I’m just wondering because I see a lot of people on here discrediting critical acclaim when it’s for an artist/album they don’t like, but then bragging about it when it’s for an artist/album that they do. 

 

I’ve also noticed that whenever a black woman gets critical acclaim, people on here push the narrative that it’s some sort of positive discrimination and “politics”. Of course, it can’t just be that there are many talented black female artists out there and that the critics liked their output 

 

I’m asking this before RENAISSANCE comes out so I know where y’all stand as I’m a little confused. 
 

DISCLAIMER: Your votes will be made public so think carefully about your choice.
 

Let’s settle this once and for all. 

 

If I like an album I really dont care if it has a 99 or 45 on metacritic. It wont stop me from listening to it

 

my anwser is no metacritic can choke

Edited July 18, 20224 yr by Insanity

I don't think it matters and acclaim isn't objective or consistent anyways.

A lot of albums considered bad when they came out are now acclaimed retrospectively for example.

Just now, Insanity said:

If I like an album I really dont care if it has a 99 or 45 on metacritic. It wont stop me from listening to it

Same. I can’t say I’ve ever actually enjoyed an album that happened to have less than 60 on metacritic but that’s besides the point. I’d enjoy the music regardless of what the critics say. 
 

I just tend to have an enviable palate. 

 

 

 

I‘m a KatyCat so I have to say no 

 

But seriously what’s the point of taking the opinion of someone with a whole different music taste too serious or take it to brag.

Critical acclaim doesn't matter to me one bit. Of course, I would love if others liked the album like I did but overall I still listen to it.

2 minutes ago, Bey Admired said:

Same. I can’t say I’ve ever actually enjoyed an album that happened to have less than 60 on metacritic but that’s besides the point. I’d enjoy the music regardless of what the critics say. 
 

I just tend to have an enviable palate. 

 

 

 

I mean Katy Perrys Teenage Dream has like a 52 on mc and people love it. Same with other low scoring albums that people enjoy. Critics taste doesn't mean it aligns with mine

2 minutes ago, PopKills said:

I‘m a KatyCat so I have to say no 

 

But seriously what’s the point of taking the opinion of someone with a whole different music taste too serious or take it to brag.

This critics do Katy dirty.

1 minute ago, Insanity said:

I mean Katy Perrys Teenage Dream has like a 52 on mc and people love it. Same with other low scoring albums that people enjoy. Critics taste doesn't mean it aligns with mine

It’s actually shocking that Teenage Dream only has 52 on MC. I didn’t know that  I’m personally not a fan of it but I can see that it’s objectively a great pop album. 

It's always nice seeing our faves being praised, but at the end of the day is all about narrative (and whether your fan base will send death threats to critics). I personally think being respected by your fellow musically talented peers is far more important than critical acclaim, because those journalists are constantly switching.

25 minutes ago, Bey Admired said:

I’m just wondering because I see a lot of people on here discrediting critical acclaim when it’s for an artist/album they don’t like, but then bragging about it when it’s for an artist/album that they do. 

 

I’ve also noticed that whenever a black woman gets critical acclaim, people on here push the narrative that it’s some sort of positive discrimination and “politics”. Of course, it can’t just be that there are many talented black female artists out there and that the critics liked their output 

 

I’m asking this before RENAISSANCE comes out so I know where y’all stand as I’m a little confused. 
 

DISCLAIMER: Your votes will be made public so think carefully about your choice.
 

Let’s settle this once and for all. 

 

plus when u read reviews these days there not even reviewing the actual music its about the person or drama or whatever else and personal bias 

To me no, to big acts no but if you’re upcoming artist acclaim from prestigious music publications might help you out. It’s all about power and influence, if you’re big enough you don’t need it, especially since music critics are less influential. 

1 minute ago, Insanity said:

plus when u read reviews these days there not even reviewing the actual music its about the person or drama or whatever else and personal bias 

Do you have examples? 
 

1 minute ago, Bey Admired said:

Do you have examples? 
 

not from memory lol

It only gives you prestige but at the end, a successful album >>> an acclaimed one. We live in a capitalist world. Money matters more than anything. 

If you're an indie artist, then yes. It's pretty much the only way for you to gain traction

For major artists not as much

Just now, Bey Admired said:

Do you have examples? 
 

Montero being universally acclaimed.

Olivia having a higher Metascore than some Björk albums.

Butter ranking inside the Top 10 on AOTY's best songs of the year aggregator.

4 minutes ago, Bey Admired said:

Do you have examples? 
 

Stripped (2002)  although that's hardly recent.

 

 

OT: Yes, if I like the artist so I can brag about on ATRL.com

Edited July 18, 20224 yr by Repelex

1 minute ago, Insanity said:

not from memory lol

Then keep it on the playground 

 

 

 

1 minute ago, gustavothehuman said:

Montero being universally acclaimed.

Olivia having a higher Metascore than some Björk albums.

Butter ranking inside the Top 10 on AOTY's best songs of the year aggregator.

I was asking for examples of reviews that are all about the artist and not the actual music. 

Yes. It makes me wet 

Just now, ontherocks said:

Yes. It makes me wet 

Was not expecting this response but okay 

5 minutes ago, Bey Admired said:

I was asking for examples of reviews that are all about the artist and not the actual music. 

I can't name a specific review, but Taylor's career is a testament to reviewers not being objective. Red TV ended in the 90s on Metacritic because she presented the same material, but in a context without misogynistic scrutiny.

 

Edited July 18, 20224 yr by gustavothehuman

Just now, gustavothehuman said:

I can't name a specific review, but Taylor's career is a testament to reviewers not being objective. Red was below the 80s upon release while the re-recording is the 90s because she presented the same material but without the misogynistic scrutiny.

If you can’t name a single review, does that not suggest to you that you’re, perhaps, reaching? 
 

 

Just now, Bey Admired said:

If you can’t name a single review, does that not suggest to you that you’re, perhaps, reaching? 
 

 

I can't name a review because I don't spend my days reading every single one of them lol. Some people still think Taylor only writes about her exes to this very day.