GREAT site for reviews

[markie]

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?

[sonickteam2]

Originally posted by Anton Newcombe:
 

I wonder if Jadetree should trade in  GBV (76%) for JrSr? [/b]

I would.
 
 
 whos Junior Senior?

[markie]

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.

[jadetree]

Originally posted by sonickteam2:
 
 whos Junior Senior?

Don't worry, I am sure the next Spin will tell you.
 
 Sorry, it was too easy

[ggw]

Originally posted by sonickteam2:
 
 whos Junior Senior?

They suck.
 
 Unfortunately, they are playing with Electric 6, who i would like to see.

[markie]

Originally posted by sonickteam2:
 
 whos Junior Senior?

abandon hope all ye who enter here.

[sonickteam2]

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....

[Charlie Nakatestes, Japanese Golfer]

The critics seem to like Junior Senior.
 
 They probably rank equal to GBV and superior to AWK for me.

[Jaguär]

Originally posted by sonickteam2:
    disclaimer : i dont read record reviews...i hate them.

At last! Someone who understands.    
 
 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.

[Bags]

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.

[markie]

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?

[Charlie Nakatestes, Japanese Golfer]

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]

[Jaguär]

Originally posted by ggwâ?¢:
   

Originally posted by sonickteam2:
 
 whos Junior Senior?

They suck.
 [/b]

I'll second that!!!

[sonickteam2]

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!)

[ggw]

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."