He basically says 'yeah this song doesn't have any problems but you won't want to listen to it more than once because.well because I said so.' Now in no way does this 'writer' even explain on a technical level (he completely ignores the production aspect of this song) or lyrically why 'you' wouldn't want to listen to it more than once. A reviewer can't make an unfounded statement like that, they can't tell the audience what they will like to hear or won't, that's purely up to the audience to decide that. The fact that the 'writer' is making decisions for 'you' displays a lack of professionalism and negates their credit to give a proper review for the album. Uh actually I DO want to hear this more than once because it's very relatable. I mean that last line 'it's relatable but the kind of story you want to hear more than once' It’s relatable but hardly the kind of story you want to hear more than once. “Wet Dreamz” recounts his first time having sex in lurid detail, from lying to a girl about his prowess to looking at porn for pointers to finding out the girl’s been lying, too. I made reference to this before and someone posted an entire review (as if I hadn't read it) and acted as if the well chosen words negated the fact that ultimately a lot of what they're saying is pretty unfounded. it's bland.well exactly what makes it bland? The thing with pitchfork is they hide their lack of knowledge with flowery diction. I still don't understand their arguments or ambiguous assessments i.e. I also feel that people are reaching on the negative reactions to this album. It felt like a studio backed version of The Warm Up. I actually felt he was his most comfortable on this album than the previous two.

Jcole wet dreamz review