Music can't be rated fairly. It's all pure opinion. Why do you look at reviews, if you like it who gives a s*** who else likes it.

Lol, I only visit Metacritic for their video game scores.

Only the critic scores though, their user scores is f*cked beyond belief.

http://www.ripten.com/wp-content/upl...itic-score.jpg

The f*ck?

Okay, this is messed.

I See The Sign reviews at Metacritic.com

There is no logical explanation for this.

There's only partial truthfulness to this sentiment. Of course no person can tell another person whether or not they like a piece of music. HOWEVER, there is something to be said for differentiating between well-composed, authentic, and/or (insert other applicable adjective) music and the popular stuff.

IE, person A: "Britney Spears made the best music of the 90s!"

person B: "While I respect your opinion, Person A, it would be fair to argue that Britney Spears' music was not actually the most well-composed music of the decade. In fact, despite her popularity, her music was actually quite poor in comparison to the likes of Radiohead."

@thread: I use Metacritic as well. After reading this thread, I'd like to try a different site. Anyone know a good site that calculates metascore ratings for music?

Huh? Your example was based purely on opinion.

Face it, you are never going to able to frame it in a way that isn't purely subjective.

I don't think I've ever read a music review (outside of this site that is). I just listen to what I like. I'd be hard pressed to find all my genres in one place too so I wouldn't get much out of it at all really.

That, and out of curiosity I went to their site and none of the albums on the music page look familiar. Hey they rated that Tom Waits album a 92! How awesome. Never heard it but.. he's the only artist that looked familiar.

There is, I'm just having issues communicating it properly.

How about a really extreme example.

Person A wrote a song. It involves tapping your foot every half-second and simply singing whatever comes to mind.

Person B wrote a song. Person B happens to be Mozart and the song happens to be String Quintet in D Major.

Though some might "like" the simpler song more, I think we can all agree that Person B's song is "better".

I think what he tried to say is "a way that is purely objective"

Anyway.. I disagree. Just because of common belief that Mozart is a great composer the value of the song enhances.

As Einstein mathematically concluded, everything is relative. And of all people person A will never admit that Mozart's song is better than his song because he's ego can't take it. So not all of us will agree that person B's song is "better".

I think you can only talk about suitability when it comes to music. There isn't better and worse, just suitable for someone in some context and unsuitable in some other context.

Metacritic is basically just an other list and lists shouldn't be taken very seriously (even although I keep one myself).

What lists should be used for is simply to look over and see what groups and artists have released albums or to see if any of them interest you.

I some times look over Metacritic but I'm not remotely interested in the actual ratings. The reason I do so is because sometimes you will see a release you hadn't realised had been come out or a description of an album will make you curious to hear it.

The actual rating system is the least important aspect of the whole thing.

No, I'd say THAT particular rating is actually very accurate. Have you played Gears 2? The single player is pretty good, but the multiplayer is COMPLETE sh*te. It took upwards of 20 minutes to find a match when the game was released, and when you finally did, it'd either be really laggy or everyone would get booted because of some kind of error.

They did improve the MP, but that's not saying much. It's still unacceptably laggy. Epic Games really failed with Gears 2's MP, and that pissed off a LOT of the fans.