Jump to content
longtimeman

Pitchfork Reviews Rescored (including Born To Die)

Recommended Posts

Those hacks at Pitchfork magazine have put up an article that isn't titled '19 Records we were too stupid to go against the trendy negativity of the time to give what they deserved', but should have been. Read all the self-justifications here, or if you don't want to give them extra clicks, here's the 'rescore' of Born To Die:

Quote

Lana Del Rey: Born to Die (2012)

5.5 → 7.8

It’s hard to describe how overheated the discussion around Lana Del Rey was in 2012, when critics eyed her femme fatale persona with cynicism and you couldn’t scroll a Tumblr dashboard without passing a flower crown. But late one night that summer, I set out for a long drive, slid a burned CD in the player, and realized the open road feels like Born to Die, all smooth glossy surface and the riskiest danger around, the kind where you’re the victim. The future looks pitch black and you glide right in. Lana is reaching for something: the fulcrum point where the fear and pain of sexualization start to work as leverage. There is a lot of room to miscalculate; some weaker tracks show up toward the end, and the singing is sometimes less than polished—the best early-era Lana material is the follow-up Paradise EP—but Born to Die turned out to be a sign of things to come, like genre-agnostic pop ballads with hip-hop beats, and the arch, depressive languor that’s more mainstream than ever. Sit back and imagine what the Lana of 2012 would get clowned for now: Singing the opening lines of Lolita? Ordering a “Pabst Blue Ribbon on ice”? –Anna Gaca

 


tumblr_ou8g76nUPp1ts8ukho1_250.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

7.8 is a fair score for a 10 years later review considering that a lot of it sounds very of it’s time, which can be a good thing but Lolita, DMD, Million Dollar Man and maybe even NA just didn’t age well at all . NA demo >>
 

tbh it shocks me how little i listen to this album now :awkney: i used to play it for hours each day


RVhKIwP.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

'They are hypothetical, which is to say, not canon, but rather a fun little diversion, a conversation-starter brought to you by the individual grievances of the Pitchfork staff.' 

 

still nice though


lanasigfinal_zpsfd0fc6ee.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Havent read the whole thing till now. Painful to see that Born to die was treated 'not that bad' compared to how terrible they've been to other valid artists and their work.

 

Curious to see what they'll have to say about NFR! in the future.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's so funny because I was thinking yesterday or something that pitchfork would change their review of Born to Die if they could, and here we are.

My mind ! :lanahairflip2:

Didn't think it would actually happen because I've never seen anyone change past reviews. I think that it's a good thing that they acknowledged their errors even though what they wrote felt more like justification than anything else.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, May said:

tbh it shocks me how little i listen to this album now :awkney: i used to play it for hours each day

this honestly


strong like a tree but the unlucky one 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, YUNGATA said:

More shocking is that they originally gave Stories From the City, Stories From the Sea 5.4 :wtf3:

I almost fell out of my chair when I saw that. That record deserves an 11.


tumblr_ou8g76nUPp1ts8ukho1_250.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, longtimeman said:

Those hacks at Pitchfork magazine have put up an article that isn't titled '19 Records we were too stupid to go against the trendy negativity of the time to give what they deserved', but should have been. Read all the self-justifications here, or if you don't want to give them extra clicks, here's the 'rescore' of Born To Die:

 

 

That score is 10yrs too late tbh. I guess a change if mind is acceptable, but seriously... a 5.5 originally ??‍♂️

 

4 hours ago, May said:

7.8 is a fair score for a 10 years later review considering that a lot of it sounds very of it’s time, which can be a good thing but Lolita, DMD, Million Dollar Man and maybe even NA just didn’t age well at all . NA demo >>
 

tbh it shocks me how little i listen to this album now :awkney: i used to play it for hours each day

 

Um... Million Dollar Man is a personal fave, just sayin' ;)


OAFZfco.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, YUNGATA said:

More shocking is that they originally gave Stories From the City, Stories From the Sea 5.4 :wtf3:

Similar to the Liz Phair album getting a 0. Men also get criticism for 'selling out', but whenever a woman crosses over into the mainstream (or even slightly out of their indie 'roots'), they almost always get hate that is hyperbolic af. Nirvana coulda made a pop album after In Utero, and it'd be hated the same way, but it woulda probably got a 5.5, compared to - say - if Tori Amos did a pop rock record, it'd probably be a 3.2 for the same amount of anger. It was especially bad back then, because nobody really called it out. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I like the gesture, because back then the discussion wasn't about the music it was about her so called persona and her authenticy, or alleged lack thereof—there was actually very little substance surrounding the music in these reviews (and even reading that re-review it's like "hEr AlTeR eGO!!!1!"). 
 

But idc about this, it's disingenuous as fuck. :whatever:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, May said:

7.8 is a fair score for a 10 years later review considering that a lot of it sounds very of it’s time, which can be a good thing but Lolita, DMD, Million Dollar Man and maybe even NA just didn’t age well at all . NA demo >>
 

tbh it shocks me how little i listen to this album now :awkney: i used to play it for hours each day

 

yall need to let the idea of "dated" music go I'm sorry it don't be making no sense no more

 

it's just yall that overplayed the album and now don't like it as much as before which is fine btw but it doesn't mean it didn't "age well"

 

MDM is still a huge bop and so is most of the album

3 hours ago, BluVelvUnderground said:

Similar to the Liz Phair album getting a 0. Men also get criticism for 'selling out', but whenever a woman crosses over into the mainstream (or even slightly out of their indie 'roots'), they almost always get hate that is hyperbolic af. Nirvana coulda made a pop album after In Utero, and it'd be hated the same way, but it woulda probably got a 5.5, compared to - say - if Tori Amos did a pop rock record, it'd probably be a 3.2 for the same amount of anger. It was especially bad back then, because nobody really called it out. 

 

yeah women get a completely different amount of scrutiny on pitchfork 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...