Bjork

[StrawberryBlond 14,120]

just like lana fans and little monsters dont make up the majority of music listeners either

u make fair points; her music is definitely an acquired taste, you either understand/get it or you don't

although, björk did have bountiful worldwide success in the 90's; enough to warrant acclaim as a "pop star"

her singles did very well in europe, especially the uk, as did her albums; she continues to be a singles artist in scandanavia even today.

i believe her albums broke stateside as well

 

They make up more than Bjork fans, though. Most of her early sales came from bandwagoners anyway, not real fans.

 

She actually sold a fair amount of her first two albums (either that info wasn't available on Wikipedia yesterday or I missed it), although those sales would only be decent for the 90's standards (albums were being certified platinum left and right back then). She's never been a singles artist. Yes, strangely, the UK is the only country where she's actually had lots of singles chart, although her last top 100 song was in 2005. She's lucky if she can get a single to chart in 5 countries these days and it's sometimes just their bubbling under chart, if that. Her fans are clearly more album buyers than single buyers.

 

Too lazy to answer this post, however what i want to say is that she DOES can sing. I was on her concert and the live vocals slayed me.

 

Well, from what I've heard, her voice is like someone in pain. I looked up some videos displaying her vocal registar and she can certainly do some weird things and she held a note forever. If she can do that, why doesn't she seem to try at other times or seem to sing in a way that is blatantly bad? She doesn't sing in the way we know it. She even did Inuit throat singing at some point. To me, she always sounds off-key and her accent is so thick that it can be hard to understand what she's saying (weird, as she seems fluent in English and most foreign singers don't sing in an accent that thick after 20 years). We all process sound differently and some voices are like heaven for some, hell for others. There are people who think over-singing like Mariah Carey is bad singing because it's just too try-hard to the point of being an earache (I'm inclined to agree, although I find a lot of it technically impressive). There are people who think nasally sounding indie guitarists have unique voices (I think it's one of the most generic voices in the book and indistinguishable). Seeing as I'm someone who has to think the music is excellent to overlook a sub-par voice, I find Bjork very difficult to endure.

 

That's alright, it's fair to have that opinion. It's understandable that some people can't get or appreciate more experimental artists that aren't Top 40.

 

However, there's a difference between simply not getting an artist and then coming into their dedicated thread with a pompous attitude with the sole intention of literally insulting and degrading their work. Just because you can't comprehend on a musical and technological level how special Bjork's work is, it doesn't mean she's being 'weird for weirdness sake'. Don't you call yourself a music critic? That's a very disappointingly shallow and cynical way to 'critique' an artist. And to say she can't sing... That's basically just hilariously inaccurate.

 

And then to mock her about commercial success... Hello? Do you think she cares? She's been signed to the same indie label throughout her entire solo career for more than 20 years. If success was the goal you can be damn sure her music would be very different. Not everything has to be geared towards radio in order for it to be valid or noteworthy, don't be so superficial.

 

In short: it's okay to not like Bjork or this album, of course, because she doesn't appeal to the masses and she never has. However don't try and rain on the parade of her fans by launching a tirade of insults against her during the release of her album with such attitude. There is a reason that she's such a celebrated influence within electronic music communities, and it's not her fault if people uneducated about that kind of thing like you don't get it.

 

Just because I don't like some experimental music doesn't mean I only listen to top 40 artists - far from it.

 

I made my reply when this was a separate thread entitled "Is Bjork's comeback real?" My reply was therefore answering the question, which is why it began with "sorry, no." The mods must have moved and merged it today. Understand that I would never enter an artist's dedicated thread and start being mean about them, its just been made to look that way. When I'm saying I think she's weird for weirdness sake, it's just an opinion, which is what a critic does. Just an impression I'm getting. And her voice just doesn't do it for me, just like I'm sure certain voice don't do it for you. I don't define shakiness and off-key singing as good. You don't have to be a technological or musical expert (or be one, for that matter) to understand or like an artist's music. "Use of technology" seems to the buzzphrase these days for "pretentious artist who makes music that's a series of bleeps, squawks and whistles that drive you up the wall." And we're supposed to praise it because it's a wonder of technology, regardless of what our ears tell us.

 

Again, I only brought up commercial sales because the original thread was talking about this being her potential comeback. I don't put any stock in that, I was just telling the truth - that she's never been a major seller, so it's not like she had ever once had major success to make a comeback out of later.

 

I understand your anger about this but realise that I wasn't trying to be launch a personal attack on her thread, it just looked like I was because the thread was merged. But please don't say something about how I'm uneducated about music just because I don't like someone you happen to like.

[mic 1,415]

They make up more than Bjork fans, though. Most of her early sales came from bandwagoners anyway, not real fans.

She actually sold a fair amount of her first two albums (either that info wasn't available on Wikipedia yesterday or I missed it), although those sales would only be decent for the 90's standards (albums were being certified platinum left and right back then). She's never been a singles artist. Yes, strangely, the UK is the only country where she's actually had lots of singles chart, although her last top 100 song was in 2005. She's lucky if she can get a single to chart in 5 countries these days and it's sometimes just their bubbling under chart, if that. Her fans are clearly more album buyers than single buyers.

Well, from what I've heard, her voice is like someone in pain. I looked up some videos displaying her vocal registar and she can certainly do some weird things and she held a note forever. If she can do that, why doesn't she seem to try at other times or seem to sing in a way that is blatantly bad? She doesn't sing in the way we know it. She even did Inuit throat singing at some point. To me, she always sounds off-key and her accent is so thick that it can be hard to understand what she's saying (weird, as she seems fluent in English and most foreign singers don't sing in an accent that thick after 20 years). We all process sound differently and some voices are like heaven for some, hell for others. There are people who think over-singing like Mariah Carey is bad singing because it's just too try-hard to the point of being an earache (I'm inclined to agree, although I find a lot of it technically impressive). There are people who think nasally sounding indie guitarists have unique voices (I think it's one of the most generic voices in the book and indistinguishable). Seeing as I'm someone who has to think the music is excellent to overlook a sub-par voice, I find Bjork very difficult to endure.

Just because I don't like some experimental music doesn't mean I only listen to top 40 artists - far from it.

I made my reply when this was a separate thread entitled "Is Bjork's comeback real?" My reply was therefore answering the question, which is why it began with "sorry, no." The mods must have moved and merged it today. Understand that I would never enter an artist's dedicated thread and start being mean about them, its just been made to look that way. When I'm saying I think she's weird for weirdness sake, it's just an opinion, which is what a critic does. Just an impression I'm getting. And her voice just doesn't do it for me, just like I'm sure certain voice don't do it for you. I don't define shakiness and off-key singing as good. You don't have to be a technological or musical expert (or be one, for that matter) to understand or like an artist's music. "Use of technology" seems to the buzzphrase these days for "pretentious artist who makes music that's a series of bleeps, squawks and whistles that drive you up the wall." And we're supposed to praise it because it's a wonder of technology, regardless of what our ears tell us.

Again, I only brought up commercial sales because the original thread was talking about this being her potential comeback. I don't put any stock in that, I was just telling the truth - that she's never been a major seller, so it's not like she had ever once had major success to make a comeback out of later.

I understand your anger about this but realise that I wasn't trying to be launch a personal attack on her thread, it just looked like I was because the thread was merged. But please don't say something about how I'm uneducated about music just because I don't like someone you happen to like.

So you just don't get the estetic she represents. Matter of taste.

[Tommymonster44 0]

Sorry, no, I just don't get the hype. I've listened to half this album today (I've listened to Biophilia before as well) and I honestly fail to understand why this woman gets amazing reviews. She can't sing (or at least, in English, she can't), her enunciation is shot, her melodies and instrumentals are irritating and her lyrics are just hipster-esque "poetic" phrasing that doesn't mean anything in the grand scheme of things. Some of her beats would be ok if she just let them be instrumentals and didn't put her awful singing over them. I'm all for quirky, unusual artists and pushing musical boundaries, but Bjork is where I draw the line. I feel like she's just trying to be weird for weirdness sake, and that's a big turn-off for me. She was never an album seller and she certainly won't be now. She's only getting attention for this album because it gave the impression that it was another Beyonce style album release with its sudden announcement as a digital download to make up for the leak, especially in the wake of the Rebel Heart leak. At the most, she'll debut big, then fall massively, as all artists like her do.

Apart from It's Oh So Quiet song (which wasn't even a big commercial success, nor was it her song), did she ever have commercial impact? Her highest charting single in the US only limped to #84. And that's exactly what I was thinking about her fanbase! And those types of people certainly do not make up the majority of music listeners, hence why albums by these supposedly superior artists never sell well.

I will say that this album is off putting even for long term fans. I'm not sure how much of your work you listened to, but biophilia is considered to be one of her weakest albums by many fans. Although, as I'm sure you have seen, many also rave about it.

Classic Bjork songs are characterized by flowing melodies, poetic and thoughtful lyrics, and a pop hook. This album is quite shocking due to it's improv sounding lyrics. Bjork herself recognizes this. I believe she actually said that they sound like they're from a high school diary.

Her music is definitely an acquired taste. Most of her new albums take me a couple of months to really get into.

I'll also say that her music becomes a lot more interesting and substantial when you learn about the construction behind it. For instance, the instrument in Sacrifice is one of a kind. She discovered a man who had constructed it by hand, and no other like it exists.

Her music also appeals to high brow types because of its technicality. She often creates music using crazy instruments and time signatures, for instance. Critics just love stuff like that.

[Harry 26,836]

Just because I don't like some experimental music doesn't mean I only listen to top 40 artists - far from it.

 

I made my reply when this was a separate thread entitled "Is Bjork's comeback real?" My reply was therefore answering the question, which is why it began with "sorry, no." The mods must have moved and merged it today. Understand that I would never enter an artist's dedicated thread and start being mean about them, its just been made to look that way. When I'm saying I think she's weird for weirdness sake, it's just an opinion, which is what a critic does. Just an impression I'm getting. And her voice just doesn't do it for me, just like I'm sure certain voice don't do it for you. I don't define shakiness and off-key singing as good. You don't have to be a technological or musical expert (or be one, for that matter) to understand or like an artist's music. "Use of technology" seems to the buzzphrase these days for "pretentious artist who makes music that's a series of bleeps, squawks and whistles that drive you up the wall." And we're supposed to praise it because it's a wonder of technology, regardless of what our ears tell us.

 

Again, I only brought up commercial sales because the original thread was talking about this being her potential comeback. I don't put any stock in that, I was just telling the truth - that she's never been a major seller, so it's not like she had ever once had major success to make a comeback out of later.

 

I understand your anger about this but realise that I wasn't trying to be launch a personal attack on her thread, it just looked like I was because the thread was merged. But please don't say something about how I'm uneducated about music just because I don't like someone you happen to like.

 

Fair enough, I didn't know the thread was merged.

 

But once again, your 'critical' approach to speak about this album is just kind of embarrassing. You think her singing is off key? Do you know what off key means? And I didn't say you have to be a technological expert to like or understand, but to be clearly uneducated about it and then insist it's simply a 'buzzphrase' and brand her as 'pretentious' is really cringe worthy.

 

Once again, as I keep saying, I don't care if you like it. But it's just terrible when people try to critique an artist/album and resort to these vague and superficial labels like 'pretentious' and 'weird' without actually substantiating these claims. It's ridiculous. Bjork is an important and influential artist within this realm of experimental electronica, and the fact you can only see it as 'bleeps, squawks and whistles' is laughable to me. Shall I repeat myself again? I'm not saying you have to enjoy it, but for someone that's apparently a music critic, I like to think you'd be educated enough about these kind of things to understand that's really not how simple it is. A critic should be able to objectively view a piece of work, and you can't in this instance.

 

And yes I do actually take it personally and get defensive when people such as yourself attack artists that are doing innovative things and just brush it aside as 'pretentious' without knowing a great deal about it. I'm doing a whole degree on music production and technology and I feel very passionately about artists like Bjork that push their music to new realms with technology in a no holds barred manner. Maybe it doesn't connect with you, her musical aesthetic only really attracts a niche audience, and I don't care. But it is irritating that you obviously don't get her at all, so instead choose to critique her in the least professional and informed way possible, and as a result actually come off looking quite ignorant. It's a shame.

[Harry 26,836]

Well, from what I've heard, her voice is like someone in pain. I looked up some videos displaying her vocal registar and she can certainly do some weird things and she held a note forever. If she can do that, why doesn't she seem to try at other times or seem to sing in a way that is blatantly bad? She doesn't sing in the way we know it. She even did Inuit throat singing at some point. To me, she always sounds off-key and her accent is so thick that it can be hard to understand what she's saying (weird, as she seems fluent in English and most foreign singers don't sing in an accent that thick after 20 years). We all process sound differently and some voices are like heaven for some, hell for others. There are people who think over-singing like Mariah Carey is bad singing because it's just too try-hard to the point of being an earache (I'm inclined to agree, although I find a lot of it technically impressive). There are people who think nasally sounding indie guitarists have unique voices (I think it's one of the most generic voices in the book and indistinguishable). Seeing as I'm someone who has to think the music is excellent to overlook a sub-par voice, I find Bjork very difficult to endure.

 

So some singers are too generic and indistinguishable but Bjork has an incredibly unique vocal style that's instantly recognisable and that's a bad thing? Make your mind up. She's a fantastic vocalist. Once again, it's not to everyone's tastes, but again you're failing to view things in an objective way, instead letting your personal taste obstruct your views on her abilities. That's what makes for an unreliable critic in my eyes.

[StrawberryBlond 14,120]

I will say that this album is off putting even for long term fans. I'm not sure how much of your work you listened to, but biophilia is considered to be one of her weakest albums by many fans. Although, as I'm sure you have seen, many also rave about it.

Classic Bjork songs are characterized by flowing melodies, poetic and thoughtful lyrics, and a pop hook. This album is quite shocking due to it's improv sounding lyrics. Bjork herself recognizes this. I believe she actually said that they sound like they're from a high school diary.

Her music is definitely an acquired taste. Most of her new albums take me a couple of months to really get into.

I'll also say that her music becomes a lot more interesting and substantial when you learn about the construction behind it. For instance, the instrument in Sacrifice is one of a kind. She discovered a man who had constructed it by hand, and no other like it exists.

Her music also appeals to high brow types because of its technicality. She often creates music using crazy instruments and time signatures, for instance. Critics just love stuff like that.

 

Just Biophilia and her new one. And just one or two songs from her early days. From what I've read, Vespertine sounds worth a listen anyway. She's compelling, that's for sure. Yes, I know Biophilia was disliked by some fans but there were plenty who loved it. It just happened to be released the year I started reviewing albums, so that's why I started with this one.

 

I tend not to call music an acquired taste because I think music is completely subjective and there's just some stuff you'll never like to hear. "A matter of taste" is a much more apt description. Bjork's style, like it or not, is very much a "love it or hate it" style with no "in between" view. Her work is simply very polarizing and some people will never like it.

 

I also don't like to use terms like "high brow" as I find it snooty and to define people as "low brow" is mean. I don't think there's a hierarchy in music: it all comes down to taste. It doesn't matter how much technicality went into something, if it doesn't appeal, it doesn't appeal. While a critic myself, I'm not a snooty critic who only praises what music snobs would call quality music. I can't help but think that critics feel inclined to give certain artists good reviews every time because of the reputation they've gained and Bjork is one of them. The only reviewer I've seen who has a love/hate relationship with her work is Robert Christgau, who's given her negative reviews, mixed reviews and excellent reviews. But then, Robert Christgau, is one of the very few critics out there who doesn't seem to be full of s**t, nor do you feel like he's getting paid to write good reviews or sucking up to artists or trying to view music the way it's "meant" to be viewed. He's just viewing it completely based on his opinion and I commend him for that.

 

Fair enough, I didn't know the thread was merged.

 

But once again, your 'critical' approach to speak about this album is just kind of embarrassing. You think her singing is off key? Do you know what off key means? And I didn't say you have to be a technological expert to like or understand, but to be clearly uneducated about it and then insist it's simply a 'buzzphrase' and brand her as 'pretentious' is really cringe worthy.

 

Once again, as I keep saying, I don't care if you like it. But it's just terrible when people try to critique an artist/album and resort to these vague and superficial labels like 'pretentious' and 'weird' without actually substantiating these claims. It's ridiculous. Bjork is an important and influential artist within this realm of experimental electronica, and the fact you can only see it as 'bleeps, squawks and whistles' is laughable to me. Shall I repeat myself again? I'm not saying you have to enjoy it, but for someone that's apparently a music critic, I like to think you'd be educated enough about these kind of things to understand that's really not how simple it is. A critic should be able to objectively view a piece of work, and you can't in this instance.

 

And yes I do actually take it personally and get defensive when people such as yourself attack artists that are doing innovative things and just brush it aside as 'pretentious' without knowing a great deal about it. I'm doing a whole degree on music production and technology and I feel very passionately about artists like Bjork that push their music to new realms with technology in a no holds barred manner. Maybe it doesn't connect with you, her musical aesthetic only really attracts a niche audience, and I don't care. But it is irritating that you obviously don't get her at all, so instead choose to critique her in the least professional and informed way possible, and as a result actually come off looking quite ignorant. It's a shame.

 

Yes, I know what off-key means and yes, I do hear that from her. She goes flat too. This is me being objective. I'm just talking completely from opinion here when I bring up my views of pretension, I'm not trying to pretend to be an expert or be defining anything. Different people find different things pretentious. Some people think simply singing a serious song is pretentious.

 

It's hard to substantiate something that's opinion. I don't think a word like "pretentious" or "weird" is vague - when it's said about music, we generally know what it's referring to. I don't care how important an artist is - if I don't like their music, I don't like it, nor do I feel guilty about it. That doesn't mean I think they're un-talented. Nowhere have I called Bjork un-talented. I can objectively say that she definitely possesses skills, she just doesn't use them in a way I like. There's plenty of artists who I recognise as talented but who simply don't thrill me. I don't know how you find it so hard to understand why someone wouldn't like Bjork's music as it's extremely experimental and incorporates bizarre sounds and vocal techniques, usually loud and brash at that. This kind of music is typically not pleasing to the ear, so it's no surprise that to some people, it just sounds like all noise. There's nothing laughable about that. I don't believe that a critic reviews something objectively - a critic has an opinion, same as everyone else. All my reviews are subjective, as they should be. A reviewer speaks for themselves, no one else. I like to think they also send out a message about what kind of person will like the piece of art. If they always have good reviews, the public will never be completely informed. I never buy an album based on what the critics say because so many of them have agendas and have been bribed to write good reviews. I swear, some critics just like everything and I think as a critic, you have to be braver than that.

 

I'm sorry if my critique of her is displeasing to you, but that's what happens with an artist who is so polarizing. I may not have a musical degree, but I am extremely passionate about music and sound in general and like most people, like it to be "just so." I won't like something just because I'm told it's innovative and different. I find it a hipster attitude to declare something good just because it's different. There's good different and bad different. And I'd rather define it for myself, rather than let a bunch of music snobs call it for me.

 

So some singers are too generic and indistinguishable but Bjork has an incredibly unique vocal style that's instantly recognisable and that's a bad thing? Make your mind up. She's a fantastic vocalist. Once again, it's not to everyone's tastes, but again you're failing to view things in an objective way, instead letting your personal taste obstruct your views on her abilities. That's what makes for an unreliable critic in my eyes.

 

I didn't say that unique was automatically good. "Unique" can be the polite word people use when they mean "awful." I like a singer whose voice is distinguishable and good, not distinguishable in a bad way. Bjork's voice is proof that singing can be subjective, that's all I'll say. She does a lot of things with her throat, but that's different from singing. And do you define an unreliable critic as someone who says something that you simply don't like?

[Harry 26,836]

Yes, I know what off-key means and yes, I do hear that from her. She goes flat too. This is me being objective. I'm just talking completely from opinion here when I bring up my views of pretension, I'm not trying to pretend to be an expert or be defining anything. Different people find different things pretentious. Some people think simply singing a serious song is pretentious.

 

It's hard to substantiate something that's opinion. I don't think a word like "pretentious" or "weird" is vague - when it's said about music, we generally know what it's referring to. I don't care how important an artist is - if I don't like their music, I don't like it, nor do I feel guilty about it. That doesn't mean I think they're un-talented. Nowhere have I called Bjork un-talented. I can objectively say that she definitely possesses skills, she just doesn't use them in a way I like. There's plenty of artists who I recognise as talented but who simply don't thrill me. I don't know how you find it so hard to understand why someone wouldn't like Bjork's music as it's extremely experimental and incorporates bizarre sounds and vocal techniques, usually loud and brash at that. This kind of music is typically not pleasing to the ear, so it's no surprise that to some people, it just sounds like all noise. There's nothing laughable about that. I don't believe that a critic reviews something objectively - a critic has an opinion, same as everyone else. All my reviews are subjective, as they should be. A reviewer speaks for themselves, no one else. I like to think they also send out a message about what kind of person will like the piece of art. If they always have good reviews, the public will never be completely informed. I never buy an album based on what the critics say because so many of them have agendas and have been bribed to write good reviews. I swear, some critics just like everything and I think as a critic, you have to be braver than that.

 

I'm sorry if my critique of her is displeasing to you, but that's what happens with an artist who is so polarizing. I may not have a musical degree, but I am extremely passionate about music and sound in general and like most people, like it to be "just so." I won't like something just because I'm told it's innovative and different. I find it a hipster attitude to declare something good just because it's different. There's good different and bad different. And I'd rather define it for myself, rather than let a bunch of music snobs call it for me.

 

 

I didn't say that unique was automatically good. "Unique" can be the polite word people use when they mean "awful." I like a singer whose voice is distinguishable and good, not distinguishable in a bad way. Bjork's voice is proof that singing can be subjective, that's all I'll say. She does a lot of things with her throat, but that's different from singing. And do you define an unreliable critic as someone who says something that you simply don't like?

 

Stopped reading at the bolded part. If you're going to insist on disregarding what I've repeated multiple times then why should I read the rest of your post too?

 

Once again, as I keep saying, I don't care if you like it. 

 

I'm not saying you have to enjoy it

 

In short: it's okay to not like Bjork or this album, of course, because she doesn't appeal to the masses and she never has. 

 

If you're not going to have the decency to actually read what I have to say then please don't bother quoting me at all.

[Homogenik 5]

 

why do people fight? you like it or you don't, move on either way. Jeez...

 

[StrawberryBlond 14,120]

Stopped reading at the bolded part. If you're going to insist on disregarding what I've repeated multiple times then why should I read the rest of your post too?

 

 

 

 

If you're not going to have the decency to actually read what I have to say then please don't bother quoting me at all.

 

What I was referring to was how often you'd contradicted yourself. One minute, you're saying that I don't have to like Bjork, the next minute, you're saying I should look at her work objectively and that I'm letting my personal views get in the way. You seem to be changing what you're saying all the time and I've interpreted it as fan bias. What I was trying to say is that Bjork makes a type of music that has a love it or hate it element and some people will never like it. It doesn't matter what talent or innovation went into it. And that you can't seem to understand that. And no, if I'm going to put time and effort into my posts, I expect you to read them and I do the same for you. Thinking that someone doesn't understand/listen to what you're saying just because they don't agree with you is very arrogant.

 

By the way, I'll be doing my best and worst music of the year list real soon. Maybe you can see more about how I review things through that.

[Harry 26,836]

What I was referring to was how often you'd contradicted yourself. One minute, you're saying that I don't have to like Bjork, the next minute, you're saying I should look at her work objectively and that I'm letting my personal views get in the way. You seem to be changing what you're saying all the time and I've interpreted it as fan bias. What I was trying to say is that Bjork makes a type of music that has a love it or hate it element and some people will never like it. It doesn't matter what talent or innovation went into it. And that you can't seem to understand that. And no, if I'm going to put time and effort into my posts, I expect you to read them and I do the same for you. Thinking that someone doesn't understand/listen to what you're saying just because they don't agree with you is very arrogant.

 

By the way, I'll be doing my best and worst music of the year list real soon. Maybe you can see more about how I review things through that.

 

No, that's not what it means at all. If you look at something objectively, you are able to remove your own personal opinion and respect and appreciate for what it is. That's different to enjoying it on a subjective level for it's aesthetic qualities. For example, I can't stand the music of Taylor Swift and wouldn't be caught dead listening to pretty much most of her music, but I can appreciate that 1989 is a well executed pop album in terms of writing and production. I don't like the majority of the songs on Biophilia in fact, but I appreciate the innovation of that whole project as being something really clever.

 

However. You feel the need to brand and degrade artists like Bjork as 'pretentious' and 'hipster-esque' and say she can't sing just because you don't understand her aesthetic and the music doesn't suit your personal taste. From most users I wouldn't care because that's the kind of lazy criticisms I would come to expect on a pop forum, but you actually proclaim to be knowledgable in this field, and it's kind of insulting.

 

I'll say it for the 19347834th time. I don't care if you don't like it. But there's a difference between saying that then properly substantiating it and just lazily attacking an artist with hollow accusations that mean nothing instead of actually providing a meaningful critique. I don't know how much simpler I can spell it out for you. My issue is with how you're expressing your view in such a transparent and juvenile way while also portraying yourself as a legitimate music critic.

 

You don't like her instrumentals & beats because they're "irritating" and "pretentious", you don't like her lyrics because they're "hipster-esque", she sings in a style that's "blatantly bad", I mean come on. It's a distasteful, disrespectful and easy approach to critiquing. If that makes you a legit music critic then I guess everyone that runs into a thread about a new song and simply posts 'flop' along with a gif is one too.

[Harry 26,836]

Vulnicura's Metacritic score is now up to 85 based on 16 reviews, surpassing Medulla. It's now her second best reviewed album on there, behind only Vespertine. Although all the albums before Vespertine aren't on there.

[StrawberryBlond 14,120]

No, that's not what it means at all. If you look at something objectively, you are able to remove your own personal opinion and respect and appreciate for what it is. That's different to enjoying it on a subjective level for it's aesthetic qualities. For example, I can't stand the music of Taylor Swift and wouldn't be caught dead listening to pretty much most of her music, but I can appreciate that 1989 is a well executed pop album in terms of writing and production. I don't like the majority of the songs on Biophilia in fact, but I appreciate the innovation of that whole project as being something really clever.

 

However. You feel the need to brand and degrade artists like Bjork as 'pretentious' and 'hipster-esque' and say she can't sing just because you don't understand her aesthetic and the music doesn't suit your personal taste. From most users I wouldn't care because that's the kind of lazy criticisms I would come to expect on a pop forum, but you actually proclaim to be knowledgable in this field, and it's kind of insulting.

 

I'll say it for the 19347834th time. I don't care if you don't like it. But there's a difference between saying that then properly substantiating it and just lazily attacking an artist with hollow accusations that mean nothing instead of actually providing a meaningful critique. I don't know how much simpler I can spell it out for you. My issue is with how you're expressing your view in such a transparent and juvenile way while also portraying yourself as a legitimate music critic.

 

You don't like her instrumentals & beats because they're "irritating" and "pretentious", you don't like her lyrics because they're "hipster-esque", she sings in a style that's "blatantly bad", I mean come on. It's a distasteful, disrespectful and easy approach to critiquing. If that makes you a legit music critic then I guess everyone that runs into a thread about a new song and simply posts 'flop' along with a gif is one too.

 

You can only appreciate a piece of work if you have some level of appreciation for the songs, though. The biggest praise you can get out of me in regards to a highly experiemental disaster is "props to the artist for taking a risk." I agree with you on the Taylor thing, but I can't even say it's a decently produced pop album because I don't think it's even good enough by pop standards (most people who say it is generally don't hold a very high opinion of pop in the first place).

 

I don't think any criticism that speaks articulately at length can be called lazy. My criticism has been called a lot of things, but never lazy. As most people are aware, I don't know when to shut up when it comes to criticism. And as long as I do that, I don't see a problem. I've listed the problems I have with her music and still you're saying that I'm not substantiating my views. So, what is your definition of "properly" sunstantiating my claims?

 

My views may be harsh, yes, but I wouldn't call them juvenile. Juvenile is writing one or two sentences with poor spelling, grammar, punctuation and with no intelligent words or phrasing. Just because you don't like it doesn't make it juvenile. I've seen much harsher professional critics, trust me. Some so serious that the artist's family complained.

[Harry 26,836]

You can only appreciate a piece of work if you have some level of appreciation for the songs, though. The biggest praise you can get out of me in regards to a highly experiemental disaster is "props to the artist for taking a risk." I agree with you on the Taylor thing, but I can't even say it's a decently produced pop album because I don't think it's even good enough by pop standards (most people who say it is generally don't hold a very high opinion of pop in the first place).

 

I don't think any criticism that speaks articulately at length can be called lazy. My criticism has been called a lot of things, but never lazy. As most people are aware, I don't know when to shut up when it comes to criticism. And as long as I do that, I don't see a problem. I've listed the problems I have with her music and still you're saying that I'm not substantiating my views. So, what is your definition of "properly" sunstantiating my claims?

 

My views may be harsh, yes, but I wouldn't call them juvenile. Juvenile is writing one or two sentences with poor spelling, grammar, punctuation and with no intelligent words or phrasing. Just because you don't like it doesn't make it juvenile. I've seen much harsher professional critics, trust me. Some so serious that the artist's family complained.

 

Intelligent words and phrasing? You described her music as a "series of bleeps, squawks and whistles". How can you expect me to take that kind of thing seriously?

 

I guess we'll just have to leave it and agree to disagree then since I thoroughly believe you aren't educated enough on this area of music to provide a respectable critique, and still think the way you've spoken about this album is lazy.

[Homogenik 5]

 

[MikeyMoonShine 0]

People seriously think Bjork can't sing? 

Anyway I think this album is brilliant, definitely better than Biophilia and Volta anyway. Stonemilker, Black Lake, Atom Dance and Quicksand are amazing.

 

Intelligent words and phrasing? You described her music as a "series of bleeps, squawks and whistles". How can you expect me to take that kind of thing seriously?

 

That's pretty much what trip hop is so yeah, not really a meaningful critique. Don't worry about it though hun, not everyone can appreciate genius