Has anyone noticed that music critics tend to be consistently generous with their album reviews, resulting in almost all albums ending up as green "Generally favorable" with a smattering of "Mixed" and almost no "Generally unfavorable" in their Meta ratings?

Metacritic should raise the thresholds for red/yellow/green to get a more useful distribution of colors - as a consumer, it's not helpful to me if every single album released appears to be good!

Music reviewers tend to be more forgiving than film critics, and there's probably numerous reasons why. I usually don't have many gripes with that. Sometimes things are rated much higher than they should be, but it's all subjective. If it keeps people interested in new music, then that's fine by me.

But this could roll out into a pretty lengthy, in-depth discussion if you wanted it to...

I would love to hear thoughts on why music critics tend to be more forgiving. But regardless of this, Metacritic changes its cutoff scores for games (e.g. 81 doesn't count as universal acclaim... although this is a little puzzling given that there are many more negative game reviews than negative music reviews), yet leaves the music scale the same despite the fact that there is a pretty marked positive tilt in music reviews.

All reviews are subjective, so I don't really see how that's unique to music, nor is the argument that it should keep people interested in new music - is this more important than keeping people interested in new movies/tv/games? Also, speaking personally, I am interested in keeping up with new music, especially stuff I haven't heard of, and I often turn to Metacritic to help me sort through it all, but as I mentioned before the lack of differentiation makes it tougher to figure out what to purchase, so I don't know that simply having everything reviewed "favorable" even serves to generate extra interest in music.

Also, not to be too much of an asshole or veer this off track, but it's hilarious to me that music critics are so generous in their reviews while for the most part people who are "serious" about music are some of the most scathingly critical and opinionated folks around when discussing their musical thoughts...

I think it's harder to be a jerk in a review when you are reviewing a single person's artistic work. Videogames, Movies- These are made by large groups of people in studios with big budgets (for the most part). And when they make something that is dumb (most all of the time), there is less forgiveness, and no real instinct to show mercy to something that can be seen as a machine.

Music on the other hand is sometimes the work of just a single person, and often a group of five people or less. You have a face to go along with the artistic work. There is a much bigger draw towards giving the artist some leeway for making some mistakes.

On the other hand- My opinions might be greatly biased, but I think the modern world of music is producing much better material then the rest of the entertainment industry machine. TV, Movies, Videogames, these are assembly line products now (not that a lot of music isn't as well). When people look for entertainment they really want something personal and honest. And honesty is something that has been sucked out of much of the entertainment industry. But it can shine through still in music, and that shows in how it is reviewed as an artform.

Those are just a few of my initial thoughts.

We actually discussed this in another thread somewhere. I don't feel like looking for it, but feel free to search for it.

Due to the sheer number of albums released every year compared to movies or games, usually only the higher profile releases get reviewed.

With movies and games, everything usually gets reviewed, even stuff the critics know will be bad.

Shadrach - This is partially true, to be sure, and one of the explanations that has come to my mind, but even then music critics seem to be relatively forgiving of the heavily-produced "assembly-line" stuff, at least if you buy Metaratings. If it was simply a case of bias towards originality, I'd expect that there would be the same sort of distribution that you see in every other genre (with a lot of "red"), but that most of the red stuff would be the very consumer-oriented stuff.

I am fascinated by how much colour factors into Amangoerge's assessment of Metacritic - I genuinely have never paid it much attention. I guess Amangeorge is a more visual person than me.

Numbers are what I keep an eye out for - in practice most albums that end up with an average score of over 75 are worth checking out - though you always have to factor in how many reviews produced the average.

Even then, you get a great album like the one from Patrick Watson ending up with a 64 thanks mainly to Pitchfork's extreme disapproval - I say use Metacritic as a rough guide and then close the eyes altogether and let the ears take you home - it's not another bible thank God!

I wouldn't say I'm panicked...

The colors are a little more than just a quick-glance visual tool, they are also (at least in other sections) a rough way of communicating something useful about the distribution of reviews so that you can see how a piece stacks up relative to its competition.

I agree pretty much entirely with melvolume on the subject. When I look at an MC score, it seems that most albums with at least 15 reviews yielding a score of 75 or better are likely to be very solidly put together albums. That way, you're likely to see what critics thought of the album as a consensus, as well. If an album has a complete smattering of scores all across the board, it says something quite different than if an album reviewed by many of the same publications received a smaller grouping of scores (same Metacritic average, much smaller standard deviation). Plus, it's nice to see at least a few reviews that are glowing, a few in the middle, and then a few others that are poorer, that way you can read into what people are liking about the album and not liking.

For me, the first things I check are the MC scores, followed by the number of reviews, then I start looking at the individual reviews themselves to dig deeper. There are a handful of publications that you'll realize your taste is very similar to, and I like to follow a few publications to see what their opinions are on new releases.

The only thing that I don't care for when it comes to the MC scoring system for music is the minimum number of reviews an album needs to be placed on the MC "Best of" lists - I think the minimum is currently 7 or 8. However, like Fall of Troy said in a different thread on these forums, these niche albums likely have skewed scores because they only had a select number of critics review them. If they brought up the number of minimum reviews to 15, you'd be more likely to see what the major releases were that received overwhelmingly positive reviews, not just albums that could be classified as "absolutely adored by an extremely small niche market."

I have always thought there should be more colors. The way it is, it makes it look like albums rated 62 are in the same class as albums rated 96, though one is "generally favorable" and the other is "universal acclaim". There should be separate colors for every range.

quote:

Originally posted by AmanGeorge:
Has anyone noticed that music critics tend to be consistently generous with their album reviews, resulting in almost all albums ending up as green "Generally favorable" with a smattering of "Mixed" and almost no "Generally unfavorable" in their Meta ratings?

There is way more music released in one year, than movies in any two, maybe three, years combined. And most reviewers want to review music they like or think they will like.

Also, reviewers get the chance to request specific albums to review because they A) Want a copy of it quick and/or B) Like the band/artist and want to hear it. With so much music coming out, any reviewer would like to review their favorite artists and bands albums. Rather than having to sit through album after album of music they don't even like.

And as you get more and more into music, you find more and more music you like. And then, they are left reviewing stuff they like because of all the music released.

I see where you are coming from though. If I were you, I would find a few sites or critics who you trust and follow their choices. I always liked allmusic's rating system and enjoy their writers' style. So you should check it out and try and notice who is recommending the most stuff you like.

quote:

Originally posted by AmanGeorge:
Has anyone noticed that music critics tend to be consistently generous with their album reviews, resulting in almost all albums ending up as green "Generally favorable" with a smattering of "Mixed" and almost no "Generally unfavorable" in their Meta ratings?

Metacritic should raise the thresholds for red/yellow/green to get a more useful distribution of colors - as a consumer, it's not helpful to me if every single album released appears to be good!

If you think that is bad check out the game reviews. The scale there is usually 7.5-10

quote:

I think it's harder to be a jerk in a review when you are reviewing a single person's artistic work. Videogames, Movies- These are made by large groups of people in studios with big budgets (for the most part). And when they make something that is dumb (most all of the time), there is less forgiveness, and no real instinct to show mercy to something that can be seen as a machine.

Music on the other hand is sometimes the work of just a single person, and often a group of five people or less. You have a face to go along with the artistic work. There is a much bigger draw towards giving the artist some leeway for making some mistakes.

I had never thought of that before, but it makes perfect sense to me. As far as I'm concerned, the tendency to give higher ratings to the records released nowadays may stem from something I once read referred to somewhere (maybe Pitchfork? God forbid! ) as "The Velvet Underground critic syndrome", or something like that. Meaning: knowing that time will inevitably alter our perception of today's works of art, nobody wants to look like a short-sighted asshole when, in thirty year's time, something that is heavily criticized -or considered controversial- today becomes "a classic" or "part of the canon". But then, of course, it might just be a case of sheep mentality (I am naive enough not to believe this).

quote:

as you get more and more into music, you find more and more music you like

I'm not really sure if I agree with this. That is, based on my personal listening experience, I would say it is definitely true (and I'm glad it is so). But then you have those critics, mostly over 35 (I'd guess), who -in every word they write, whatever the subject is- have this "been here, heard that" attitude which is really frustrating. As if the Last Great Record Ever was Sgt. Pepper's (or, depending on the age, Led Zeppelin's IV, London calling, Daydream nation, OK Computer), and everything released later was just a pile of garbage.
The reason why I was attracted to P4k in the first place was the 10.0 they gave to Kid A. Because I already loved Radiohead and had fallen in love with that album, of course; but also because someone was stating that a new record could be on the same level as the "classics" which make up the pop/rock canon.
Now, I could see someone arguing that this kind of thinking leads to injustifiable hype or excessive praise for just-above-average artists; but then again, if I had to choose between this and the other option ("Today's music is crap"), I'd choose the former. So, giving high ratings might also be a form of (over?)compensation for the obnoxious "Don't you DARE compare the present with the past!" attitude.

Whew!... I'm sorry if this post was too long, but I find this debate extremely stimulating.

Regardless of origin, the green should be moved up to at least 70 or so, so that the numbers actually provide some differentiation. If the vast majority are one color, there isn't much point in a color system at all. I always check the starred albums, but the color doesn't even register at the point.

I propose...

Red: 0-49
Yellow: 50-69
Green: 70-94
SUPER GREEN!!!: 95-100!!!

That being said, I think that most of the regular users on MC should have been able to figure out by now that any album under 70 is usually regarded as a disappointment, especially from a well-established and well-liked band. For example, Evil Urges by My Morning Jacket, one of last years great disappointments, earned a green 67. Especially when you look at the 90 for Z, the numbers tell the story. I don't think it worth causing a fuss over the colors when the numbers are truly the deciding factor.

When a friend asks me what the Metascore was for something, I always tell them the score, not the color. Just saying "Green" or "Yellow" isn't very helpful.

I too tend to think of anything under 70 as mediocre to bad. These records should not be green. While it's true that I usually refer to the score, rather than the color, it's also ridiculous that the music reviews consist of a sea of green, a few yellows, and hardly ever any reds.

I like your new system, Colin, although I think Super Green (you mean starred albums, right?), should be made 85-100. I believe it's currently at 80. 95-100 might be a little too restrictive.

I never look at the colors. That said, too many albums seem to be in that "eh..." range, from 65-75, with little variation. Now plenty of these albums are good, but it's hard to differentiate between them going by the reviews. It maybe because only the decently good stuff gets our (and indie music critics') attention while the low scores and the red colors are reserved for Nickelback and its ilk. It doesn't help that many of these albums have very little reviews for them, which is either because they are not well-known enough or Metacritic is getting lazy with the review aggregating. Needless to say, I can never go by reviews alone if I'm deciding on purchasing an unknown (to me) band's album.

quote:

Originally posted by bonzob:

I like your new system, Colin, although I think Super Green (you mean starred albums, right?), should be made 85-100. I believe it's currently at 80. 95-100 might be a little too restrictive.

I was being sarcastic...I think based off something someone said earlier.

Most music critics are liberal and non-confrontational. It's not in their nature to give someone a "bad" score. Their attitude is everything is good - there is no right or wrong. They only give bad scores to the obvious records. Very few stick their neck out to criticize artists that are popular or critically acclaimed. They are wimps who want to be part of the cool crowd and are too afraid to tick off their fellow critics and muisc buddies.