Bleed Like Me - Garbage
Metascore
56 out of 100

Mixed or average reviews - based on 18 Critics

Critic score distribution:
  1. Positive: 6 out of 18
  2. Negative: 2 out of 18
  1. Humongous hooks. [15 Apr 2005, p.77]
  2. By getting real, Garbage has produced quite a find.
  3. There are no real surprises on Bleed, but as a return to the steady Garbage ferocity of old, it's first rate. [May 2005, p.134]
  4. 70
    They sound like just another rock band. The thing is, they're a fine rock band. [May 2005, p.119]
  5. The first two-thirds of Bleed Like Me is easily the best sustained run of studio Garbage since the opening half of their 1995 debut.
  6. If Version 2.0 was techno-pop perfection posing as rock, Bleed Like Me is its noisy, long-haired cousin playing metal riffs in the garage.
  7. They’ve returned to the clamorous, powerchord-packed rock of their debut, with the inevitable result that it sounds fixed firmly by the formaldehyde of fashion in mid-90s post-grunge.
  8. 60
    They come across as a self-contained, insular studio band, with tunes aching to break free of the driving wall of guitars. [May 2005, p.96]
  9. It's an enjoyable record, but it's hard to escape the nagging feeling that Garbage has painted itself into a corner: they haven't found a way to expand their sound, to make it richer or mature -- they can only deliver more of the same.
  10. While Manson's changeling vocals are always worth listening to, Garbage's songs often aren't.
  11. There very well may be a human heart beating at the centre of 'Bleed Like Me', but thanks to the walls of effects and static, it's sometimes impossible to hear it.
  12. The album is full of big rock guitars anchored to big rock effects, but it somehow never manages either to sound big enough or to rock hard enough.
  13. An album of contrived power-pop songs that chart the lows and lows of yet another failing relationship.
  14. While 'Bleed Like Me' is easily better than 'Beautiful Garbage', it's still not worth buying. It's recognisably Garbage, but it's unarguably garbage too.
  15. 40
    Much of it signifies nothing. [May 2005, p.96]
  16. Garbage's latest approaches a kind of shimmering technical perfection, but remains strangely, stubbornly uninvolving.
  17. As bland as paint. [May 2005, p.110]
  18. The absence of memorable hooks and catchy choruses is obvious.
User Score

Universal acclaim- based on 122 Ratings

User score distribution:
  1. Positive: 75 out of 91
  2. Negative: 8 out of 91
  1. JonathanH
    10
    This is the year of Garbage! This album is exceptional. None of the tracks have anything wrong with them, but major points are 'Bad Boyfriend', 'Run Baby Run', 'Bleed Like Me', 'Happy Home', and 'Why do you love Me'. While it may look as though critics are divided over this album's quality, one must remember that these are only the opinions of 12 people. What ultimately matters is your own opinion, and the simple fact is that people who actually like the band and aren't biased contradictionary morons looking for an excuse to shit on someone- really love 'Bleed Like Me'. Full Review »
  2. I personally think this album is the closest you could get to 1995's "Garbage." Extremely well written and well performed. A fantastic album. Garbage always will keep you entertained. Full Review »
  3. Once you get into the core of the album, it's really hard to understand why this is deemed to be the Garbage's "weakest" record, as nothing of it is bland and it's clearly one of the band's most powerful records. The album lacks the electronica and loops that characterized the band's previous works but it has instead really pure guitars and "raw" drums. Add to that that Foo Fighter's Dave Grohl provides drums on tracks "Bad Boyfriend" and excellent drummer Matt Walker on the rest of most tracks. This album is explosive! Full Review »