Unapologetic. They legit gave it bad scores because Chris Brown was on it. Most reviews focused on the fact that he was on the album than the actual quality of the music itself.
Unapologetic. They legit gave it bad scores because Chris Brown was on it. Most reviews focused on the fact that he was on the album than the actual quality of the music itself.
Almost all of them are spot on, of course everyone will come in here screaming "my fave deserves at LEAST an 80!!!!!1".
Yeah, no they don't.
Metacritic is only unreliable when there are simply too few reviews put into the final score. For example, some mediocre albums can get high scores just because there are only like 4 reviewers total, and they all gave it a high score. However, even then, if the reviewers are the more credible ones, even with a limited number, they usually still get it somewhat right.
The Fame being higher than BTW and ARTPOP is ridiculous. ARTPOP was rated based on Gaga's negative press and media coverage at the time, as well as her pretentiousness, which wasn't fair at all.
The Fame being higher than BTW and ARTPOP is ridiculous. ARTPOP was rated based on Gaga's negative press and media coverage at the time, as well as her pretentiousness, which wasn't fair at all.
It makes me think of Bangerz, some critics just attacked directly Miley through her image without even really caring about the music
the marshall mathers lp tbh- this is a very acknowledged injustice.
that album has been cited on all kinds of list as a defining album of the 2000's and is acknowledged as a classic even by non fans. the fact that it only got a 78 is utter crap and it was only because of controversy that nobody wanted to give him his due credit. all of em's meta scores need to be bumped up about 4 points honestly except recovery which is good as it is, relapse which needs like 10 more points, and encore which needs to be bumped down 5.