Fun Stuff > BAND
Consistent catalogues
KickThatBathProf:
dude i wasn't talkin about radiohead
radiohead is only on that list twice
KickThatBathProf:
well yeah you can't really fault metacritic for what's on that list
and whatever man so a lot of critically-acclaimed albums are shit so what
Ptommydski:
--- Quote from: Jeans on 14 Apr 2010, 12:14 ---I don't know a lot about Metacritic itself, maybe it's good?
--- End quote ---
It's actually very good. The concept is excellent and the execution is sound. As has been related already, you can't really blame Metacritic for their own rankings because they take an aggregate score. I'm not suggesting their system is flawless, in fact it's fundamentally broken by nature because they can't make people review things period and certainly not in a conventional manner which would allow for a definitive aggregation to be taken, but regardless, it's a really useful site if used with this in mind.
My fondness in no small way stems from the fact that an album which sells a few hundred copies could in theory be ranked over one which goes multi-platinum. You'd be amazed how seldom that happens on conventional writer polls and listings.
De_El:
--- Quote from: DynamiteKid on 14 Apr 2010, 06:34 ---
--- End quote ---
I don't know anyone who considers Squeeze to be a "real" Velvets album, namely because the people you think of when you call them the Velvets weren't in the band any more, but hey, if you want flaunt popular opinion, which you frequently do, by all means consider Squeeze to be an immense stain on the legacy of an otherwise stellar fucking band. Composed of people who had nothing to do with the recording of the album entitled "Squeeze."
Thrillho:
Indeed, but at the same time, it has the band's name on it and it 'counts' in their discography. Depends how you look at it really.
I mean if you think about a band like Wilco, they only have two of the same guys left but they're still the 'same band.'
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version