Talk:Electra Heart

Critical Reception

After reading the review of the album from "Clash" magazine, I am unsure about whether it should be included in this article. The rating (1/10) is a very extreme rating and the review does not justify this other than referencing one of the track titles as a reason, and the general impression given is that the author hasn't actually listened to the album or only has briefly, and the comments indicate a general disapproval of the review. The author's only defence was the fact he had a 100 word limit, although those words are mostly critiquing Marina rather than the album. I think unless there is a complete review it shouldn't be included in the article until a complete review has been written because it will give people who haven't read the review the wrong impression of the album. Jjoeshaw (talk) 17:09, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Well personally speaking, I agree that his review is too shitty to merit being counted. But Wikipedia insists on showing reviews from well-known, reputable sources, and unfortunately "The Clash" counts, seeing as Metacritic takes their review into account. An author being heavily biased doesn't disqualify a review unless that review is published in something that would usually go against Wikipedia's threshold for inclusion. I see what you're saying, but it'd be a slippery slope from there if that became the basis that we decide what reviews are worthy of being up in the article. Suppose someone wants to argue that a 5-star rating doesn't belong there because it's obsequious instead of objectively critiquing? Besides, something as exteme as a 1-star rating will make a reader curious enough to follow the link, read the review and they'll realize on their own that it's bullshit. I don't think music reviews will sway a person's opinion on an album either way, because music critics can't dictate personal tastes. 70.52.79.173 (talk) 01:57, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

I agree that the review from "Clash" should not be included, it's completely biased and, like stated, will give people the wrong impression about the album. And mixed reviews from critics is one thing, but the general public has been generally accepting and loving of this album. I think we should include two different critical reception paragraphs, because this album hasn't been that terribly received. Also, early reviews from the album were very positive. I think there should be a "mixed to positive" rating because some critics are basing their reviews without going in depth with Marina's concept and/or actually listening to this album lyrically, musically, and in a professional way. RodAlejandro96 (talk) 12:01, 5 May 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by RodAlejandro96 (talk • contribs)

I have added a paragraph at the end of the "Critical Reception" section regarding this in case anyone would like to expand it. Jjoeshaw (talk) 17:11, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Premature article

As of 3 October 2011, I have grave misgivings about the appropriateness of this article. The album has not been released, and will not be released this year. It is also unsourced that it will in fact be called exactly Electra Heart. My understanding is that Electra Heart is a conceptual persona, and a shortcut for the album project, but it's up to the record label to come up with the actual title, and this has not yet happened, to the best of my knowledge. The gist of the article is lifted from the relevant section in Marina and the Diamonds (the biography), and that is where it should have remained for now. Also, the confirmed tracks are unsourced. --Mareklug ^talk 08:24, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Remove Certain Track Lengths

The track lengths for "Sex, Yeah!", "Living Dead" and "Starring Role" (And possibly "Fear and Loathing", but I will not use that for certain) should not be put down, as those three are simply demos. The "Starring Role" song on YouTube is actually labelled as a demo by the uploader, so it is not for certain that any of these tracks are those lengths. 75.26.254.185 (talk) 21:28, 11 April 2012 (UTC)