But forreal, I'm confused -- what does acclaim get you?
Like, when you die -- people gon be like 'Wow. She had a 82 on Metacritic. Such an amazing accomplishment?'.
When you get a #1 it's set in stone, the public knows, it's a huge seller and you get bucks from it. What do you get from New York Times giving your album 4 stars?
And as I say in EVERY thread like this.
People w/ Most #1's:
People w/ Most Grammys:
Which ones are bigger? Impacted music more? Will go down in history more?
There's people with over 20 Grammys and the public still has not a clue to their music.
TBH when you search on google metacritic never comes up in suggested searches. No one but ATRL uses it. Plus my computer always autocorrects it to meteoric
Blurred Lines was one of the biggest #1s of all time and some good it did to Robin Thicke
Some artists get like 95 on MC and still, no one knows they exist.
Can only answer this if it's a specific #1 vs a specific acclaimed song or album.
That's because of the song's lyrics + video. If it were Sex Therapy or something getting BL's success he'd have been fine. BL is like the only exception
I'm more here for #1s because that means her music is selling and her coins are accruing, but my fave has both (13 #1 hits and 7 GRAMMY Awards) so she's able to do both with her pop juggernaut smashes (Umbrella, We Found Love, Only Girl, etc.).
This kind of only works for a Grammy's vs. #1's situation tho. If you notice all these artist with a lot of #1 singles also tend to be very acclaimed and praised in their career's too.
I mean compared to Paula Abdul, who had a string of #1 hits or so, and had one flop single and her career kind of just died. Her music wasn't anything to really fawn over.
Realistically speaking you do need both if you wanna have a lasting career.
It's obvious. Millions of listeners, and people buying your songs >>>>>>>>>> Around 20 music reviews; there's a reason why the Grammy Awards take notice of those hits, and give them actual relevant acclaim rather than just follow Metacritic, and their biased, and older crowd mentality.
If you go to any pirate site and say look for an acclaimed piece of work from 50 years ago, you'll find it.
If you start looking for 1s say from just as early as 90s, you won't find half of them. They are just forgotten and unwanted.
Critical acclaim lives on, fame doesn't.
ps. Grammys are not a measure of acclaim. They are about recognition. For acclaim needs go to acclaimedmusic.net
In a figurative world with no bias, acclaim. However, many reviews are focused on things other than music nowadays and it defeats the purpose, or sometimes the review is just so bad and full of straight-up inaccuracies that I wouldn't even want that for my fave.
And I love The Visual Album and I think it deserved its MC score and more, but I doubt it would have been as high if it wasn't for the surprise release leading reviewers to be favorable towards it. It probably would have ended up in the 70s like a lot of pop girl albums, just because it's very sexual and by a pop girl.
poor them! Thankfully my fave artist (a band) is grammy nominated and million of records sold WW 
