mmkay 854 Posted September 29, 2014 Share Posted September 29, 2014 I checked the review writers twitter account. He's a Madonna fan. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Valextra 58 Posted September 29, 2014 Share Posted September 29, 2014 Dropped all the way to 65 with that lame 25/100 review from LA Times http://www.metacritic.com/music/cheek-to-cheek/tony-bennett Seriously, this is SO ridiculous and unprofessional. TRASH. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Klou 2,414 Posted September 29, 2014 Share Posted September 29, 2014 I checked the review writers twitter account. He's a Madonna fan.That fanbase is asking for some major bad karma. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Klou 2,414 Posted September 29, 2014 Share Posted September 29, 2014 Seriously, this is SO ridiculous and unprofessional. TRASH. Apparently the guy that did the review is a Madonna fan. Surprise, huh? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cheezr 37 Posted September 29, 2014 Share Posted September 29, 2014 Why do we still care about stuff like this? People can literally write a ****ty review just because its gaga. how does that number affect it anyway? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
codymonster 8,580 Posted September 29, 2014 Share Posted September 29, 2014 Why does Metacritic even matter tho? :sweat: Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
E24187 615 Posted September 29, 2014 Share Posted September 29, 2014 I just came here to see the meltdowns. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
CannaeDrive 3,412 Posted September 30, 2014 Share Posted September 30, 2014 Irrelevant site cant possibly accurately represent the opinions of anything because they have no basis on which to accept/ignore reviews. It's just a completely random number. Agreed Metacritic is a joke, not only their selection of reviews seems completely arbitrary but they also put each one these reviews on the same foot, which not reflect the real value, quality and impact of an individual reviews. Let's consider a review in the Wall Street Journal by an jazz expert, obviously this review has more qualitative value than a review by a random guy in a random publication because a) the jazz expert is educated in jazz matters and with that knowledge can much better evaluate the quality of a jazz album, and b) the WSJ is a national, if not international, publication with a big readership and high reputation with the public, hence the review of the WSJ has way more impact with the public than the mediocre review by the random guy with the random publication. But Metacritic does not reflect this because it gives the same value to these two very different qualitative reviews, which is obviously inaccurate of what is happening in real life. So we can all dismiss this mediocre site while we are waiting the confirmation of the 3rd no 1 album for Gaga. "Fame Is A Boomerang" - Maria Callas Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ryhanna 3,507 Posted September 30, 2014 Share Posted September 30, 2014 That's such bs :roll: Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mast 980 Posted September 30, 2014 Share Posted September 30, 2014 It's not so much the score that bothers me in that LA Times review (although 25 percent is laughably bad for such a great album), it's that the review doesn't even MENTION tony. The review literally spends the whole time on gaga, what expectations they have of her, and how much of a "flop" she is, and not ONCE do they mention Tony's voice or his contribution at all. It's extremely biased and one sided. Really lame. They DID mention Tony, more than once, they said he was right on point with his delivery, but that was only when Gaga gave im the chance to sing. I agree with that point tbh, the album does seem a lot more Gaga than Tony; Tony knew when to be tame while Gaga belts out and riffs the crap out of most of the songs, which is not always appropriate. It almost comes off as if she's trying too hard and Tony is not trying at all. Still a good album though. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
FGGrayson 9,670 Posted September 30, 2014 Share Posted September 30, 2014 Can't believe they are adding the worst :mess: 𝗟𝗮𝗱𝘆 𝗚𝗮𝗴𝗮 • 𝗠𝗮𝗻𝗱𝘆 𝗠𝗼𝗼𝗿𝗲 • 𝗦𝗼𝗽𝗵𝗶𝗲-𝗘𝗹𝗹𝗶𝘀 𝗕𝗲𝘅𝘁𝗼𝗿 • 𝗣𝗮𝗿𝗶𝘀 𝗝𝗮𝗰𝗸𝘀𝗼𝗻 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
fucbjk 631 Posted October 1, 2014 Share Posted October 1, 2014 64 now Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Klou 2,414 Posted October 2, 2014 Share Posted October 2, 2014 64 nowMetacritic scrambling to add any negative review they can find. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slojo 51 Posted October 14, 2014 Share Posted October 14, 2014 Think this is a new review from Jazz Weekly http://www.jazzweekly.com/2014/10/surprise-tony-bennett-lady-gaga-cheek-to-cheek/ Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slojo 51 Posted October 19, 2014 Share Posted October 19, 2014 Another great C2C review from the Philippine Star http://www.philstar.com/entertainment/2014/10/17/1380958/bennett-lady-gaga-go-cheek-cheek Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Featured Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.