January 31st, 2012 | Features | 0 Comments
I’m seeing things online about how Pitchfork ‘betrayed’ Lana Del Rey by panning her album with a 5.5/10.0 after hyping her up with a best new music sticker on “Video Games” and ‘Rising’ feature back when nobody knew anything about her. Others apparently are even saying they ‘fell on their own sword’ trying to save face after the hype turned to hate because of LDR’s less-than-impressive SNL performance and the spread of information about a less than traditional indie-rock ‘rise to fame’.
I disagree. Pitchfork did nothing wrong, nor did they betray the trust of their readers. I would have done the exact same thing. The review was exactly what it should have been.
Regardless of whether Pitchfork was paid off to hype LDR or they just knew (as many industry insiders no doubt did) that one way or another LDR was going to be hitcount gold, they were smart to get on the Del Rey train. But they never lied to us.
LDR was on her way up, with or without Pitchfork – though paradoxically once Pitchfork says you’re rising, (by some relative standard at the very least) you are.
So they interviewed her – are you only allowed to interview artists you like? Fuck no.
They gave the track “Video Games” ‘Best New Music’ – come on, we all liked that song.
And now we’re all going to listen to the album – all of us who were and weren’t responsible for her rise from cute curiosity to controversial Hipster Runoff human punching bag – and few of us (especially the indie rockers who liked her first) would rate it much differently. Because it’s not a great album. It’s not even an indie album. The pre-release singles are practically indie camouflage for an album that is 90% beat-based mainstream pop albeit with a beautifully lush orchestral sheen that Pitchfork did not neglect to credit.
So haters gonna hate. But don’t hate on Pitchfork. Because they don’t deserve it this time.