Fiona Apple - Fetch the Bolt Cutters

[Matski]

According to Metacritic, they have given perfect scores right away for (excluding reissues, compilations and classical stuff):
...

Most of those early 00s releases have been five-starred for over a decade now. It's hard to find out if they were ever mistakes that were reverted and then upgraded again or just left that way from the start. If they've always had that rating then AMG probably implemented their current five-star ratings policy long after.

Diotima was 4.5 stars until it was upped again for the 'End of Decades' list. So it must have been downgraded at some point. More than any other popular genre, metal releases can sometimes slip through the cracks. Metal isn't a widely coveted genre by their staff so 'mistakes' can go unchecked for ages. Songs from the North, Vols. 1–3 by Swallow the Sun spent several years with a full five-star rating as did Negura Bunget's Om. I have my suspicions about Onset of Putrefaction by Necrophasgist too.

As for Live at Reading, it's what is usually labelled as an 'archival' release. Like classical music, archival material is treated differently. It wouldn't make sense for it to 'earn' a full rating as it already has a legendary status amongst music aficionados.

EDIT: I remember now that Daft Punk's Discovery was upgraded in 2011. It must've been downgraded before at some point. There was a discussion about all the 2011 upgrades back in the old forum. Ha, going back there I forgot how some members were annoyed with B-Day (now downgraded again) and Midnight Boom receiving a five-star rating. How times have changed...

[Schüttelbirne]

Metacritic still has her at 100 with 23 reviews.

That's a blatant example of when the Metacritic score is pretty mysterious. 23 reviews, half of them are 100, half of them are not, the average definitely isn't 100 so how is that score calculated ?

The album has 23 reviews, 11 are 100, 12 are below.
The lowest score is 80 which is still positive.
The average has nothing to do with the Metascore. It says that 100% of the reviews are positive.

[prosecutorgodot]

I hate that Rotten Tomatoes system, an average seems much better.

[Nick]

I hate that Rotten Tomatoes system, an average seems much better.

I agree 100%.

What album is more critically acclaimed?

Album A with 50 reviews, all of which are 8/10?

Or album B with 50 reviews, 49 of which are 10/10, the other 1 is a 5/10?

Clearly album B is more acclaimed, but it would have a lower score in the RT formula.

[Schüttelbirne]

I finally got around to listening to it, so here are a few thoughts:

I don't know if it works to the album's advantage that the self-proclaimed "most trusted voice in music" gives it the first perfect score in ten years. I feel like there's a tiny music critic sitting on my shoulder while I listen to it, screaming in my ear after each song finishes: "Do you get it? You have to get it! BEST ALBUM IN TEN YEARS!!!"
Just the fact that this is universally acclaimed already makes me skeptical, because I have to fight the urge to dislike it from the start just because everybody praises it to an amount I seldom see new releases praised.
That said, the album is good. It's certainly not the best album of the last ten years, it's not even the best album of the year (for me personally).
There's some descriptions I found in multiple sources: The album is supposed to be raw and experimental.
People keep saying how "raw" her voice sounds; but that's ultimately just her using her normal voice without trying to make it sound cleaner than it actually does. If that means "raw", I would have to agree, but the word just seems weird to me.
Now the experimental thing: I read a lot about her experimental usage of percussion and I disagree completely, unless "experimental" means: She hasn't used percussion the way she uses it here before, so it's new and experimental. I expect something different from "experimental", something far more radical. Maybe that's just me taking words too seriously, but why use words if the meaning gets scrambled up?

So, I agree with it being a good album; it will probably do well on the EOY lists, but I doubt it will make it into the AM Top 100, and I wouldn't agree with it being there.

Also, regarding the Metascore: I don't think it will stay at 100. Ultimately there's gonna be someone who will give it a bad review just to be edgy.
To Pimp a Butterfly doesn't have a single bad review, but a score of 96. I don't understand how this works...

[PlasticRam]

^^ I agree with that. I wish I could express myself so eloquently.

[FrankLotion]

Metacritic still has her at 100 with 23 reviews.

That's a blatant example of when the Metacritic score is pretty mysterious. 23 reviews, half of them are 100, half of them are not, the average definitely isn't 100 so how is that score calculated ?

The album has 23 reviews, 11 are 100, 12 are below.
The lowest score is 80 which is still positive.
The average has nothing to do with the Metascore. It says that 100% of the reviews are positive.

I think they have some methodology where the scores of some publications (Rolling Stone, Pitchfork, NME, etc.) are weighted way more heavily than others. This of course makes the Metacritic score mysterious and fairly useless in terms of comparing scores, especially in a moment like this where an album reaches the limit without having perfect scores across the board...

At this point I just use their website to determine how much general hype an album is getting rather than for anything objective.

[Jirin]

Metacritic still has her at 100 with 23 reviews.

That's a blatant example of when the Metacritic score is pretty mysterious. 23 reviews, half of them are 100, half of them are not, the average definitely isn't 100 so how is that score calculated ?

The scores are exaggerated away from the mean.

[Rob]

Now the experimental thing: I read a lot about her experimental usage of percussion and I disagree completely, unless "experimental" means: She hasn't used percussion the way she uses it here before, so it's new and experimental. I expect something different from "experimental", something far more radical. Maybe that's just me taking words too seriously, but why use words if the meaning gets scrambled up?

One of my pet peeves in music criticism (and there are more than a few) is actually the blatant use of the term "experimental". Perhaps it's my background in film, where the word is mostly used to describe works of the avant-garde, but since experimental music as a sort-of genre is also a thing and it also belongs to the avant-garde there has to be some truth in it. But music criticism loves its overstatements beyond point of reasoning and it sometimes seems you are not allowed to call an album a masterpiece unless you also mention it is experimental. I have no idea why an album needs to be experimental to earn being called amazing, but it is thoroughly a music thing.

[BleuPanda]

Metacritic still has her at 100 with 23 reviews.

That's a blatant example of when the Metacritic score is pretty mysterious. 23 reviews, half of them are 100, half of them are not, the average definitely isn't 100 so how is that score calculated ?

The scores are exaggerated away from the mean.

I feel like I read somewhere they do it publication by publication? So a source who rarely gives beyond 4/5 likely have a 4/5 score worth something like a 90% instead of an 80? I believe it's a way of trying to balance out the different sources; if a 4/5 from one source is as rare as a 5/5 from another, it seems unfair to let that first review drag down the average if they're both essentially saying it's one of the best albums of the year - they're essentially using two different scales, even if the number range is being presented as the same.

Or maybe I had a weird dream about Metacritic and this is all my imagination...

[Jirin]

That's a blatant example of when the Metacritic score is pretty mysterious. 23 reviews, half of them are 100, half of them are not, the average definitely isn't 100 so how is that score calculated ?

The scores are exaggerated away from the mean.

I feel like I read somewhere they do it publication by publication? So a source who rarely gives beyond 4/5 likely have a 4/5 score worth something like a 90% instead of an 80? I believe it's a way of trying to balance out the different sources; if a 4/5 from one source is as rare as a 5/5 from another, it seems unfair to let that first review drag down the average if they're both essentially saying it's one of the best albums of the year - they're essentially using two different scales, even if the number range is being presented as the same.

Or maybe I had a weird dream about Metacritic and this is all my imagination...

That's what I would do if I were designing the system. It's possible they've changed it since I last read their FAQ. Last time I read it was just a weighted average which pushed things away from the average to create more distinction.

[Cold Butterfly]

I’ve been re-listening to Apple’s entire discography since FTBC came out, and man I underrated her other work so much. I don’t think she has a single bad album in her discography now, and she’s become one of my overall favorite artists of all-time.

[Harold]

Bumping this thread to note that the perfect 100 is no more - the Metacritic score is now "down" to a mere 98, apparently because of the 80 assigned to Mojo's review in late May. Or maybe they simply decided, "You know what, no album is worthy of a perfect 100," and tweaked the algorithm accordingly.

Still by far 2020's highest-rated album, although Set My Heart on Fire Immediately, RTJ4, and grae have joined it in the rarefied air of the 90's. (Phoebe Bridgers's new album, which drops on June 19, is also at 90 with four early reviews, but it's too early to say that will sustain.)

[Matski]

Only half way through 2020 and there's already half-a-dozen 90+ rated albums on there. I wonder if critics have been easing up on their usual standards this year?

[Harold]

Only half way through 2020 and there's already half-a-dozen 90+ rated albums on there. I wonder if critics have been easing up on their usual standards this year?

Or, maybe there are just more really good albums?

[Jirin]

Or, there’s more that the establishment critics and cool critics both agree on than usual.

Or, less reviews = less regression to the mean. Bolt Cutters has 26 reviews, major indie releases used to get 35-40.

[Live in Phoenix]

I've listened four times and it seems like a 6 or so, well away from a 10. The first thing I heard in a car afterwards was an old Pretenders song, not even one of their best, but it (along with Tidal, as I remember it) had a pop appeal that this album doesn't really have. I don't expect Apple to rewrite "Criminal" over and over, but, well, if I didn't know any better, I'd almost suspect that some musicians write music to be written about as much as anything. (There are mistakes! Dogs! It's experimental! Did you catch all the subject matter?) Related: Do critics like albums more if they can, so to speak, listen to themselves talk on and on about it?

[Jirin]

Believe it or not, some people just like experimental or unconventional music and aren’t just doing it to be cool.

Suggesting egotistical motives for people who disagree with you is very rude.

[Toni]

I wish the whole album had the quality of the first 3 songs. The last two are also very pleasant, but the middle of the album is no way worth of a perfect 10 score, except for Relay. A great album, sure, given the arrangements, songcraft and interpretation. But I think Fiona puts on such a high standard right at the beginning that I always view the whole album as inconsistent, specially when compared to the perfect Idler Wheel.

[Jackson]

https://pitchfork.com/features/article/ ... interview/

Interesting article about how Fiona Apple connected with the real life "Shameika" that inspired the FTBC song. Apparently they are collaborating on a remix of the track.

[Harold]

https://pitchfork.com/features/article/ ... interview/

Interesting article about how Fiona Apple connected with the real life "Shameika" that inspired the FTBC song. Apparently they are collaborating on a remix of the track.

Thanks for the link - what a fascinating article! I'm glad they were able to reconnect (I've been wondering about it every time I listen to the song), and how perfect is is that Shameika also grew up to be a musician? Nice to see a story with a happy ending.

[Chris K.]

Only half way through 2020 and there's already half-a-dozen 90+ rated albums on there. I wonder if critics have been easing up on their usual standards this year?

Or, maybe there are just more really good albums?

I recently listened to an interesting podcast from a couple years ago with Mark Richardson, the former editor of pitchfork (he wrote for pf for almost two decades). He talked about how much the nature of a record review has changed in the age of social media, where publications are hesitant to put up a bad review of an established artist for fear of extreme social media backlash, threats to the author, etc. He said over time he’s seen how publications will just give a record review to someone who is a fan of the artist rather than to any writer who wants to take it. The end result is more ‘universally acclaimed’ albums.

[Jackson]

Only half way through 2020 and there's already half-a-dozen 90+ rated albums on there. I wonder if critics have been easing up on their usual standards this year?

Or, maybe there are just more really good albums?

I recently listened to an interesting podcast from a couple years ago with Mark Richardson, the former editor of pitchfork (he wrote for pf for almost two decades). He talked about how much the nature of a record review has changed in the age of social media, where publications are hesitant to put up a bad review of an established artist for fear of extreme social media backlash, threats to the author, etc. He said over time he’s seen how publications will just give a record review to someone who is a fan of the artist rather than to any writer who wants to take it. The end result is more ‘universally acclaimed’ albums.

This is an interesting theory but it seems more like it would result in fewer negative reviews rather than more super-positive reviews. I could certainly see this as a factor behind "poptimism" in some critics though. Who would want to trash a Taylor Swift or Dua Lipa album in a review and risk a social media onslaught from their younger fan bases? Also positive reviews for those type of artists are more likely to attract page clicks than positive reviews for some experimental electronic album.

[Chris K.]

Or, maybe there are just more really good albums?

I recently listened to an interesting podcast from a couple years ago with Mark Richardson, the former editor of pitchfork (he wrote for pf for almost two decades). He talked about how much the nature of a record review has changed in the age of social media, where publications are hesitant to put up a bad review of an established artist for fear of extreme social media backlash, threats to the author, etc. He said over time he’s seen how publications will just give a record review to someone who is a fan of the artist rather than to any writer who wants to take it. The end result is more ‘universally acclaimed’ albums.

This is an interesting theory but it seems more like it would result in fewer negative reviews rather than more super-positive reviews. I could certainly see this as a factor behind "poptimism" in some critics though. Who would want to trash a Taylor Swift or Dua Lipa album in a review and risk a social media onslaught from their younger fan bases? Also positive reviews for those type of artists are more likely to attract page clicks than positive reviews for some experimental electronic album.

I think what you described is leading to less negative reviews and the fact that publications are more likely to seek out fans of an artist to review albums is leading to more positive reviews. He was saying there’s more of an attitude at publications now of finding someone who is more likely to like the album to review it (in the early days of pf, he would be assigned albums by large artists he had never really listened to and he wouldn’t think twice of panning it if he didn’t like it, now the review would never go to someone who isn’t already a fan of the artist).

[andyd1010]

https://pitchfork.com/features/article/ ... interview/

Interesting article about how Fiona Apple connected with the real life "Shameika" that inspired the FTBC song. Apparently they are collaborating on a remix of the track.

What an awesome story! Thanks for sharing.