Discussion in 'Pop & Justice' started by LE0Night, Oct 7, 2016.
Can't wait for this era's remixes tbh. She ALWAYS delivers.
I need a boppy ‘two nights’ remix (even though I love the original one).
Fave mixes? I’ve never actually checked them out!
And of course
It's also her first album since her debut to not receive Pitchfork's Best New Album. And has her lowest rating on Pitchfork ever. What is this madness?
Ironically, this is the first time one of her albums has been reviewed by a female at Pitchfork.
It is very bizarre to me, especially as this is neck and neck with I Never Learn as her best in my humblest of opinions. It's the perfect meld of bop and sad. Though the sound itself is a little more contemporary than what she usually does, and I'm not sure people understand why she is doing it.
Stacey wants to be one of the ladz tho!
The lads would've given this album 8.0+ though.
Pitchfork reviews are pretty much irrelevant nowadays - I'm always surprised at posters bringing them up in threads still. Like, it's 2018, its impact has long since fizzled. Who waits on some bedroom-dwelling writer with an axe to grind to tell me the ins and outs of it when I can just stream the damn album and decide for myself.
I feel like in Lykke's case, it seems applicable because she's generally a Pitchfork darling.
Most reviews are generally irrelevant and shouldn't impact on a listener's enjoyment of the music, but it's always good to be a critical darling.
Pitchfork has well written and well thought out reviews 90 percent of the time. They still carry weight.
Now, they have no impact on my actual enjoyment of the music, but it's nice to read reviews with some actual effort.
She probably said no to playing Pitchfork Paris and they got salty.
I love 'jaguars in the air' it's so dreamy.
I'm not so sure anymore, to be honest. There was a good few years where an entire album campaign seemed to hinge on a Pitchfork review (2008-2015 maybe?) but since everyone started using Twitter/IG and Spotify it seems like opinion of an album has been way more democratised and feels much more... organic? It's a more positive environment for an album to be launched when artists and teams don't have to aggressively pander to publications like that anymore.
I'd heard horror stories of festivals years ago refusing to book artists because they had a bad Pitchfork review, but now it seems the onus is way more on things like social media presence and just general word-of-mouth about an artist or record. Like, even Pitchfork don't even bother to tweet out their album reviews now which really says something.
What does this even mean? People used to make albums exclusively for Pitchfork? No they didn't. They happened to make music Pitchfork supported. And if the album is good anyway, what does it matter?
The album kind of is a 6.5/10.
Not "Sexmoneyfeelingsdie" reminding me immediately of Miley's "Love Money Party"
I've known people who've worked at labels around its critical peak (probably 2010-ish) and entire album campaigns were launched with Pitchfork as the main focus. Lots of press angles and aesthetic choices were basically tweaked specifically to appeal to the site. Coverage could make or break how the rest of the industry took the record up: it would affect bookings, other reviews and press, TV slots. They were a huge, unhealthy, dominant force.
Social media and Spotify has stripped it of that influence and nowadays Lykke (or Lily, for that matter) getting a 6 won't mean they're damaged goods to the rest of the industry, which can only be a positive step forward. Sure, it'd be nice for them to get a good writeup, but it's not the be-all-and-end-all it once was.
Separate names with a comma.