In the digital era, there seems to be an oversaturation of online music writing, where albums are paraded in reviews that are posted, published and shared across the internet and written publications alike. Yet reviewers from a variety of these sources have homogenized music by recycling jargon to arbitrarily rate albums of all genres in a positive light.

Last month, The Wall Street Journal commented that when the database Metacritic aggregated scores and took a survey, only “8 albums out of a set of 7,287 albums” received a “red score.” A “red score,” in context of Metacritic, denotes a “negative” rating, implying inferiority to positive markers like “green” and “yellow” scores, which suggests some music is superior to other pieces of music.

Quantitatively, another survey taken in 2011 showed that Pitchfork’s average rating for all its reviews was a 7.2, and based on the current standings six years later, this mean score has decreased to a still generous 6.9 based on Metacritic’s analysis of archived reviews. This is perfectly fine in principle, but if to question said methodology, I must intervene with the proverbial scale of justice to state that the gung-ho fervor of reviewers needs to change.

Music’s power lends itself to certain humane moments. As an example, I may listen to Ryuichi Sakamoto to chill out but then play Billboard-grade pop music to have fun at a party — both instances where tones and sounds are associated with the environment. Rather than analyze the music, I have found that critics pontificate and use this situational sentiment in their writings, handing out praise more similar to a love confession than concrete analysis and recommendation. For many a listener, these biased justifications of a numerical value seem to suffice. Many that look at reviews need validation for liking something, and the writers of said reviews subtly pressure others to share their tastes.

As it has been, criticism helps artists, record labels and fans measure quality and fundamentally improve their music time passes. It is fair to claim risk-taking is what a large portion of people desire — as humans, we are beings of curiosity and want to expand limits beyond the past, no matter what field. Yet in a sense, those with such power waste it on a simple idealization, which has undermined disliking any music. This devalues the sophistication that criticism has been gradually built on.

To be truthful, at no expense of anyone’s time do I intend to undermine the current power of criticism nor the people who read the reviews. As I have stated before, this art form is truly subjective and writers have provided insight to concepts that average people may not understand from just listening to an album. However, people cannot always overemphasize the good because it alters the definition of “criticism.” Praising or berating others’ hard work also requires effort beyond simplistic reviewing. I advise you to actually listen to music, evaluate it and think of your own rating rather than follow superficial values on a website.

Jordan Pytosh is a Weinberg freshman. He can be contacted at [email protected]. If you would like to respond publicly to this op-ed, send a Letter to the Editor to [email protected]. The views expressed in this piece do not necessarily reflect the views of all staff members of The Daily Northwestern.