Quote:
Originally posted by Sazare
No. The Grammys have awarded the likes of the Baha Men, Mumford & Sons, and Herbie Hancock. The Grammys are not voted on by actual critics. They are an empty trophy show and their taste is not meant to be taken seriously. Everyone knows this, everyone except stans desperate for some receipt of their faves' acclaim in the absence of any actual receipts of acclaim.
Metacritic is flawed as well, though obviously they have more cred than the Grammys because they while they do sample actual critics from reputed publications, they only sample a small number of critics from each and the reviews are largely done immediately upon release rather than after the dust has been given adequate time to settle.
acclaimedmusic.net is probably the closest thing we have to a true barometer for critical cachet, because it's essentially a compilation of thousands of different critics' lists which have in total polled many more thousands of different critics, thereby reaching an actually meaningful sample. It's quite telling that Taylor's presence on that site is negligible.
|
The Herbie Hancock album was actually pretty damn good and deserving on AOTY over Graduation atleast, but thats going off topic.
The true barometer is the Pazz and Jop poll, and in 2014 two of Taylor Swifts singles landed in the top 5 on it. How are you guys bypassing that? And honestly, the 2014 acclaimedmusic list will most likely add them too.....
Also according to that site, both Never Mind the Bollocks - Here's the Sex Pistols, and Nevermind by Nirvana are better than all of the David Bowie, Stevie Wonder, Hendrix, Prince, Pink Floyd, and Radiohead albums.
**** that.
