Music Banter

Go Back   Music Banter > The Music Forums > General Music
Register Blogging Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read
Welcome to Music Banter Forum! Make sure to register - it's free and very quick! You have to register before you can post and participate in our discussions with over 70,000 other registered members. After you create your free account, you will be able to customize many options, you will have the full access to over 1,100,000 posts.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 08-14-2008, 02:11 AM   #11 (permalink)
Unrepentant Ass-Mod
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Pennsylvania
Posts: 3,920
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fruitonica View Post
The averages are skewed deliberately to spread out scores. So high rating albums are rated higher and low rated ones are rated lower.
You from this site? 'Cause if you are, I gotta bone to pick with you.

And it doesn't appear that way. Most albums are clumped between 60-80, and a point difference here or there doesn't do much to differentiate between the quality of certain albums.
__________________
first.am
lucifer_sam is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-14-2008, 07:28 AM   #12 (permalink)
Pale and Wan
 
Fruitonica's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Aus
Posts: 915
Default

eh, I can't speak for how it works in reality, but that's the theory. I got that from the "how did we calculate this score" link they have underneath the album score.

Quote:
In addition, for music and movies, we also normalize the resulting scores (akin to "grading on a curve" in college), which prevents scores from clumping together.
God knows why I was reading that....

What's your bone to pick?

Last edited by Fruitonica; 08-14-2008 at 07:36 AM.
Fruitonica is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-14-2008, 11:51 AM   #13 (permalink)
Unrepentant Ass-Mod
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Pennsylvania
Posts: 3,920
Default

1) How they choose the albums to be featured. Too many obscure albums released by poor electronica artists.
2) How they decide how a review should be scored. If a reviewer doesn't provide his own score, it shouldn't be included at all. End of story.
3) How they decide which reviewers are given higher preecedence. It's complete bullcrap to give higher precedence to reviewers they find "a bigger influence on the genre" because that just normalizes the scores around what those people say. Pitchfork, Spin, Kerrang!, Rolling Stone, etc. have no more objective critics than anyone else.

All three concepts flawed and subjective. And no, their "how this works" section does nothing to adequately explain it.
__________________
first.am
lucifer_sam is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-15-2008, 02:14 AM   #14 (permalink)
Pale and Wan
 
Fruitonica's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Aus
Posts: 915
Default

Yup, the system does give too much power to their own preference.
I only really use it to find a bunch of different reviews in one place.
Fruitonica is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-15-2008, 03:44 PM   #15 (permalink)
Account Disabled
 
boo boo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Where the buffalo roam.
Posts: 12,137
Default

I can't stand critics.

I might check out albums based on how much praise and attention they're getting overall, but I don't look towards reviews for recommendations. It's all biased bullcrap and in absolutely no way determines weither you'll like it or not, everyone likes to do reviews for fun, but I don't think music criticism should even be taken seriously as a profession.

And it's a lame excuse for guys like Robert Christgau, Piero Scaruffi and Rob Sheffield to make a lot of money, basically for just having horrible taste in music.
boo boo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-15-2008, 03:46 PM   #16 (permalink)
Unrepentant Ass-Mod
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Pennsylvania
Posts: 3,920
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by boo boo View Post
I can't stand critics.

I might check out albums based on how much praise and attention they're getting overall, but I don't look towards reviews for recommendations. It's all biased bullcrap and in absolutely no way determines weither you'll like it or not, so it's pointless.
Exactly what I've come to realize.

Not to mention there are hundreds of well-received albums out there which I absolutely abhor. The Streets are one of the biggest piles of crap I've yet heard, and they topped the critic's charts.
__________________
first.am
lucifer_sam is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-15-2008, 03:59 PM   #17 (permalink)
Account Disabled
 
boo boo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Where the buffalo roam.
Posts: 12,137
Default

Well I do end up liking most albums I come across that are very critically aclaimed, but my tastes are just very un-discriminating.

However there are some critical darlings I just couldn't bare. Every hipster raves about how Psycho Candy is one of the best albums ever made, and I just didn't get it. Nor did I ever get what was so special about Nick Drake and Pink Moon.

But if theres ever a time I think me and critics aren't on the same plane, it's right now. Very rarely does checking out some new hyped up band actually pay off.

Pitchforks reviews are pretty helpful though, if they love it I'll probably hate it, if they hate it I'll most certainly love it.
boo boo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-17-2008, 11:49 PM   #18 (permalink)
dac
MB's Biggest Fanboy
 
dac's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Cloud Cuckoo Land
Posts: 2,847
Default

yeah i used to think metacritic was pretty legit, but then i figured out there system a couple of months ago and realized the score i was looking at didn't even begin to approach any semblance of accuracy

i've yet to find a reliable online source, and while i'd never let a website craft my musical opinion it would be nice to have a place that would consistently tell me what might be worth listening to and what is utter crap
__________________

dac is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-24-2010, 08:59 PM   #19 (permalink)
one big soul
 
Alfred's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Canada
Posts: 5,072
Default

Okay, I'm gonna have to bump this thread again, because I am absolutely confused by this.

Luck In The Valley reviews at Metacritic.com

One critic (Pitchfork) gave this album an 82. The others reviews were six 80's and a 70. How does the metascore become 82?
__________________
Alfred is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-24-2010, 10:56 PM   #20 (permalink)
Music Addict
 
Nine Black Poppies's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: A State of Denial
Posts: 357
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by boo boo View Post
I can't stand critics.

I might check out albums based on how much praise and attention they're getting overall, but I don't look towards reviews for recommendations. It's all biased bullcrap and in absolutely no way determines weither you'll like it or not, everyone likes to do reviews for fun, but I don't think music criticism should even be taken seriously as a profession.

And it's a lame excuse for guys like Robert Christgau, Piero Scaruffi and Rob Sheffield to make a lot of money, basically for just having horrible taste in music.
I agree with the general assessment if not the conclusion here.

Reviews are definitely all biased in one way or another, but they can be helpful if you either find a critic/publication that you generally seem to agree with or get a feel for what a particular critic/publication looks for and how you feel about that sort of thing. It works if you only look at it as a rough guide, and in that, it's legitimate as a(n admittedly subjective/editorial) form of journalism as long as it's well written.

That metacritic fudges the math is silly and lame, but honestly, it's hard to take a number as meaning anything as far as reviews go anyway.
__________________
Like carnivores to carnal pleasures, so were we to desperate measures...
Nine Black Poppies is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Similar Threads



© 2003-2019 Advameg, Inc.