Pitchfork critic reassess low rating for Charli XCX's Vroom Vroom EP

[genbu_no_miko24]

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, 2023
Context: Back in 2016, Laura Snapes listened and reviewed Charli's Vroom Vroom EP. She gave a low rating of 4.5 (

Comments

[shittysoup]

[genbu_no_miko24]

"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!"

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.

[shittysoup]

[jojito]

if your songs sound better live than albums then I do think it's a noteworthy artist
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.

[genbu_no_miko24]

"(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"

It def has happened before. Cause when I was a kid a lot of the 70s/80s artists would be a surprise re-interests or comebacks cause their songs would be featured in a movie, tv, or a cover song got huge. So that actually is cyclical. The past always makes a return in the current timeline.

But everything else I agree with. You can kinda tell that the new crop of artists in the last decade did have the boot camp training artists of the 00s, 90s, 80s etc..had. Labels have been banking of social media, relatability, aesthetics and a few other instead of training them up.

Can't say I've seen any new girls who I'm like "Oh she's the new Britney! She's the new Beyonce!" too much. (kudos to the 2 B's for having that special x-factor!)

[jojito]

Yes, old hits always comeback to make money but it was more about how the current music market is actually shrinking as a whole, and that's actually a new thing. Before, old hits would make money but the new music was still going up in sales every year. Now, not so much. The only music doing that is the old one.

It makes me feel bad for new artists because we obviously have them but very few are championing them. I was reading about musicians that were doing some cool things with jazz but the jazz radios wouldn't play them because they din't sound like classic jazz.

And they would compare the top hits on the 60s or 70s and the variety of that lists was so cool and full of new sounds. Now the tops hits all sound the same, digitalized, pre packaged and forgettable.

[genbu_no_miko24]

"I was reading about musicians that were doing some cool things with jazz but the jazz radios wouldn't play them because they din't sound like classic jazz."

Yeahhh I've heard the jazz genre to be snobby about new styles cause the standards are what is revered BUT I feel like that mentality is what holds back the genre which is why the subgenres get invented. But yeah this is a problem in a few other music genre too *cough rock *cough*

[corrykennedy]

Idk isn’t this a combination of market factors? Gen Z are first generation who always had streaming, so outside your faves there’s no norm to go out and buy music. Plus labels don’t invest in development like they used to, so sales are consolidated around just a few big, already established artists, which is gonna lead to less sales overall. Every generation has always said the next generation of music is crap so idk I doubt that’s the real reason

[icetypejim]

yeah I saw a post trying to defend Ice Spice's live performances with "she's new, she's practicing" and that's actually completely true, but for that specific reason, maybe don't rush her onto as many stages as you can until she's actually gotten some more experience performing?

[swissbeauty23]

I think the issue is they're likely usually freelancers or low-paid employees who get hired to produce rapid-fire content, so they don't get time to do it.

[corrykennedy]

Yeah, pitchfork pays like $80 for a review, they don't pay enough to give their writers time to marinate on the album and make a thoughtful review. they just have to listen to the album and start typing.