's a lot harder to know what's going on behind the scenes. The recording industry isn't going to tell you that they're making cookie cutter copies of Boy bands ad nauseum or searching for the next Eminem clone. And the industry won't give away the details of how these bands are marketed while talented original musicians are shut out and live on scraps for years trying to make it independently. Let's face it, even the "anti-establishment, we could care less what the critics think" punk rock movement benefited greatly from the critics getting them exposure.\nAnother overlooked reason for criticism is that it can bring to light many of today or yesterday's under-appreciated artists. This advances the art form and forces others to stretch the boundaries. Think of how rock music would have developed had it not been for the recognition of black music in the '40s and '50s. Of course Chuck Berry and Little Richard were the real geniuses, but without the help of critics they would have had a much harder time becoming household names for whites. In the same way, many would have been deprived of the genius of Elvis Costello, for example, just because disco was big at the time and let's face it, the Bee Gees are more radio friendly.\nMy friend admitted that there seemed to be at least a justification for my career's existence, but he also mentioned that it was easier to read what I had to say because he knew my taste in music and knew that I actually understood what I was talking about. Well, I guess my only answer to that is to use common sense. If you hate a critic because he always praises music you hate, then don't read his reviews anymore. If he praises Madonna every time she makes an album, find someone else's work to read because everyone has their prejudices and this guy's prejudice is related to egomaniac sluts who can't sing (on the next "Ricki Lake"). If you can't take things into context and figure out for yourself when it's real criticism and when it belongs on VH1's "Behind the Drug-Abusing Has Beens" series, that's not my fault either. Consider yourself warned.\nMost importantly, you need me to tell you things like, "Macy Gray sounds like a tone-deaf version of Tina Turner with bronchitis." \nOh, yeah, and one more reason -- critics can force you to examine your views and see where you really stand and why. You need to be able to defend your views to the elitist indy-rock lovers and the guy who has a shirt that says "Corporate Rock Sucks." Hey numb nuts, who do you think makes those shirts? I'll give you a hint: it begins with "a" and ends with "corporation."\nAnd now that I've had to consider it about 30 times, I feel I could present a pretty good argument to the Supreme Court on why there needs to be a restraining order preventing Britney Spears from coming within 50 feet of all microphones. But like my friend stated, "take that with a grain of salt because of a lot critics are jealous wanna-be musicians"