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.

AN IMPORTANT UPDATE ON MOTHER JONES' FINANCES

We need to start being more upfront about how hard it is keeping a newsroom like Mother Jones afloat these days.

Because it is, and because we're fresh off finishing a fiscal year, on June 30, that came up a bit short of where we needed to be. And this next one simply has to be a year of growth—particularly for donations from online readers to help counter the brutal economics of journalism right now.

Straight up: We need this pitch, what you're reading right now, to start earning significantly more donations than normal. We need people who care enough about Mother Jones’ journalism to be reading a blurb like this to decide to pitch in and support it if you can right now.

Urgent, for sure. But it's not all doom and gloom!

Because over the challenging last year, and thanks to feedback from readers, we've started to see a better way to go about asking you to support our work: Level-headedly communicating the urgency of hitting our fundraising goals, being transparent about our finances, challenges, and opportunities, and explaining how being funded primarily by donations big and small, from ordinary (and extraordinary!) people like you, is the thing that lets us do the type of journalism you look to Mother Jones for—that is so very much needed right now.

And it's really been resonating with folks! Thankfully. Because corporations, powerful people with deep pockets, and market forces will never sustain the type of journalism Mother Jones exists to do. Only people like you will.

There's more about our finances in "News Never Pays," or "It's Not a Crisis. This Is the New Normal," and we'll have details about the year ahead for you soon. But we already know this: The fundraising for our next deadline, $350,000 by the time September 30 rolls around, has to start now, and it has to be stronger than normal so that we don't fall behind and risk coming up short again.

Please consider pitching in before moving on to whatever it is you're about to do next. We really need to see if we'll be able to raise more with this real estate on a daily basis than we have been, so we're hoping to see a promising start.

—Monika Bauerlein, CEO, and Brian Hiatt, Online Membership Director

payment methods

AN IMPORTANT UPDATE ON MOTHER JONES' FINANCES

We need to start being more upfront about how hard it is keeping a newsroom like Mother Jones afloat these days.

Because it is, and because we're fresh off finishing a fiscal year, on June 30, that came up a bit short of where we needed to be. And this next one simply has to be a year of growth—particularly for donations from online readers to help counter the brutal economics of journalism right now.

Straight up: We need this pitch, what you're reading right now, to start earning significantly more donations than normal. We need people who care enough about Mother Jones’ journalism to be reading a blurb like this to decide to pitch in and support it if you can right now.

Urgent, for sure. But it's not all doom and gloom!

Because over the challenging last year, and thanks to feedback from readers, we've started to see a better way to go about asking you to support our work: Level-headedly communicating the urgency of hitting our fundraising goals, being transparent about our finances, challenges, and opportunities, and explaining how being funded primarily by donations big and small, from ordinary (and extraordinary!) people like you, is the thing that lets us do the type of journalism you look to Mother Jones for—that is so very much needed right now.

And it's really been resonating with folks! Thankfully. Because corporations, powerful people with deep pockets, and market forces will never sustain the type of journalism Mother Jones exists to do. Only people like you will.

There's more about our finances in "News Never Pays," or "It's Not a Crisis. This Is the New Normal," and we'll have details about the year ahead for you soon. But we already know this: The fundraising for our next deadline, $350,000 by the time September 30 rolls around, has to start now, and it has to be stronger than normal so that we don't fall behind and risk coming up short again.

Please consider pitching in before moving on to whatever it is you're about to do next. We really need to see if we'll be able to raise more with this real estate on a daily basis than we have been, so we're hoping to see a promising start.

—Monika Bauerlein, CEO, and Brian Hiatt, Online Membership Director

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