Allmusic.com gives Paris Hilton album 4 1/2 stars
 

http://www.allmusic.com/cg/amg.dll?p...0:90bsa9wgr23h

So according to this site, Paris Hilton's debut album is equal to

Quadrophenia by the WHo
Sheer Heart Attack by Queen
Let it Be by the Beatles

just to name a few

and better than all of u2 albums except War, Joshua Tree and Achtung Baby.

Out of 100, I assume?

that's hot

It's that good. :up:



:lol:


But seriously, the quality of the album (good or bad) has little to do with Hilton, I'm sure.

Rick Solomon gave her at least 4 1/2 as well...

*ducks and runs*

-ringding-

another reason why I use allmusic for reference and not critique..

True, but I've found some great albums I never would have heard of if I didn't read great reviews on that site.

This is nothing more than those top 100 lists, a ploy to generate buzz. And once again they've gotten it.

No. You're misinterpreting the AMG star rating system. The number of stars is supposed to provide a ranking of a particular artist's works, but is not an indicator of the comparable merits of said artist vs. another. Thus, the 4 1/2 stars are supposed to indicate the relative place of this album in the Hilton œuvre. If you read the review, although positive, it makes no bones about the fact that this is basically a trifle.

I like the first single.

Regardless of what I may think of Paris Hilton's music, I really don't see the AMG rating as some kind of ploy to generate buzz. Did you even read their review to see where they are coming from, or did you just read the first post in this thread and decide to share your baseless opinion with everyone.

I've found Allmusic's reviews quite good, but I've never really paid attention to the ratings. They are still the first place I go to when thinking about picking up a new album.

I wonder who she had to blow to get the good review.

And if there's a video of it online.

Everyone. And yes.

Correct.

That's stupid. It makes the rating totally pointless. An album is either good or not.

I can't imagine anyone expecting anything good to come out of the much abused orifice of paris hilton anyhow.

I used to work there a few years back and while that rating thing is true, this is Paris Hilton's first album. And there's more than a few debuts from artists who have received ** or even *** stars. I think the reviewer really liked the CD--and in my opinion, people just shouldn't throw around 4 1/2 star ratings...

Same here. I was shocked at how decent it was. I was really expecting it to suck.

I'm not going to condemn the whole site for one review, I'll just put Stephen Thomas Erlewine (reviewer) on my shit list.

I agree with you, but I was only trying to address the assertion that the reviewer was somehow putting this on a par with with Let It Be. He certainly likes the album but makes it clear that he's only comparing it to the likes of Britney Spears and Jessica Simpson.

For those of you outraged by the review, this may be more to your liking.

Oh ok, I understand. Really I have no problem with the rating or the review--or a 4 star rating. It's the 4 1/2 part that's mind-boggling to me. That's just my deal :D

A think a Roger Ebert quotation here is fitting:

'Shaolin Soccer" is like a poster boy for my theory of the star rating system. Every month or so, I get an anguished letter from a reader wanting to know how I could possibly have been so ignorant as to award three stars to, say, "Hidalgo" while dismissing, say, "Dogville" with two stars. This disparity between my approval of kitsch and my rejection of angst reveals me, of course, as a superficial moron who will do anything to suck up to my readers.

What these correspondents do not grasp is that to suck up to my demanding readers, I would do better to praise "Dogville." It takes more nerve to praise pop entertainment; it's easy and safe to deliver pious praise of turgid deep thinking. It's true, I loved "Anaconda" and did not think "The United States of Leland" worked, but does that mean I drool at the keyboard and prefer man-eating snakes to suburban despair?

Not at all. What it means is that the star rating system is relative, not absolute. When you ask a friend if "Hellboy" is any good, you're not asking if it's any good compared to "Mystic River," you're asking if it's any good compared to "The Punisher." And my answer would be, on a scale of one to four, if "Superman" (1978) is four, then "Hellboy" is three and "The Punisher" is two. In the same way, if "American Beauty" gets four stars, then "Leland" clocks in at about two.

So... in the Paris Hilton œuvre, this is her best album.

But it's also her worst album. It's both at the top and the bottom of the rankings of her albums because it's her only album.

So...how many of you have <i>actually listened to the album</i>?

Yeah, you can all shut up now.

= J

But if "Man" is five then "The Devil" is six? :confused:

WHAT IS THE FORMULA???