Lana vs. the critics: should musicians clap back at bad reviews?

RTÉ News​

2 days ago

Who'd be a critic, eh? You're out there, just doing your job and sharing your opinion when all of a sudden an unruly tide of pitchfork-waving fans is unleashed upon you.
It's happened to me on numerous occasions, and given how dominant social media is in our lives, I'd be willing to bet that it's happened to most journalists and critics at some point (I'll have to tell you about that Jedward story another time.) You can't please 'em all, as the saying goes.
I was reminded of critics being criticised last week, when Lana Del Rey responded to an Irish Times review of her recent gig at Dublin's Aviva Stadium. Journalist Ed Power had given the gig a largely positive review, praising her quirky performance but questioning the comparatively brief running time of her setlist; most people would agree that 80 minutes does seem like a short set for a stadium gig. Lana wasn't having it: "Ooh I think this is the wrong take on the angle for the story" she wrote on Instagram, as thousands of her fans piled into the comments to agree with her (not all of them in such diplomatic terms, mind you.)
Of course, Del Rey has form in such matters and doesn't seem to take criticism, even when it's constructive, too well. In 2019, when NPR critic Ann Powers posted a scathing review of her album Norman F**king Rockwell!, calling her lyrics "uncooked" and accusing her of assuming a 'persona', she responded in kind. "I don't even relate to one observation you made about the music," she wrote. "There's nothing uncooked about me. To write about me is nothing like it is to be with me. Never had a persona. Never needed one. Never will. So don't call yourself a fan like you did in the article and don't count your editor one either." Oof.
She's not alone: Charli XCX clapped back at critics of her recent Glastonbury set who pointed out her use of - or perhaps reliance upon - AutoTune. "Like the idea that singing with deliberate autotune makes you a fraud or that not having a traditional band suddenly means you must not be a "real artist" is like, the most boring take ever. yawn sorry just fell asleep xx" she wrote on X the following day, adding that she found the comments had a "boomer vibe". Still, she didn't hesitate to post The Guardian's 5-star review of her set, either.
It also brings to light an issue on the wrong critics being sent to the wrong kind of gigs. Should someone with a passion for rock be sent to a pop gig? Should a bona fide pop fan be sent to a death metal concert?
It does raise an important question, though: should artists hold their heads high and maintain a dignified silence, or should they be allowed to bite back? You could argue like they're fully entitled to defend themselves against criticism, like anyone else in any other job. And critics should be challenged - it's part of the job description (which makes it all the more imperative that a critic should be steadfast, informed and well-researched in their opinions.) The difference, I suppose, is that a postman, or a nurse, or a teacher, or an office worker generally does not willingly enter a career knowing that their creative output is going to be judged by the public as a matter of course. If you're lucky, lots of people will like it; it's how to manage your reaction to those who don't that is important. And when you're an artist of Lana Del Rey's stature - literally one of the most important pop artists of her time - what some critic writes about your gig in an Irish newspaper shouldn't really matter. Besides, what's wrong with taking some well-intentioned feedback on board? Musicians aren't hauled into their boss's office for performance reviews (at least not in the traditional sense) - so why shouldn't it be fair game to point out what they can improve upon?
It also brings to light an issue on the wrong critics being sent to the wrong kind of gigs. Should someone with a passion for rock be sent to a pop gig? Should a bona fide pop fan be sent to a death metal concert? The onus is on a critic to have a broad-spanning knowledge base and at least be open to various genres, but the reality is that critics are also fans and are more inclined to respond positively to a band or artist they don't have preconceived ideas about.
Who'd be a critic? If AI has anything to do with it, nobody - it's coming for all our jobs, after all, and the streaming revolution means that music fans can bypass the professionals and go straight to the source to make up their own mind. Nevertheless, although I may be biased, I reckon a good critic is worth their weight in gold; to point you towards the stuff that matters and advise you to give the stuff that doesn't matter a wide berth. To unearth hidden gems that don't get picked up by the Spotify algorithm for whatever reason. To question artists' motives, even in the face of a blinkered fandom. To challenge opinions and ideals and offer an alternative way of seeing, hearing or thinking about something. Without critics or dissenting voices, the industry would be a fairly anodyne place, populated by music made by bands like (shudder) Imagine Dragons and artists like Jedward. Filled with music that some bot on a streamer thinks that you'd like on your playlist. Crammed with artists who think 80 minutes is an acceptable length set for a stadium gig. (If you're reading this, hi Lana!)
The best approach, it seems, is to shrug it off - just as the late, great Lou Reed did after his album with Metallica, Lulu, was roundly panned. "I don't have any fans left," he said. "After Metal Machine Music, they all fled. Who cares? I'm essentially in this for the fun of it."
As I mentioned earlier, and as Lou noted, you can't please 'em all. Lana Del Rey has every right to respond to criticism, of course, but she would do well to take that saying on board. And if she can't, as an artist who's clearly affected by less-than-glowing reviews, maybe she should simply stop reading them.