punknews and criticism of mic to mic blogspot

[Michelle*s_Farm]

Nice review, even if there is a problem with some of the details of who would like to open a restaurant with Ted Danson ;)

Link (http://www.punknews.org/review/10217)

By the way, I totally disagree with mic to mic's recent questionable verbal / subjective 'analysis' where they claim that the HSCP2 reviews are just average. Do they mean "average" for the band, music in general, or "average" for their recent albums? Or do they mean the reviews are mediocre?

If so, this is surely incorrect. Even a simple look at metacritic's website suggests this is probably incorrect:

To The 5 Boroughs rating:7.4
The Mix-Up: 7.2
Hot Sauce Committee, Pt. 2: 9.3

If mic to mic really want to see if the reviews significantly differ from Beastie's average of all previous albums, then the statistical analysis is pretty straight forward. Simply calculate the average rating of all previous albums then take the average review rating of the new album (note: use the same scale) and use a t-test.

I have done such an analysis (albeit preliminary) and here are the findings.

I used Rolling Stone, NME, Pitchfork and a few other well-known outlets. I only used 5- and 10-point rating scales. Basically, there is no statistically significant difference between HSCP2 LP (Mean = 4.13, SD = 0.25; Mean = 7.80, SD = 0.84) and all other Beastie LP's combined on the 5-point or the 10-point rating scales (Mean = 4.11, SD = ; Mean = 8.03, SD = 1.81): both [p's > 0.50].

The above analysis indicates that the HSCP2 measures up (i.e., no better or no less) compared to all the band's previous outings. Granted, more complicated analyses could be performed.

By the way, just in case you are wondering the HSCP2 LP has seemingly reduced the significant negative association between date of release and LP rating (which is a good thing). Before HSCP2 there was a very strong negative association (Spearman's r = - 0.60, p < 0.01) between release date and LP rating, going down over time (i.e., the so-called falling off hypothesis); now this correlation has reduced substantially (note: but not significantly so (p > 0.10) indicating that since HSCP2, the Beasties may have slightly reduced the perception that they are 'dropping off' in the eyes of some music critics. We will have to wait to see if the next LP continues to reduce this trend.

[Lex Diamonds]

Fuck M2M. They come good with the pictures, scans and all that but their opinions are always off the mark. Shit is weak journalism.

[dave790]

as a lot has been coming through the official site, i think they're maybe on the offensive a little bit. those 'thinly-veiled' criticisms of the bands news outlet are harder to justify.

[cj hood]

mic2mic is for dick riders......there's a difference between being a fan and being a fanatic!

[Brother McDuff]

:rolleyes:

[JoLovesMCA]

No comment on mictomic. I like the news but find it hard to comment without pissing somebody off so I just stay away now! ;)

[pshabi]

:rolleyes:

Ok...now this is just too much.

[Brother McDuff]

the dissing of mic-to-mic is just so tired. heads on here are just so eager to bash it at any chance, like it signifies some sort of street cred. I don't really care one way or the other, but I'm just so tired of hearing about it.

so sue me. :confused:

[Michelle*s_Farm]

the dissing of mic-to-mic is just so tired. heads on here are just so eager to bash it at any chance, like it signifies some sort of street cred. I don't really care one way or another, but I'm just so tired of hearing about it.

so sue me. :confused:

But pissing contests are so much fun, like pies and sledgehammers ;)

[JoLovesMCA]

I would never diss the fan-site itself. Not my style, but the comments by people are sometimes rude and obnoxious so I just ignore that part of it.

One thing though that did irk me was that it seemed like they didn’t do enough research on reviews because we have been posting a lot of great reviews on Hot Sauce and they seemed to focus on the negative which I don’t get. We have The L.A. TIMES and other big news sources all of which praised it, not to mention it is popular among the hip hop community. Why not bring that up too? I mean that’s what a fan-site should do IMO.

[JasonP]

I have decided to stop reading reviews even though most have been quite positive. I get agitated by the comparisons to previous albums. I think there is a little agism at work here. This album is very strong and holds up to some of their best stuff. I realize it's kind of early to say this, but I think Long Burn the Fire is as strong as any song they have made to date.

[JoLovesMCA]

I have decided to stop reading reviews even though most have been quite positive. I get agitated by the comparisons to previous work. I think there is a little agism at work here. This album is very strong and holds up to some of their best work. It's realize it's kind of early to say this, but I think Long Burn the Fire is as strong as any song they have made to date.

Long Burn is simply amazing.... period! agree!

[Turchinator]

it's all about "sources", inside scoops and controlling of the info.


why do they never post stuff that makes its way here first?

[kleptomaniac]

the dissing of mic-to-mic is just so tired. heads on here are just so eager to bash it at any chance, like it signifies some sort of street cred. I don't really care one way or the other, but I'm just so tired of hearing about it.

so sue me. :confused:

I don't even understand what's happening lol - but everyone be happy! :)

All of the reviews look pretty darn good to me! I give HSCP2 infinite stars. (y)

[Michelle*s_Farm]

I don't even understand what's happening lol - but everyone be happy! :)

All of the reviews look pretty darn good to me! I give HSCP2 infinite stars. (y)

"infinite stars" for sure :)

[dave790]

By the way, I totally disagree with mic to mic's recent questionable verbal / subjective 'analysis' where they claim that the HSCP2 reviews are just average. Do they mean "average" for the band, music in general, or "average" for their recent albums? Or do they mean the reviews are mediocre?



Incidentally, whilst I understand your sentiment, they mean 'average' as in the average score. Not that the reviews they have been getting are average.

[kaiser soze]

Fuck M2M. They come good with the pictures, scans and all that but their opinions are always off the mark. Shit is weak journalism.

opinions are editorials - photos are journalism

mic to mic has never bothered me - regardless of some of the content it is a well made fan site and further exposes the beasties to the world

[Turchinator]

opinions are editorials - photos are journalism

mic to mic has never bothered me - regardless of some of the content it is a well made fan site and further exposes the beasties to the world

credit due...

I find that with an album release, the message boarders here are ramping up the contributions..

it was too bad there was a falling out, basically.

fans are fans...

[Rich Cheney]

lol... think you mean photojournalism = photos bud.

[Micodin]

I never caught on to the beef with BBMB and M2M...

That being said, I never go to M2M due to the fact they never really have a "scoop" and I find news about the B-Boys usually elsewhere. (Then M2M would jack that news and put it on their site after the fact) Dollar late in my book.

Beastiemania used to be my shit.

Crystal Pepsi never was or will be my shit.

[camo]

opinions are editorials - photos are journalism

mic to mic has never bothered me - regardless of some of the content it is a well made fan site and further exposes the beasties to the world

But they are reporting, (often someone else's) news.

Photos aren't the sole definition of journalism - hence the action 'to keep a journal' which in itself a personal record of occurrences, events, and reflections!!!

Mic to mic doesn't even register with me. Why? Beastiemania and BBMB of course.

[Michelle*s_Farm]

I get agitated by the comparisons to previous albums. I think there is a little agism at work here. This album is very strong and holds up to some of their best stuff.

Yes, ageist shit and sloppy comparisons to past albums bug me as well. I agree with you that the album is really strong and easily holds up to (and dare I say, in particular instances surpasses) some of their best work. I used to be able to rank their albums, but the past few years it has become increasingly difficult. It is as if my favourite Beastie album is in part, mood dependent.

[cj hood]

I never caught on to the beef with BBMB and M2M...

That being said, I never go to M2M due to the fact they never really have a "scoop" and I find news about the B-Boys usually elsewhere. (Then M2M would jack that news and put it on their site after the fact) Dollar late in my book.

Beastiemania used to be my shit.

Crystal Pepsi never was or will be my shit.

Beastiemania fell off when it combined with m2m.....

[JoLovesMCA]

Well I wasn't here when the M2M and BBMB thingy happened but from my own personal experiance I prefer this place. The fans here don't come off as fake, everybody seems pretty genuine in character even when things get tense. I think the BB's are lucky to have a great group of fans who are loyal and frequent their site....

I tried to interact on M2M and it just didn't work lol. I guess it's good to have variety in the fandom because personalities clash and some fans interact differently sooooo.... I don't know I don't like gossiping but it does suck to shady things go on.

[Micodin]

Beastiemania fell off when it combined with m2m.....

I didn't know that happened.

Odd.

[Lex Diamonds]

the dissing of mic-to-mic is just so tired. heads on here are just so eager to bash it at any chance, like it signifies some sort of street cred. I don't really care one way or the other, but I'm just so tired of hearing about it.

so sue me. :confused:
Shit is garbage. What you tryina kick knowledge?

[Brother McDuff]

Crystal Pepsi never was or will be my shit.

Ha, well put. :D

[Documad]

By the way, I totally disagree with mic to mic's recent questionable verbal / subjective 'analysis' where they claim that the HSCP2 reviews are just average. Do they mean "average" for the band, music in general, or "average" for their recent albums? Or do they mean the reviews are mediocre?


I hadn't read the blog but you made me curious enough to look. You are having a major reading comprehension problem. M2M isn't comparing the current album to other albums at all. M2M is comparing reviews of this album to other reviews of this album.

M2M says, "Well, the Beastie Boys new album, Hot Sauce Committee Part Two, is finally out, and the reviews are streaming in. Although the majority of reviews are positive, the consensus seems to be it is good, not great. The album is receiving an average rating of four stars out of five." It goes on to say that one critic gave it 4 out of 4 stars, another gave it 3 of 5, another gave it 4 of 5. And it concludes by saying that it doesn't matter what critics think anyhow.

I'm floored as to how you misunderstood the post, but congrats on giving the same old people a forum to make the same old comments. It's always amusing to watch grown men snipe. (y)

Incidentally, whilst I understand your sentiment, they mean 'average' as in the average score. Not that the reviews they have been getting are average.
Bless you for trying. I hope that we're the only two people who actually read the blog post. Because otherwise there are a lot of math-challenged people who post here.

[smith7800]

Nice review, even if there is a problem with some of the details of who would like to open a restaurant with Ted Danson ;)

Link (http://www.punknews.org/review/10217)

By the way, I totally disagree with mic to mic's recent questionable verbal / subjective 'analysis' where they claim that the HSCP2 reviews are just average. Do they mean "average" for the band, music in general, or "average" for their recent albums? Or do they mean the reviews are mediocre?

If so, this is surely incorrect. Even a simple look at metacritic's website suggests this is probably incorrect:

To The 5 Boroughs rating:7.4
The Mix-Up: 7.2
Hot Sauce Committee, Pt. 2: 9.3

If mic to mic really want to see if the reviews significantly differ from Beastie's average of all previous albums, then the statistical analysis is pretty straight forward. Simply calculate the average rating of all previous albums then take the average review rating of the new album (note: use the same scale) and use a t-test.

I have done such an analysis (albeit preliminary) and here are the findings.

I used Rolling Stone, NME, Pitchfork and a few other well-known outlets. I only used 5- and 10-point rating scales. Basically, there is no statistically significant difference between HSCP2 LP (Mean = 4.13, SD = 0.25; Mean = 7.80, SD = 0.84) and all other Beastie LP's combined on the 5-point or the 10-point rating scales (Mean = 4.11, SD = ; Mean = 8.03, SD = 1.81): both [p's > 0.50].

The above analysis indicates that the HSCP2 measures up (i.e., no better or no less) compared to all the band's previous outings. Granted, more complicated analyses could be performed.

By the way, just in case you are wondering the HSCP2 LP has seemingly reduced the significant negative association between date of release and LP rating (which is a good thing). Before HSCP2 there was a very strong negative association (Spearman's r = - 0.60, p < 0.01) between release date and LP rating, going down over time (i.e., the so-called falling off hypothesis); now this correlation has reduced substantially (note: but not significantly so (p > 0.10) indicating that since HSCP2, the Beasties may have slightly reduced the perception that they are 'dropping off' in the eyes of some music critics. We will have to wait to see if the next LP continues to reduce this trend.
Somebody ought to write a dissertation on this.

[Michelle*s_Farm]

Incidentally, whilst I understand your sentiment, they mean 'average' as in the average score. Not that the reviews they have been getting are average.

Thanks for making this clear, as I did not. Mic to Mic stated that the average rating was a 4, but provided little to no information on how they reached this composite measure, other than quotes from some (but not all) reviews. In my quick and dirty analysis the average was just over 4 and just below 8 on the 10-point scale.

I hadn't read the blog but you made me curious enough to look. You are having a major reading comprehension problem. M2M isn't comparing the current album to other albums at all. M2M is comparing reviews of this album to other reviews of this album.


Perhaps I do have a reading issue. I may have a writing problem as well. Nonetheless, I was just pointing out that I did not like their ‘qualitative analysis’, and would prefer a more quantitative analysis with a comparison group. Is 4 just a good rating? Good compared to what? Why is a 4 not considered great?

M2M wrote, "...Although the majority of reviews are positive, the consensus seems to be it is good, not great. The album is receiving an average rating of four stars out of five."

M2M may be right, but their ‘data’ did not convince me. I applaud them for trying to do some analysis, I just think it could be done a lot better and we should have a larger sample of review scores (using different scales) and then compare HSCP2’s performance to something else (e.g., the critical reception to TT5B and/or Beastie Boys classic albums).

[Michelle*s_Farm]

Somebody ought to write a dissertation on this.

Yes. It could be called "The falling off hypothesis: Critical ageism in popular music"