Music critic Laura Snapes expresses regret over her 2016 Pitchfork review of Charli XCX's ‘Vroom Vroom’:
“Charli was ahead of her time, leaving me gratefully eating her dust.”
pic.twitter.com/bbQU6JNX8K- Pop Crave (@PopCrave)
June 8, 2023Context: Back in 2016, Laura Snapes listened and reviewed Charli's Vroom Vroom EP. She gave a low rating of 4.5 (
(
Read more... )
Comments 62
However, I find it extremely fucking annoying that critics are back tracking on opinions that aren't even a decade old. Like maybe sit with an album a little longer to figure out what it is exactly that is or isn't working? Because if it's just going to boil down to - "I just wasn't in the right frame of mind for it!" then maybe get a different job?
It's also annoying that she's changing her tune based on a concert. You weren't reviewing the concert, you were reviewing the album!
Reply
Ehh I disagree cause a different presentation of a song can change your mind. I know for me a music video, a sample/remix, or hearing it in a tv/film might make like a song.
Some artists do sound better or elevate songs during live performances compared to the album sound. Personally I've always felt that if your songs sound better live than albums then I do think it's a noteworthy artist whereas the opposite end.....I'll probably pass on the concerts lol.
Reply
Ehh I disagree cause a different presentation of a song can change your mind
I agree with that. But the medium, to me, matters in a review. A concert review of an album tour and an album itself are two totally different art forms. It's fair to say something like "this album sounds better live" but that's more about the live show and not the album itself.
Reply
I completely agree with this.
I've been reading a lot about the decline of music industry lately (The Atlantic had an article recently about old music outselling new music, and that has never really happened before), because popular music today is so crap and everything sounds very similar.
And part of the problem is that record labels are just looking for hits, and not artists that they can develop. Some kid blows up on social media and they immediately offer them a deal and put them on the next festival and they can't sing, work a crowd, move on a stage or even play instruments. And then if the kid doesn't have another hit is quickly forgotten.
It takes time to develop artists, and record labels used to spend money on them. One, two, three albums (like Bruce Springsteen who became big only after his third album) and in that time the artists would develop the skills to actually sound good live.
Reply
See I genuinely agree with this cause I see a lot on the cinemá side of things. People are scared~ of either missing the mark or disagreeing with the general consensus (whether it's deemed good or bad).
Plus I personally could never be a critic cause sometimes things change. Plenty of films or music that I personally didn't get at the time...I later did and vice versa.
OTOH I don't think critics as a whole should be dismissed either cause criticism sucks but constructive criticism has been helpful to some artists. Some critics have been champions of artists too.
Reply
I'm always so interested in it as someone who listens to music nearly constantly.
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
Also, I think Charli is right in her feelings. I never liked Pitchfork's opinion on pop music and it's been so annoying that they keep re-evaluating their reviews on pop records they were wrong about.
Reply
Comments like these are why I did the post! I never followed pitchfork but I've heard the criticism on here in the last few years of them suddenly~ re-evaluating a lot of pop or maligned artists.
Part of me is like is it because you genuinely "get it" now OR is this covering face?
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
Leave a comment