Critical Acclaim. We have terrible songs hitting #1 and the artist gets no respect within the industry.

Well my fave has both so it doesn't matter

My fave has both....and a lot of both. So I don't know.

#1s of course.

I want to be remembered.

You can be critically acclaimed and irrelevant. And you can have #1 hits an be seen as joke.

#1s>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Like who gives a **** about what 10-30 music reputable snobs say about your music?

The GP>>>>>>>>>>>10 music snobs

Also people in general people never know or care about which song in critically acclaimed, just obsessive stans

#1s.

Who cares about some biased site is opinion where you've seen them base their scores on the person rather than the music itself. It's a joke.

A #1 means it's publicly acclaimed and has connected with a nation. Acclaim just means some dusty old men popped in the CD for a paycheck and gave it a score.

In reality I don't care about either. One of my faves has yet to enter the hot 100 with a single as a lead

A #1 + grammy noms

#1 means people actually bought the song.

well dah.


PD: i guess critical acclai and #1's. Because the majority of #1s are trash artists.

Same for #1s

I'd rather have a #1 ,

Haters gone hate, while the critics critique

And having a 70+ on MetaCritic is nothing to brag about unless its 85+

#1 because being relevant >

There are ****** albums with high metacritic and good albums with low scores.

Taylor has both

I'd rather my fav be taken seriously as an artist and release amazing music then release **** that goes #1.