Who Is Allowed To Reject Criticism?
Many artists lately have been pushing back on criticism of their art. Who gets to reject criticism and who doesn't?
I have been listening to the new Strokes album, Reality Awaits, the venerated indie rockersā long-awaited return after six years that came out yesterday. While the album is being generating talk for many reasons - singer Julian Casablancasā tight lyricism, his somewhat divisive use of autotune, whether or not this album is better than their stellar comeback, 2020ās The New Abnormal, there is one song on the album that has caught the attention of many listeners and journalists - on āLonely In The Futureā, Casablancas sings, āI heard that 20 fucking years ago, I did/Fantano, word for word, when I was a kid/Stick to the tehcnical, ācause thatās great/But you would not recognize art in any ageā.
This, supposedly, a delayed Julian response to the YouTuber and internet music critic Anthony Fantano, who had disliked Julianās last musical venture with his other band, The Voidz. I canāt fault Julianās lyricism on this, telling a reviewer that all he is able to talk about is the technical because he cannot see the forest for the trees and understand his artistic choices? 10/10, a great and succinct way to phrase it.
Despite their ābeefā, Fantano makes another response video: ādespiteā what Julian thinks of him, Fantano still loves The Strokes.
Thatās great. But it takes my mind back to only a month ago when Fantanoās work had picked up the ire of another one of his reviewees, Halsey.
Fantanoās criticism was that Halseyās last album, The Great Impersonator, which was centred on her experience of going through chemotherapy and fighting cancer, was too self-centred. Halseyās big misstep, said Fantano, was that she was the subject of a (notoriously difficult) Halsey album. Halsey rubbished his review on her Twitter, Charli XCX chimed in with the observation that statues donāt get built of critics.
Fantano returned with what for my money is one of the worst takes you can have on music journalism: āI donāt have to prove myself to Halsey. I have been the most relevant and impactful music critic of myāanyāgeneration for over 10 years now.ā The ādonāt you know who I am?ā response. The influencerās response, someone whose career relies on being known, not the music journalistās, whose currency is being quoted in review, because his response had nothing to do with music journalism or criticism.
Now. If he understands that he didnāt have to prove himself to Halsey, then Iām not sure why he doesnāt understand that Halsey doesnāt need to prove herself to him, either. But thatās not even my main focus here. To me, this is more about how differently Fantano responds to different musiciansā pushback on his criticism - and it somewhat reflects how the music industry views its artists in general.
Men in the music industry are venerated. You can be celebrated ādespiteā your flaws. If you are The Strokes, you are afforded a world where a single piece of art can be untied from your legacy, where the Fantanoās of the world can still say, āitās okay that you disagree with what I think of your music, I still love your work.ā The world, it seems, is infinitely harsher on women in the music industry - you may be recognised ādespiteā the flaw of being a woman. Why not just agree to disagree, as he was easily able to do with the Strokes? In the past, when Drake once disagreed with Fantanoās reviewing of his work, Fantano sang a very different tune - it was just his opinion, he was just a music critic, it wasnāt the end of the world. Not quite the same humility extended to Halsey.
But thatās where we are today. As the barriers between musician and fan broke down with the advent of social media, artists were exposed directly to what their fans think of them, 24 hours a day. Those walls crumbling also brought a new kind of reviewer onto the scene: the empowered fan, essentially; the online music critic, no longer a faceless writer in a magazineās office, scribbling away at midnight, virtually anonymous to the artist.
No, today, the internet reviewerās currency is visibility and headlines. So the more a reviewer like Fantano, whose career depends on views and clicks, can generate headlines, the more his career thrives. And what generates those clicks is in alignment with what drives social media engagement and has made the wheels of the music industry turn for decades: good old-fashioned misogyny, baby! And Fantanoās not stupid, he knows when to back down. Heās not going to win a fight with Julian Casablancas or The Strokes (hell, even recent allegations of associating with paedophiles seems not have made a dent on the Strokes glorious comeback campaign). The Strokes are your favourite bandās biggest influence and everyoneās favourite nostalgic memory of the 2000s; theyāve ascended beyond criticism.
What can we do about it? I donāt know, really. I usually try and end articles with a bit of direction, some positivity, but this oneās really out of the control of either artists or fans. All we can do really, is take a moment and think about the reviews we read and watch, not jump to conclusions too quick and remember that at the end of the day, music criticism is very subjective, and perhaps the best thing a review can do for you is make you listen to a piece of work yourself and make up your mind.
But in a final word on quotes being the currency of a good music journalist, I must shout out one of my favourite sentences in a review in an entire decade: it comes from the BBCās music correspondent Mark Savageās review of reunited rockers Oasisā first show in Cardiff last July: āAs fans will know, Oasis were never the most dynamic act on stage. Noel [Gallagher], in particular, wears the studious look of a man trying to remember his National Insurance number - but somehow, it's impossible to take your eyes off them.ā
The studious look of a man trying to remember his National Insurance number. Who said literature was dead. Iāll have to shake the manās hand if I ever meet him and congratulate him on that sentence.
