JustJames 968 Posted June 8, 2020 Share Posted June 8, 2020 Reposting thoughts on MC / "acclaim." TL;DR = MC should at the very least show Mean, Median, and Mode + use Range to trigger a manual review of outliers. Chromatica (Mean = 74; R = 46) and Future Nostalgia (Mean = 84; R = 35) each have a Mode and Median of 80. We need to stop considering Metacritic legitimate, let alone use MC Scores synonymously with 'acclaim.' But, even if a fair system existed, how can music be acclaimed after 1 listen? Balancing reception with a year-end retrospective would allow an album like TF/M to receive a more logical definition of 'acclaim' as its influence on pop 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 = 24) 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? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
JustJames 968 Posted June 8, 2020 Share Posted June 8, 2020 14 minutes ago, CautiousLurker said: Exactly You don't get to do a 180 now that you realize how good you've had it Although I do kinda feel like you should be able to go back and edit your score/review, or at the very least update it and have it influence the score - it would be a nice feature, even if it were just for industry critics... And no I don't think that contradicts what I said above, why do you ask I think it's absolutely valid to consider how a score assigned to something as subjective as art should allow for re-examination. For something like Metacritic, which advertises itself as an objective source of acclaim with a closed list of contributors, etc., you'd think at the very least, they would have a process for adjusting scores made in error. But, outside of MC's system, I think that immediate reviews of albums are necessary for the promotion of music and other things; but, Gaga might be the perfect example for why those reviews/scores would be much more relevant as historical references if they reflected initial reception and year-end review. "The Fame" may have been seen as something much more shallow and lower-quality upon release than at the end of its era when the impact it had on pop music could be felt. That should absolutely be reflected; additionally, many albums - and art - need time to process in order to appreciate the complexity or meaning. Others will lose interest upon even a 2nd listen. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ANVEEROY 61,241 Posted June 8, 2020 Author Share Posted June 8, 2020 22 minutes ago, CautiousLurker said: Exactly You don't get to do a 180 now that you realize how good you've had it Although I do kinda feel like you should be able to go back and edit your score/review, or at the very least update it and have it influence the score - it would be a nice feature, even if it were just for industry critics... And no I don't think that contradicts what I said above, why do you ask Stream Kylie-Janet Discographies! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Suuus 5,632 Posted June 8, 2020 Share Posted June 8, 2020 8 minutes ago, JustJames said: Reposting thoughts on MC / "acclaim." TL;DR = MC should at the very least show Mean, Median, and Mode + use Range to trigger a manual review of outliers. Chromatica (Mean = 74; R = 46) and Future Nostalgia (Mean = 84; R = 35) each have a Mode and Median of 80. We need to stop considering Metacritic legitimate, let alone use MC Scores synonymously with 'acclaim.' But, even if a fair system existed, how can music be acclaimed after 1 listen? Balancing reception with a year-end retrospective would allow an album like TF/M to receive a more logical definition of 'acclaim' as its influence on pop 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 = 24) 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? In other words metacritic is bullshit Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
MelbHawker 6,583 Posted June 8, 2020 Share Posted June 8, 2020 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Married the Night 3,955 Posted June 8, 2020 Share Posted June 8, 2020 So are we sure there won’t be anymore reviews? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ANVEEROY 61,241 Posted June 8, 2020 Author Share Posted June 8, 2020 2 minutes ago, Married the Night said: So are we sure there won’t be anymore reviews? Maybe we will get two more, but the score will look like this. 78-79. So, right now it is safe to say 79 as a secured score. Stream Kylie-Janet Discographies! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ronk 14,762 Posted June 8, 2020 Share Posted June 8, 2020 7 minutes ago, Suuus said: In other words metacritic is bullshit Exactly. Reviewers are biased towards their favorite artists and it shows in their ratings, thereby making the reviews worthless. I live outside the space time continuum. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
GC1234 657 Posted June 8, 2020 Share Posted June 8, 2020 1 hour ago, justhislife said: Spin talks about ARTPOP in a good way on the Chromatica review, yet only gave ARTPOP a 60. Smh. Guess their views are....Slanted. Omg no joke that’s exactly what I read as well! A bunch of absolute hypocrites... Get that fire exit door, I’m off... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
erotic4 557 Posted June 8, 2020 Share Posted June 8, 2020 1 hour ago, Aarghya said: Studio Albums Metascore: The Fame: 71 The Fame Monster: 78 Born This Way: 71 ARTPOP: 61 (Lowest) Joanne: 67 Chromatica: 79 (Highest) the way ARTPOP almost went yellow https://www.last.fm/pt/user/erotic4 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ANVEEROY 61,241 Posted June 8, 2020 Author Share Posted June 8, 2020 Just now, erotic4 said: the way ARTPOP almost went yellow Oh my Stream Kylie-Janet Discographies! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saucer 20 Posted June 8, 2020 Share Posted June 8, 2020 1989 got AOTY with a 76 so I don’t think it really matters in terms of awards. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
FameHookah 4,614 Posted June 8, 2020 Share Posted June 8, 2020 Whats the tea with Slanted and TNYT? Bunch of immature assholes (ironic coming from geriatric madonna stans). They need to hire someone else thats non biased, enough is enough. Ugh gaga deserves better, im sick of this. WTF is MDNA Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wet Fire 7,577 Posted June 8, 2020 Share Posted June 8, 2020 5 publications gave her 90% or more? Wow. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ElektrikUniCorn 527 Posted June 8, 2020 Share Posted June 8, 2020 Spoiler the fact that AV club gave her B+ as 83 and not 75, but Metacritic didn't change it and kept it 75 , we might have 80 Come come, unwrapp me! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Featured Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.