Criticism, hate and the need to be universally liked

What Halsey vs Pitchfork tells us about modern criticism and online pile-ons

“With a muddled concept at its core” writes Pitchfork music critic Shaad D’Souza, Halsey’s new album The Great Impersonator supposedly contains, “unremarkable songwriting”, “languishes in dull pop-rock corridors” and is, at its core, “profoundly unrelatable”. 

When I come across these kinds of reviews, I often wonder if I’m misplaced in my dream of being a bestselling author because I would crumble at the inevitable criticism. If I were Halsey reading these words about my heartfelt art, I would absolutely be in tears and calling my mother. 

But isn’t that part and parcel of success, having work so widely known that it rises to the level of global critique? Isn’t that the price we pay for notoriety? 

As I write this, D’Souza’s Pitchfork article is going viral because Halsey responded on Twitter, calling the critic out by name in a post that deliberately cherry-picks the scarce compliments from the Pitchfork piece as a kind of “gotcha”. 

Fans of both the artist and the publication are now coming to blows, continuing an argument that seems to be ongoing and inconclusive at the moment: what is fair criticism, and what is ‘hate’? 

 

A lack of critical thinking? 

When Taylor Swift announced the release of her album The Tortured Poets Department (TTPD), many were sceptical of its worth. Swift began writing the album as soon as her previous one, Midnights, was released, prompting people to question how much artistic growth and exploration she’d done in that short amount of time. When the album dropped, it was to mixed reviews. Many Swifties and Non-Swifties alike felt disappointed, finding the work “lengthy and lacking profundity”. 

Criticising Taylor Swift, however, is no longer something to be done lightly. With what I assume is the world’s largest and most devoted fanbase for any singular artist, it’s not uncommon for people to receive death threats, abuse and harassment online when speaking about her unfavourably—an outcome which has become worryingly normalised. As a result, there seemed to be a curious disconnect between public opinion and cultural criticism when it came to TTPD. Were critics actually scared to take on Swift?

And it’s not just the fans. The artists themselves seem to be getting worse and worse at accepting criticism or seeing it as anything other than open hostility. When Katy Perry released Woman’s World - a Girl Boss anthem co-written by an abuser that featured bland, monosyllabic lyrics - it was unsurprisingly met with poor critical acclaim. But instead of ingesting the (actually very interesting) criticism about how feminism has moved on from Perry’s particular 2009 strain, she doubled down, over-explaining what the concept was supposed to show, and how we’d all simply missed the point.     

The fall of decent criticism? 

On the other side of the coin, however, criticism also has a job to do to prove it's still worth its salt. The Pitchfork review of Halsey’s album is not above critique itself, for instance. D’Souza bringing up Halsey’s ex-partner, G-Eazy feels out of place and irrelevant, more likely to feature in a Tweet from Pop Base than in a revered music publication. After battling both physical and mental illnesses, he also questions Halsey’s right to “victimhood”, which feels deliberately and unnecessarily cruel. In order to be respected as a critic, one has to respect the artist in return.  

Similarly, music critic Laura Snapes - also writing for Pitchfork, incidentally - backtracked on her initial criticism of Charli xcx’s once-underground hit Vroom Vroom after it became popular, saying “Charli was ahead of her time, leaving me gratefully eating her dust.” Charlie actually responded to this, commenting: “If the sway of culture and popular opinion is the thing that’s forcing a journalist to reconsider their review with hindsight, then what’s the point of even reviewing in the first place?”  

To that, she has a very good point—one that bleeds down deeper into the foundations of modern criticism. 

The popular film review site Rotten Tomatoes, for example, has lost a good deal of its clout in recent years for allegedly taking payments from PRs to churn out favourable reviews—a practice which we can fairly assume is common across all kinds of creative industry publications. As a result, many consumers are turning to forums like Reddit to get honest reviews from real people. 

By folding to outside pressures - whether that’s popular opinion or monetary gain - criticism digs its own grave.

The jewel that is honest critique 

Outside of lining pockets and personal vendettas, however, criticism is one of the core elements that propels art forward. Many of the most revered musicians we’ve ever known experienced ‘flop eras’, from Whitney Houston to Beethoven to The Beatles. The difference is they learned from their mistakes and came back revived.

No matter how much we may adore an artist, it makes little sense to plug our fingers in our ears and pretend criticism of them isn’t happening, or worse, pile on anyone who dares to acknowledge it. 

Consider what might happen if, instead of vilifying anyone who questions their work, creatives listened to cultural commentary, connected with it, and used it as fuel to go on to make their best and most timeless work. And in tandem, what if critics returned to the days when their work was underpinned by a deep, expert understanding of art and culture instead of TikTok takes about people’s personal lives?

What masterpieces might be born from that kind of bravery, honesty and integrity? 

To read more of my work, follow me on Instagram @alannaduffield.