Dawn of Chromatica: Reviews Thread

[Chromatography 9,763]

7 hours ago, ConnorFilm said:

I mean, if this remix even gets a page on Metacritic, the average of 50 and 80 is around 65, making this already more well-received than her other remix albums. 

i don’t think all scores are weighted equally 

[StarstruckIllusion 47,868]

33 minutes ago, Shicd1 said:

GagaDaily is dead and toxic. Move to the subreddit

Nobody talks there + go away

[Shav33l 1,241]

Please, not the Madonna stan and Gaga hater giving her yet another yellow score. 😂 I don't take their Gaga reviews seriously and it's getting tiring at this point. Sucks that it counts towards the metacritic score.

 

Also, I think the album might end up between the 70 - 80 range.  

[MadreMonster 2,584]

50 minutes ago, salty like sodium said:

isn't the whole point of critics for them to express bias tho lmao. like every album is a 10 in someone's eye, otherwise they wouldn't sell.

No, although there will always be biases, critics should be critiquing the music on the quality of it - not on their personal beliefs of the music/artist.

For instance, how good the mixing/production/lyrics/vocals/etc are instead of if they like it or not.

[Bleachella 2,932]

15 minutes ago, MadreMonster said:

No, although there will always be biases, critics should be critiquing the music on the quality of it - not on their personal beliefs of the music/artist.

For instance, how good the mixing/production/lyrics/vocals/etc are instead of if they like it or not.

No....??? While reviews to a certain extent try to be assessments of the work, they're also very much influenced by whether or not a critic liked an album or not. I have never read a review that says "I hated this album but objectively it is good! 8/10", because that makes absolutely no sense? Music cannot be objectively assessed and is always influenced by how the art piece made you feel. 

[MadreMonster 2,584]

1 hour ago, Bleachella said:

No....??? While reviews to a certain extent try to be assessments of the work, they're also very much influenced by whether or not a critic liked an album or not. I have never read a review that says "I hated this album but objectively it is good! 8/10", because that makes absolutely no sense? Music cannot be objectively assessed and is always influenced by how the art piece made you feel. 

And while I understand that, for me, a good critic is someone who can put aside their own personal bias and say “this is not for me but it is objectively good/bad.”

Or get a critic who specifically likes certain genres to critique music in that genre.

[Shav33l 1,241]

4 minutes ago, MadreMonster said:

Or get a critic who specifically likes certain genres to cirque music in that genre.

Exactly, I agree on that so much! Because how can you judge something if you don't prefer it from the beginning? For example, I barely listen to trap/rap because I can't connect with it but that doesn't make it bad music. People who know their way around that genre will be better judges. 

[JohnWayne92 2,082]

3 hours ago, Wet Fire said:

They wrote PD remix is "practically unlistenable". Shouldn't such obviously biased people be fired from their jobs? 

I gasped. Plastic Doll was one of the better ones imo 

[littlepotter 73,692]

19 hours ago, omagaga said:

its funny how every f one is always WISHING THAT THIS WOULD HAVE BEEN LIKE THAT AND DIS LIKE THAT AND BLABLABLA. LMAO NEVER EVER S A T I S FI EDDDDDDDDDDDDD: HOW IRRITATING: WHO CARES . THIS IS A GIFT SO WE CAN QUINCH OUR THIRST OF NOTHINGNESS FRON THIS ERA AND ALL HAVE TO SAY I WASNT EXPECTED BLABLABLA I WISH THE VERSION WOULD HAVE HARMONIES. GIRL GET TO WERK THEN AND MAKE YOUR OWN F VERSION SO YOU CAN EAT IT AND O BACK TO SLEEP.

[Anveeroy 57,815]

20 hours ago, omagaga said:

its funny how every f one is always WISHING THAT THIS WOULD HAVE BEEN LIKE THAT AND DIS LIKE THAT AND BLABLABLA. LMAO NEVER EVER S A T I S FI EDDDDDDDDDDDDD: HOW IRRITATING: WHO CARES . THIS IS A GIFT SO WE CAN QUINCH OUR THIRST OF NOTHINGNESS FRON THIS ERA AND ALL HAVE TO SAY I WASNT EXPECTED BLABLABLA I WISH THE VERSION WOULD HAVE HARMONIES. GIRL GET TO WERK THEN AND MAKE YOUR OWN F VERSION SO YOU CAN EAT IT AND O BACK TO SLEEP.

Eeeh?

[Chesescake 3,576]

This is more irrelevant but so far on Rate Your Music, it's rated by 612 users, average score 3.30 / 5.00.

And... If we only count 7 reviewer's score it got 2.86 / 5.00.

[Bleachella 2,932]

8 hours ago, MadreMonster said:

And while I understand that, for me, a good critic is someone who can put aside their own personal bias and say “this is not for me but it is objectively good/bad.”

Or get a critic who specifically likes certain genres to critique music in that genre.

But that is not what critiquing is? That would be so boring and lifeless. Art is not meant to be objectively qualified and rated, reviewers aren’t meant to do that because art is not a science and the beauty of music is how it makes you feel and how you connect to the piece. Reviews would be incredibly boring and nondescript if they were all the same **** regurgitated because that’s what is “objectively good”. What does that even mean? Lyricism, songwriting, production choices, vocal inflections, cannot be graded objectively. It’s just an obtuse and overly cold and analytical point of view to hold imo

[MadreMonster 2,584]

43 minutes ago, Bleachella said:

But that is not what critiquing is? That would be so boring and lifeless. Art is not meant to be objectively qualified and rated, reviewers aren’t meant to do that because art is not a science and the beauty of music is how it makes you feel and how you connect to the piece. Reviews would be incredibly boring and nondescript if they were all the same **** regurgitated because that’s what is “objectively good”. What does that even mean? Lyricism, songwriting, production choices, vocal inflections, cannot be graded objectively. It’s just an obtuse and overly cold and analytical point of view to hold imo

I don’t think cancelling out bias means you have to cancel out emotion. It’s the difference between constructive criticism and hate.

So someone who doesn’t like pop music/hates Gaga and criticizes her albums should be seen as equal to a critic who tries to cancel out as much bias to her/her music and bases their review off the work itself?

[Bleachella 2,932]

1 hour ago, MadreMonster said:

I don’t think cancelling out bias means you have to cancel out emotion. It’s the difference between constructive criticism and hate.

So someone who doesn’t like pop music/hates Gaga and criticizes her albums should be seen as equal to a critic who tries to cancel out as much bias to her/her music and bases their review off the work itself?

I just think you have a really fundamental misunderstanding of what artistic critique is, is the problem. 

I never said that so I’m not sure why you’re putting words in my mouth in order to support your crumbling argument girlie! All I said was expecting reviewers to completely shut off any personal opinion and essentially GRADE a piece of art is unrealistic and goes against the very nature of what art is supposed to be. I have never ever read a review of someone who actively tries to cancel out their biases to give a good review…. lmfao nobody tries that hard to give a good review. You either like it or you don’t, so this fantasy reviewer you’ve concocted in your argument literally does not exist. I agree with you that in major publications, the people who review stuff should be people who understand the genre at the very least. You’re not going to put someone who HATES rap to review Donda or someone who HATES pop to review 1989. It doesn’t make sense. Do I also think if someone has a CLEAR personal bias against an artist, that they in particular should not be the one to review it? Yes. 

But that wasn’t the original point of your argument that I responded to and you’re shifting the goal post. 

12 hours ago, MadreMonster said:

No, although there will always be biases, critics should be critiquing the music on the quality of it - not on their personal beliefs of the music/artist.

For instance, how good the mixing/production/lyrics/vocals/etc are instead of if they like it or not.

What you said originally was “For instance, how good the mixing/production/lyrics/vocals/etc are instead of if they like it or not.”, which is what I took issue with. Not sure why you are now bringing up Gaga as that was never the point of this discussion.

[salty like sodium 1,006]

12 hours ago, MadreMonster said:

No, although there will always be biases, critics should be critiquing the music on the quality of it - not on their personal beliefs of the music/artist.

For instance, how good the mixing/production/lyrics/vocals/etc are instead of if they like it or not.

but that makes no sense since you need to like something to think it's good ... As @Bleachellasaid I've never heard a critic say "These lyrics don't speak to me personally but damn these are well written". 

The reason critics work is because albums get reviewed by about 20 different critics for big releases, which is a big cross-section., So the metascore is an indicator of overall quality because it's an average of a cross-section that (in theory) is representative of the tastes of society. I.e. If 60% of critics really liked the album, in theory that means 60% of the GP did as well