Critics give Swing Lo Magellan a B-Side Breakdown of 81 (B-), from 10 reviews at outlets we track. Scores run 70 to 91.
The verdict on Swing Lo Magellan
7 of 10 critics liked it. A mixed reception.
- Highest 91 The A.V. Club
- Lowest 70 Rolling Stone, NME and AllMusic
- Career #2 of Dirty Projectors's 6 albums with a Breakdown
- By the numbers Dirty Projectors's best-reviewed album here since Bitte Orca (2009).
| The gist | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| The A.V. Club via Wikipediaby Chris Mincher | A- | 91 | 2012 | “Dirty Projectors: Swing Lo Magellan” |
| Spin via Wikipediaby Dan Weiss | 9/10 | 90 | 2012 | “9SPIN Rating: 9 of 10Release Date: July 10, 2012Label: DominoThe achievement of Dirty Projectors' latest album, Swing Lo Magellan, is borne of mastermind” |
| Pitchfork via Wikipediaby Grayson Haver Currin | 8.8/10 | 88 | 2012 | “Dave Longstreth guides Dirty Projectors toward their most human and least ornate release yet. It's an album of deeply appealing simplicity that mixes subtle folk protest and gorgeous paeans to…” |
| Los Angeles Times via Wikipediaby Mikael Wood | 3.5/4 | 88 | 2012 | “Dirty Projectors' 'Swing Lo Magellan” |
| Entertainment Weekly via Wikipediaby Darren Franich | B | 85 | 2012 | |
| The Independent via Wikipediaby Simon Price | 4/5 | 80 | 2012 | “Six albums down the line, Dirty Projectors – aka David Longstreth and his band – show no signs of settling into any one formula.” |
| The Guardian via Wikipediaby Alexis Petridis | 4/5 | 80 | 2012 | “Alexis Petridis: Dirty Projectors have become more accessible without sacrificing their originality – whether they meant to or not” |
| Rolling Stone via Wikipediaby Will Hermes | 3.5/5 | 70 | 2012 | “Check out our album review of Artist's Swing Lo Magellan on Rolling Stone.com.” |
| NME via Wikipediaby Noel Gardner | 7/10 | 70 | 2012 | |
| AllMusic via Wikipediaby Aneet Nijjar | 3.5/5 | 70 |
Every Sunday: the week's new albums, scored by the critics. Plus our own reviews when we post them. Free, and one click to leave.
Swing Lo Magellan in Dirty Projectors's catalog
How these critics usually treat Dirty Projectors
- AllMusic Harsher than usual12 points below the other critics here. Usually 5 points above on Dirty Projectors's other albums (4).
- Pitchfork About usual for them8 points above the other critics here. Usually 1 point above on Dirty Projectors's other albums (5).
- Rolling Stone About usual for them12 points below the other critics here. Usually 18 points below on Dirty Projectors's other albums (3).
- Entertainment Weekly About usual for them4 points above the other critics here. Usually 10 points above on Dirty Projectors's other albums (3).
- The Guardian About usual for them1 point below the other critics here. Usually level with the others on Dirty Projectors's other albums (3).
- The A.V. Club About usual for them11 points above the other critics here. Usually 11 points above on Dirty Projectors's other albums (4).
More from Dirty Projectors
More Indie & Alternative from around 2012
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