It's only a short intro and he presents the context of this album which is normal. The rest of the review is professional and focused on Gaga's and Tony's performance on the album.
The fact that you've to go half-way through the second paragraph of a three-paragraph review before he switches from dragging Lady Gaga and talking about the songs speaks volumes for those who don't spend their free time dragging Gaga.
But there were no lies there. Tony is doing it for "relevance", and Gaga thinks she's turning into a "legend" with this. How did you all want the article to start if the review was going to be negative anyway?
NOW HOLD UP....Where you coming up with this from?
It's the oldest trick in the book: Past-prime pop singer attempts to boost his or her relevance in the face of dwindling sales and hastily changing trends by commissioning the help of a hotter, more bankable artist.
To be fair, wasn't Gaga working with Tony even before ARTPOP was released? I can remember hearing about them collaborating ages ago.
But there were no lies there. Tony is doing it for "relevance", and Gaga thinks she's turning into a "legend" with this. How did you all want the article to start if the review was going to be negative anyway?
-
This article doesn't say Tony's doing it for relevance. It says Gaga is using Tony to sell.
Quote:
Past-prime pop singer attempts to boost his or her relevance in the face of dwindling sales and hastily changing trends by commissioning the help of a hotter, more bankable artist.
As you can read below: She's not talking about Tony, but Gaga.
Quote:
Tony Bennett and Lady Gaga's Cheek to Cheek is the latest product of such a collaboration—except I'm not referring to the octogenarian Bennett, who, after 60-plus years in the business, is selling more albums than ever before, but to Gaga, whose free-fall from the upper echelons of pop has been as precipitous as her rise was meteoric.
But there were no lies there. Tony is doing it for "relevance", and Gaga thinks she's turning into a "legend" with this. How did you all want the article to start if the review was going to be negative anyway?
I think Slant will be the lowest "important" review score honestly. They have historically been the harshest main critic out there. On average, this publication grades 8.4 points lower than other critics. (0-100 point scale) http://www.metacritic.com/publicatio...?filter=albums
I am still perched though for the potential bigger mess.
First paragraph: 94 words
The rest of the article: 287 words
The thickness of stan goggles
It doesn't matter if the first part was one sentence and the rest about the music was 50 sentences. The author clearly shows bias from the start that it won't be a good review, before they even listened to the album.
That explains it.
