base talk The Tortured Poets Department Review Thread | MC - 76

[Canonical Ensembl]

Just finished.
 

Anthology is a much better album. The scores should've been switched. 

[HonourableVomit]

2 hours ago, Achilles. said:

You say "they think she deserves a lower score" and I say… so what? Critics are responsible for their scores at their publications. They are not supposed to have an opinion on the aggregate score, nor assign a grade with the deliberate intention of manipulating said aggregate. That undermines the entire point of having an aggregate in the first place. 
 

This is the exact reason why aggregate sites like metacritic, Rotten Tomatoes, or albumoftheyear shouldn't publicly reveal the score until all reviews are counted. That's the only way to get an honest result uninfluenced by nonsense like this.

 

Born This Way had a 0 from Tinymixtapes that's still counted to this day because the writer essentially said "this is for LGBTs and Gaga fans not me" and didn't rate the music because of some weird stoner mythologising ramble that makes no sense to anyone but him.

 

Swifties can handle a 60 or two.  

[mael]

The two separate reviews for Anthology from that website....

[SweetOreosOfHeaven]

47 minutes ago, ONOPKA said:

now the 72nd best album of 2024 (4 months in) according to metacritic

 

and #365/#395 on AlbumOfTheYear user score

 

 

[More Than A Melody]

10 hours ago, Achilles. said:

You say "they think she deserves a lower score" and I say… so what? Critics are responsible for their scores at their publications. They are not supposed to have an opinion on the aggregate score, nor assign a grade with the deliberate intention of manipulating said aggregate. That undermines the entire point of having an aggregate in the first place. 
 

This is the exact reason why aggregate sites like metacritic, Rotten Tomatoes, or albumoftheyear shouldn't publicly reveal the score until all reviews are counted. That's the only way to get an honest result uninfluenced by nonsense like this.

 

According to who? Where are these rules written? That's sort of something you're assuming. I don't think it's nonsense to care about the score of art if you're actually passionate about it.

 

They can care about the overall score, and their main point is that "we're part of the problem" which is correct, because you and I know that 4.5 is not an accurate depiction of that album.

 

 I don't think those sites not revealing the score would change anything. AOTY is straight up math. The reviews are published openly so all you have to do is aggregate them all and average them and you have the AOTY score. So many people would do this for popular releases if AOTY didn't go public with it immediately. And as for Metacritic, they have an algorithm, so it's not as easy as AOTY, but you can still get a sense of the overall score just by looking at the individual reviews.

[SweetOreosOfHeaven]

7 minutes ago, More Than A Melody said:

According to who? Where are these rules written? That's sort of something you're assuming. I don't think it's nonsense to care about the score of art if you're actually passionate about it.

 

They can care about the overall score, and their main point is that "we're part of the problem" which is correct, because you and I know that 4.5 is not an accurate depiction of that album.

Don't these two statements seem contradictory to you? 

[More Than A Melody]

1 minute ago, SweetOreosOfHeaven said:

Don't these two statements seem contradictory to you? 

How on earth are those two statements contradictory if they're not even remotely related to each other. "Where are these rules written?" refers to the idea that critics shouldn't care about the overall score of an album. According to who shouldn't they? Where is that written?

 

And "You and I both know that 4.5 is not an accurate depiction of that album" refers to the idea that it's a very divisive album that even fans have complained about (Jack Antonoff's comment section will be a clue of it, no non-fan is going there). 4.5 out of 5 is a 90% score. It's not controversial to say that a divisive album that even fans have complained about with a 90% score is not exactly accurate.

 

Where's the correlation between these two things and how do they contradict each other? If anything, they support each other. Perhaps you misunderstood what I meant with "where are those rules written?"

[SweetOreosOfHeaven]

2 minutes ago, More Than A Melody said:

How on earth are those two statements contradictory if they're not even remotely related to each other. "Where are these rules written?" refers to the idea that critics shouldn't care about the overall score of an album. According to who shouldn't they? Where is that written?

 

And "You and I both know that 4.5 is not an accurate depiction of that album" refers to the idea that it's a very divisive album that even fans have complained about (Jack Antonoff's comment section will be a clue of it, no non-fan is going there). 4.5 out of 5 is a 90% score. It's not controversial to say that a divisive album that even fans have complained about with a 90% score is not exactly accurate.

 

Where's the correlation between these two things and how do they contradict each other? If anything, they support each other. Perhaps you misunderstood what I meant with "where are those rules written?"

Lmao yeah I misunderstood sorry. I also thought you meant a 4.5 out of 10. 

Edited April 24 by SweetOreosOfHeaven

[Green]

9 hours ago, HonourableVomit said:

Born This Way had a 0 from Tinymixtapes that's still counted to this day because the writer essentially said "this is for LGBTs and Gaga fans not me" and didn't rate the music because of some weird stoner mythologising ramble that makes no sense to anyone but him.

 

Swifties can handle a 60 or two.  

 

Exactly

 

Gaga and Lana had 0s that ruined the scores of Born this way and Born to die  

[Janet]

60-70 is better

[Achilles.]

3 hours ago, More Than A Melody said:

According to who? Where are these rules written? That's sort of something you're assuming. I don't think it's nonsense to care about the score of art if you're actually passionate about it.

 

They can care about the overall score, and their main point is that "we're part of the problem" which is correct, because you and I know that 4.5 is not an accurate depiction of that album.

Metacritic is basically a poll / survey of critics' opinions and anyone who knows anything about how polls work will tell you that the results are botched if a participant responds in bad faith with the intention of manipulating the end results, which is exactly what is happening here. That's why it is a rule in any legitimate poll or survey that the respondents cannot know the results as the poll is being conducted. 
 

Unless a critic personally comes out to admit that their own score was not an honest reflection of their opinion on an album, we have to assume that their score is genuine. So 4.5 is an accurate depiction of the album to the person who gave it that score. We have no reason to doubt that the other high scores are sincere, either, because none of the people who wrote them admitted as much. We do know, however, that the author of this particular low score did not give a genuine rating because he was more concerned with manipulating the overall aggregate than evaluating the work on its merit. And "we're part of the problem" is not correct because the actual problem here is that this one guy believes that his personal opinion ("the album is overrated") deserves to weigh more than the consensus of his peers ("the album is good, or even very good").

[brazil]

1 hour ago, Achilles. said:

Metacritic is basically a poll / survey of critics' opinions and anyone who knows anything about how polls work will tell you that the results are botched if a participant responds in bad faith with the intention of manipulating the end results, which is exactly what is happening here. That's why it is a rule in any legitimate poll or survey that the respondents cannot know the results as the poll is being conducted. 
 

Unless a critic personally comes out to admit that their own score was not an honest reflection of their opinion on an album, we have to assume that their score is genuine. So 4.5 is an accurate depiction of the album to the person who gave it that score. We have no reason to doubt that the other high scores are sincere, either, because none of the people who wrote them admitted as much. We do know, however, that the author of this particular low score did not give a genuine rating because he was more concerned with manipulating the overall aggregate than evaluating the work on its merit. And "we're part of the problem" is not correct because the actual problem here is that this one guy believes that his personal opinion ("the album is overrated") deserves to weigh more than the consensus of his peers ("the album is good, or even very good").

What consensus? RS payola driven review given less than hours from the album release?

[G.U.Y.]

1 hour ago, Achilles. said:

Metacritic is basically a poll / survey of critics' opinions and anyone who knows anything about how polls work will tell you that the results are botched if a participant responds in bad faith with the intention of manipulating the end results, which is exactly what is happening here. That's why it is a rule in any legitimate poll or survey that the respondents cannot know the results as the poll is being conducted. 
 

Unless a critic personally comes out to admit that their own score was not an honest reflection of their opinion on an album, we have to assume that their score is genuine. So 4.5 is an accurate depiction of the album to the person who gave it that score. We have no reason to doubt that the other high scores are sincere, either, because none of the people who wrote them admitted as much. We do know, however, that the author of this particular low score did not give a genuine rating because he was more concerned with manipulating the overall aggregate than evaluating the work on its merit. And "we're part of the problem" is not correct because the actual problem here is that this one guy believes that his personal opinion ("the album is overrated") deserves to weigh more than the consensus of his peers ("the album is good, or even very good").

Exactly. Reviews are not an ATRL Singles Rate where you give a 0 to sabotage gems like Gimme More, Poker Face or Cruel Summer.

[More Than A Melody]

1 hour ago, Achilles. said:

Metacritic is basically a poll / survey of critics' opinions and anyone who knows anything about how polls work will tell you that the results are botched if a participant responds in bad faith with the intention of manipulating the end results, which is exactly what is happening here. That's why it is a rule in any legitimate poll or survey that the respondents cannot know the results as the poll is being conducted. 
 

Unless a critic personally comes out to admit that their own score was not an honest reflection of their opinion on an album, we have to assume that their score is genuine. So 4.5 is an accurate depiction of the album to the person who gave it that score. We have no reason to doubt that the other high scores are sincere, either, because none of the people who wrote them admitted as much. We do know, however, that the author of this particular low score did not give a genuine rating because he was more concerned with manipulating the overall aggregate than evaluating the work on its merit. And "we're part of the problem" is not correct because the actual problem here is that this one guy believes that his personal opinion ("the album is overrated") deserves to weigh more than the consensus of his peers ("the album is good, or even very good").

That person is operating under the assumption that the scores are dishonest and borne of the fact that people feel threatened by Taylor/her fans. I'm not justifying any score nor saying what score it actually deserves because I haven't listened to the album in full and also because I don't like her and I know I'm not objective when it comes to it.

 

I'm simply pushing against the idea that this person is talking about "sabotaging" her. They're saying "people are scared of giving their actual opinion so they give her a high score and we had the chance of doing the right thing, but instead became part of the problem." In my opinion, other interpretations of that are simply in bad faith. Whether they're right or wrong in their opinion, I don't know. But using their own reasoning, their message is innocuous. That's all I'm saying.

[V$.]

Hi poets!

 

[Selfloathingpoet]

If someone said in my house that Charlie Puth should be a bigger artist I would ask them to leave, immediately. 

Edited April 24 by Selfloathingpoet

[LIDDOATIN]

still too HIGH, deserves 66 and it will be ICONIC 

[CottageHore]

If any other artist put out a bloated, messy album with songs that don't diverge from anything they've already done a million times before, they'd get a 60 or less on MC. The unwell Swifties (not all of them) need to realize that she's being given way more praise than most artists would if they made the same material. Her hype and celebrity gives her so much edge over everyone else. The album isn't that good. A 77 is high for something this meh. Lana's albums with a lower score than this, for example, are objectively far better. Taylor isn't a victim. Get that out of your heads. She's literally the most worshiped and successful human in the world currently. Not a single human in existence, past or present, needs this much praise and ass kissinh over everything they do. She and her fans are developing a god compex, completely intolerant of anything short of high praise, and it's very eerie to watch.

Edited April 25 by CottageHore

[Carla Rosón]

On 4/22/2024 at 3:02 PM, wantedyoutogrow said:

some of y'all doing too much as usual… but on the positive side this means no grammys for shitlor, which means jack antonoff is getting FIRED, which also means there is 30% higher chance of eternal godshine winning BPVA

did you get a wp for this? 

[Wonderland]

I just realised this is now lower than "Deeper Well" on Metacritic; and I hope it stays that way so Miss Kacey can secure another AOTY nomination and then pull off a shock SNATCH on the day 

 

Edited April 25 by Wonderland

[CottageHore]

48 minutes ago, Wonderland said:

I just realised this is now lower than "Deeper Well" on Metacritic; and I hope it stays that way so Miss Kacey can secure another AOTY nomination and then pull off a shock SNATCH on the day 

 

To think an album as good as Deeper Well is being critically received the same way as an album as bloated and one dimensional as this one is insane to me. And yet it's Taylor who's always disrespected? 

[Wonderland]

3 minutes ago, CottageHore said:

To think an album as good as Deeper Well is being critically received the same way as an album as bloated and one dimensional as this one is insane to me. And yet it's Taylor who's always disrespected? 

The way they called it empty and vacuous when most of it is clearly superior to her AOTY-winning Golden Hour

 

Can't say I feel the same with regard to TTPD

 

[wantedyoutogrow]

4 hours ago, Carla Rosón said:

did you get a wp for this? 

kinda, i got one of those "reminders" but that is still 0 points, so…

[Funnyfatty]

Just below Chromatica LIKE IT DESERVES. The fact that Chromatica would have been above 80 if it wasb't for that madonna stan

 

Anyways, this album should be around 55-60. Its bad. Terrible. 

[Trip]

she should release the remaining two re recordings, wrap up the tour, take a break and come back in 3-4 years without jack or aaron