They already gave 80 rating to albums of the same type. It's just a question of luck, in the end, not quality.
Credibility is also considered, I think, and Britney don't have that luxury.
69 is very good, when all is said and done, and better than most of her previous albums.
Yes if you look at the Independant reveiw they even mention how gaga music is no better, yet i can't see them revewing gaga with a 4/10. Critics bring up her lack of invovlment, but they didn't do that for Rihanna loud album, it just plain and simple biast.
I couldn't careless about it, Metacritic, Rolling Stone, TIME Magazine, Google, Obama, The UK Queen, The Pope can give the album 0/100 and it wouldn't make me like it less
It's quite common actually. You do realize that while two reviews can come from the same publication, they are written by two different people, right?
Quote:
Album: Britney Spears, Femme Fatale (Jive) Reviewed by Simon Price
Sunday, 27 March 2011
The madder she gets, the more interesting she gets. That ought to be how it works.
Sadly, perhaps due to a last-ditch attempt by her label to get her back on track, Britney's latest has none of the head-shaving mentalism you'd hope for. Max Martin, Mr "Baby One More Time", has been roped in again along with scores of interchangeable Scandinavians to create an album of autotuned landfill chartpop which you will scour in vain for anything on a par with "Womanizer".
Why would that, whatever it is, even be considered as a review?
69 is still good, the album is great, there are no meltdowns or delusions.
