Topic: Metacritic's Best Music of the Decade (Read 6201 times)

scarred · « **on:** 15 Dec 2009, 21:10 »

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

Spoon tops the list, thanks to SCIENCE!

Or something like that.

Really, it's not a terrible list by any means and the Best Albums on the next page is pretty cool too. If anything it's an interesting peek into aggregate scoring.

JD · « **Reply #1 on:** 15 Dec 2009, 21:13 »

Whoo Lightning Bolt in the top 10.

SWOON! at My Gravitas · « **Reply #2 on:** 15 Dec 2009, 21:29 »

Interesting way of going about it.

Thrillho · « **Reply #3 on:** 16 Dec 2009, 04:56 »

[anal]"Love And Theft" came out in 2001, not 2003.[/anal]

SleeperCylon · « **Reply #4 on:** 18 Dec 2009, 10:35 »

Acclaimedmusic.net is a way better aggregate listing site than metacritic.

In metacritic, they make no distinction between a 90 with 7 reviews and one with 37 reviews. So regression toward the mean isn't taken into account at all, and since everything is based on a straight average, one or two really bad reviews can completely ruin an album's entire score.

Chesire Cat · « **Reply #5 on:** 20 Dec 2009, 14:59 »

Metacritic individually weighs different reviewers and publications. So more reputable reviewers matter more in the overall scoring.

Nodaisho · « **Reply #6 on:** 20 Dec 2009, 15:21 »

I'm sure I don't need to point out why defining the best music of the decade as the music which got the most good reviews (more or less) is a bad idea? Because I just got done writing papers for the semester, I don't want to do another.

AanAllein · « **Reply #7 on:** 20 Dec 2009, 15:23 »

Like, it's presented as the best-reviewed albums of the decade. As far as I can tell, there's no legitimate attempt to classify the records as the "best" of the decade (though I could certainly be wrong on this point).

Chorbalan · « **Reply #8 on:** 22 Dec 2009, 03:37 »

Any list that puts Iron and Wine in the top 10 anything loses all credibility period.

scarred · « **Reply #9 on:** 22 Dec 2009, 06:13 »

you have no taste ever

KharBevNor · « **Reply #10 on:** 22 Dec 2009, 06:29 »

Talking of scientific methods, last.fm have published their chart of the year, based on scrobbles. It is kind of interesting to compare to the other lists, though obviously it is just flawed in a different way:

http://www.last.fm/bestof/2009/chart/40

Nodaisho · « **Reply #11 on:** 22 Dec 2009, 06:38 »

Quote from: AanAllein on 20 Dec 2009, 15:23

As far as I can tell, there's no legitimate attempt to classify the records as the "best" of the decade (though I could certainly be wrong on this point).

That's not the sense I'm getting from the title and the beginning of the article, just skimming over it quickly to double check. They say best, not best-reviewed. Could be just trying to get more attention with bolder headlines, but that doesn't excuse it.

tricia kidd · « **Reply #12 on:** 22 Dec 2009, 07:49 »

any list where super furry animals beat animal collective has my approval.

KickThatBathProf · « **Reply #13 on:** 22 Dec 2009, 09:26 »

Quote from: Nodaisho on 22 Dec 2009, 06:38

Quote from: AanAllein on 20 Dec 2009, 15:23
As far as I can tell, there's no legitimate attempt to classify the records as the "best" of the decade (though I could certainly be wrong on this point).
That's not the sense I'm getting from the title and the beginning of the article, just skimming over it quickly to double check. They say best, not best-reviewed. Could be just trying to get more attention with bolder headlines, but that doesn't excuse it.

It's kind of implied, seeing as the list is coming from Metacritic

Nodaisho · « **Reply #14 on:** 22 Dec 2009, 09:49 »

I guess, but it still seems like they ought to qualify it.

Of course, most people looking for that sort of thing will be googling, and they wouldn't be googling for best reviewed music of the decade, although it would still probably end up coming pretty high on google search, from my experience.

Zingoleb · « **Reply #15 on:** 22 Dec 2009, 13:35 »

Quote from: Chorbalan on 22 Dec 2009, 03:37

Any list that puts Iron and Wine in the top 10 anything loses all credibility period.

FIGHT YOU

Chesire Cat · « **Reply #16 on:** 22 Dec 2009, 15:11 »

Quote from: Nodaisho on 22 Dec 2009, 09:49

Of course, most people looking for that sort of thing will be googling, and they wouldn't be googling for best reviewed music of the decade, although it would still probably end up coming pretty high on google search, from my experience.

Well they did qualify it by prefacing the article with how the came to the conclusions

Nodaisho · « **Reply #17 on:** 22 Dec 2009, 15:43 »

I guess they did, eventually. And now that I've looked through Metacritic's list of albums, I could barely find anything from any of the bands I was looking for, no wonder I was so disappointed.

Durin · « **Reply #18 on:** 23 Dec 2009, 19:28 »

Quote from: Chorbalan on 22 Dec 2009, 03:37

Any list that puts Iron and Wine in the top 10 anything loses all credibility period.

I bite my thumb at you good sir!

Ptommydski · « **Reply #19 on:** 23 Dec 2009, 19:33 »

DavidGrohl · « **Reply #20 on:** 28 Dec 2009, 09:55 »

Neon Golden by the Notwists WOOOO!

THESE FORUMS NOW CLOSED (read only)

Author Topic: Metacritic's Best Music of the Decade (Read 6201 times)

Zingoleb

Ptommydski