objective facts
Images are sometimes not shown due to bandwidth/network limitations. Refreshing the page usually helps.
You are currently reading a thread in /mu/ - Music
You are currently reading a thread in /mu/ - Music
reminder to all Animal collective fans and Twenty one pilots haters
feeshbone
>>65704187
Oh oh OP I've got an even better record for you
>>65704259
but, lemonade is good
Yeah because metacritic objectively defines quality.
Fuck outta here
>>65704259
thats far better than TOP u cuck
5 critics vs 34 critics, hmm
>>65704281
It's good. But good is not 92. 92 is fucking amazing. Lemonade is just good.
>>65704349
>>65704281
Woah even better record 4 u guise
>>65704349
Doesn't metacritic just give the percentage of critics who reviewed it positively? It's not like a teacher grading a goddamn research paper handing out points, right?
>>65704374
afaik that's what rotten tomatoes does. I think metacritic actually calculates an average.
>>65704370
only accurate rating in this thread desu
>>65705094
>tpab
>good
>Caring about critic reviews
>>65704281
>>65704281
turns out marketing tastes like lemonade
>>65704370
This rating insults me. It should be a perfect 100.
>>65704187
>taking metacritic seriously
Hoo boy
I'm a connoisseur, I've conned you sir.
>comparing the score of an album with 34 reviews to one with 5 reviews
Ba-da-bing, ba-da-boom
