And on a vaguely related note, I've noticed that the only albums released recently (since the turn of the millennium) to be given five stars by AMG are hip-hop and electronica. The few that I could name include Stankonia by Outkast, Quality Control by Jurassic 5, Rooty by Basement Jaxx and some remix CD of existing songs (how something like that would be awarded five stars, I'll never know) by Aphex Twin. I think that "indie rock" (as a very broad term) is evolving and new sub-divisions appearing at least as often as in hip-hop or electronica, so I'm surprised that no "indie" titles released so far this millenium have been rated at five stars yet.
Jay-Z's 'The Blueprint' also (*wishes I could spontaneously namedrop more, but can't think!*. This is because most albums need to soak into the feel of the times before being looked back on and given a perfect score, and why ratings systems for music critics are inherently flawed and more suited to film and literature.
___________ Without a trace; you'll never find me now.
Posts: 15 | Location: Brisbane | Registered: 28 September 2004
Also, they have less experienced critics to do the less sophisticated albums. Albums from Pennywise and Fall Out Boy have equal scores to bloody Brian Wilson!
___________ Without a trace; you'll never find me now.
Posts: 15 | Location: Brisbane | Registered: 28 September 2004
1) The star ratings and reviews don't always mesh up. I've seen reviews that basically said, "This album is merely okay" and got 4.5 stars. On the same token, I've seen reviews that said, "This album is essential!" that got 3 stars.
2) I think the ratings are similar to how Roger Ebert rates films. He may give a great genre film the same rating as a "classic" because the former is a standout of the genre. Basically, if an album is a "classic," it may get the same rating as, say, a very very very solid niche album. So Pet Sounds might get the same rating as Frosting on the Beater. They expect you to approach the albums with that difference in mind. Pitchfork, on the other hand, doesn't do this; they have their classics, and review everything in light of that. So an enjoyable niche album will end up with a 4.0 rating because it isnt' "classic."
------------------------------- "I distrust a close-mouthed man. He generally picks the wrong time to talk and says the wrong things. Talking's something you can't do judiciously unless you keep in practice." -The Maltese Falcon
My biggest gripe with the AMG, which is otherwise a great resource, is that they seem to regard the best album by even the worst artists as deserving of 4 stars. They arely say, "this artist is crap and everything they have done is 2 stars or less". Almost every artist gets high marks for his/her/its "best" album or greatest hits. If that is the case, then giving "Exile on Main Street" or "Blonde on Blonde" a mere 5 stars becomes meaningless.
"Our experts use a 1 to 5 star system (5 is the highest rating). It is important to note that we rate albums only within the scope of an artist’s own work -- we only compare a release to other releases by the same artist. We won't compare a Britney Spears album to the latest release by Incubus. When looking at an artist's discography, you may see a check mark next to the star rating of a release. That represents the AMG Pick for the release most representative of that artist's entire body of work. On specific release pages you may also see smaller checks next to two or three tracks on a recording. Those are AMG Song Picks. These are the songs on a recording that our experts feel are most representative of the entire release."
That clarifies things but it's not a good system at all, at least in my opinion. This is clearly a decision made to appeal to more readers, yet allmusic typically gets a free pass. Should their ratings count on MC, given that they're using a different scale than everyone else? Do you really want to see Britney's latest album receive a high rating for being the least bad?
Originally posted by dubs: That clarifies things but it's not a good system at all, at least in my opinion. This is clearly a decision made to appeal to more readers, yet allmusic typically gets a free pass. Should their ratings count on MC, given that they're using a different scale than everyone else? Do you really want to see Britney's latest album receive a high rating for being the least bad?
It is sort of useful to rate albums that way though. I mean, if I was starting to get into some artist with a fairly large catalog, I could go on AllMusic and get info on that artist's best releases. It's a better system for older music than new releases, but it does have a few advantages.
----- Stay gold, Ponyboy. Stay gold.
Posts: 5366 | Location: Michigan | Registered: 19 June 2005
Originally posted by dubs: That clarifies things but it's not a good system at all, at least in my opinion. This is clearly a decision made to appeal to more readers, yet allmusic typically gets a free pass. Should their ratings count on MC, given that they're using a different scale than everyone else? Do you really want to see Britney's latest album receive a high rating for being the least bad?
I agree with dubs. On top of all that, AMG ratings are mainstream slanted.
________________________________________________________ "The music business is a cruel and shallow money trench, a long plastic hallway where thieves and pimps run free, and good men die like dogs. There's also a negative side." - Hunter S. Thompson tinymixtapes.com / The Skinny / PopMatters
Metacritic Forums 
