RYM average reviews are one of the worst sources for critical opinion that it's possible to find
even most writers on p4k have better taste than these useless averages
popularity is never a good indicator of musical quality, and I don't know why you'd think asking what's popular amongst a certain autistic subset is any better
>>64071886
rym is the most reliable indicator of album quality on the internet, prove me wrong
On top of that the averaging can only take things people rate into account so if most people just rate bands they're a fan of it can't even gauge popularity very well
You should never ever use RYM charts if you have any taste at all
nice blog
>>64071929
it's about 50 words I didn't think that was too challenging
opinions on limedibagels
>>64072078
giving no score is needlessly unhelpful. Also his reviews aren't well written and, from checking a few, his taste seems bad
>>64072078
piece of shit, and gets fucking everywhere.
marsbars too
>>64071886
Now is probably my favourite site on the net.
But wait until the revamp and the change of interface and name to sonemic. In five years the site will be goodreads for music. And the top 3 of all time will be Adeles 21, Queen's A night at the opera and a System of a down album
>>64072133
honestly the only good thing about that dude is that his reviews are well written, even if sometimes he misses the mark.
>>64072144
i think bagels is alright, at least he was interesting (well kinda, him and marsbars and all the other people that act like each other are extremely predictable but still) and was a solid writer.
marsbars though. not even once my man.
>>64072225
The top albums are garbage already so I don't care if they get worse
>>64072225
i doubt this will happen desu
>>64072259
>trip
>edgy and shitty unargumented and uncultured opinion just to try to create a defined internet personality
To be expected
>>64071886
You realize that most people don't give a shit about the reviews right?
I use it to catalog my collection and archive my ratings of albums
>>64071898
Why say "prove me wrong" when this is plainly true
>>64072296
there is no personality here and I did explain that popularity contests are a shitty way to judge art, so you're just giving the standard bullshit response with 0 thought for the context
also if you think popularity contests are good you have greater problems with music taste
>>64072300
>>64072315
most people on this board trust RYM averages more than any critic - because they are stupid and tasteless
>>64072225
>And the top 3 of all time will be Adeles 21, Queen's A night at the opera and a System of a down album
Funny since you're probably one of those casuals that came from /mu/ and contributed to all that buzz crap in the top 100
>>64072257
>his reviews are well written
one of the most important ways you judge a writing style is clarity and conciseness at communicating the message
>And I'll take any opportunity I can to remind y'all that the retroactively-canonized Pinkerton is in fact a tedious hunk of dogshit, a 'darker,' 'more abrasive,' 'unsettlingly confessional' album of self-loathing that's actually just a juvenile and incredibly fucking boring sophomore slump with barely even any decent tunes to be found. Pinkerton can also take a lot of the blame for turning 'emo' from visceral stuff like Jawbreaker, Cap'n Jazz, and Sunny Day Real Estate into putrid obnoxiousness like Panic! At the Disco, Dashboard Confessional, Fall Out Boy, and other preening idiots that filled any sane kid going to high school in the mid-'00s with crippling despair. (Not that those earlier bands couldn't be pretty annoying too, but at least they knew dynamics.) Or to quote Dr. David Thorpe from a great 2006 evisceration of Weezer's career: 'Pinkerton represents a landmark in the current mass-media perception of "emo": while bearing little resemblance to actual emo music, Pinkerton was so acutely pathetic that it managed to practically redefine the term, helping to usher in the era of emo as "pop-punk + whining" that we enjoy so well today.'
wtf is all this
>>64072354
Most people in real life listen to Top 40 pop and think The Beatles are the greatest band of all time.
The majority usually has a shit opinion, get over it
>>64072395
A well written meme
>>64072404
>The majority usually has a shit opinion, get over it
I am completely over it wtf are you talking about...
the problem is when people take these averages seriously as a critic, like people on this board right now will tell you an RYM score is worth more than a Scaruffi score
>>64072440
[citation required]
>>64072395
he is essentially communicating in that review (and his elliott smith reviews which are infamous on the website at this point) that if you like weezer or elliott smith you have both shit taste and are an ethically bad person.
read his either/or review if you want to feel like killing yourself.
>>64072460
how new are you... most of the people in this thread probably value an RYM average above a Scaruffi score
>>64072478
How new are you to be making baseless claims with no citations and then passing it off as fact?
Either provide me with some proof that this is so from the archive or fuck off with that presumptious shit
>>64071886
rym is fine, you just have to go for albums with <2000 ratings
>this newer argumentative trip person and proge man in a fight
>>64072604
Stupid bait trip please go
>>64071886
>rating Transformer higher than Berlin
>>64072641
i haven't intentionally baited anyone
>>64071886
You're a fucking idiot
>>64072680
Your fucking shit opinions on King Crimson count as bait you faggot
>>64072701
wow great argument faggotron
>>64072361
85% of the álbums i rate are not even in the top 100 bro.
And btw, you cannot deny that for a site with a democrátic rating system the top 100 is probably better that any top 100 from any magazine. Most of people havent heard any álbum from that top
>>64072707
stop being so edgy lmao
>>64072832
If anything's edgy the opinion that ITWOP is better than ITCOTCK is
>>64072440
they are both worth the same (nothing)
>>64072997
this is stupid
>>64072850
stop trying so hard to make the discussion revolve around you and your irrelevant issues
>>64072567
this makes no sense
>>64072679
well yeah that's an example of how these scores are bad, but I was mainly pointing out the underrating of MMM. Absolutely laughable scores on all counts I suppose
>>64073055
Metal Machine Music sucks lmao
In my opinion, the best way to use rateyourmusic is with a small community of contacts on it. Disregard average ratings, optionally disregard ratings at all.
I get the most enjoyment out of it from suggested albums, recommendations and lists from friends, and reviews (especially from contacts).
Rating is nice to build up a catalogue, but shouldn't be treated as some sacred final verdict.
>>64072774
>á
>>64073055
>WHAT? YOU'RE ASKING ME TO BACK UP MY CLAIMS WITH FACTS?
>THAT MAKES NO SENSE
Guess who arrived
>>64073127
you've already shown your IQ low enough that you lose track of a thread within a few minutes, the cuck memes aren't backing you up
>>64073103
yeah this is a good way to use it, it's hard to find users you trust 100% but an average of your friends can definitely be useful
>>64073090
http://www.rocknroll.net/loureed/articles/mmmbangs.html
>>64073127
>le cucks amirite XD???
>ayyyy king crimso proge man
>>64073162
I asked you for proof that your claims are true and/or relevant. You have provided absolutely none and have even said that my demand for proof makes no sense.
You are acting exactly like that fucking libcuck
>>64073174
>MISSING THE POINT
Awful bait by the way
is this the new rym thread
https://rateyourmusic.com/~floatings
how much do oreos cost again
>>64072440
Scaruffi literally doesn't speak English roflmao
Have you not seen the thousands of reviews that are written only in Italian
Anyone who divorces poetry from music is a pleb
>>64072707
>>"ok"
>"ok"
"ok"
lol
ya know, you're all right, proge man
>>64073229
Not only you posted a dumb anime picture you responded to the wrong fucking post too.
And you once again completely dodged my point
This is bait isn't it?
>>64073196
>fucking libcuck!!!
>>64073229
???
>>64073246
>>64073253
come on give me my 60 seconds you don't have to jump on me
Well this thread got weird
>>64073246
>>64073252
See
Good job at least you had the decency to delete the post
And then repost the same shitty anime photo
Take your bait elsewhere, I'm done
proge man ur voting cruz, right?
>>64073287
>I'm done
I doubt it very much, your attention seeking deliberate misunderstandings know no end nor no improvement
>>64073196
literally not bait in anyway
>>64073200
what's in those bottles
At least RYM you get the opinions of several people instead of just one person.
I wish I could listen to progressive rock and not be ashamed of its fucking retarded fanbase
>>64073323
beer
take a sip; Friend.........
>>64072296
This desu senpai
>>64072259
>>64073311
You're an edgy trip with horrible taste and idiotic contrarian opinions. Oh, so objective aggregate ratings are wrong and you're right? Congratulations, fuck off.
>>64072296
do u at least think im okay, anon?
im not bein' edgy or -nothin'-!
>>64073529
to be fair, intersubjective =/= objective
but your point is right that it's audacious to assume you must always be "correct" and disregard all opinions to the contrary
>>64073846
This is well-phrased. "Intersubjective" isn't a word that gets used a lot, but it's perfect here.
Music is inherently subjective. Critical objectivity cannot be achieved, but we can approach it with Intersubjectivity. The more ratings, the closer we get to objectivity, which is what RYM does.
>>64074113
see but i think that's a misconception as well
more expansive intersubjectivity doesn't approach objectivity because objectivity exists independent of -any- opinion
what it does do is give you a good idea of what human beings are disposed to liking, so the idea is kind of like the higher rated something is, the more statistically probable it is for a person to like it
that's all you can get from rym though
i'm outta here; have a good day, anon
>>64074113
>"Intersubjective" isn't a word that gets used a lot, but it's perfect here.
What are you, twelve years old?
>The more ratings, the closer we get to objectivity, which is what RYM does.
No.
>>64074249
aw hampus be nice
>bye4real
>>64074239
>objectivity exists independent of -any- opinion
lul
>hat it does do is give you a good idea of what human beings are disposed to liking, so the idea is kind of like the higher rated something is, the more statistically probable it is for a person to like it
No no no and no.
>>64074287
>>64074249
Jk guys, I'm an actual idiot.
Shitty website for plebs
we are truly in the worst era of /mu/ trips
I've been browsing /mu/ for like six years and I've never disliked the trips as much as I do now
holy shit you people are so pretentious and image obsessed I can hardly stand it, goddamn
you're all terrible
>>64074422
Welcome to /mu/ newfag
>>64071886
/mu/ is the worst source on the internet for critical opinion.
>>64073529
>>64073846
I never said my own opinions are the best ones, I'm a mediocre critic and I'll admit that right away
however, even my scores are better than the RYM average
>>64074422
I am not image obsessed at all I don't even have an image wtf
this argument is made much easier by my posts being labelled, and I just make the thread because I think it's important /mu/ stops being so popularity obsessed if it wants to be an art board to any extent
>>64075032
>I am not image obsessed at all I don't even have an image wtf
Why the tripfags are always the most retarded ones of the bunch?
We all fucking know that popularity does not equal quality, but we also know that quality is not measurable at all.
For real, are you fucking 12? If not, then you have some serious social and intelectual problems.
>>64075305
quality is easily ascertained you just fucking listen to the music
>>64075344
What is the unit used in quality measurement?
>>64075378
it's fundamentally subjective there is no measurement
however a credible critic will give the same judgement as another credible critic
>>64075401
>however a credible critic will give the same judgement as another credible critic
Proof?
>>64075428
what else do you think "credible" means
>>64075378
gronvall scale
>>64075440
This seems like a circular argument. Credible critics will give pass the same judgement, and they're credible because they pass the same judgement.
>>64075458
well it's a definition sure, so it's basically an assertion
the point is that we can approach an objective assessment of quality by a consensus amongst credible critics, once we have (arbitrarily if you like) decided which critics are credible
Just passing by to say that I fucking hate every single one of you, including this shithole. Have a nice day.
>>64075549
>criticising art makes me SO ANGRY BOO!!! HEAR ME CRY
>>64075538
In this case you're basing "objective assessment" on the intersubjective opinions of an institution that you have yourself subjectively and arbitrarily chosen. This is not objective.
>>64075549
you're from RYM aren't u
>>64075600
I didn't claim objective though I claimed it was "ascertainable" i.e. once you've joined the (arbitrary) good taste club it's possible to work out if an album is good
so, the point about RYM averages is that they fail to agree with the credible critics on everything, because they lean towards pop a lot basically
>>64075664
>I didn't claim objective
>the point is that we can approach an objective assessment of quality
????
>so, the point about RYM averages is that they fail to agree with the credible critics on everything
Since we just asserted that the criterion for "credible critic" is entirely arbitrary, or even worse circular like in your original post about it (credible because they're in consensus), then we might as well call RYM reviews "credible critics". By your own logic.
>>64075574
>resorting to meme reaction images
> that strawman
Yeah, just fuck off, tripfriend.
>>64075717
I said "approach objective" meaning mimic it, not great language but you know what I mean now anyway
>Since we just asserted that the criterion for "credible critic" is entirely arbitrary, or even worse circular like in your original post about it (credible because they're in consensus), then we might as well call RYM reviews "credible critics". By your own logic.
sure you can do that but a lot of people whose opinions I value (including myself) will say you have bad taste. Circular is a bit of a buzzword there btw it's ok and necessary to select a group which agrees internally
>>64075797
you really gonna post "I hate you all" and then demand to be taken seriously
Like, what's up with the scores themselves, not averages.
Most people give "Album" 2 stars, which translates to 4/10, but then their personal rating schemes say "6/10, average".
Then an obviously filled with effort record, that an artist has worked on with care and love, has a mean average of 3.24. You know what that is?
6 1/2! That's average!
"Good" albums barely reach an 8, classical compositions rack around 7s and 6s... no music is really a 9 or a 10.
Plus, if you are prone to rating things with high scores, like an ok rock album is a 7 for you (but a 1.5/5 for others) you are always met with:
>hahah, those high scores bruh tho. XD
This is not your ass backwards school of rating. The language of numbers is set, not moving according to your autistic impulses.
Half of RYM is contrarians, the other is brainless poppy men. So the first will give OK Computer 3/5, the seconds 5/5 and that's where it stands at.
>>64075857
>I said "approach objective" meaning mimic it, not great language but you know what I mean now anyway
I do now but you're still wrong, there's nothing that suggests that consensus within an institution is remotely close to any objective reality. At best you can say that it is true to their socially constructed reality, but nothing else.
Objectivity is a meme.
>sure you can do that but a lot of people whose opinions I value (including myself) will say you have bad taste.
So then it's all, again, just based on your own suggestive and arbitrary opinions, which means anyone else's opinion is just as worth as your own, and they will probably think you have shit taste and they're just as correct as you are.
>Circular is a bit of a buzzword there btw it's ok and necessary to select a group which agrees internally
No it's not your entire premise about what constitutes "credible critics" was based on circular logic.
>>64074266
>>64074239
>>64073300
>>64073242
>reads a visual novel once
>>64071898
averages are not a good indicator of quality but they're a perfect indicator of social capital
>>64075923
>So then it's all, again, just based on your own suggestive and arbitrary opinions, which means anyone else's opinion is just as worth as your own, and they will probably think you have shit taste and they're just as correct as you are.
if we only accept hard physical objectivity sure but that's never been the point
looking at the example of MMM which RYM dislikes, the people who say it's complete unlistenable garbage usually don't take music seriously or certainly don't listen to anything drone-oriented - often they've never listened to anything primarily experimental in their life
however obviously as music listeners we do not value their opinions equally with critics who know what they're talking about, and obviously neither you nor I thinks they are "just as correct"
so once again it's not my opinion it's consensus amongst the people that matter, and because of that consensus I do feel confident to say that it's a good album with more weight than if I just thought that personally
>>64075923
>>64076110
this doesn't make it completely settled that it's a good album, it's just more true than the opposite opinion if you want to use that language and you do have to, to take reviews for anything more than entertainment
>>64076110
>if we only accept hard physical objectivity sure but that's never been the point
But that is what objectivity is.
>looking at the example of MMM which RYM dislikes, the people who say it's complete unlistenable garbage usually don't take music seriously or certainly don't listen to anything drone-oriented - often they've never listened to anything primarily experimental in their life
You can take music very seriously and think MMM, and all drone-oriented music, is utter unlistenable garbage. It's not like people at conservatories study MMM.
>however obviously as music listeners we do not value their opinions equally with critics who know what they're talking about, and obviously neither you nor I thinks they are "just as correct"
Why not? You said yourself that your criteria for "credible critic" are completely arbitrary. By that logic they are just as correct as anyone else, as they can be picked out to be the "credible critics" arbitrarily.
>so once again it's not my opinion it's consensus amongst the people that matter
"the people that matter" is your own subjective and arbitrary opinion, which means the entire premise is arbitrary and subjective.
You need to straighten out your internal logic and come with some good arguments, son, because so far everything you've said simply boils down "because that's what I think and everyone else must be wrong".
>>64074287
>>64074326
you're confusing
>>64075951
yes, that happened
ks is awesome tho
>>64074422
of course i'm interested in my image, just like anyone else. sure i cultivate my image more actively, but the question is "do you like how i present myself?" and that's my question to you, anon.
>>64074962
>however, even my scores are better than the RYM average
. . . in your opinion
you seem to have trouble understanding what "subjective" means
>>64074962
You have autism
source: someone with genuine autism
>>64072641
>>64072604
i hate both of you retards. filtered
>>64076215
but you value critical opinions too right? Why are you asking me to explain that arbitrary decision to you when you have also made it
>>64076233
>you seem to have trouble understanding what "subjective" means
you are overstating what subjective means along with everyone else ITT
for example consider a subjective academic field like the study of literature. Do you really think any interpretation is equally valuable? Because I can guarantee no English academic thinks that
In the same sense within that academic field there is no rulebook for which opinions are best or more credible, but for sure there is consensus amongst the biggest names
i like rym
>>64076326
So do I, they're not always right, and there is a little bit of a monopoly in terms of the hierarchy of long term users but it's extremely good for discovering music
>>64076317
>but you value critical opinions too right?
Critical opinions? Yes. By critics more than anyone else? Not necessarily.
>Why are you asking me to explain that arbitrary decision to you when you have also made it
Because unlike you, I am not pretending like my opinion (of whose opinion) is better than anyone else's. I accept that within any institution there will be an intersubjective consensus or conflict about what constitutes good or bad music, and that in a socially constructed reality there is nothing to say that one opinion is better than another.
>>64076326
>>64076359
do you use top 40 to find new music as well?
>>64076382
By your own logic, wouldn't the top 40 be a great place to find new music? It is generally created from a consensus of critics who promote it for radio play and make it popular. By your own internal logic, the fact that there is a critical consensus should mean that they are "credible critics", and therefore you should listen to them.
>>64076382
No I don't. I usually ask the local record store clerk about genres he knows I'm interested in. Sometimes it's bad, sometimes it's fantastic, mostly the latter, but I trust him. RYM is a good tool for this too if you know what the genres you like sounded like in different time periods.
>>64076310
>announcing filters
;) got me good
>>64071886
Pic unrelated. Go fuck yourself.
>>64076419
consensus is just one of the criteria for credibility, it can't be the full definition because there are so many different groups in consensus of course
>>64076490
I like Lou Reed
>>64076379
>there will be an intersubjective consensus
>there is nothing to say that one opinion is better than another
all I ask is that we join the dots here and call the critical consensus the better opinion. It's not science
>>64076460
yeah cool so we basically agree
the only point of all this is that I be allowed to say "this opinion is bad" or "this is not credible", given that we loosely agree on the same body of critics
>>64076571
>consensus is just one of the criteria for credibility, it can't be the full definition because there are so many different groups in consensus of course
It's the only criterion you gave.
>all I ask is that we join the dots here and call the critical consensus the better opinion. It's not science
There's no such thing as a better opinion. Per definition an opinion is subjective, and as we all know, subjective phenomenon are only better or worse within your own socially constructed reality which will differ from that of other people.
>>64076419
pseudo-paraphrasing your main point:
>if there isn't a collection of critics who decide what's good, then there may be more "bad" music held up as the best, such as the top 40
yes, that's true! and for many people the top 40 is a wonderful way to find new music that is of high quality to them. if top 40 doesn't appeal to you, then find critics whom you can trust. see >>64076460
>>64076571
if you say that with the addendum of "given the opinion of x critics", then yes, that is an accurate thing to say. otherwise, it's just your lone opinion.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3MUGAxpI0Bc
here's a good song
>>64076609
I asked that we call it the better opinion, not that this becomes a scientific fact. It's just something we can do because it happens that our subjective opinions coincide a lot
why doesn't billy danze have any solo projects?
he has such a great hip hop voice
>>64076672
>I asked that we call it the better opinion
Which is your own arbitrary and subjective opinion, like I said is all your internal logic boils down to.
>It's just something we can do because it happens that our subjective opinions coincide a lot
Actually Metal Machine Music is fucking garbage.
conclusion: music is subjective
/thread
how about that?
>>64076694
honestly a lot of what makes MMM so good to me is that it comes from Lou Reed, it's pretty easy to not like it so much as an artistic statement and then for pure skill there's not much left. I don't know how you can call it garbage though...
>>64076814
>I don't know how you can call it garbage though...
Because it's literally shit made by a talentless hack. Ask anyone who works at a conservatory and they'll agree.
>>64076825
isn't she cute?
that's xuxo's new profile pic on his rym
as you can see, k t has a cute lil mustache drawn on
>>64076808
"music is subjective" is a completely obvious and empty statement that doesn't even begin to address the disagreement here
>>64076832
Lou Reed's talent does not really come into it
>>64076855
>Lou Reed's
>talent
Pick one.
>>64076855
really? because it seems something like this
*clears throat*
"i like metal machine music"
"metal machine music is bad"
"no"
"yes"
etc.
>>64076869
fresh memes from the meme lord
Anyway musical ability does not even correlate with taste in my experience. I take the opinions of someone like Lester Bangs who I linked previously much more seriously than a consensus within conservatoires
>>64076901
*holds up spork* xP
>>64076923
cool passive-aggressive ad hom, kid
better luck next time
>>64076923
>Anyway musical ability does not even correlate with taste in my experience.
You know why? Because taste is an entirely arbitrary and subjective construct, which means "good" or "bad" is also entirely subjective and up to each individual actor :^)
This was a good discussion, too bad you couldn't come with any single argument in favour of your initial premises and got completely #BIOTOLD
I hope to see you around again soon.
>>64076958
>ad hom
did you learn that one in /r/atheism
boy you are such a powerful debater
>>64076971
. . . >>64076958 applies
wew
>>64076995
oh wow another ad hominem
is it three strikes and I'm out? I forgot the /r/atheism rules it's been a while since I visited
>>64077028
i'm bored. you aren't particularly bright enough for me to want to entertain this detour any further.
i'm going to leave now.
>>64077049
OK senpai we can agree that you're leaving because you're cleverer than me if that's necessary
heheh meme
