How good 86/100 on metacritic anyways?

It's about a B.

86/100 on metacritic is pretty damn good.

Anything above 80/100 is definitely great by that site's standards

>>61757862
TPAB is the highest rated on there and it's about 96.

So an A- probably.

It's a 9/10 for me personally.

File: CFrYCG-WEAAXw_X.png (20KB, 112x112px) Image search: [Google]

20KB, 112x112px

>>61757862
>metacritic
>reliable

pick one

>>61757901
their problem is they take all critics into account. That means any retarded cunt writing for any retarded publication can affect the ratings.

That isn't a problem for sites like imdb and rotten tomatoes since it has a huge userbase. But metacritic review count is relatively small and idiots can have a big say in a rating.

>>61757899
96 is an A

>>61758031
If 96 is the highest on the site, it's an A+ you idiot.

We're not grading like in school. 96 isn't an A in the same way that 86 isn't a B. You have to scale it based on what is possible.

>>61758084
100 is possible.

>>61758246
>implying a single album could ever be agreed upon by every critic in the world as being a 100% perfect record.

A 100 is not possible ever. Even in a hundred years time, with all the chances for an album to get a perfect rating by everyone, it still wont happen. Just by sheer probability, it's impossible.

>>61758288
What about 97, 98 and 99?

in the wake of his death you know the reviews are half bullshit anyway. I think the album is excellent but no one's going to be critical of it now (unless they're being blatantly contrarian)

>>61758339
The lower you go, the higher the probability.

I'd fathom a 97 is possible. Until it happens, 96 is the threshold.

Technically of course it is possible for a 100 to happen in the sense that it can be done physically, but unless the record is super obscure and gets almost no reviews, it basically can't happen. Out of the 40 or so critics metacritic looks at, at least one is guaranteed to find a flaw.

Of course the other assumption here is that a record that is agreed by more critics to be mostly good is better than a record that more critics agree on being perfect, but more critics rate lower. So basically, if a record is more experimental, it's less likely to be rated highly on metacritic.

>>61758389
>wah muh objectivity lost, his death is inflating scores
You're so fucking stupid

>>61757862
Hah, only two points ahead of Currents. Blackstar confirmed for plebtier emo music.

>>61758414
Taking into account that 100 is not possible, 91-99 includes nine numbers. Divide that by three, and you have the A-, A and A+ categories. As follows:

91-93: A-
94-96: A
97-99: A+

(90 would be B+/A- due to ambiguity.)

>>61758501
Again, we're assuming even a 98 is possible.
And again, the number of reviews matters.

My point is that getting an 86 on metacritic is much harder and not equivalent to having a B album in terms of how most critics rate records.

>>61758529
Metacritic scores are made up on the terms of how critics rate records.

>>61757935
Oh so you want Metacritics retarded userbase to do reviews again, do you really want to have fuckwits like the guy at the bottom complain about Halcyon digest because it "Panders to an elitist indie clientele, right?"

http://www.metacritic.com/music/halcyon-digest/deerhunter

Biggest problem with this album for me is that it's only 7 tracks

>>61758866
Biggest problem for me is that it's a bit too eclectic for my sister, but it's growing on her.