This premature review really takes the cake. How is it possible to review a piece of art without hearing it first? That is the comical part about it, because they assume the album will represent an "even edgier, freer Rihanna." It's understood that journalism is a competitive field and that it's a fight to win those majority hits. A new album of a major artist is a big deal. People will want to read about it, but how important is it to post an honest later received review than one that's posted first and provides incorrect drivel? I suppose it all depends on the publication and how highly they value journalistic integrity.
