Britney Spears releases album 'Glory': What are critics saying?

Spears' newest album, 'Glory,' came out on Aug. 26. Some reviewers are finding to be a 'fantastic comeback,' but others are calling it 'generic.'

Eric Jamison/Invision/AP
Britney Spears arrives at the Billboard Music Awards in Las Vegas in 2015.

Singer Britney Spears, who first rose to fame in the late 1990s with albums such as “…Baby One More Time” and “Oops!... I Did It Again,” has released a new album, “Glory,” that some critics are calling a “fantastic comeback” and “a delightful, odd triumph,” though others find it to lack "anything particularly personal" and be "generic."

Ms. Spears’ “Glory” was released on Aug. 26 and is available on various streaming services and platforms such as Spotify, unlike recent albums by artists such as Drake and Rihanna, who made their works available exclusively at first on services such as Apple Music and Tidal.

The new album is the first from Spears since her 2013 album “Britney Jean,” which was the singer’s lowest-selling in America. Other recent records include the 2011 release “Femme Fatale” and 2008’s “Circus.” 

Some critics are impressed with “Glory.” Rolling Stone writer Rob Sheffield, for example, calls it "fantastic," a "welcome comeback" that "goes back to the fizzy electro-stomp mode she does best." 

Josh Duboff of Vanity Fair writes that Spears' voice "sounds more assured and carefree than it has in some time."

"This is not a perfect album, and could probably have done with a bit of trimming in the middle," he cautions, but adds "it's an album that will delight Britney Spears fans, and very much please even those who wouldn't describe themselves as such."

Not all reviewers were as won over, however, with Jon Pareles of the New York Times writing that Spears “sounds more involved, more present, than she has in a decade … yet even with her voice upfront, Ms. Spears isn’t singing anything particularly personal.” 

And Troy L. Smith of the Cleveland Plain Dealer writes that “none of it is original or authentic … Spears' entire album feels generic and tired.”

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.