Is "World Peace…" Morrissey's most divisive album ever?

[Anonymous]

vauxhal didnt didnt speak to me in the same way that it does so many others aside from the tracks where he attacks, closer i get and find out for yourself, and of course hold on to your friends. speedway has great lyrics vocal melody and sorta great drums but i dont care for it as much as some here seem to. i think the subject matter just doesnt relate at all and i dont like the sound of it. that time period was weird for recordings imo especially majors. sometimes i doubt how good a morrissey album can be that the general public loves so much as it seems to have much less of the personality i loved and the humor. sometimes i think people just liked the fact that morrissey was liked and accepted at the time by the general public. like they felt like they vicariously won some victory themselves. not saying people shouldnt like it but i do think it divides more fans than people think it does. i hear glamorous glue played and quoted way more than any song off of vauxhall

 

[Orson Swells]

I remember Morrissey fans who didn't like Vauxhall. He's always divisive. This has probably had the best reception of all his albums in the 21st Century.

 

[Chickpea]

I remember Morrissey fans who didn't like Vauxhall. He's always divisive. This has probably had the best reception of all his albums in the 21st Century.

I wonder if my perception of it being particularly divisive has something to do with the fact that I'm paying much closer attention to reviews (both here and from critics) than I have with his past few albums. I actually don't remember reading ANY reviews for YOR—I have no sense at all of how it was received. I definitely do remember friends of mine really disliking Vauxhall when it was released, though, that's for sure...

 

[Anonymous]

Well, the reception in the UK was fantastic and the same applies to France and Germany, for instance.

More mixed reviews from the US, but in general the reception was positive so I don't think this is Morrissey's most devisive album. If you check ROTT reviews in metacritic you'll see they range from 3 to 10/10.

 

[fredkocherpepsi]

chickpea - I think you’re right too. I don’t remember any reviews for YOR really, except on Pitchfork which gave it a pretty decent one. Besides what my friends thought of YOR (some hated it, some dug) I have no frame of reference. With WPINOYB, I don’t know if it’s more because of the prevalence of social media, or the 5 year gap, but I feel like I’ve read about 30 reviews of it, ranging from great (NME, for example) to horrible (whatever that one that gave it a 0 is)

 

[manicboy]

I can see why it's so divisive. Some of the critics love it cause it's much different than any Moz/Smiths album that came before and others see it a giant misstep away from soaring songs filled with witty lyrics and sing-along choruses. I must say it's growing on me but I still think it's far from his best.

 

[Belligerent Ghoul]

U.S.A. reviews range from 0/10 stars to 5 out of 5 stars. The U.S.A. reviews are all over the place and there are over 100 reviews total on this site, and approximately 1/3 of those come from North America.

In the U.K. & Ireland the reviews are more consistent of 3 of 5 stars to NME's 9/10 (an outlier), seen many 3.5 and 4 of 5 stars from this region.

In continental Europe (Germany in particular) the reviews are very good...better than U.K.

In South America, the reviews are also very good...I've used Google translate so they can be posted here.

Oceania (Australia in particular) has been very harsh.

Verdict: The album is divisive as can be in the U.S.A. - but how many of these publications are of good repute and how many are of ill-repute, I don't know. What I do know is that Metacritic at 71% positive had its mind made up long ago and I think that was a mistake, because if you look at their reviews, they don't always pull from the same sources, so it's not like they have set parameters. Basically, they seem to take the first 30 to 40 (and with films too) and call it a day.

 

[Anonymous]

sigh thank you for understanding statistics

 

[Anonymous]

By virtue of history in the arts, including architecture. Almost anything that has stood the test of time was equally reviled or loved during its debut (or indeed weighted toward the former).
David Bowie's last album was fine but certainly "critic-proof" in its safeness, and barely talked about now. Nobody is debating it, quoting it, or still thinking about it much. Bowie's stroke of genius was releasing it without any prior notice, which deservedly earned it a lot of coverage.

Morrissey is constantly in the news, in the charts (not as high as he'd like, but still) without any comprehensive promotion. Indeed, he sabotaged it this time around.
Morrissey is considered a remarkable genius, remarkable ass, and even a remarkable has-been. But he is empirically remarkable. This divisiveness is what makes him an artist. I liked Years of Refusal well enough but he was in danger of becoming irrelevant. This album is a return to form in that it's being loved and loathed.

You said, "I think divisiveness inherently shows the relevance of an artist."

So the fact that some people like something, while others don't (which seems pretty universal, by the way) makes it "relevant". Relevant to whom? Why? In what way? What, in this context, even is "relevance"?

 

[Anonymous]

just realized slow joe is also a singer and not just a pitcher.