Metacritic Needs to Revise their “Best Albums of 2008” Logarithm

Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.


mojo-photo-metacriticfront.jpgMetacritic is a pretty cool service, tracking down and averaging reviews of all sorts of pop culture output for our convenience. Movies, DVDs, games, TV shows, and music, Metacritic logs ’em all, grabbing reviews from all corners of the press and converting grades or ratings to a 100-point scale. For the busy culture afficionado, it allows for straightforward, easy inspection of critical reaction. For instance, Wall-E and Man on Wire currently top their movie list for 2008, and that makes sense: one’s a popular hit, and one’s a critical favorite. In 2007, their “Best-Reviewed Albums of the Year” served as a good jumping-off point in analyzing the year in music, but this year, their list has kind of gone off the deep end. After the jump, the Metacritic Top 20 (with score averages in parenthesis) and why it’s a little weird.

1. Steinski – What Does It All Mean? 1983-2006 Retrospective (90)
2. The Bug – London Zoo (90)
3. Plush – Fed (89)
4. Bon Iver – For Emma, Forever Ago (89)
5. TV On The Radio – Dear Science, (88)
6. Fleet Foxes – S/T (87)
7. Nick Cave And The Bad Seeds – Dig!!! Lazarus Dig!!! (87)
8. Robyn – S/T (86)
9. Hercules And Love Affair – S/T (86)
10. Protest The Hero – Fortress (86)
11. Shearwater – Rook (85)
12. Harvey Milk – Life…The Best Game In Town (85)
13. Portishead – Third (85)
14. The Hold Steady – Stay Positive (85)
15. Paavoharju – Laulu Laakson Kukista (85)
16. Randy Newman – Harps And Angels (85)
17. Kasai Allstars – In The 7th Moon, The Chief Turned Into A Swimming Fish And Ate The Head Of His Enemy By Magic(84)
18. The Music Tapes – Music Tapes for Clouds & Tornadoes (84)
19. Fucked Up – Chemistry Of Common Life (84)
20. Teddy Thompson – A Piece Of What You Need (84)

Where do I start? At the top, ’nuff respect to Steinski, whose cut-and-paste creations influenced everything from Girl Talk to The Avalanches. But jeez, I’m a musical collage artist (er, a wannabe artist) myself, and even I think this stuff has more intellectual appeal than “listenability.” It’s really just acid house, which had a brief flash of popular ascendance in the mid-to-late-’80s, and its fast-paced collage of musical and non-musical vocal samples (see M.A.R.R.S. “Pump Up the Volume”) sounded fresh and exciting for about 3 years. Then came Prince’s “Batdance.” Shudder. Of course, it’s vital to for critics to support musical collage as valid art, but album of the year?

At #2, The Bug have made an interesting album that distills a lot of the current reggae-inflected U.K. sounds under the aegis of “dubstep,” although some of the tracks on Zoo are really reggaeton or dancehall. The Bug’s version of dubstep, a sludgy, glacially-paced genre at the bleeding edge of musical trends, is accurate enough, but the album suffers from a typical problem with dance music edge-cutters: it sounds great when anonymous singles are mixed by a DJ in a dark club, but can get a little tiring on an album.

Plush’s Fed is a bafflingly self-indulgent Beatles-meets-Jackson-Browne jam session, Bon Iver makes strong but not exactly boundary-pushing acoustic folk, and only at #5 do we find, well, an album I love. What’s the problem here? Well, first of all, Metacritic only requires seven reviews before an album can qualify for their list, and in this day and age, that’s not too hard. The Steinski album counts Sputnikmusic, The Wire and cokemachineglow in its top reviews, and The Bug only has ten reviews total, half of them from the U.K. press. Plus, a single, random 100-point review can bring an album’s average way up. I don’t mean to be undemocratic here, Metacritic, but maybe bringing the minimum review count up wouldn’t be a bad idea, and perhaps throwing out the highest and lowest scores might help bring things back down to earth. Of course, readers interested in what the actual best albums of the year are need only pay attention to the Riff, where the definitive list will be posted in late December.

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We canā€™t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who wonā€™t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its futureā€”you.

And we need readers to show up for us big timeā€”again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We canā€™t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who wonā€™t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its futureā€”you.

And we need readers to show up for us big timeā€”again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

We Recommend

Latest

Sign up for our free newsletter

Subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily to have our top stories delivered directly to your inbox.

Get our award-winning magazine

Save big on a full year of investigations, ideas, and insights.

Subscribe

Support our journalism

Help Mother Jones' reporters dig deep with a tax-deductible donation.

Donate