[suburbannature]

Originally posted by LadyGagaStan93

Why are you still trying to convince people that their feelings about the negative reviews are wrong?

Yes, the intro to an essay or a review can give you some background information about the artist and that's not a problem, but when you call them desperate and then incorrectly infer that the album was made solely for the purpose of redeeming herself of the flop album of 2013 that's a bit too much. Let me not even get into Chris Brown's album reviews.

You're right. I should know better than to use logic here.

[OurLuckyStrike]

[Giorgoc]

Originally posted by suburbannature

You're right. I should know better than to use logic here.

You never actually respond to legitimate points made towards you though.

You ignore half the post every time, so unless you feel like responding properly I'll be reporting the **** out of you.

[Venus Temple]

Oh well. 65 is still good and higher than a lot of pop girls. I'm proud of you Gaga

[suburbannature]

Originally posted by Giorgoc

You never actually respond to legitimate points made towards you though.

You ignore half the post every time, so unless you feel like responding properly I'll be reporting the **** out of you.

They weren't legitimate. They confirmed what I said and then contradicted themselves. The reviewers have the right to interpret the context how they'd like based upon the quality of the artist's output.

As for the second half of your post, report me all you want for articulating the truth... the truth hurts. You all spoke too soon with the Acclaim to Acclaim talk based solely on the album being a jazz album and it far from met expectations.

[Forevermore]

Billboard Magazine's review in print.

I am done with them.

After the 3 star, 3 1/2 star mess.

Mess!

[Auris]

imo it's around a 55

[BTrisc]

Originally posted by suburbannature

They weren't legitimate. They confirmed what I said and then contradicted themselves. The reviewers have the right to interpret the context how they'd like based upon the quality of the artist's output.

As for the second half of your post, report me all you want for articulating the truth... the truth hurts. You all spoke too soon with the Acclaim to Acclaim talk based solely on the album being a jazz album and it far from met expectations.

I think the issue here is that you're trying to shove your opinion in our face as if it's law. You say that the album would
have received better scores had it deserved them, yet you discount the many positive reviews that have come in, many of
them accepted by Metacritic. Apart from the outlier Slant and LA Times scores, the reviews have been mostly positive. Even
some of the mixed reviews (namely CoS and Billboard) read as incredibly positive and totally conflict with their scores.

You're trying to act like the reviews are unanimously mixed/negative, when they aren't.

[Moonchild]

Originally posted by Inception

Billboard Magazine's review in print.

I am done with them.

After the 3 star, 3 1/2 star mess.

Mess!

Apparently, Billboard Magazine is a completely different publication than Billboard.com, but both count for Metacritic!

[Giorgoc]

Originally posted by suburbannature

They weren't legitimate. They confirmed what I said and then contradicted themselves. The reviewers have the right to interpret the context how they'd like based upon the quality of the artist's output.

As for the second half of your post, report me all you want for articulating the truth... the truth hurts. You all spoke too soon with the Acclaim to Acclaim talk based solely on the album being a jazz album and it far from met expectations.

Quality of output?

Do you NOT realize that the negative reviews are factually wrong by stating that she released this album only to save face after the disastrous ARTPOP, when the album has been worked on before ARTPOP was even announced?

Or the fact that LA Times complimented the actual music, "output" if you will, yet gave it a 1 star because it comes off as a desperate career move? Like, that shouldn't matter when you're supposed to judge a piece of music.

Or maybe that Billboard gave it both 3 and 3 1/2 stars, then changed it to 3.

Do those sound like competent professionals to you?

Address those points and you might even be taken seriously.

[Skywalker]

Troll to Troll, like always.

Anyways, the Billboard review seems like a good one too. Hopefully they add it but they might be done with the album.

[Gazing Ball]

ATRL all worked up about charts and critics and reviews as always. Just STFU and listen to the album and if you like it enjoy it, and if you don't move on to something you like.

Ya'll are obsessed with being negative.

[Eric.]

Originally posted by Remixed

Chicago Tribune's review won't be counted for Metacritic. I just received a response from Metacritic:

I didn't care about this stuff before, but I'm glad we have yet more proof to know a MC score barely represents the critical reception of an album, just go check the publications yourself. Nothing to see here folks.

[ezra]

Originally posted by Eric.

I didn't care about this stuff before, but I'm glad we have yet more proof to know a MC score barely represents the critical reception of an album, just go check the publications yourself. Nothing to see here folks.

I never use them to drag or judge music anyway. But yeah they aren't counting Chicago Tribune or the Billboard Mag review (which is 4/5) so it's a 65 (which sounds really underwhelming to me). But there haven't really been more than 2-3 really negative reviews. Safe to say Cheek to Cheek is acclaimed.

[longjohn9898]

Originally posted by TheGreatestThing

Apparently, Billboard Magazine is a completely different publication than Billboard.com, but both count for Metacritic!

Good to hear the 4 star review from Billboard Magazine counts for Metacritic

But based on recent events this probably means it won't be added in

[Tristan]

LA Times

[longjohn9898]

Even though Metacritic blatantly decided to skew the average towards the negative reviews, we should recognize that there are many, many more positive reviews for this album and that, in actuality, a score difference between 65 and 70 does not impact the general consensus on the album, let alone Gaga's career in the long run or her undeniable talent. A Metacritic score does not determine how an album is remembered.

[DonnieDarko]

Originally posted by longjohn9898

Even though Metacritic blatantly decided to skew the average towards the negative reviews, we should recognize that there are many, many more positive reviews for this album and that, in actuality, a score difference between 65 and 70 does not impact the general consensus on the album, let alone Gaga's career in the long run or her undeniable talent. A Metacritic score does not determine how an album is remembered.

Your opinion,which is by accident the same as mine on this subject,would be valid if we would be on a forum with adults or with young people that can actually see and think beyond their silly stanning. This is ATRL,any reasonable explanation is not welcome.

[♚ PRiNCE HiGH ♚]

I swear I won't give two ***** about any Mc score for any albums from now on

And woo lawdT that pressed member is still trying it

[Bríseis]

Originally posted by Giorgoc

Quality of output?

Do you NOT realize that the negative reviews are factually wrong by stating that she released this album only to save face after the disastrous ARTPOP, when the album has been worked on before ARTPOP was even announced?

Or the fact that LA Times complimented the actual music, "output" if you will, yet gave it a 1 star because it comes off as a desperate career move? Like, that shouldn't matter when you're supposed to judge a piece of music.

Or maybe that Billboard gave it both 3 and 3 1/2 stars, then changed it to 3.

Do those sound like competent professionals to you?

Address those points and you might even be taken seriously.

The reviews are not focused on the material, and thats the case with every cover album, because the songs are already highly acclaimed classics and done to death.
Its the rendition they are (or should be) focused on. But many music journalists feel uncomfortable to criticize an album full of standards done in a classic manner, because music as such is good, even when they feel its unauthentic, shallow and uninspired. Thats why are the reviews mixed imo.