base talk Taylor Swift is proof that how we critique music is broken

[satellites.™]

Quote

An anonymous staff writer for Paste Magazine — whose byline was excluded for "safety" reasons — began the publication's review with the jab that "Sylvia Plath did not stick her head in an oven for this!" It took nearly 700 words to get to the substance of the album itself. If you're willing to launch a litany of petty, exclamation-pointed digs at an artist — "2013 called and it wants it capricious, suburban girl-who-is-taking-a-gap-year wig back!"— at least have the decency to put your name on it.

Nasssssssty work when women of color have gotten literal death threats.

 

These are her people though, I'm not shocked at all.

[OrgVisual]

26 minutes ago, raisetheroof said:

I whole-heartedly agree. TTPD is an album with lyricism that takes multiple listens and an honest dissection to fully comprehend. 
 

Most critics with negative opinions seemed, based off their reviews, to have listened to it once, noticed the lack of obvious and catchy pop melodies as well as the few out-of-place (and yes cringy) lines, and then simply ran with it. 

 

Likewise, the 100-reviews coming in after an equally short time frame are obviously part of the same problem.

 

24 minutes ago, TaggedGalaxy said:

But OTH need something to latch onto to help them cope

If you only take into account reviews that were published after the weekend (assuming they have had enough time to "digest" the album!)

 

85

80

70

66

58

48

40

 

Her score is surely lower than 77  So maybe it's not the "injustice" Swifties think it is 

[Blue Rose]

5 minutes ago, Peroxide said:

For an album that's as rich, dense and lyrically ambitious as TTPD yeah I'd be side eyeing a professional review that was published a few hours after the album dropped - I'd say the same about an album as rich as Cowboy Carter too.

 

For projects of this scope - sit with the music and let it get into your skin before you come to a conclusion. I'm still unsure what to make of The Anthology because there's just so much content to digest… and I've been listening to this thing on repeat since Friday

 

If it's an Ava Max release - fine. But a record like this is a bit different.

But critics get advance copies. RS dropped their reviews for Midnights and TTPD right at midnight. For every Sputnik review, there's a RS review to balance it out. Besides, the album had leaked so anyone working on a review could've gotten a head start. 
We can't suddenly stop reviews because of one bad album. Critics have committed worse crimes. This is literally nothing. It could've been in the 50s like Teenage Dream 

[dirrtydiana]

28 minutes ago, liam13 said:

you mean the reviews with people saying etc. "it's taylor swift so it's sh*t" with a 0? sure

Obviously not those lol but I digress because as an ariola everyone in and out of the fandom seems to collectively hate yes and? and I bop to it so all in all, the only opinions that should matter to us are our own

 

 

Edited April 23 by dirrtydiana

[Obsession]

I don't agree that music reviews should go away, and I think people are not realizing if a reviewer puts out a review the same day for an album, it's because they got a copy of the album in advance. 

 

The issue is how we treat music reviews. They are meant to give you an idea of what the album is like and offer a perspective on the music, that gives potential listeners or gives the culture an idea of what the album is trying to represent. A lot of reviewers AND the majority of pop music listeners treat reviews as an alternative to sales that allows them to decide whether an artist's music is good/bad, or to air their gripes about an artist and what they represent in the culture. 

 

This didn't start with Taylor either and it's been going on for years, but it seems more pressing when Taylor comes around because she is the biggest artist in the world and everyone feels compelled to give an opinion because she's the hot topic, when they probably would've never done so if she weren't. You don't see everyone necessarily being this vocal about their dissension when it comes to Ariana, Beyoncé, Carly Rae Jepsen, Charli XCX, The Weeknd, Hozier, etc. because there is room to just ignore those artists without engaging with the culture. At this point, to engage with pop culture, Taylor is taking up a vast majority of the air in the room and so you run into this issue where everyone, including people who would never feel the need to do so in the first place, acting as though they have to form some kind of opinion on Taylor Swift. 

Edited April 23 by Obsession

[RideOrDie]

19 minutes ago, Mezik said:

I think it applies to more than just Taylor though too though.

 

You have artists like Lana, Beyoncé, Ariana, and even Kacey Musgraves  getting 100s or high 90s for each album they put out when in reality that's not the case. The only 'perfect' album I'd say that's been release by a main stream act in the last 5-6 years is Renaissance.

 

Sure Taylor shouldn't be getting 100 for TTPD, but she certainly shouldn't be getting 10/100 or 36/100 either - it just reflects more poorly on the 'reviewer' (if you can call them that) than anything else.

 

Not everything is gonna be, nor should be, a perfect album, but just because it isn't perfect doesn't mean it's a horrible album either.

Lana's last album got a Metacritic score of 80, which is lower than what people consider that album to be worthy of now. The user score is a 9.4 and it was the #1 most discussed album of last year. When year end reviews came around, same publications that gave it a mid score ranked it as one of the, if not the best album released last year. Same publications (and people) that called it messy, self indulgent, unedited (same criticisms being thrown at Taylor) now consider it one of her best albums. I suspect there'll be a warmer retrospect with TTPD when end of year comes around precisely due to what Bloomberg is saying here. As there are many publications rating her way high for Swiftie clicks and love, there are that many who rate her way lower than necessary for the same reasons. The same shitty publications who hated Reputation upon release were praising it in the same articles they were dragging TPPD. Lana was rightfully defended by smart people who said Tunnel is an album that requires your time, attention, effort to digest and it's not a quick one-time listen kind of project. Taylor is unfortunately not getting that kind of narrative because it's so easy to hate on her. 

[Khal]

This has been obvious since at least Gaga's AP era and Katy's Witness era where a fair amount of the reviews targeted the artist (and what they were going through at that time) than the album. Not saying either of those albums were good (lol), but it's been this way for a while now, sadly.

[liam13]

7 minutes ago, Obsession said:

The issue is how we treat music reviews. They are meant to give you an idea of what the album is like and offer a perspective on the music, that gives potential listeners or gives the culture an idea of what the album is trying to represent. A lot of reviewers AND the majority of pop music listeners treat reviews as an alternative to sales that allows them to decide whether an artist's music is good/bad, or to air their gripes about an artist and what they represent in the culture.

this might be true back when people had to spend money to listen to an album. now, why spend time reading reviews when you can just listen to music for free.

after all, reviewers are just people with a platform, they are not more or less objective than other people. so why put them on a higher ground/use them as proofs to sh*t on artists?

Edited April 23 by liam13

[Comedor]

16 minutes ago, liam13 said:

they address it in the article too, why dont yall read instead of assuming

Good then I take my comment back. I didn't read the whole thing because I'm working. Still, panned.

[ImpressMeMuch]

 

[Cain]

I fully agree, most of her albums have 80+ MC scores while being run of the mill with nothing discernible about them

 

Music reviewing has become stale and all about bootlicking an artist, no matter their output

[Obsession]

4 minutes ago, liam13 said:

this might be true back when people had to spend money to listen to an album. now, why spend time reading reviews when you can just listen to music for free.

after all, reviewers are just people with a platform, they are not more or less objective than other people. so why put them on a higher ground/use them as proofs to sh*t on artists?

Because people still may want to know whether an album is worth their time? Because art doesn't exist in a vacuum and the culture should still be critiqued and discussed? Critics and reviewers don't just **** on artists, they create or drive conversations - and sometimes they spotlight artists who otherwise wouldn't find success. There are artists from last year (who aren't mainstream) that have gotten more awareness because someone like Pitchfork or Stereogum spotlighted them. 

 

Plus a review can still give you an idea of an album that you may not have come up with on your own. Maybe someone more knowledgeable than you on synthpop can tell you some of the influences behind the synthpop on this record (for instance, "Fortnight" being reminiscent of New Order's work on Power, Lies & Corruption). A great review can help contextualize where the music is coming from, and even spotlight why certain songs make you feel the way you do. A lot of people aren't perpetually online and don't follow music the way everyone on this forum does, and those reviews can give those people an idea of what an album is meant to convey or what an artist is trying to accomplish.

 

And no music reviewer is ever going to be objective, because it's an opinion. They can only try to be as fair as they can to the work - but if they don't like the music, I think they should be free to say why and explain why they think the album doesn't work. That shouldn't do anything to alter your perspective on the work, if it's already formed. Or maybe they will bring up a valid criticism and you'll see it when you revisit the album - but that doesn't mean you have to dislike the music now. 

[Heldenzeit]

Just ignore them, like normal people do and have fun with the music that you enjoy! 

[Timber]

But she got all the good reviews first, she had the same score as Cowboy Carter at first. The reviewers who took their time were the ones that gave her the lower scores.

[Michael196]

The opening sentence alone 

[lonnie]

Abolish scores. Enough of this nonsense. Crying because of a 77 score is insane 

 

 

[futuresuperstar2023]

Taylor Swift stans are only complaining because she is getting lower scores. Taylor Swift stans is just getting the karma for always using her success against more talented women.

[Archetype]

I agree that critics should take more time to review albums instead of rushing to listen the night of release and publish a review hours later.  Take a few days and reflect on it after several listens.  That doesn't mean they won't have negative things to say, but at least the reviews will be more concise.  The same can be applied to Taylor's lyricism on this album… take more time to edit before rushing your next original album to market.

[Michael196]

1 hour ago, Blue Rose said:

one mildly received album out of 11 and all of the sudden we need to stop reviewing albums?

OTHs have proved to be illiterate enough this week, don't add to the struggle…

[NEX]

 

1 hour ago, liam13 said:

But consider the irony of saying that in a review that was released not 12 hours after the album. Likewise, Rolling Stone's Rob Sheffield labeled it an "INSTANT CLASSIC" and called it "wildly ambitious." You're telling me you've fully digested a two-hour double album of 31 songs in that amount of time? Such quick determinations discredit the nature of both plaudits and criticisms.

OMG this point!! Any review released so soon (even within a couple of days of release) can't be taken seriously. It's been 5 days and I still haven't voiced my opinion on this album, because I only heard it twice so far and that's not enough for a 31 track record. Yet these critics, whose job it is to be tastemakers and give a well-formed opinion, were spewing out 10/10s and 3/10s within literal hours of release. It's genuinely pointless and done for nothing more than ad revenue from clicks. I'd love to read retrospective reviews of this album years down the line, because in the current landscape it's all just super biased noise. 

[liam13]

3 minutes ago, Obsession said:

Because people still may want to know whether an album is worth their time? Because art doesn't exist in a vacuum and the culture should still be critiqued and discussed? Critics and reviewers don't just **** on artists, they create or drive conversations - and sometimes they spotlight artists who otherwise wouldn't find success. There are artists from last year (who aren't mainstream) that have gotten more awareness because someone like Pitchfork or Stereogum spotlighted them. 

 

Plus a review can still give you an idea of an album that you may not have come up with on your own. Maybe someone more knowledgeable than you on synthpop can tell you some of the influences behind the synthpop on this record (for instance, "Fortnight" being reminiscent of New Order's work on Power, Lies & Corruption). A great review can help contextualize where the music is coming from, and even spotlight why certain songs make you feel the way you do. A lot of people aren't perpetually online and don't follow music the way everyone on this forum does, and those reviews can give those people an idea of what an album is meant to convey or what an artist is trying to accomplish.

 

And no music reviewer is ever going to be objective, because it's an opinion. They can only try to be as fair as they can to the work - but if they don't like the music, I think they should be free to say why and explain why they think the album doesn't work. That shouldn't do anything to alter your perspective on the work, if it's already formed. Or maybe they will bring up a valid criticism and you'll see it when you revisit the album - but that doesn't mean you have to dislike the music now. 

people want to know if an album is worth their time by wasting time reading reviews? they do them i guess.

 

it's true that critics can express whatever they feel about an album, but nobody would know if they're biased or not since their feelings about an artist can alter how they feel about said artist's music.

and then we have reviews where criticisms have nothing to do with the music, but with the artist's personal life and drama… and you expect people to put their faith into that?

 

i do agree with your last paragraph. after all, our opinions matter most.

[jonapova]

3 minutes ago, Michael196 said:

OTHs have proved to be illiterate enough this week, don't add to the struggle…

We're not illiterate, we just don't want to listen to Miss Thesaurus Shakespeare-Swift sing the same 'poems'  and waste 2 hours of our day hun

[raisetheroof]

39 minutes ago, OrgVisual said:

 

If you only take into account reviews that were published after the weekend (assuming they have had enough time to "digest" the album!)

 

85

80

70

66

58

48

40

 

Her score is surely lower than 77  So maybe it's not the "injustice" Swifties think it is 

My point was not necessarily the time passed between the release of the album and the publication of the review. My criticism was centered around the vast majority of the negative reviews having the focal points of their articles be criticism of 1) the lack of traditional pop melodies and hooks; 2) the existence of some cringe-worthy lyrics, and 3) the mere fact that the album(s) has 31 songs. All of these are, in my opinion, rather weak points that do not even attempt to analyse the highs and lows of the general motive for this album, i.e., its diary-ish and stream-of-consciousness style lyricism. TTPD does not attmept to be a traditional pop record, which to me became evident after the first few listens. These reviews, however, are critiquing the album as if it were one.
 

After going through the bulk of these reviews, it reads to me as giving the album one listen before hitting the keyboard. 

[kimberly]

have you considered the album may be mid?

[Obsession]

3 minutes ago, liam13 said:

people want to know if an album is worth their time by wasting time reading reviews? they do them i guess.

 

it's true that critics can express whatever they feel about an album, but nobody would know if they're biased or not since their feelings about an artist can alter how they feel about said artist's music.

and then we have reviews where criticisms have nothing to do with the music, but with the artist's personal life and drama… and you expect people to put their faith into that?

 

i do agree with your last paragraph. after all, our opinions matter most.

All reviews are biased because they are opinions. No one should think a review is ever an unbiased piece - some may try to focus on the music itself, but that doesn't stop there from being a bias in the first place. Someone writing a review is applying their perspective to the music. There is no such thing as an objective review.

 

Also, sometimes personal life and drama are relevant to an album - for instance, with TTPD, Matty Healy and her fame are integral to the album's narrative. Most of Taylor's work deals with her personal life. With Ariana Grande, her last three albums have centered around her personal life and trauma. Drake puts a lot of personal drama into his work. I think the issue begins when people start using their reviews to air their gripes with an artist that aren't specific to the album at hand and not engaging with the album itself.