Why are some people saying 0.0 is too high of a score?

Pitchfork gave Tyga’s “$TARFACE” a 0.0 rating, and yeah, that’s not a typo. Not a 1.0. Not even a 0.1. A straight-up zero. The publication described the album as a listless and superficial take on ’80s synth-pop while also heavily criticizing Tyga’s use of generative AI throughout the creative process.

Pitchfork essentially argued that Tyga could have made something much better by investing in sampling rights, studio musicians, vocal coaching, and vintage equipment instead of leaning on AI. That’s one hell of a way to tell an artist they missed the mark.

Personally, I don’t think Tyga using AI is automatically a bad thing. My issue is that I don’t think the AI actually improved the music. The singing was still rough, the direction of the album still felt lost, and the overall purpose of the project didn’t really make much sense to me.

Pitchfork can be extremely harsh with its ratings, but I actually understand this one. The 0.0 is absolutely brutal, but I’m not necessarily mad at the publication for giving “$TARFACE” the score it did. And for Tyga, any publicity, even some that is as bad as this, is good publicity… I guess.

Quincy

Quincy is the creator of Ratings Game Music. He loves writing about music, taking long walks on beaches, and spaghetti that fights him back.