Why did Teenage Dream take such a horrible Metacritic score?

[DemeLarell 931]

23 minutes ago, Britney Spears said:

It is definitely her best album but that doesn't make it great  I think that rap albums usually have some very good lyrics and some REALLY bad that could never be in a pop song... I like some songs in pinkprint that are talking about her life (whether she wrote them or not) but some others are REALLY stupid. At least songs like "peacock" (which are obviously dumb) are on purpose dumb and are not taking themselves too seriously... Nicki has a lot of overly sexual and dumbly written lyrics that are just made to make her look fierce and "dope"

Nah. She said there were some songs like anaconda she didn't take to seriously. But i understand your opinion but that metacritic score was well deserved in my opinion. 

[Prismatic 4,789]

19 minutes ago, Didymus said:

Glorifying drinking to the point of having a blackout, sexual behavior that's out there to say the least (drunk threesomes in a park; "break[ing] the law" while under influence of alcohol; asking people to take their d-cks out, if they chicken out they're scared pussies; getting involved with a drug addict and not wanting to take care of him later,...). Offensive especially for an album that was supposedly directed towards an audience of teenagers if not underaged children.

That's why it's called Teenage Dream  

I feel like she included those lyrics because those might have been things she have never done before. I mean being in a household where your daddy is a pastor will limit yourself even more. 

[ItsTommyBitch 12,640]

It's actually a great bubblegum pop album in my mind, full of hooks and bright melodies and its juts fun af. The title track is an AMAZING pop track, lets be real.

It deserves WAY better than either Meghan Trainor album. The production, lyrics, melodies, etc. are all way better. I think a single song on Teenage Dream is better than the entirety of "Thank You" personally.

People love to hate pop music though, especially bubblegum pop. Im not saying Teenage Dream is like an objectively great or even good album, but I do think its miles ahead of both of Meghan's releases so its score is a bit confusing. Tracklisting, production, lyrics, etc. might be mediocre, but the hooks are solid and more developed than anything Meghan's put out since Title to me.

 

[LaLuna 12,732]

The music is terrible and generic af. 

End of story. 

[BLACKOUTbritney 22,356]

3 hours ago, Britney Spears said:

I think it's because of the controversy of the lead single mostly

Im a massive madonna fan, but it was probably just that one song that got the album such a low score. I mean American Life (the song) IS TERRIBLE! By far madonna's worst song. Everything about it is so messy

I still bop to the "F**K IT" part tho

 

[Brian Ryan 1,468]

The people who happen to have jobs as critics did not like the album. They are not any different from me or you... other than a music critic. You guys seriously give them too much power. It shouldn't ruin your day if a critic does not like something... I guess they are just some of you guys music Gods. I suppose.

[Slayer 9,227]

39 minutes ago, Britney Spears said:

What makes an album "for 11 year olds". I'd say that a lot of the messages in the album are pretty inappropriate for children and the lyrics in this album are not relatable to a child.

The Spice Girls and S Club 7 had some racy, inappropriate lyrics but their audiences were mostly preteen girls. It's much more about the sound, the image, the brand...and that's exactly what Katy Perry is all about. Just look at her tour videos - mostly young girls in the crowd.

[BLACKOUTbritney 22,356]

46 minutes ago, Didymus said:

Not only the music was derivative, the biggest problem was that the lyrics were both incredibly childish ànd offensive at the same time.

The critics have always hated on Katy since the beginning, but she's been getting more positive reception over the years. Her Metacritic scores have risen consistently (not far though). Imo the scores have been accurate, actually far more accurate than other pop artists get. 70+ for Ari's last throwaway, really? 70+ for Selena and Demi? Just no.

Thats only because 9 reviews went towards their scores, while Madonna, Gaga, Bey all get 25+ reviews.

I pay no attention to Metacritic because it isn't always the same publications scores used and not only that but an album with just 5 professional reviews can get scored

[ItsTommyBitch 12,640]

49 minutes ago, Harry said:

I'd usually agree but 1989 and Emotion fit the criteria of shameless pop and not too serious and they got good scores.

I don't think bad reviews of Pop music have much to do with how important the subject matter is and more about how its approached... at least sometimes.

In my mind, EMOTION and to an extent 1989 were perfect examples of the artists taking the subject matter seriously. They both approach mundane topics like love, heartbreak, regret, one-sided love, fame, etc. like they are the most important things in the world. It sounds way more sincere; both in the effort given to the production and lyrics and even the vocal delivery. The hard work put into the album is palpable, and the attention to detail is noticable as well. The tracklisting is great to decent and the albums are cohesive. For Taylor, this is something she tries to do on every record. In summary, I think there are a lot of reasons 1989 and EMOTION got good scores but are "shameless pop" basically  

Id honestly say EMOTION deserves a better score than what it got, and 1989's score is about right, but thats just me  

[Versace 7,959]

It's a pop masterpiece for me 

when you think of a dynamic pure pop album , Teenage Dream comes to mind <3

[Fiona Apple 13,006]

1 hour ago, BLACKOUTbritney said:

Im a massive madonna fan, but it was probably just that one song that got the album such a low score. I mean American Life (the song) IS TERRIBLE! By far madonna's worst song. Everything about it is so messy

I still bop to the "F**K IT" part tho

 

The song is a mess but I still love it tbh

[AlexanderLevi2 5,849]

3 hours ago, Britney Spears said:

Well he used the phrase about the "plastic bag" and I used those anacoda lyrics to prove that some bad lyrics don't make an album bad. And honestly having heard The PinkPrint a couple of times ,it's not that great of the album.It's actually confusing I'd say..It's actually pretty incoherent. Half of the album is rap and half of the album is pop (either pop ballads,either actual pop songs). She tried to please with this album both her rap and her pop fans which is not a bad thing but hardly an album that had a "direction" sonically and lyrically.

I completely disagree with you but that's your opinion and I'll go blast the Pinkprint and throw TD in the trash along the way 

[StrawberryBlond 14,840]

I'm with you. Not Katy's biggest fan by any means but that album was underrated by critics. Strangely, a lot of the reviews stated that it lacked cohesiveness when actually, I think it's a great cohesive pop album that fitted its theme very well. It deals with euphoric happiness of being young and carefree (California Gurls), first loves (Teenage Dream), irresponsible partying (Last Friday Night), losing virginity (Hummingbird Heartbeat, among others), falling for bad boys (E.T and Circle The Drain), questioning your path in life (Who Am I Living For?) regretting the past (The One That Got Away), finding confidence within yourself (Firework and Pearl) and realising that there's still growing up to do (Not Like The Movies). Sounds like being a teenager to me. Yeah, it wasn't exactly suitable for a young audience, yes, it was a commercial sound, yes, her voice isn't the best. But the lyrics ain't half bad and there's so many lovely, happy tracks on there that scream "summer" and some surprisingly sad ones too. In my opinion, some of the best ever pop songs are on there. It's a whole lot better than some of the mediocre pop albums critics have praised like 1989.

It all comes down to critics being snooty and cowardly. Most of them would rather walk over hot coals than give a positive review to a pop album, especially when it's by a very commercial kind of pop by a female. And critics are terrified of being made to look like fools, whichever way that may be. They fear that they could bash an album that goes on to become a big hit with the public and also fear that they'll praise an album that the public end up hating. That's why you'll notice that critics who were negative/lukewarm towards an artist's debut (that went on to become a big hit) miraculously seem to enjoy their follow-up, despite it being the same style. And it's also why they tend to be negative about an album whose singles preceding it underperformed/failed and give better reception to an album that's had a successful campaign pre-release (I think that's a big reason why Gaga got worse reception for AP than Katy did for Prism, because she got bigger hits). Both behaviours, I cannot stand. These people are supposed to be professionals and yet, they apply such bias and fakery towards their job and don't seem to know their own minds (unless your name's Robert Christgau or you work at Slant Magazine). And let's not even start on the system of paid-for reviews, an unspoken world, but a real one. And I'll say this much for Katy, at least she doesn't seem a part of that nonsense.

3 hours ago, Harry said:

I'd usually agree but 1989 and Emotion fit the criteria of shameless pop and not too serious and they got good scores.

That's because Taylor is, for some reason, like catnip to critics. Whether it's through paid-for reviews or they genuinely like her, I don't know, but it's frustrating either way. These professionals should know that she's nowhere near as good or original as they say. But she's a weird case, the exception to the rule. Emotion did so well with the critics because it was 80's influenced to the point where it actually sounded as if it was produced in the 80's. Critics are famous for their love of 80's influenced stuff, so good reviews were expected. Don't get me wrong, I like the album too, although I don't think it's anywhere near the modern masterpiece some made it out to be and I think her previous album had a better ratio of good tracks, yet wasn't rated as good, but whatever. It's easy to see a pattern of how critics judge these things and why they give allowances to certain people but not to others.

[Harry 26,836]

2 hours ago, StrawberryBlond said:

That's because Taylor is, for some reason, like catnip to critics. Whether it's through paid-for reviews or they genuinely like her, I don't know, but it's frustrating either way. These professionals should know that she's nowhere near as good or original as they say. But she's a weird case, the exception to the rule. Emotion did so well with the critics because it was 80's influenced to the point where it actually sounded as if it was produced in the 80's. Critics are famous for their love of 80's influenced stuff, so good reviews were expected. Don't get me wrong, I like the album too, although I don't think it's anywhere near the modern masterpiece some made it out to be and I think her previous album had a better ratio of good tracks, yet wasn't rated as good, but whatever. It's easy to see a pattern of how critics judge these things and why they give allowances to certain people but not to others.

Maybe the critics just like them?

I imagine you'd probably argue that pop albums in general are underrated by critics in comparison to particular other genres. Yet here are two pop albums with decent scores and you're making excuses. Why, because you don't like them?

[StrawberryBlond 14,840]

16 minutes ago, Harry said:

Maybe the critics just like them?

I imagine you'd probably argue that pop albums in general are underrated by critics in comparison to particular other genres. Yet here are two pop albums with decent scores and you're making excuses. Why, because you don't like them?

I gather that...but it doesn't explain why they suddenly praise something so girlie and poppy when they normally hate girlie poppy stuff. I don't see what Taylor's doing that the rest of the pop world is not to make her such a critics darling. More popstars than ever are writing their own material, playing instruments, taking risks. She's not doing anything different and is actually taking a very generic path right now. So, why does she get praise for something so common and something critics normally dislike? And there's only a handful of songs across her career that I consider to be truly well-written. If I, a non-professional, can see nothing special in her writing, why do professional critics over-praise her for it? I think it's a general rule that if the public, who are supposed to be uneducated on this stuff and easily pleased, are saying an artist is generic, ordinary, awful, etc. then the critics should agree, seeing as their take on it should be of an even higher level, right? It's like, if you're a pop music lover and you hear a bad pop song. If it sounds bad to you, it must sound really bad to non-pop fans and educated music experts.

I just said that Taylor was the exception to the rule and I also said that I liked Emotion, I'm just giving a valid reason as to why it got rated better than her last album. Gaga was a slight exception to the rule as well, considering her debut was in the mould of quite girlie and generic (although the electropop direction was new and risky at the time, so that's probably what gained her that praise). But I don't think those good reviews would have continued if she had kept on that route, the critics appreciated it when she started experimenting. That's the reason she consistently gets decent reviews to this day. Critics and public alike don't like it when an pop artist doesn't grow and mature...except if you're Taylor, once again.