Originally Posted by Toilet & Bowels
I haven't read the WSJ articoe but what type of a weirdo uses metacritic for album reviews?
I guess the reason that bad reviews don't exist anymore is that they became redundant now that all new music is represented in some way or another online. I think it serves fans best to have music reviewed by people who are interested in that type of stuff and if what they say sounds intriguing you can check it out for yourself within a few seconds of reading the review. The new bad review is an indifferent review.
I'm glad the days are gone of magazines getting people who don't like a thing to review that thing. It is a waste of everyone's time.
Fairly good point actually.
Also, the Metacritic scoring methods are a bit weird. The only albums that get an overall red score are the albums where the weighted average is less than 39. That's really low... 39 out of 100. That's waaaayyy below an F by academic standards, and not even bad review factories like Pitchfork kick out many 3.-something reviews. Usually a 4 or a 5 is enough of a sign that they don't like the thing.
And Metacritic "assign(s) more importance, or weight, to some critics and publications than others, based on their quality and overall stature." That's the official line from the website. Now, what the fuck does that mean, exactly? In order to truly establish a aggregate score, the ratings have to be equally weighted. And if a publication
is considered to be of high enough "quality" to be used in the metascore, then all that publications critics should be given the same weight. But they're saying they weigh individual critics differently, which is strange.
Oh well. It doesn't matter. Basically, an album can have shit reviews all around the board, nothing but 5/10 or 2.5/5 or whatever, and still be considers "good" based on the criteria of both this article and Metacritic. Which is bulshit of course. Indeed, if EVERY review is a 5/10, (not that that would ever happen), the aggregate would (without weighted averages) be 50, and that undeniable failure of an album would still not be bad enough to be considered "bad" by the authors/aggregators. That's ridiculous.