930 Forums
=> GENERAL DISCUSSION => Topic started by: Bags on September 11, 2003, 03:05:00 pm
-
Don't know how many of you enjoy reading album reviews (I can imagine the posts now, "I don't need to know what some hack from cincinnati thinks before I buy an album").
Well, I peruse reviews often to find out what a band's like if I don't know them, etc.
The greatest site is www.metacritic.com (http://www.metacritic.com)
They compile reviews from all kinds of places and then give an album an aggregate score of 1 - 100(which is good for highlighting albums getting universal good reviews; I first looked into Super Furry Animals when I saw the score for Rings Around the World was over 90).
What's so cool, though, is that you can link from metacritic to any review that's available online, and they cull from a varied range of sources (allmusicguide, Rolling Stone, Pitchfork, Mojo, Q, Spin, NME, Village Voice, Entertainment Weekly, Splendid, PopMatters, Alternative Press).
Plus, they review a lot of good non-mainstream albums. The site is easy to navigate and really cool to just carouse in....
Just an FYI.
-
wow, cool site, especially for a numbers guy like me.
it seems like often a lot of peoples tastes on this board are not consistent with critical opinion?
i searched the pernice brothers album, and it had an 88 average. pretty good compared to other new releases:
63 Alien Ant Farm
truANT
55 BT
Emotional Technology
xx Beulah
Yoko
72 Black Rebel Motorcycle Club
Take Them On, On Your Own
67 Frank Black & The Catholics
Show Me Your Tears
72 Mary J. Blige
Love & Life
xx David Bowie
Reality
76 Broadcast
Haha Sound
52 Client
Client
89 The Constantines
Shine A Light
71 Dandy Warhols
Welcome To The Monkey House
80 Dashboard Confessional
A Mark, A Mission, A Brand, A Scar
84 Dressy Bessy
Dressy Bessy
84 Elbow
Cast Of Thousands
77 Enon
Hocus Pocus
66 Michael Franti & Spearhead
Everyone Deserves Music
76 Guided By Voices
Earthquake Glue
78 Junior Senior
D-D-Don't Don't Stop the Beat
75 Killing Joke
Killing Joke [2003]
82 Kings Of Leon
Youth & Young Manhood
75 Kraftwerk
Tour de France Soundtracks
76 My Morning Jacket
It Still Moves
74 Nappy Roots
Wooden Leather
69 The Neptunes
The Neptunes Present... Clones
76 Beth Orton
The Other Side Of Daybreak
xx OutKast
Speakerboxxx/The Love Below
68 Pretty Girls Make Graves
The New Romance
80 Quasi
Hot Shit
82 Rancid
Indestructible
77 The Raveonettes
Chain Gang Of Love
78 Josh Rouse
1972
45 Shaun William Ryder
Amateur Night In The Big Top
53 Smash Mouth
Get The Picture
74 Spiritualized
Amazing Grace
66 The Star Spangles
Bazooka!!!
76 Stars
Heart
48 Stereophonics
You Gotta Go There to Come Back
76 Andrew W.K.
The Wolf
71 Ween
Quebec
58 Neil Young
Greendale
91 Warren Zevon
The Wind
-
89 The Constantines
Shine A Light
this is a GREAT album....everyone needs to buy it :)
-
Yeah, Rhett, you'd probably like to go to the explanation section to see how they compile the scores, being a math guy and all.
But, I will say, I've noticed that sometimes the number they assign a particular review doesn't seem to match the review when you read it all. Still, it's a good barometer, and allows you to check for yourself on how different media entities charactarize and review the album.
-
Originally posted by Rhett Miller:
wow, cool site, especially for a numbers guy like me.
it seems like often a lot of peoples tastes on this board are not consistent with critical opinion?
i searched the pernice brothers album, and it had an 88 average.
The Strokes got an 89, so they aren't any better than anyone who posts here.
-
The first Strokes album? Moon, don't want to burst any bubbles, but that album was roundly well-reviewed, no matter what you think of them. That's a score taken from 8, 10, 15 different magazines/ezines.
Originally posted by Moon Mullins:
Originally posted by Rhett Miller:
wow, cool site, especially for a numbers guy like me.
it seems like often a lot of peoples tastes on this board are not consistent with critical opinion?
i searched the pernice brothers album, and it had an 88 average.
The Strokes got an 89, so they aren't any better than anyone who posts here. [/b]
-
Originally posted by Moon Mullins:
Originally posted by Rhett Miller:
it seems like often a lot of peoples tastes on this board are not consistent with critical opinion?
i searched the pernice brothers album, and it had an 88 average.
The Strokes got an 89, so they aren't any better than anyone who posts here. [/b]
The Pernice Brothers are the new Strokes.
-
Originally posted by Rhett Miller:
wow, cool site, especially for a numbers guy like me.
yeah, numbers guy alright,unless it's regarding gross profit and percentages! :D
-
Originally posted by sonickteam2:
89 The Constantines
Shine A Light
this is a GREAT album....everyone needs to buy it :)
Because they are Canadian? I have it by the way, and like it.
-
never said i was a businessman or a capitalist.
Originally posted by mankie:
Originally posted by Rhett Miller:
wow, cool site, especially for a numbers guy like me.
yeah, numbers guy alright,unless it's regarding gross profit and percentages! :D [/b]
-
Yeah, I know. I only mentioned The Strokes score because they bested Rhett's beloved Pernice Brothers.
Highest score on that site was The White Stripes, btw.
Originally posted by bags:
The first Strokes album? Moon, don't want to burst any bubbles, but that album was roundly well-reviewed, no matter what you think of them. That's a score taken from 8, 10, 15 different magazines/ezines.
Originally posted by Moon Mullins:
Originally posted by Rhett Miller:
wow, cool site, especially for a numbers guy like me.
it seems like often a lot of peoples tastes on this board are not consistent with critical opinion?
i searched the pernice brothers album, and it had an 88 average.
The Strokes got an 89, so they aren't any better than anyone who posts here. [/b]
[/b]
-
Originally posted by Moon Mullins:
Yeah, I know. I only mentioned The Strokes score because they bested Rhett's beloved Pernice Brothers.
Highest score on that site was The White Stripes, btw.
Further proof that by this time next year, The Pernice Brothers will be playing college gymnasiums or arenas.
Of course, by then Rhett will have adopted his "I really only liked the early stuff and Joe's solo work" posture.
-
Originally posted by jadetree:
Originally posted by sonickteam2:
89 The Constantines
Shine A Light
this is a GREAT album....everyone needs to buy it :)
Because they are Canadian? I have it by the way, and like it. [/b]
maybe cause they're canadian. I will say that i check out Canadian bands whenever I can. I wouldnt say i like bands for those reasons but they definitely get a better chance at me listening to them.
-
I rarely ever trust reviews unless I know and trust a particular person's general outlook. I'll trust this board or other friends first but even then, it's based on their taste vs my taste in music. Too many publications and professional critics are either playing a selling game for the record companies or way too set in their "when I was in college and (so and so) was the greatest show ever" days and comparing everything to that or below.
-
So do you love Sloan? New Pornographers (I love how articles refer to them as a Canadian indie supergroup!)
Originally posted by sonickteam2:
Originally posted by jadetree:
Originally posted by sonickteam2:
89 The Constantines
Shine A Light
this is a GREAT album....everyone needs to buy it :)
Because they are Canadian? I have it by the way, and like it. [/b]
maybe cause they're canadian. I will say that i check out Canadian bands whenever I can. I wouldnt say i like bands for those reasons but they definitely get a better chance at me listening to them. [/b]
-
48 Stereophonics
You Gotta Go There to Come Back
this i also agree with...its horrible. poor guys, i used to like them.
and i dont think Pernice will be the next strokes...no ggw, i dont have facts, i just dont think they will.
-
Mostly I look for the review that I think is going to best describe the music and what the band sounds like, so I can kind of get a sense if they're something I'd be into. Then I solicit input from my rocker friends with taste similar to mine (or who know mine really well), or give a listen at Borders. That's my usual M.O.
Originally posted by Jaguär:
I rarely ever trust reviews unless I know and trust a particular person's general outlook. I'll trust this board or other friends first but even then, it's based on their taste vs my taste in music. Too many publications and professional critics are either playing a selling game for the record companies or way too set in their "when I was in college and (so and so) was the greatest show ever" days and comparing everything to that or below.
-
Originally posted by sonickteam2:
48 Stereophonics
You Gotta Go There to Come Back
this i also agree with...its horrible. poor guys, i used to like them.
and i dont think Pernice will be the next strokes...no ggw, i dont have facts, i just dont think they will.
since we agreed on the constantines, we were bound to disagree on something shortly after, the stereophonics album is not so bad
-
Unless they sign to a major label, that won't happen.
Originally posted by ggwâ?¢:
Originally posted by Moon Mullins:
Yeah, I know. I only mentioned The Strokes score because they bested Rhett's beloved Pernice Brothers.
Highest score on that site was The White Stripes, btw.
Further proof that by this time next year, The Pernice Brothers will be playing college gymnasiums or arenas.
Of course, by then Rhett will have adopted his "I really only liked the early stuff and Joe's solo work" posture. [/b]
-
Originally posted by bags:
So do you love Sloan? New Pornographers (I love how articles refer to them as a Canadian indie supergroup!)
everyone loves Sloan no matter what....and their new CD is heavenely, i simply adore it.
New Pornos are ok, nothing to scream about.
-
Originally posted by jadetree:
since we agreed on the constantines, we were bound to disagree on something shortly after, the stereophonics album is not so bad [/b]
haha. maybe not. i just popped it in once at work, and it seemed to have 35 songs on it, know what i mean? i was also highlu caffienated, so I'll give it another shot...just cause they're the Stereophonics though.
-
Originally posted by sonickteam2:
48 Stereophonics
You Gotta Go There to Come Back
this i also agree with...its horrible. poor guys, i used to like them.
I concur, but Jadetree will call us crazy.
The points are useless..... 74% of the list get between 70 and 80 points. Plus as the points are all coming from different sources there is no internal consistency.
If you measure an object with one criteria, then measure another object with a different criteria, it does not help to compare the 2 objects.
you would be better off trusting one respectable source. I mean does new woman giving an album 4 out of 5 stars really mean that much?
-
Originally posted by Rhett Miller:
Unless they sign to a major label, that won't happen.
Don't tell anyone i said this, but
Rhett is right....gasp
-
Originally posted by sonickteam2:
Originally posted by bags:
So do you love Sloan? New Pornographers (I love how articles refer to them as a Canadian indie supergroup!)
everyone loves Sloan no matter what....and their new CD is heavenely, i simply adore it.
New Pornos are ok, nothing to scream about. [/b]
Not me!!! :mad:
Don't like The New Pornographers either.
As far as Canadian bands, I love Readymade, Barzin and The Stills.
-
Originally posted by Jaguär:
As far as Canadian bands, I love Readymade, Barzin and The Stills. [/b]
hahahah, i didnt even know the Stills were Canadian....dont i feel silly.
Barzin is great in a Sparklehorse sort of way.
-
Originally posted by Anton Newcombe:
I concur, but Jadetree will call us crazy.
No, you are only crazy because you don't think Ted Leo is the finest performer in the land, not really, but his show was great last night.
-
I dunno...
If 74% of the albums score between 70 and 80, wouldn't that seem to imply that an album that was higher than 80 could be assumed to be pretty darned good, and one below 70 is pretty darned bad?
I mean, the reason most tend to be in the 70-80 range is because they probably got mixed reviews. If they are signicantly above or below that range, that would mean that the reviews were either generally all positive or negative.
Originally posted by Anton Newcombe:
Originally posted by sonickteam2:
48 Stereophonics
You Gotta Go There to Come Back
this i also agree with...its horrible. poor guys, i used to like them.
I concur, but Jadetree will call us crazy.
The points are useless..... 74% of the list get between 70 and 80 points. Plus as the points are all coming from different sources there is no internal consistency.
If you measure an object with one criteria, then measure another object with a different criteria, it does not help to compare the 2 objects.
you would be better off trusting one respectable source. I mean does new woman giving an album 4 out of 5 stars really mean that much? [/b]
-
Originally posted by Rhett Miller:
I dunno...
If 74% of the albums score between 70 and 80, wouldn't that seem to imply that an album that was higher than 80 could be assumed to be pretty darned good, and one below 70 is pretty darned bad?
I mean, the reason most tend to be in the 70-80 range is because they probably got mixed reviews. If they are signicantly above or below that range, that would mean that the reviews were either generally all positive or negative.
damnit, right again!!!!!!!! Because really, arent about 75% of most new albums about the same....some very good, but some very bad....and the rest...70-80.... :)
disclaimer : i dont read record reviews...i hate them.
disclaimer #2 : i wont think Rhett is right again today, i am sure.
-
Originally posted by Moon Mullins:
[QB]
Highest score on that site was The White Stripes, btw.
Which confirms the reviews are done by a 10 year old!
-
Originally posted by Rhett Miller:
I dunno...
If 74% of the albums score between 70 and 80, wouldn't that seem to imply that an album that was higher than 80 could be assumed to be pretty darned good, and one below 70 is pretty darned bad?
Not necessarily. The sample is not at all indicative of the population. Critics tend to choose which albums they review. Generally, new releases from already known artists, or particularly good albums from lesser-known acts.
There is little motivation to do reviews of poor quality albums from bands that are not widely known, as nobody would really care.
-
Originally posted by Rhett Miller:
I dunno...
[/QB][/QUOTE]
Is that really informative? You learn that 74.2% of all albums are average, and the other 25.8% are great or bad.
On absolute terms Jr Sr got 78% and A WK got 76%,
there are a lot of good albums that got scores below these.
I wonder if Jadetree should trade in GBV (76%) for JrSr?
-
Originally posted by Anton Newcombe:
I wonder if Jadetree should trade in GBV (76%) for JrSr? [/b]
I would.
whos Junior Senior?
-
Originally posted by ggwâ?¢:
Originally posted by Rhett Miller:
[qb] There is little motivation to do reviews of poor quality albums from bands that are not widely known, as nobody would really care. [/b]
but thats ok as it would just change the classification from great/average/bad to excellent/good/ok, not really much difference.
-
Originally posted by sonickteam2:
whos Junior Senior?
Don't worry, I am sure the next Spin will tell you.
Sorry, it was too easy
-
Originally posted by sonickteam2:
whos Junior Senior?
They suck.
Unfortunately, they are playing with Electric 6, who i would like to see.
-
Originally posted by sonickteam2:
whos Junior Senior?
abandon hope all ye who enter here. (http://www.juniorsenior.com/)
-
Originally posted by ggwâ?¢:
Originally posted by sonickteam2:
whos Junior Senior?
They suck.
Unfortunately, they are playing with Electric 6, who i would like to see. [/b]
just kidding, i know who they are...it was a joke....
-
The critics seem to like Junior Senior.
They probably rank equal to GBV and superior to AWK for me.
-
Originally posted by sonickteam2:
disclaimer : i dont read record reviews...i hate them.
At last! Someone who understands. :D
I almost never read them myself as they bore me to death and do very little to help me out. Once in a while I'll read one if it's something that I particularly want to know what others are writing about that artist. It's usually not even to educate me but to see what is out there publicity-wise about someone that I'm interested in.
-
Leave it to y'all to being parsing this shit over two points here or two points there. I like the site for its "meta" aspects. And to keep up with new releases, etc.
-
Originally posted by ggwâ?¢:
Unfortunately, they are playing with Electric 6, who i would like to see.
will you sing along to "gay bar" too?
-
But all of the albums are being judged by the same critics (not really, because for instance Rolling Stone might have ten diffferent critics) so you can compate them to each other in a relative fashion...
I don't know who the Stereophonics are, and they scored bad. Ergo, little known band with a bad score.
Originally posted by ggwâ?¢:
Originally posted by Rhett Miller:
I dunno...
If 74% of the albums score between 70 and 80, wouldn't that seem to imply that an album that was higher than 80 could be assumed to be pretty darned good, and one below 70 is pretty darned bad?
Not necessarily. The sample is not at all indicative of the population. Critics tend to choose which albums they review. Generally, new releases from already known artists, or particularly good albums from lesser-known acts.
There is little motivation to do reviews of poor quality albums from bands that are not widely known, as nobody would really care. [/b]
-
Originally posted by ggwâ?¢:
Originally posted by sonickteam2:
whos Junior Senior?
They suck.
[/b]
I'll second that!!!
-
Originally posted by Jaguär:
Originally posted by sonickteam2:
disclaimer : i dont read record reviews...i hate them.
At last! Someone who understands. :) but i get Q for the cool pictures and to pretend i am British. :)
oh, and i like Spin too (where did the damn spin joke start anyway!)
-
Originally posted by Anton Newcombe:
Originally posted by ggwâ?¢:
Originally posted by Rhett Miller:
[qb] There is little motivation to do reviews of poor quality albums from bands that are not widely known, as nobody would really care. [/b]
but thats ok as it would just change the classification from great/average/bad to excellent/good/ok, not really much difference. [/b]
Well, you have to believe that most of the albums are being reviewed simply because they are believed to be good in the first place. There aren't reviews of the total population of albums being released, only albums from people that presumably did something good in the past, or new acts that are making a name for themselves by releasing something good.
So, this wouldn't indicate that anything below 70 (the bottom quartile) is necessarily "bad." It simply means that it is relatively less good than those that score higher. But since the whole sample is skewed toward "good" albums, they may very well be "good" anyway.
Yes, I know that is more or less what you are saying, but it is contrary to Rhett's belief that anything under 70 must be absolutely "bad."
-
now, when they are reviewing an album...do you need facts and figures to prove that a record is bad?
-
Originally posted by Anton Newcombe:
Originally posted by ggwâ?¢:
Unfortunately, they are playing with Electric 6, who i would like to see.
will you sing along to "gay bar" too? [/b]
Who doesn't sing along to Gay Bar?
http://www.rathergood.com/gaybar/ (http://www.rathergood.com/gaybar/)
-
Originally posted by ggwâ?¢:
[Yes, I know that is more or less what you are saying, but it is contrary to Rhett's belief that anything under 70 must be absolutely "bad."
exactly.
but looking at the list I would guess in practice that Rhett is right though in theory he should possibly be wrong.
Just because an artist has notoriety doesnt mean their new release will be any good or critically acclaimed, just ask Lou Reed.
Actually, that makes Rhett the victor, sorry GGW, you and I were both wrong.
-
If you look back at what I wrote, in the second paragraph, I said "significantly below 70". Tha'ts probably a better way to look at it. There's probably not much difference between a 71 and a 68. but there is between a 71 and 50.
Originally posted by ggwâ?¢:
Originally posted by Anton Newcombe:
Originally posted by ggwâ?¢:
Originally posted by Rhett Miller:
[qb] There is little motivation to do reviews of poor quality albums from bands that are not widely known, as nobody would really care. [/b]
but thats ok as it would just change the classification from great/average/bad to excellent/good/ok, not really much difference. [/b]
Well, you have to believe that most of the albums are being reviewed simply because they are believed to be good in the first place. There aren't reviews of the total population of albums being released, only albums from people that presumably did something good in the past, or new acts that are making a name for themselves by releasing something good.
So, this wouldn't indicate that anything below 70 (the bottom quartile) is necessarily "bad." It simply means that it is relatively less good than those that score higher. But since the whole sample is skewed toward "good" albums, they may very well be "good" anyway.
Yes, I know that is more or less what you are saying, but it is contrary to Rhett's belief that anything under 70 must be absolutely "bad." [/b]
-
Originally posted by sonickteam2:
no reviews for me :) but i get Q for the cool pictures and to pretend i am British. :)
oh, and i like Spin too (where did the damn spin joke start anyway!)
Yes, I understand. Pictures can be very enticing. Sometimes I like to read a good interview. That way you get some insider info that you won't get out of a review. That is, if it's a good interview.
BTW, forget Q. Go with X-Ray. ;)
Oh, and I still enjoy reading the NME sometimes but that's because it's so damned funny! Up there with the Gallagher Bros.. The information is usually crap but they take liberties that other magazines rarely take. Pure comedy! Often, I'll totally disagree with whatever they are saying but I'll be laughing my ass off so hard that I end up loving it anyway.
-
Originally posted by ggwâ?¢:
http://www.rathergood.com/gaybar/ (http://www.rathergood.com/gaybar/)
that was rather good.......
I wish I hadnt let Jadetree keep the 10cent album sampler right now.
-
So are some of you saying you pick what bands you like based on what they look like in pictures?
I've usually found that the uglier and less fasionable the band, the more talented they were.
Except for that prettyboy Rhett of course.