I don't see Metacritic as a place to find out about cool, obscure new music like Burial or The Field.

If Metacritic really wants to claim to compile albums in an effort to capture the most critically-acclaimed albums of the year, it is severely missing its goal with the 7-review requirement.

It missed the boat in 2006 with Ali Farka Toure, and arguably in 2003 with a live Led Zeppelin album. Neither would have been crowned if the 15 album limit had existed.

Of course, I still think all albums should be listed on the side panel of "upcoming and recent releases", with the star by their name to catch attention. This way, highly-rated obscurer artists could still find more fans. But when it comes to the final "Best of" lists, there simply needs to be a wider range of criticism on an album for it to warrant inclusion.

quote:

Originally posted by outis:
I vote no to raising the minimum mainly because there are already quite a few very good albums each year that don't make MetaCritic, so doubling the minimum could conceivably cut the rated albums in half. 5 good albums that didn't make the MC cut this year:
- John Doe, A Year in the Wilderness
- Pela, Anytown Graffiti
- The Ike Reilly Assassination - We Belong to the Staggering Evening
- Parts & Labor - Mapmaker
- Bowerbirds - Hymns for a Dark Horse

Even if you don't consider them good, it's too bad they don't enough reviews to make MC.

If you guys want albums added to MC and are willing to do some searching and then be patient enough, use this form. Find at least five credible (good sites can be found here) reviewing sites that have reviewed whichever albums you want added, provide the name of the publication and a link to the review. Choose the appropriate editor (in this case, the music one) make sure to leave an e-mail address, send it and they will get back to you.

Although this battle seems to be lost, I will add my final (maybe) say.

Burial, The Field, and Stars on the Lid are not the best three albums of 2007. The only one that even shows up in the user poll so far is Burial at number 19. The Best of 2007 does not accurately reflect critical consensus. Period!

In light of the publishing of the Mitchell report yesterday, I offer a compromise. It seems that even those opposed to upping the minimum number of reviews concede that it is much more impressive to have an 88 or 89 rating with 30 or more reviews. So, for those who want their lesser known albums to get recognition on the list, I suggest that those albums with less than 15 reviews get an asterisk.

I think that an asterisk should also be used if it can be determined that any of the artists used steroids at any point during the recording of said albums.

haha! yeah or if there like stupid or sumthin

quote:

Originally posted by The Fall of Troy:
Although this battle seems to be lost, I will add my final (maybe) say.

Burial, The Field, and Stars on the Lid are not the best three albums of 2007. The only one that even shows up in the user poll so far is Burial at number 19. The Best of 2007 does not accurately reflect critical consensus. Period!

In light of the publishing of the Mitchell report yesterday, I offer a compromise. It seems that even those opposed to upping the minimum number of reviews concede that it is much more impressive to have an 88 or 89 rating with 30 or more reviews. So, for those who want their lesser known albums to get recognition on the list, I suggest that those albums with less than 15 reviews get an asterisk.

Well, I haven't posted my final list yet, but The Field and Burial are both in my top 5... Maybe there are several others who really dig those albums and just haven't posted yet........?

I don't really have much else to add. JP, as many have noted, cleared it up pretty well.

quote:

Originally posted by unKeMPt:
It's as arbitrary as any other number you'd come up with. There are a number of decisions made in the compiling of that list that are rather arbitrary -- the weighing of each critic, the very selection of critics (Film Threat over FFC or Slant? Really?) -- as well as things outside the list that still affect something's placement (A 93 instead of 94? How precise of you!)

That's why I think it's best to let the critics' end-of-year lists speak for themselves to determine the overall recipient of the most accolades and allow the very flawed list to occasionally send us to some lesser-known artists who remain outside the mainstream tunnel vision.

Amen brother. The Film-Threat-over-FFC-and-Slant thingy is a source of constant hilarity to me. Actually, it's more depressing than anything else. When you have Film Threat, so leaden with bad writing (and I'm not even talking about the grammatical disabilities), representing the online film world, when other sites with better writing and more expansive coverage (and more traffic) are nowhere in sight, you have to wonder, "What gives?"

But, I do think the minium review requirement should be raised, and I don't think 7 is as arbitrary as, say, 15. I think raising that number really does encourage a sense of fair play.

i voted no as well.

7 i so think is on the lower side but 15 is a bit too high. maybe 9-10?

also fragile i saw that you said we could use that link to submit albums that arnt on metacritic if we did our research...

does that include older releases? maybe two-four years that might have got overlooked.

quote:

Originally posted by goathouse:
haha! yeah or if there like stupid or sumthin

not to poke fun of anyone but doesn't anyone else find this quote ironic??

quote:

Originally posted by thomyorkeisgod:
also fragile i saw that you said we could use that link to submit albums that arnt on metacritic if we did our research...

does that include older releases? maybe two-four years that might have got overlooked.

Yeah, they should add them. Just make sure you find enough credible reviews.

quote:

Originally posted by thomyorkeisgod:

quote:

Originally posted by goathouse:
haha! yeah or if there like stupid or sumthin

not to poke fun of anyone but doesn't anyone else find this quote ironic??

Yes, it is pretty ironic. You shouldn't really say something like that, when your sentence has many grammar/spelling errors.

quote:

Originally posted by *Termina*:

quote:

Originally posted by thomyorkeisgod:

quote:

Originally posted by goathouse:
haha! yeah or if there like stupid or sumthin

not to poke fun of anyone but doesn't anyone else find this quote ironic??

Yes, it is pretty ironic. You shouldn't really say something like that, when your sentence has many grammar/spelling errors.

If you look at my other posts on MC you'll notice I have a powerful and precise vocabulary and an excellent command of the English lexicon.