So basically ATRL believes that acclaim = Metacritic and that's the end of it.

Why does ATRL believe that commercial success can not be a form of acclaim ?
Awards. . . ?
Praise from Industry, Praise from GP, Praise from fellow artists/legends ?

So EMOTION is somehow one of the most "acclaimed" albums this year even tho almost no one has heard the album (literally) ?

So somehow some indie artists that a really, really, really small group of people have heard their music are somehow the most acclaimed, because 20 people gave them 90+ score on Metacritic ?

Teenage Dream in my opinion is far more acclaimed than a lot of other albums despite having less than 60 on metacritic. . . It was nominated for Grammys etc..

Who decides what good music is ?

What kind of thinking do you have to have to say that 25's sales are not speaking of it's quality ? When no one in history (possibly) have sold that much, that quick ?

Comparing an album with a 77 score, 3000 sales and no awards or any GP recognition (despite the album being pure POP) to 25 with 76 score future awards and 50M sales in its first minute on sale and somehow the 77 score album is more acclaimed cuz it got let's say 25 reviews and 25 god 30 reviews and that (might) have lowered its score to 76 (for example) ?

Somehow performing and showcasing incredible vocal abilities and then getting praised everywhere is not acclaim, cuz it wasn't rated on metacritic ... ?

Discuss.

They just roll things in such a way to make their fave look the biggest out of all popstars

it really is not but ok

Acclaimed = shothand for critically acclaimed, implying critics' opinion.

Preach sis.

Critics. I mean music critics.

Not middle aged white men Grammy voters.

And metacritic is just the initial reaction side of things. A clearer picture is painted in year end lists where Carly happens to be absolutely crushing Adele.

Publicly praised.

It's called "critically" acclaimed, not "publicly" acclaimed Really not a difficult concept to grasp. And Metacritic point differences aren't the ultimate way to measure acclaim, d.


And whether you like it or not, critically respected artists (aka the ones who generally make good music) are often the ones who stand the test of time, even if they had more popular peers at one point.

I kinda agree with this but some artists are not big enough for them to be recognized by GP or get at least awards noms... it's not their fault and maybe if they were big enough they would. You know how awards shows works nowadays...

Sales are not a part of critical acclaim.

Critically acclaimed and acclaimed aren't the same.

Six words.

Metacritic shouldn't be taken so seriously especially when Confident and Revival have a 74 metascore with only 9 reviews. Yours Truly is another example.

Stans be like "Confident" is more acclaimed than AOTY winner Fearless just because it got 74 and Fearless got 73

Critical "acclaim" is relevant to me tbh. If you enjoy an album, why do you have to care about what some music snobs say?

"Critical acclaim" comes down to far more than Metacritic. Ace kinda already clocked you on this in that other thread so I don't really know why you don't just respond to him there.
Rational thinking.

That's because of people unable to look past Call Me Maybe and it's quite irritating.

And everyone has different opinions on what makes an album good music is but it's the critics that decide and people can be sheep and follow them, or break out of the box and discover music on their own.

I'd reply to more but mobile won't let me copy

That's already been answered
When someone on ATRL mentions "acclaim," it's generally implied they're referring to the critics.

And this is where the problem lies - dragging stans won't make your pop star any bigger. It'll eventually make you all look like a bunch of pricks

But they are. NO ONE outside of this damn website talks about being "publicly" acclaimed. That's called "popular."

Sometimes critical acclaim and popularity happen simultaneously, which is great, and sometimes one occurs without the other. Oh well.

Critics are the best way to decide what's good music and what's not whether you like it or not. Of course they are not always right but they are closer to the truth than anybody else. Grammys are driven by success (and quality) so no they do not define acclaim that well.
By the way Teenage Dream is NOT a good album (cause u mentioned it in the OP).
When 1 album has a 76 score of course you cannot tell if it's better than another album with a 74 score because they are very close, but i think you can say it's better than an album with a 58 score or sth.