PDA

View Full Version : Metacritic's Best Music of the Decade



A_1_B_2
12-17-2009, 01:15 PM
This is actually pretty interesting to read. It's not just one list of best music, but rather it looks at which artists received the best average reviews throughout the entire decade for every release they put out, its splits up by genres, best reviewed debut albums, which artists are consistently getting worse reviews as the years go on, etc. Interestingly enough, Radiohead is only the 25th best reviewed band of 2000-2009.

http://features.metacritic.com/features/2009/best-music-of-the-decade/

Monklish
12-17-2009, 01:17 PM
Already thread for this, again.

A_1_B_2
12-17-2009, 01:34 PM
Already thread for this, again.

Point it out to me, because I did a search for "Metacritic" as a keyword with "Search titles only" and show results as "thread" and there were zero results. And if it's a link posted within a thread called "Radiohead music" or something lame, that's not the same thing as there being a thread for it already, Almighty Ruler of the Coachella Message Board (aka the equivalent of being a huge loser in life.)

A_1_B_2
12-17-2009, 01:42 PM
I scoured the entire page and found a "Year End Lists From Publications: The 2009 Edition" which is what I am assuming you meant, and unfortunately that is not where this topic belongs because Metacritic is not a publication nor is this list a best of 2009 thread. They are a website that takes reviews from more than just one publication and compiles them together for easier reading and comparison. If you read my post, you would have read that this article contains various types of metrics, as well, and not just one singular best of list. To everyone else, enjoy.

Monklish
12-17-2009, 01:42 PM
Nice thread, jerkoff.

TomAz
12-17-2009, 01:43 PM
Our top overall artist of the decade: Spoon

ummmmmmmmmmm. no.

Drinkey McDrinkerstein
12-17-2009, 01:50 PM
Point it out to me, because I did a search for "Metacritic" as a keyword with "Search titles only" and show results as "thread" and there were zero results. And if it's a link posted within a thread called "Radiohead music" or something lame, that's not the same thing as there being a thread for it already, Almighty Ruler of the Coachella Message Board (aka the equivalent of being a huge loser in life.)

try harder next time

http://coachella.com/forum/showthread.php?t=31865&page=13

A_1_B_2
12-17-2009, 01:56 PM
Oh give me a break! The thread is about Metacritic's Best of the Decade list, and Metacritic only, because Metacritic's decade list is far more in depth than a random publication's singular list. That is the main point of this thread. No way does the title "Best of the Decade" give justice to why I made this. There is a lot more room for discussion in just the MetacriticBest of the Decade list than there is to just posting Spin, Rolling Stone's or Pitchfork's and saying, "I don't agree with their placement of this album" or whatever, because Metacritic is just pointing out the facts as they are compiled from dozens of publications.

Monklish
12-17-2009, 02:00 PM
Nobody cares. Should've just posted inside another thread where everyone wouldn't have popped out of the woodwork to remind you that this doesn't deserve its own thread. Pussy boy.

wmgaretjax
12-17-2009, 02:00 PM
actually... the list is pretty meaningless. they aggregate so many awful sources that it becomes entirely uninteresting and bland.

TommyboyUNM
12-17-2009, 02:03 PM
Hey, A1 B2, I think you might be looking for this. Cheers.

http://www.coachella.com/forum/showthread.php?t=34023

Drinkey McDrinkerstein
12-17-2009, 02:06 PM
Oh give me a break!

You'd have a much easier time if you didn't insist on arguing every bit of criticism you get. When it's made abundantly clear by EVERYBODY that you're wrong, it's time to stop defending whatever point you have fastened into your skull and just shut up.

A_1_B_2
12-17-2009, 02:12 PM
http://www.lolgifs.com/pictures/d56fca5b4190ccf.gif

MassiveChemicalPunk
12-17-2009, 02:16 PM
http://www.jaypinkerton.com/img/narniamate.gif

A_1_B_2
12-17-2009, 02:17 PM
http://www.lolgifs.com/pictures/5ae5dbe90446bbb.gif

TomAz
12-17-2009, 02:33 PM
Oh give me a break! The thread is about Metacritic's Best of the Decade list, and Metacritic only, because Metacritic's decade list is far more in depth than a random publication's singular list. That is the main point of this thread. No way does the title "Best of the Decade" give justice to why I made this. There is a lot more room for discussion in just the MetacriticBest of the Decade list than there is to just posting Spin, Rolling Stone's or Pitchfork's and saying, "I don't agree with their placement of this album" or whatever, because Metacritic is just pointing out the facts as they are compiled from dozens of publications.

This doesn't make any sense. Think about it.

What you call Metacritic's "facts" -- their datapoints -- are themselves really opinions. So while you seem to suggest that RS PF etc are inferior (less "in depth") because they are subjective lists, all Metacritic does is blend together a whole lot of subjective lists and try to wrap it in the guise of objectivity. But at least with RS or PF you know where the subjectivity is coming from (and hence can make your own subjective determination about the credibility of the list) -- but with Metacritic you really don't have that information, because of the dispersion of the source data.

Also in statistics there is this phenomenon called "regression towards the mean" which is what I think we see here. Anything really good is going to be challenging and will hence alienate some people and won't fare uniformly well. It's the stuff that's less objectionable that rises to the top.. hence Spoon's win. I mean, I like Spoon and all, they make nice music, but no way do they belong in the Top 20, let alone #1.

psycobetabuckdown
12-17-2009, 02:54 PM
Get over yourselves, people. This could've been posted in the year-end publication list thread but he's technically right that it's different so your only argument is that he's cluttering up the board with stuff you don't personally care about.

It's interesting. Tom, you're right about everything but that's why Metacritic is different - it's a way of gauging general critical consensus. And generally, people are likely to enjoy Spoon and if they don't enjoy them they're not likely to hate them. It's an interesting thought.

I'm not sure that your use of the term "regression towards the mean" is correct. Maybe I'm just not reading that paragraph right.