Metacritic: average scores (female singers)

[zerojk 4,264]

I will never get over the pathetic hater who rated BTW with 0 

[Yxilon 5,248]

44 minutes ago, freebit said:

 

I'm surprised to see Rihanna so far down the list. I consider her pretty well recieved? But then again, I just learned recently that NYT gave Anti a 50, so surprises all around. 

It's mainly due to her first two albums which got negative/mixed receptions and also the only ones by her I never heard and probably never willl given a certain Rihanna supermegarate I recently saw here, which seems to agree very much with the critic. 

[Genuine Guy 09 13,941]

5 hours ago, Yxilon said:

Katy Perry 53,0

[Yxilon 5,248]

1 minute ago, Genuine Guy 09 said:

Her highest album being Prism at 61/100

Gaga's lowest album being ARTPOP at 61/100

 the way their artistic reception aligned in 2013 only to re-shift again as before 

[freebit 6,069]

46 minutes ago, Franz Ferdinand said:

It's mad funny how critics tend to give great reviews to albums that end up having... no impact. I'm not arguing that some of these (take for instance Fiona Apple or even Lorde) aren't excellent at their craft, but the albums from artists that actually end up changing the musicscape are not usually the most well-received. Obviously, you can't predict how impactful an album is going to be when it's just released, though, but we should keep in mind albums like Nevermind and The Dark Side of the Moon, nowadays hailed as some of the greatest of all time, opened to rather lukewarm reviews when they first came out. 

!!!

I think Queen also got bad/middling reviews too, and they made classics.

[Hybrid AT 78]

Lorde with that high score 

We stan a musical prodigy with exceptional songwriting skills 

And these "critics" NEED to cut Gaga some slack when she has delivered pop music some of its biggest ANTHEMS over the years 

[rumours 45,521]

Some more I could think of:

Spoiler

Brandy Clark: 85.3

Patty Griffin: 84.0

Ashley McBryde: 84.0

Miranda Lambert: 83.7

Lucinda Williams: 81.4

Brandi Carlile: 81.0

Rosanne Cash: 80.6

Dolly Parton: 77.4

Jill Scott: 76.8

Emmylou Harris: 76.4

Joan Baez: 76.0

Bonnie Raitt: 75.5

Toni Braxton: 73.7

K.D. Lang: 72.8

Norah Jones: 71.5

Tori Amos: 69.6

Brandy: 69.3

Melissa Etheridge: 66.6

Monica: 64.5

Cyndi Lauper: 59.0

 

[ssslyboy 2,885]

Tori Amos is shook.

[FfFfFfFF 54,014]

FKA twigs up there! Gaga, Lana, Grimes also having good scores.

[grimreaperbarbie 343]

It’s messed up because gaga’s only yellow scores are from two remixes albums. 

[JustJames 669]

Meh, we need to stop equating Metacritic = Objective Acclaim. There are so many reasons Metacritic cannot be considered a valid source. Are we really going to convince ourselves that the MC scores of High Road, Rare, and FN are correct in relationship to BTW, ASIB, or TFM? Even if a vendor created a system addressing my points, how can music be acclaimed after 1 listen? Balancing reception with a year-end retrospective would allow an album like The Fame/Monster to receive a more logical definition of 'acclaim' as its influence on pop music would've been felt by then. 

I. For Consideration - Future Nostalgia vs. Chromatica:

Median, Mean, Mode, and Range help create a more balanced POV; outliers have less impact on Median and Mode, while Range could indicate that the Mean is being unfairly pulled.

Future Nostalgia (MC - 88): Mean = 84; Median = 80; Mode = 80; Range = 35

Chromatica (MC - 78): Mean = 74; Median = 80; Mode = 80; Range = 46

II. Reasons Metacritic has no legitimacy whatsoever:

1. It has a closed list of media allowed to submit a score without a published list for how/why they are selected, or a transparent process for getting approved.

2. Neither the media nor the individual critics who write the reviews are consistently vetted.

3. It does not provide these media with a standardized means of assessment; the criteria (cohesion, etc.) can be subjectively graded, but every artist should be judged on the same things.

4. It does not have a standard grading scale and applies its own translation of grades like 'B' and '3.5 stars' into numerical values that can / have been inconsistent with the critic's intent.

(AV Critic's B -- which in US schools is equivalent to 80 > 90 -- for Chromatica was translated into 75 by MC and stands even though the author stated it was an 85)

5. It has no system that accounts for albums with a large (Chromatica = 21) or low # of reviews; it shouldn't be hard to at least throw out the high + low for an album with >15 reviews, and/or apply some sort of weight using the Mode / Median. 

6. Scores are not vetted (a score of 0 for Born This Way should NEVER have been allowed in), and no appeals are allowed; WTF?

[DiskoBaby 1,929]

23 hours ago, Franz Ferdinand said:

It's mad funny how critics tend to give great reviews to albums that end up having... no impact. I'm not arguing that some of these (take for instance Fiona Apple or even Lorde) aren't excellent at their craft, but the albums from artists that actually end up changing the musicscape are not usually the most well-received. Obviously, you can't predict how impactful an album is going to be when it's just released, though, but we should keep in mind albums like Nevermind and The Dark Side of the Moon, nowadays hailed as some of the greatest of all time, opened to rather lukewarm reviews when they first came out. 

Critical reviews don’t matter so much. It does help when you see an album really acclaimed or panned to expect it to be great or bad. But it’s just like awards and sales. It’s nice to have people like your work for the moment but in the long term it doesn’t matter. What matters is the impact it makes.