Based on 12 reviews from outlets we track. Scores run 50 to 85.
By the numbers: Soundgarden's best-reviewed album here since Superunknown (1994).
| The gist | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Entertainment Weekly via Wikipedia | B | 85 | 2012 | |
| The Guardian via Wikipediaby Dave Simpson | 4/5 | 80 | 2012 | “They may have said they'd never reform, but Soundgarden have made a good fist of bringing back their grungey riffing, writes Dave Simpson” |
| Kerrang! via Wikipedia | 4/5 | 80 | 2012 | |
| Mojo via Wikipedia | 4/5 | 80 | 2012 | |
| AllMusic via Wikipediaby Stephen Thomas Erlewine | 4/5 | 80 | ||
| Rolling Stone via Wikipediaby Jon Dolan | 3.5/5 | 70 | 2012 | “Check out our album review of Artist's King Animal on Rolling Stone.com.” |
| Alternative Press via Wikipediaby Tim Karan | 3.5/5 | 70 | ||
| Drowned in Sound via Wikipediaby DiS Archive | 7/10 | 70 | 2012 | “There’s something reassuringly uncompromising about this comeback effort, something almost primal in its stubborn cling to a sound resolutely out o…” |
| PopMatters | 6/10 | 60 | “A few weeks ago a friend and I were browsing through Billboard’s Alternative Songs chart — as we are wont to do — and acquainting ourselves with what the” | |
| Slant | 3/5 | 60 | “King Animal doesn’t contain any standout tracks that justify Soundgarden’s comeback.” | |
| Pitchfork via Wikipediaby Stuart Berman | 5.9/10 | 59 | 2012 | “The mega-selling grunge band's recent reunion has a par-for-the-course, procedural air: Soundgarden are back together and making new music because, well, that's what dormant alt-rock institutions are supposed to do…” |
| musicOMH | 2.5/5 | 50 | “It's been 16 years since the last Soundgarden studio album and, as might be expected, the level of anticipation that awaits King Animal is high. However” |
More from Soundgarden
More Rock 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