[/QUOTE]Now let's not get crazy. Maybe you don't like Tom Waits--which is bewildering--but his three-disc opus was incredible. Heck, Brawlers alone would have been good enough to be on anybody's top ten list. Waits' latest effort was beautiful and stunning.[/QUOTE]

Bewildering? He sounds like a frog.

Anyway, I wasn't specifically commenting on the quality of his latest album (I've only heard half of one of the discs). I was just commenting on the meta-score inflation that many old-timers get, which automatically catapults a Bob Dylan album into the Top 3.

Even with Waits at #2, I would say that TVOTR was the most critically adored album of 2006. I think the End-of-the-Year lists show this.

I just checked the EOTY lists after making that last comment.

I know Metacritic does very well, but I would like to suggest a more accurate order for critical consensus for 2006:

something like,
1. TV on the Radio
2. Joanna Newsom (as compared to 14 on the lists...A portion of her low ranking can be attributed to the now infamous erred RS review)
3. Ghostface Killah
4. Bob Dylan
5. Arctic Monkeys
6. Clipse
7. The Hold Steady
8. Cat Power
9. Destroyer
10. Tom Waits

I forgot to post this here. Well, maybe "forgot" is the wrong word.

quote:

I know Metacritic does very well, but I would like to suggest a more accurate order for critical consensus

quote:

2. Joanna Newsom (as compared to 14 on the lists...A portion of her low ranking can be attributed to the now infamous erred RS review)

This is exactly why Metacritic needs to start disregarding the lowest and highest reviews, like they do in figure skating. Currently, their system favors mainstream albums, if ever so slightly. Publications such as Pitchfork won't bother with many major label releases, so the scores are slightly inflated as we all know indie-zines would trash such releases, but they'd rather not bother. Meanwhile, you have indie recordings such as Newsom's being reviewed by a magazine that has no expertise in the field and has consistently proven themselves to favor major label recordings.....if my proposed new system were taken into account, the albums list would be a useful tool. As of right now, it completely blows as an artist can get raves from everyone, shat upon by one publication, and end up with a 75.

Hey, Casper, can you cite an example of what you said in your last sentence and provide a link please?

quote:

Bewildering? He sounds like a frog.

In defence of our amphibious friends, frogs have much better diction than Tom Waits.

BTW, while I'm really liking Cassadaga (esp. Make a Plan to Love Me), I can't help but thinking that at times, he sounds a little like Pauly Shore. Is it just me? Has this been mentioned before?

quote:

Originally posted by Casper:
As of right now, it completely blows as an artist can get raves from everyone, shat upon by one publication, and end up with a 75.

I don't believe this is true. While I don't have the exact Metacritic formula, they apparently apply a curve to the scores to prevent what you're talking about from happening.

I'm a bit dissapointed by Cassadaga. Whereas pretty much every other Bright Eyes cd has hit me hard because of it's creativity and you know, awesomeoness, Cassadaga was pretty much exactly what I expected. Not that it doesn't have its share of great songs, the first four are all pretty great.

quote:

Originally posted by mark f:
Hey, Casper, can you cite an example of what you said in your last sentence and provide a link please?

http://www.metacritic.com/music/artists/liars/drumsnotdead?q=liars

While I didn't know of Metacritic applying a curve for their overall scores, Liars would seem to be around 82ish instead of 79 if it weren't for that 10/100 review at the bottom. Earlier on, when the album had first came out, I remember it being around 74-76 as there were less reviews and the 10/100 was really doing it harm.

On another note, take a look at the bottom reviews for that album. Filter, Q, Blender, Spin....once again, mainstream publications constantly downplaying indie....if we hindered mainstream acts by five points each (a deserving deduction for not receiving the less than stellar reviews from The Fork or Tiny Mix Tapes) while inflating the indie label recordings by five points each (this due to the popular magazines not wanting to hype up artists they don't put on their cover), our year end list would probably look slightly more like our Metacritic Users' Top 20...

quote:

Originally posted by Casper:
http://www.metacritic.com/music/artists/liars/drumsnotdead?q=liars

While I didn't know of Metacritic applying a curve for their overall scores, Liars would seem to be around 82ish instead of 79 if it weren't for that 10/100 review at the bottom. Earlier on, when the album had first came out, I remember it being around 74-76 as there were less reviews and the 10/100 was really doing it harm.

Actually, I didn't think that a 10/100 would really drop something that has 29 different scores, and it really doesn't. The score is already smudged a little bit because they have a 79. If you actually averaged everything, the real score would be a 76. If you removed the 10/100 simply because it seemed unfair then the overall average would be a 78.357. Moreso if you wanted to drop the highest and lowest score from this album then the average for the other 26 reviwer's scores would be a 77.55. So it seems to me like it has already been helped enough. It should be at a 76 but it is at a 79.

quote:

Originally posted by Casper:
On another note, take a look at the bottom reviews for that album. Filter, Q, Blender, Spin....once again, mainstream publications constantly downplaying indie

I don't think these publications "downplay indie" at all. Q is a very nationalist pulbication, Filter has always shown fair regards to a lot of stuff that isn't mainstream and I think someone else mentioned this as well, but SPIN is a lot more indie-conscious then people want to admit. Now I went to Blender and although their covers may show mainstream artists, that isn't a fair assumption to the music they like and don't like. After all, good music is good music, period--whether it is mainstream or not. I pulled up Blender's top albums of 2005 list and saw that they give fair recognition to everyone. A lot of these may or not may be indie, but for the most part all of the following artists/bands are not widely-acclaimed by the "mainstream crowd." 50-48 were albums by Liz Phair, Devandra Banhart and Amy Rigby; 45 & 44 were Lightning Bolt and Kaiser Chiefs, respectively; 42-40 were My Morning Jacket, Karen Ann and Broken Social Scene; 38 & 37 were Hot Hot Heat and Sufjan Stevens, repectively; 32 and 31 were The Magic Numbers and Amadou & Mariam, respectively; 29-27 were Sleater-Kinney, Gary Allan, and Giant Drag; 24 was The Hold Steady,; 22 was Clap Your Hands Say Yeah (arguably the most "indie" band because they still have no label); 20 was Spoon; 18 was LCD Soundsystem; 15 was The Go! Team; 13 was The New Pornographers; 9 was The Mars Volta; 7 was Art Brut; 4 was Bright Eyes; and heck, M.I.A was number one. I think that about half the list comes from lesser-known acts. I know that if I went to the record store right now and asked for albums by The New Pornographers, M.I.A., Spoon, CYHSY and Sufjan Stevens the puzzled responses would be countless.

quote:

Originally posted by Casper:
On another note, take a look at the bottom reviews for that album. Filter, Q, Blender, Spin....once again, mainstream publications constantly downplaying indie....if we hindered mainstream acts by five points each (a deserving deduction for not receiving the less than stellar reviews from The Fork or Tiny Mix Tapes) while inflating the indie label recordings by five points each (this due to the popular magazines not wanting to hype up artists they don't put on their cover), our year end list would probably look slightly more like our Metacritic Users' Top 20...

I'm still not sure where you're getting the idea that all these mainstream acts are getting unfairly high Metacritic scores. Looking at the top 30 of 2007, the closest thing to a mainstream artist I see is Redman.

I'm also not sure when the last time you read Spin was, but they mostly cover the music we talk about in this forum. I've got the last issue, with Modest Mouse on the cover, and the most mainstream album they reviewed was Kings of Leon, which they shat on incidentally.

And I've never considered Kings of Leon mainstream, even if the new album is whack.

quote:

Originally posted by mark f:
even if the new album is whack.

Mark, look at you getting all gangsta on us.

I'm born and raised in Compton. For reals, muthafucka!

Well, what do you know? I actually kind of like it.

I really, really like I'm Wide Awake, Its Morning. For whatever reason, I have absolutely no interest in getting this any time soon. I've listened to maybe two tracks from it online and they do nothing for me.

I really have never intended on listening to Cassadaga. I went through a Bright Eyes phase for a while, but it all started sounding the same after a while. I grew weary of Oberst's whining. While he's an okay songwriter (nothing more), he's a lousy musician, and would do better collaborating with people who better know what they are doing. I mean come on, Dyan had The Band! Neil Young had Crazy Horse!

In terms of "new" songwriters, Oberst is nowhere near the talent of Spencer Krug, who has more than just a way with words.

Bright Eyes is overrated. If I wanted to hear 45 minutes of whining, I'd call my 16 year-old sister.

Loaded... is still his magnum opus, even if you have to be that to agree with me.

Anybody who doesn't enjoy the new album's "Make a Plan to Love Me" is a metal head or afraid of reality.

Oh, and just for some clarification...

Bright Eyes constantly sad music doesn't make me depressed, it makes me laugh.

I'd much rather listen to Coolio if I want to listen to something that makes me laugh.

quote:

Originally posted by mark f:
Loaded...

What's that?

Did you mean Lifted...?

quote:

Originally posted by benjiru:
In terms of "new" songwriters, Oberst is nowhere near the talent of Spencer Krug, who has more than just a way with words.

I don't mean to just knock you down but suggesting that a guy who has been making mediocre (at best) music for about two years is more talented that Conor Oberst is laughable. I will give you his side project, Wolf Parade's Apologies..., and even that one is a stretch but Krug is nowhere near the songwriter Oberst has matured into. Oberst has already been making music for almost ten years and has only gotten better with each effort. I too like Lifted... and I'm Wide Awake... more than Cassadaga, however, even one of Oberst's decent album is filled with beautifully-written and crafted songs. He might not be the Dylan that everyone proclaimed him to be but he is one of the premiere ones we have today and at his young age, he can only continue to grow and get better at his craft.