I like reading music reviews. No one should base their opinions on what someone else thinks but i like hearing from articulate people who have given a record some thought, just to see how other people respond to the music and to see if they've picked up on something I've missed.

I was tooling around on the metacritic site (which works like rotten tomatoes, compiling other people's rewviews) and noticed that its reviews for PJ's output this decade are almost the inverse of the fan community (or at least this community) perception of these same records.

Based on what we've seen here the RM community prefers Binaural to Riot Act to Backspacer to S/T

Metacritic overall rankings

Binaural: 69 (16 reviews)
Riot Act: 73 (20 reviews)
Pearl Jam: 74 (28 reviews)
Backspacer: 79 (24 reviews)

by way of comparison, the Ten reissue got an 84 (12 reviews) and Into the Wild a 67 (14 reviews).



I wonder why that is? These reviewers almost certainly spend less time on these records then fans do, although initial impressions tend to harden pretty quickly. They also may have fewer expectations about what a pearl jam record SHOULD sound like.


The fan reviews are generally much more favorable but they follow the same trend.

Backspacer (9.2 based on 167 ratings)
S/T (8.8 based on 273 ratings)
Into the Wild (8.7 based on 67 reviews)
Riot Act (8.4 based on 82 ratings)
Binaural (8.0 based on 24 ratings)

Couple things I thought of that need to be considered in this type of discussion:

1. Rule of proximity. The "newest" may tend to be favored because it's the most recent. This may explain why Backspacer is ranked so high.

2. Some people will love everything PJ does. No matter what. The inverse is also true. This is probably not as true on a message board like this one. Meaning, this board seems a little more objective, open minded, and geared toward discussion than outright praise or dismissal.

3. Some will automatically be attracted to something that is unpopular. I'm certainly not pointing fingers at anyone here. But I think sometimes people choose to like the thing that others don't just to be "cool." So, if Binaural or Vitalogy is the "least liked" or "most difficult" record, that will make it some people's favorite.

4. People will sometimes like something because they're told to. This may explain S/T's high rankings. Many heralded the album as a "return to form." Some people probably heard that and agreed before they'd made up their own minds on the issue.

5. Things change as they age. Obviously. Look at how many on this board disliked Riot Act for such a long time, and have now come around to love it. Or at least really appreciate it.

It doesn't surprise me to find Binaural at the bottom of these rankings. If anything, I'm surprised it has an '8' rating by fans. Though, it's worth noting that Binaural has the fewest number of reviews. I haven't read them. But I'd be willing to be that those (fans) that bothered to write a review, liked the album overall.

But, perhaps, all of these types of people are just outliers. Because really the critics perception of these albums doesn't really differ from fans that wrote reveiws.

I don't agree with you about the ranking of the albums by this board, stip, but let's admit it is that way. Are you really asking why mainstream reviewers and listeners prefer more rocking, radio-friendly albums over ones that are less direct (I'm not gonna say "experimental" either) and that can't be as easily marketed and promoted?

most importantly, music critics are idiots.

Yeah, it may not exactly have a lot to do with the band's music either.

I think in a place like this, the music matters more. Maybe that's naive.

One good thing about critics is that we only hear their opinion on a record once, rather than ad infinitum like certain RMers.

as are most common people

as are most noblemen

dont be so hard on yourself

i think music criticism (as it exists in magazines and such) is mostly pointless and generally comes down to "i dont like this type of music" or "I like it." or worse, how cool a sound is at the moment. its just one more opinion in a sea of opinions. they dont seem to have any more insight than the average listener, and less than hardcore fans.

with movies, critics can grade on technical merits or how well a film achieved what it was trying to do. its a lot more difficult to do that with music, outside of arguing how derivative or unoriginal it is. albums are rarely technically bad.

you speak out of turn, peasant!

we're all the same, friend. we're doomed.

I don't agree with this. Critics (and the press in general) tend to forget it's not 1992 anymore when it comes to Pearl Jam. I don't think it's the music as much as the whole grunge thing. It seems as everything they do is relative to that.

unfortunately, yeah this seems to be the case.

I don't think music critics are generally turned off by more experimental records, nor do I think that people who critique music for a living are any less insightful than other music listeners (the best of them are definitely more articulate about their feelings, and it's the articulation that can make them so enjoyable to read). There are certain types of records that are more exciting when viewed within a career than they are as standalone records, however, and that doesn't always get processed in the initial intake. It's worth remembering that reviews always appear when the album is brand new and without much of the context that grows with time.

That's why we have revisionist history

Nothing happens the way it happens when it happens.

So uh... music can't be judged on technical merits? Are you kidding me?

Robert Christgau is my favorite music journalist. The man knows his shit.

His "Yield" review:

Also David Hajdu. Extremely knowledgeable.

I own this awesome book him, great read


From his review of Elvis Costello's "North"

This guy likes long sentences.