Often after a critic has given their thoughts on some album they will
then summarize their impressions with a numerical rating. 8/10. 5
stars. Four SadDogs™ out of five. You're familiar with this sort of
thing I'm sure. This system is great for consumers (or whatever else
you'd call us) as it gives them an instant and quantifiable way of
knowing whether something is good or not. But how useful is this number
when you consider that they are judging art?
I'm sure most of you are guilty of having gone online when your most favouritest band ever released their new album so that you could see what kind of scores critics gave it. You might also recall feeling angry or confused when your favourite thing didn't get a high score. But notice the terminology there: "high score". If this is a normal way for people to talk about art then what does this imply about the way we view art? Should we be worried that people are more preoccupied with the numbers music is given than what people actually have to say about them?
From the perspective of a critic/review type person it's understandable why they'd make use of this system. Not only does it give people a clear idea of how good they thought the album was but gives people a reason to click on their site. I'm heavily under the impression that there are a lot of people out there who check review sites just to see the scores with no interest of actually reading the reasoning behind them. Therefore it is in the critics interest to include scores so that more people check their sites, increased traffic, increased revenue, etc etc etc.
But if the opinions of popular critics are held in high esteem and their opinions are measured and compared with numeric scores then it it follows that they are deciding for you what you should or shouldn't like. While it is ones own responsibility to decide for themselves what they do or don't like it must be considered how easily a person can be influenced now with how accessible the opinions of critics and others are.
One other thing you might be familiar with is the abundance of "pretty high but not perfect" type of scores where you get a lot of 8-9/10 scores with very few scores below 6/10. I think the amount this happens is different between different mediums (music, movies, video games etc) but it's still prevalent all over the place. I can't imagine what the cause of this might be. Maybe it has something to do with not rocking the boat. Or perhaps some critics just have a very positive impression of everything they review? Regardless, the result of this is not useful to consumers who the reviews are supposedly written for if everything is either a 8 or 9 out of ten. Now people just treat 8 as "alright", 9 as "pretty good" and 10 as "non-existent". These critics sure must be cynical, maybe they are doing their job after all.
That's all I guess. If anyone reads this I'd love to hear what you think about the issue.
To summarize: I think we like having scores over not having scores but I'm not sure if it's a good thing.
P.S. SadDogs™ is not real
P.P.S. as far as I know
I'm sure most of you are guilty of having gone online when your most favouritest band ever released their new album so that you could see what kind of scores critics gave it. You might also recall feeling angry or confused when your favourite thing didn't get a high score. But notice the terminology there: "high score". If this is a normal way for people to talk about art then what does this imply about the way we view art? Should we be worried that people are more preoccupied with the numbers music is given than what people actually have to say about them?
From the perspective of a critic/review type person it's understandable why they'd make use of this system. Not only does it give people a clear idea of how good they thought the album was but gives people a reason to click on their site. I'm heavily under the impression that there are a lot of people out there who check review sites just to see the scores with no interest of actually reading the reasoning behind them. Therefore it is in the critics interest to include scores so that more people check their sites, increased traffic, increased revenue, etc etc etc.
But if the opinions of popular critics are held in high esteem and their opinions are measured and compared with numeric scores then it it follows that they are deciding for you what you should or shouldn't like. While it is ones own responsibility to decide for themselves what they do or don't like it must be considered how easily a person can be influenced now with how accessible the opinions of critics and others are.
One other thing you might be familiar with is the abundance of "pretty high but not perfect" type of scores where you get a lot of 8-9/10 scores with very few scores below 6/10. I think the amount this happens is different between different mediums (music, movies, video games etc) but it's still prevalent all over the place. I can't imagine what the cause of this might be. Maybe it has something to do with not rocking the boat. Or perhaps some critics just have a very positive impression of everything they review? Regardless, the result of this is not useful to consumers who the reviews are supposedly written for if everything is either a 8 or 9 out of ten. Now people just treat 8 as "alright", 9 as "pretty good" and 10 as "non-existent". These critics sure must be cynical, maybe they are doing their job after all.
That's all I guess. If anyone reads this I'd love to hear what you think about the issue.
To summarize: I think we like having scores over not having scores but I'm not sure if it's a good thing.
P.S. SadDogs™ is not real
P.P.S. as far as I know
