Originally posted by ggwâ?¢:will you sing along to "gay bar" too?
Unfortunately, they are playing with Electric 6, who i would like to see.
GREAT site for reviews
But all of the albums are being judged by the same critics (not really, because for instance Rolling Stone might have ten diffferent critics) so you can compate them to each other in a relative fashion…
I don't know who the Stereophonics are, and they scored bad. Ergo, little known band with a bad score.
I don't know who the Stereophonics are, and they scored bad. Ergo, little known band with a bad score.
Originally posted by ggwâ?¢:
Originally posted by Rhett Miller:Not necessarily. The sample is not at all indicative of the population. Critics tend to choose which albums they review. Generally, new releases from already known artists, or particularly good albums from lesser-known acts.
I dunno…
If 74% of the albums score between 70 and 80, wouldn't that seem to imply that an album that was higher than 80 could be assumed to be pretty darned good, and one below 70 is pretty darned bad?
There is little motivation to do reviews of poor quality albums from bands that are not widely known, as nobody would really care.
Originally posted by ggwâ?¢:I'll second that!!!
Originally posted by sonickteam2:They suck.
whos Junior Senior?
Originally posted by Jaguär:
Originally posted by sonickteam2:At last! Someone who understands. :) but i get Q for the cool pictures and to pretend i am British. :)
disclaimer : i dont read record reviews…i hate them.
oh, and i like Spin too (where did the damn spin joke start anyway!)
Originally posted by Anton Newcombe:
Originally posted by ggwâ?¢:Well, you have to believe that most of the albums are being reviewed simply because they are believed to be good in the first place. There aren't reviews of the total population of albums being released, only albums from people that presumably did something good in the past, or new acts that are making a name for themselves by releasing something good.
Originally posted by Rhett Miller:but thats ok as it would just change the classification from great/average/bad to excellent/good/ok, not really much difference.
[qb] There is little motivation to do reviews of poor quality albums from bands that are not widely known, as nobody would really care.
So, this wouldn't indicate that anything below 70 (the bottom quartile) is necessarily "bad." It simply means that it is relatively less good than those that score higher. But since the whole sample is skewed toward "good" albums, they may very well be "good" anyway.
Yes, I know that is more or less what you are saying, but it is contrary to Rhett's belief that anything under 70 must be absolutely "bad."
now, when they are reviewing an album…do you need facts and figures to prove that a record is bad?
Originally posted by Anton Newcombe:Who doesn't sing along to Gay Bar?
Originally posted by ggwâ?¢:will you sing along to "gay bar" too?
Unfortunately, they are playing with Electric 6, who i would like to see.
http://www.rathergood.com/gaybar/
Originally posted by ggwâ?¢:exactly.
[Yes, I know that is more or less what you are saying, but it is contrary to Rhett's belief that anything under 70 must be absolutely "bad."
but looking at the list I would guess in practice that Rhett is right though in theory he should possibly be wrong.
Just because an artist has notoriety doesnt mean their new release will be any good or critically acclaimed, just ask Lou Reed.
Actually, that makes Rhett the victor, sorry GGW, you and I were both wrong.
If you look back at what I wrote, in the second paragraph, I said "significantly below 70". Tha'ts probably a better way to look at it. There's probably not much difference between a 71 and a 68. but there is between a 71 and 50.
Originally posted by ggwâ?¢:
Originally posted by Anton Newcombe:
Originally posted by ggwâ?¢:Well, you have to believe that most of the albums are being reviewed simply because they are believed to be good in the first place. There aren't reviews of the total population of albums being released, only albums from people that presumably did something good in the past, or new acts that are making a name for themselves by releasing something good.
Originally posted by Rhett Miller:but thats ok as it would just change the classification from great/average/bad to excellent/good/ok, not really much difference.
[qb] There is little motivation to do reviews of poor quality albums from bands that are not widely known, as nobody would really care.
So, this wouldn't indicate that anything below 70 (the bottom quartile) is necessarily "bad." It simply means that it is relatively less good than those that score higher. But since the whole sample is skewed toward "good" albums, they may very well be "good" anyway.
Yes, I know that is more or less what you are saying, but it is contrary to Rhett's belief that anything under 70 must be absolutely "bad."
Originally posted by sonickteam2:Yes, I understand. Pictures can be very enticing. Sometimes I like to read a good interview. That way you get some insider info that you won't get out of a review. That is, if it's a good interview.
no reviews for me :) but i get Q for the cool pictures and to pretend i am British. :)
oh, and i like Spin too (where did the damn spin joke start anyway!)
BTW, forget Q. Go with X-Ray. ;)
Oh, and I still enjoy reading the NME sometimes but that's because it's so damned funny! Up there with the Gallagher Bros.. The information is usually crap but they take liberties that other magazines rarely take. Pure comedy! Often, I'll totally disagree with whatever they are saying but I'll be laughing my ass off so hard that I end up loving it anyway.
Originally posted by ggwâ?¢:that was rather good…….
http://www.rathergood.com/gaybar/
I wish I hadnt let Jadetree keep the 10cent album sampler right now.
So are some of you saying you pick what bands you like based on what they look like in pictures?
I've usually found that the uglier and less fasionable the band, the more talented they were.
Except for that prettyboy Rhett of course.
I've usually found that the uglier and less fasionable the band, the more talented they were.
Except for that prettyboy Rhett of course.