[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: babel-digest V12 #110
- To: babel-list
- Subject: Re: babel-digest V12 #110
- From: TOM MOHR <tmohr>
- Date: Fri, 27 Apr 2007 05:04:56 -0700 (PDT)
- Domainkey-signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=s1024; d=ameritech.net; h=X-YMail-OSG:Received:Date:From:Subject:To:In-Reply-To:MIME-Version:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding:Message-ID; b=Y95ybO8DxrcM46JWjh6Tb3CVZb3lW3/Kj8BhPWQhCudsf1CCcmK0ex/H7+7DzJVUkfirxnntjFwd26c6uUbPT2gj7SBzk/T4YjfDcgw0Zii7Sx49ZwpHhl96abbmcLPNAw+XRk8vw7BtTHlfJAROpKpg439lDe98bplshHeuat8=;
- In-reply-to: <78648D7B-F117-4898-9321-340A29CC87DC>
- Sender: owner-babel-list
Metacritic explains their system:
http://www.metacritic.com/about/scoring.shtml
For those who are into such things (I'm raising my hand), Gung Ho's score was 73, and trampin' got a 74...
TWM
Juan Cadadia <juancadadia> wrote:PS, Not sure how that metacritic site comes up with its numbers...
they characterize the Rolling Stone review as a 70 --- sounds kind of
so so, right? But, RollingStone gave the cd 3.8 stars. Only one cd
in the recent issue got four. So, its not bad...