Based on 10 reviews from outlets we track. Scores run 60 to 80.
By the numbers: 3 of 10 critics liked it.
| The gist | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Pitchfork via Wikipediaby Craig Jenkins | 8.0/10 | 80 | 2014 | “Three years after "212", her confrontationally profane lead single, Azealia Banks has finally released her proper debut. It's all over the place, with tracks new and old and production that…” |
| Los Angeles Times via Wikipediaby Randall Roberts | 3/4 | 75 | 2014 | “There are many ways one could greet the arrival of rapper-singer Azealia Banks' long-gestating debut album, "Broke With Expensive Taste.” |
| RapReviews | 7.5/10 | 75 | ||
| Rolling Stone via Wikipediaby Suzy Exposito | 3.5/5 | 70 | 2014 | “Check out our album review of Artist's Broke With Expensive Taste on Rolling Stone.com.” |
| NME via Wikipediaby Matthew Horton | 7/10 | 70 | 2014 | “In the end, the surprise isn’t the snap release of ‘Broke With Expensive Taste’, more the fact that Azealia Banks has put her debut album out via official channels at…” |
| PopMatters | 7/10 | 70 | “After endless delays, New York rapper Azealia Banks finally drops her first album, a postmodern pop epic that aims to make an impression rather than please.” | |
| musicOMH | 3.5/5 | 70 | “It may not be up there with Chinese Democracy or My Bloody Valentine's MBV in the pantheon of legendarily long-delayed albums, but there did seem to be a” | |
| The Guardian via Wikipediaby Alex Macpherson | 3/5 | 60 | 2014 | “Broke With Expensive Taste shows why people got excited about Banks in the first place, even if it remains a niche concern, writes Alex Macpherson” |
| AllMusic via Wikipediaby Fred Thomas | 3/5 | 60 | ||
| Slant | 3/5 | 60 | “Unfocused and sporadically brilliant, ranging between irritating moments of woolgathering oddness and ripe, sharply delivered wordplay.” |
More from Azealia Banks
More Pop from around 2014
Would you spin it again?
Be the first to answer. Results show once 3 listeners weigh in.
How the Breakdown works
Every outlet’s score is converted to 0–100 (2/5 is 40, 5.9/10 is 59, a B+ is 88) and averaged. Grades follow the B-Side scale: A is 90–100, B 80–89, C 70–79, D 60–69, F below 60. Approval is the share of critics who scored it 75 or higher; the Breakdown shows green at 75 and up, red below. Divisiveness asks a different question: not how many critics liked it, but how close their scores are to each other. Five critics who all give it 50 are Unanimous, even though none of them liked it. The labels run Unanimous, Broad agreement, Some debate, Divided, and Contentious. Replay rate comes from listeners, not critics: yes counts fully, a few tracks counts half, no counts zero. The gist quotes each outlet’s own summary of its review. Published is the date on the review itself, read from the outlet’s page, so you can see whether an album’s reputation came at release or years later. Scores marked est. come from reviews that publish no number. Scores marked via Wikipedia are archive ratings, mostly for older albums, taken from the “Professional ratings” box on the album’s Wikipedia page (published openly through Wikidata); each links to the original review when we can find it online, and to that Wikipedia entry when we can’t. When an outlet reviewed an album twice, years apart (often for a reissue), both scores count, each labeled with its year.
A-Side marks the critics’ top tier. An album earns it automatically, from its numbers alone: a Breakdown of 90 or higher, from at least 5 reviews, with at least 75% approval. Nobody hands it out and nobody can buy it; if new reviews pull an album below the line, it loses the badge.
Leave a Reply