|
Celeb News: Warrior Reviews | 74/100 | 16 critics
Member Since: 3/21/2011
Posts: 21,638
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 8/29/2012
Posts: 22,883
|
I wish Pitchfork would review her album
|
|
|
Member Since: 10/2/2011
Posts: 4,285
|
Quote:
Originally posted by SupahBass05
I wish Pitchfork would review her album
|
Pitchfork and their reviews (or choice of lack thereof) for female musicians are VERY political and mostly to save face and keep whatever B.S. aura of cool that think they're shrouded in.
Their stooping to the lingering misogyny in indie became crystal-clear to me when they gave Bjork's Homogenic a 9.9. Like, you couldn't round up? Really? I said to myself.
Then Liz Phair, their 90s indie-rock patron saint gave a middle finger to indie with pop in 2003 and to Pitchfork, for her shaming of them and to puff out their chest with their newly-found influence, gave her a 0.0. They gave Joni Mitchell reissues a 10, but that doesn't count.
- Pitchfork's resident pop reviewer was allowed to praise Blackout in an article on their site but a score ultimately wasn't posted. That was to save face because to score "Britney", a powerful name alone with an attached stigma for her detractors was a form of approval, which would tarnish their mantle and lose followers.
-They avoided scoring Born This Way as opposed to giving it a low score because it would attract attention from the Monsters fan base which would spread negative word about Pitchfork and they wouldn't be able to subtly inject themselves into the pop fracas any longer.
-They praised Adele's tracks on their year-end list but never reviewed her album. They like her as seen by the singles end-of-year results, but holding their self-perceived mantle of "hipsterdom" meant they couldn't waste effort on the album seen as been the 2010's soul version of Celine/Mariah/Whitney adored by soccer moms, according to their base.
-There's a reason the only energy they've ever (and will ever have, book me on that) spent on reviewing Ke$ha or Katy was in a slaughtering of Jessie J but won't say why for the sake of WPs.
|
|
|
Member Since: 3/7/2012
Posts: 2,113
|
K$ getting them good reviews.
|
|
|
Member Since: 4/13/2011
Posts: 8,569
|
Quote:
Originally posted by ks_dollar
Ask EW. They wrote it and they didn't lie
|
Their reference isn't representative of the album in general though You have it perched in the thread title as if it actually means something.
Like what is it actually trying to say? Rihanna doesn't make jokes like that in her songs? Well good because I don't really appreciate Rick Santorum mockery in my music or find it particularly funny....
Having said that, I enjoyed Warrior... pretty decent pop. Hope it scores well No reason why it shouldn't.
|
|
|
Member Since: 4/13/2012
Posts: 3,017
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Extra Espresso
Pitchfork and their reviews (or choice of lack thereof) for female musicians are VERY political and mostly to save face and keep whatever B.S. aura of cool that think they're shrouded in.
Their stooping to the lingering misogyny in indie became crystal-clear to me when they gave Bjork's Homogenic a 9.9. Like, you couldn't round up? Really? I said to myself.
Then Liz Phair, their 90s indie-rock patron saint gave a middle finger to indie with pop in 2003 and to Pitchfork, for her shaming of them and to puff out their chest with their newly-found influence, gave her a 0.0.
-There's a reason Pitchfork's resident pop reviewer was allowed to praise Blackout in an article on their site but a score ultimately wasn't posted.
-There's a reason they avoided scoring Born This Way as opposed to giving it a low score.
-There's a reason they praised Adele's tracks on their year-end list but never reviewed her album.
-There's a reason the only energy they've ever (and will ever have, book me on that) spent on reviewing Ke$ha, Katy, or Britney was in a slaughtering of Jessie J...
It's ALL political.
|
****ing went IN on pitchfork
|
|
|
Member Since: 10/2/2011
Posts: 4,285
|
Quote:
Originally posted by helveticarter
****ing went IN on pitchfork
|
I added more
|
|
|
Member Since: 3/27/2012
Posts: 27,951
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 8/29/2011
Posts: 9,504
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Extra Espresso
Pitchfork and their reviews (or choice of lack thereof) for female musicians are VERY political and mostly to save face and keep whatever B.S. aura of cool that think they're shrouded in.
Their stooping to the lingering misogyny in indie became crystal-clear to me when they gave Bjork's Homogenic a 9.9. Like, you couldn't round up? Really? I said to myself.
Then Liz Phair, their 90s indie-rock patron saint gave a middle finger to indie with pop in 2003 and to Pitchfork, for her shaming of them and to puff out their chest with their newly-found influence, gave her a 0.0. They gave Joni Mitchell reissues a 10, but that doesn't count.
- Pitchfork's resident pop reviewer was allowed to praise Blackout in an article on their site but a score ultimately wasn't posted. That was to save face because to score "Britney", a powerful name alone with an attached stigma for her detractors was a form of approval, which would tarnish their mantle and lose followers.
-They avoided scoring Born This Way as opposed to giving it a low score because it would attract attention from the Monsters fan base which would spread negative word about Pitchfork and they wouldn't be able to subtly inject themselves into the pop fracas any longer.
-They praised Adele's tracks on their year-end list but never reviewed her album. They like her as seen by the singles end-of-year results, but holding their self-perceived mantle of "hipsterdom" meant they couldn't waste effort on the album seen as been the 2010's soul version of Celine/Mariah/Whitney adored by soccer moms, according to their base.
-There's a reason the only energy they've ever (and will ever have, book me on that) spent on reviewing Ke$ha or Katy was in a slaughtering of Jessie J but won't say why for the sake of WPs.
|
read!
|
|
|
Member Since: 5/10/2010
Posts: 6,255
|
Yas! Keep those awesome reviews coming!!
|
|
|
Member Since: 9/16/2011
Posts: 6,130
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Extra Espresso
Pitchfork and their reviews (or choice of lack thereof) for female musicians are VERY political and mostly to save face and keep whatever B.S. aura of cool that think they're shrouded in.
Their stooping to the lingering misogyny in indie became crystal-clear to me when they gave Bjork's Homogenic a 9.9. Like, you couldn't round up? Really? I said to myself.
Then Liz Phair, their 90s indie-rock patron saint gave a middle finger to indie with pop in 2003 and to Pitchfork, for her shaming of them and to puff out their chest with their newly-found influence, gave her a 0.0. They gave Joni Mitchell reissues a 10, but that doesn't count.
- Pitchfork's resident pop reviewer was allowed to praise Blackout in an article on their site but a score ultimately wasn't posted. That was to save face because to score "Britney", a powerful name alone with an attached stigma for her detractors was a form of approval, which would tarnish their mantle and lose followers.
-They avoided scoring Born This Way as opposed to giving it a low score because it would attract attention from the Monsters fan base which would spread negative word about Pitchfork and they wouldn't be able to subtly inject themselves into the pop fracas any longer.
-They praised Adele's tracks on their year-end list but never reviewed her album. They like her as seen by the singles end-of-year results, but holding their self-perceived mantle of "hipsterdom" meant they couldn't waste effort on the album seen as been the 2010's soul version of Celine/Mariah/Whitney adored by soccer moms, according to their base.
-There's a reason the only energy they've ever (and will ever have, book me on that) spent on reviewing Ke$ha or Katy was in a slaughtering of Jessie J but won't say why for the sake of WPs.
|
100% correct.
And note how all their recent female-singer reviews have only been written by female staff.
|
|
|
Member Since: 8/29/2012
Posts: 22,883
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Ice Cream Skies
100% correct.
And note how all their recent female-singer reviews have only been written by female staff.
|
They reviewed Beyonce's "4", Nicki Minaj's Pink Friday and Roman Reloaded, the last four albums of Rihanna, but they can't review GaGa, Adele, Ke$ha, or Katy. I enjoy reading their reviews but some of them are just so
|
|
|
Banned
Member Since: 3/15/2012
Posts: 3,491
|
Ya beat me to it
|
|
|
Member Since: 4/24/2011
Posts: 17,221
|
Quote:
Apparently inspired by Led Zeppelin and AC/DC, featuring a duet with Iggy Pop and co-written with the likes of The Black Keys' Patrick Carney and The Flaming Lips' Wayne Coyne? Could this really be the same Ke$ha who gave us trailer-trash party girl anthems about 'waking up feeling like P Diddy'?
Well despite her initial claims that her second studio album, 'Warrior,' would have the feel of a '70s classic rock record, the 25-year-old hasn't entirely abandoned her hedonistic overly AutoTuned electro-pop sound just yet.
Indeed, other than the garage-rock/dubstep crossover 'Thinking Of You,' there's nothing amongst its first six tracks that would have sounded out of place on 2010 debut, 'Animal.' The opening title track declares 'we are the misfits/we are the bad kids' over a 'Zombie Nation'-esque acidic bass line. Lead single 'Die Young' blends its 'live for the moment' mantra with fizzing synths and an acoustic riff not too dissimilar to Flo Rida's 'Good Feeling.' Whilst there's also a will.i.am-produced urban club banger ('Crazy Kids'), a David Guetta-style 'hands in the air' floorfiller ('Wherever You Are') and a Valley Girl slice of bubblegum pop that has 'Katy Perry leftover' written all over it ('C'Mon').
However, the far more interesting second half proves that Ke$ha's retro-rock claims weren't pure nonsense. 'Dirty Love,' her collaboration with the rock n roll legend now best-known for being a puppet in a car insurance advert, sounded like a disaster on paper but is in fact a thrilling glam-rock stomper which harks back to the biker chick days of Joan Jett and Suzi Quatro.
Elsewhere, 'Only Wanna Dance With You' is a curious mix of The Strokes-esque guitar riffs and lovelorn girlband melodies whilst the bass-heavy 'Supernatural' brings Nik Kershaw's 'Wouldn't It Be Good' kicking and screaming into the 21st Century,
But it's the two tracks which strip away her familiar usual studio trickery which turn out to be the highlights, firstly the gorgeously melancholic piano-rock ballad, 'Wonderland,' which could be mistaken for latter-day Sheryl Crow, and secondly the atmospheric closer, 'Love Into The Light,' which even contains a burst of air drums that appear to have escaped from an 80s Phil Collins record.
In the end, 'Warrior' sounds like a compromise between the record Ke$ha wanted to make and the record Ke$ha's label wanted her to make. But there's little doubt over whose vision emerges victorious.
|
http://uk.omg.yahoo.com/news/ke-warr...140400318.html
I don't think metacritic counts it though.
|
|
|
Member Since: 12/3/2011
Posts: 11,947
|
Guardian review:
Quote:
2/5
Having sold 3m copies of her 2010 debut album, Animal, self-styled bad girl Kesha Sebert has decided not to fix what ain't broke. Warrior is basically the same product as Animal but with added effing and blinding. With or without swearing, her blunt-force pop, mainly produced by the emperor of strident electronica, Dr Luke, offers more pain than pleasure. Auto-Tune, deployed all over the record, turns Kesha's voice into a robo-squawk, and not in a good way: the title track, for example, would be a more persuasive call to arms ("We are the misfits, the bad kids, the degenerates") if there were a shred of emotion in the vocals. The master of degeneracy, Iggy Pop, shows her how it's done on the garage-rock duet Dirty Love; his hilariously roguish performance coaxes her into life, and the album's high point comes when she screeches, "I just want your filthy ****ing love!" A Wayne Coyne-produced ballad, Past Lives, ends the record on – thankfully – a softer note.
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 8/29/2011
Posts: 9,504
|
which is the UK publication that has a Sunday edition with a diff review?
they hate everything so you can always count on two negative reviews from them lol
|
|
|
Member Since: 6/6/2012
Posts: 2,639
|
Well, I've always made it clear that I prefer Animal to Warrior. Warrior is a good album, BUT Animal is still my favorite.
|
|
|
Banned
Member Since: 2/12/2012
Posts: 9,586
|
I think it's hard to 'get Kesha' if you're a middle aged man who critiques music for a living.
She'll sing, "I know we're all different, but baby that's life. But all these differences, they make me feel alive," and they'll be like SHE SUXX SHE HUSNT GREWN AT AHLL!! But then Iggy Pop is like, "**** roaches do it in garbage cans," and they're like "YAS BITCH SHOW EM HOWZ ITS DONE!111!1!1!1"
|
|
|
Member Since: 8/28/2012
Posts: 6,267
|
I do agree that some songs don't show progression but there are definately tracks that do, her songwriting is basically the same but that's just Ke$ha's style and critics praise other artists who just write 14 of the same songs and stick them together. But as the above poster correctly stated, K$ isn't exactly marketed towards critics in the first place
|
|
|
Member Since: 4/19/2012
Posts: 24
|
can the reviewers stop acting like warrior and animal are the same album lmao...animal actually very much has its own sound and if you actually bothered to listen to it you would know that. you would also know that warrior shows tons of growth, and showcases WAY more of a rock sound than animal or cannibal did. it def fits the "**** pop" description perfectly. ugh i could go on but i just—middle aged men reviewing ke$ha. why.
|
|
|
|
|