pitchfork is dumb (#34985859340293849494 in a series.)

this is particularly exacerbated by how many of my favorite lyricists, if their lyrics are discussed at all in reviews, have what is a significant component of their record dismissed with non-statements like "poetic" (a poem is a form, not a genre) or "oblique" (maybe the lyrics wouldn't be oblique if you engaged with them for more than 15 seconds).

you can discuss, say, "thank u, next" (example chosen because it's playing on the speakers here) without discussing the artist's romantic life/commercial ups and downs, but by doing so you're neglecting a significant part of the intent of the song, as well as how it is received by most of its audience, and likely missing the point

This is both totally understandable, and a huge part of why I feel completely alienated from modern pop music. As has been established, I prefer instrumental music to music with lyrics. But when I listen to music with lyrics, I prefer lyrics that are "universal" (ha ha) rather than lyrics that are "diaristic". Having Googled the lyrics to "thank u, next" my instant responses are a) this is terrible, and b) this song is un-coverable. It's so completely personal to Ariana Grande that I'm surprised any listener could even find it relatable! Even the parts that are sort of universal (learning to be self-reliant, wanting to get married to someone you really love) are undercut by a punch line about the song's commercial success.

it’s completely coverable, you just change the names and maybe what you learned from those respective exes!

I’d imagine someone’s already done a ridiculous cover in costume substituting fictional characters from a movie

that is, karaoke-style

..hesitating to wade into the fray on this topic, but "universal" and "diaristic" are two asymptotes, there is no way for a songwriter to write a lyric as one without the other, and there is no way for a listener to parse a lyric without both bringing in their personal (i.e. universal) experience as well as what-they-know about the author of the song. (Even a listener will parse a song differently if the author is anonymous, or the authorship is ecumenical.)

There is no way "Thank You, Next" is objectively terrible, it is a imho perfect pop song with a brutally moving epiphany (when Ariana resolves to love herself), the autobiographical elements are handled extremely well-- considering her highly reported-upon romance with Pete Davison, and Mac Miller's recent death, a song that concerned "relationships" would be impossible for a listener to hear Ariana sing without filtering it through either of those public relationships; the fact that Ariana bluntly names both romantic partners-- as well as another dude I guess-- is a coup, as far as I'm concerned.

And here I am, unperson, doing that thing that you dislike, talking about the lyrical content and eschewing any comment on the musical material.

Your latter two examples-- "yet another complaint about social justice warriors ruining criticism"-- I would describe differently; I feel that there is always an element of music criticism where the author is seeking to exert some level of control over the artist. It is not just informing the reader, or persuading the reader, there is a top-note of abusive control that is present. It has become a more visible mechanism, in my purview, in recent years ("Iggy Azalea? Didn't we cancel her?") and the language of "social justice" has abetted it. I wouldn't say "social justice warriors" are ruining criticism, because there is no social justice involved here; the language of social justice is being co-opted and misused by certain critics in the place of actual criticism.

ffs "I'm so fucking grateful for my ex" is the most bittersweet and wonderful thing, equal parts savage and appreciative, a balm to anybody with heartbreak. "Uncoverable": I would absolutely cover this song, and I would be pleased to position myself fictitiously as a former recipient of Pete Davidson's hollow gaze, that sexy frog prince

to fgti’s excellent appreciation of “thank u, next”, I will add that it I find it v funny how unperson, in his Sheldon Cooper-ing over encountering a pop lyric, declares it to be somehow “undercut” by the artistry of a semi-ironic punchline.

Haven't heard the WHY? album yet but Sam Ray (Ricky Eat Acid) is a bad person who has done some pretty despicable shit I'm sure will come out eventually. And whether or not the review is crap, it's never a great look for an artist to complain about reviews on Twitter.

as well as another dude I guess

poor big sean, made small yet again

“can still get it”

Ah I guess "Sam Ray has done some pretty despicable shit" is this week's "Iggy Azelea? Didn't we cancel her?"

Ricky Drink Milkshake

Ricky Shits Despicably

Those tweets up above are pretty hilarious in pining for some good old days of the 'Fork.

no, it's not, because this is 2019 and I can easily find out what a record sounds like by, you know, listening to it

It is literally the reviewer's job to inform the reader what the music sounds like! I'm sorry, I'm not buying this idea that all he/she has to do is analyse the lyric sheet and give us his/her take on the artist's philosophical worldview.

Precisely three words of that Georgia Anne Muldrow review are given over to a description of the music. I've heard her music in the past, there's invariably a lot going on in it, she is not exactly an artist about which a critic would quickly run out of things to say. That review was a waste of everybody's time.

also if you're going to criticize someone for "getting lyrics wrong repeatedly" then you should at least do the arduous research of going to his twitter profile, which will tell you that he is a man and not a "creepy girl"

If this is aimed at me, which it seems to be, you are mixing me up with somebody else.

Oops, just seen the "creepy girl" bit earlier in this thread (which is so large it takes ages to load on my machine). Apologies.

It's Brahms vs Wagner all over again.

19th century humorist Bill Nye's comment about Wagner's music ("it's much better than it sounds") set a bar for criticism that few have cleared since.

Heh, I love Wagner but it's a brilliant line indeed. I thought it came from Mark Twain, though – good to know its actual originator.

Also relevant to this whole debate:

https://modernism.coursepress.yale.edu/contre-saint-beuve/

Reading that Why? review and LOL'd at this patronizing line:

There’s also an accompanying visual album, made in partnership with — no joke — a director who randomly DM’d Wolf on Instagram

Whoaa, seriously no joke? This artist made a creative connection on social media? Let me sit down while I process that, how crazy!

this is really so weird in its how-can-i-condescend styling -- conservatively, I'd estimate that I've made at least a dozen work contacts via social media, contacts that result in gig posters & album covers & in one case a commissioned piece featuring an internationally celebrated ensemble that was performed in London, New York & in my home town. literally the one uniformly good thing about social media is that it eases the paths of communication between sympathetically-inclined artists / producers / organizers. "randomly"? no: a director who liked Wolf's work contacted Wolf via instagram -- what's "random?" in any sense of the word about that? "La Clemenza di Tito, composed after -- no joke -- Joseph II randomly reached out to Mozart via courier"

It is literally the reviewer's job to inform the reader what the music sounds like!

not to me? I don't read music criticism to find out what music sounds like. I read it to A)learn whether people think an artist executed their vision well, and B) to read thought-provoking commentary on it, that perhaps makes me think about it differently, or makes me form new, striking, and unexpected associations, and generally just enrich the existence of the song in my world. basically, to turn a solipsistic experience into one that's slightly less.

(and of course, one can do that through discussion of music as well as lyrics, but it is patently ridiculous to call the lyrics off-limits. for what seems like the millionth time, if an artist didn't want to intentionally incorporate words into their vision, for a reason, then they wouldn't include words.)

I think I look at music criticism for the exact same things so I can reinforce my solipsistic experience.

I'm not even joking; I am looking for things that I can absorb and make part of myself, and part of that process involves getting some information about whether what is being discussed sounds like something I'd want to listen to in order to consume its message/content.

I also don't think anyone is saying "lyrics are off-limits"; rather, people are saying "it's odd that people spend a lot of time discussing things tangential to the music but not the music itself". Lyrics are absolutely part of the music but a large part of their impact comes from how they are integrated into the song and it's odd (and often off-putting) to read alleged music criticism that focuses solely on lyrical content in relation to the artist's biography and not at all on delivery or how the musical arrangement reinforces or works against the words.

.hesitating to wade into the fray on this topic, but "universal" and "diaristic" are two asymptotes, there is no way for a songwriter to write a lyric as one without the other, and there is no way for a listener to parse a lyric without both bringing in their personal (i.e. universal) experience as well as what-they-know about the author of the song. (Even a listener will parse a song differently if the author is anonymous, or the authorship is ecumenical.)

Neil Young once answered as to whether his music was autobiographical: "I don't want (the listener) to think about me, I want them to think about themselves"

xp: And yes, oftentimes "tangential" is in the eye of the beholder; if there isn't anything that ties back to what the actual song is doing, well I can't speak for anyone else but I am not really getting anything out of the criticism. At that point, I feel like I'm reading a critique of a person rather than their music; sometimes that's fine (fuck Varg, for instance) and sometimes that's hyper-annoying and useless to me (see that Willow Smith review I linked upthread that gives very little mental image of what the music sounds like but does let you know the reviewer is annoyed that Willow didn't lay her soul bare before the altar of her audience).

"Mental image of what the music sounds like" is accurate, my favorite music writing does this in a way that makes me excited to go hear the music, and shapes my listening when I do. And if I've already heard it, it often makes me go back and listen in a new way.

Speaking for myself and myself only, I'll take printed poetry over lyrics 99% of the time. The non-lyrical facet of music is precisely what I can't get from literature. Exceptions occur when the words and the music are synergized in an unusually eloquent and/or antagonistic manner, but in most instances lyrics are utterly secondary to my enjoyment of a given piece of vocal music. Like unperson, I also tend to favour genres other than pop (broadly speaking), so make of that what you will.

but it is patently ridiculous to call the lyrics off-limits.

yeah no one here said this.

it's the strong implication when people single out lyric-focused reviews as being bad (by comparison, no one blinks when a review of non-instrumental music doesn't discuss the lyrics at all)

that's what rap is for

and country

xp -- conversely, I tend to gravitate toward singer-songwriters

It's not even "lyric-focused" reviews, it's reviews that literally don't mention the music at all (or do so only in passing). No one said lyrics should never be mentioned, or even discussed at length if interesting/useful/etc.

FWIW, I would consider it weird if a review of music with lots of lyrics never mentioned them.

Fwiw if I were reviewing an album that prominently features lyrical material I'd strive to do justice to both aspects, and ideally convey a sense of how they interact in the process. Not an easy task, I assume.

I mean, with some artists, like to use Berman as an example we've been talking about a lot, how do you not prominently discuss lyrics?? Or Mountain Goats or Leonard Cohen or Phoebe Bridgers/Oberst etc etc

Btw katherine, I don't feel like your review of Immunity (to take a much-discussed recent example) disregards the music. If anything, it seemed balanced to me. I'm speaking in hypotheticals here.

maybe this is thuddingly obvious but just speaking from my own personal experience it's a combination of A) it's just easier to write about lyrics because the words are already there, you just have to interpret them, and B) most (not all) music critics are not serious musicians, in fact I would wager far more spend their free time reading or doing other kinds of writing compared to those who spend their free time playing music. in other words, probably significantly more critics who were English majors than music majors.

Very much agreed, ums. When I speak of 'balance' I don't think it needs to be 50/50 if that's not what the artists themselves were going for.

Here's a review posted today that seems to mention music, in passing, three times — (a) calling the songs "spiky"; (b) describing one track as "a sing-song tribute" (though this is pushing it); and (c) mentioning that another track features "spirals of guitar that conjure memories of the Raincoats or the B-52’s." I guess this passes muster...

Btw, I don't think of the guitar in the Raincoats and B-52s as sounding very similar(?) Guess I'll have to listen, and see if I agree!

Not entirely fair; it also mentions the instrument lineup

also the "punk" positioning fills in a lot of shorthand; even if it's using two somewhat disparate bands as signposts, you at least get a sense of what time period it feels like the music could exist in

Fair enough — I concede the review makes clear this is a "punk quartet" featuring a guitarist, a bassist, a drummer, and a singer.

Here's a review that strikes a good "balance," IMO; talking a lot about both — https://pitchfork.com/reviews/albums/oso-oso-basking-in-the-glow/

xp -- I should clarify, my argument here is actually less from the perspective of a writer than that of a reader

But as a writer, surely your tolerance for reading a purely lyrical analysis is higher than the average Pitchfork reader.

sure, but, like, my classmates also made lyrics their aim away messages, not sheet music

Wasn't that a purely textual medium? That seems like saying "my friends always had music for their ring tones, not lyric sheets".