Pitchfork reviews Hold the Girl

[AURAOFSHEISSE 6,514]

21 minutes ago, jimmytimestep said:

yes, she is experimenting with new sounds.

Just because the sound of SAWAYAMA doesn't fit the current pop landscape and Hold the Girl is closer to it, does not mean that Rina herself, as an artist, is doing "less experimental" things.

She IS experimenting.

just because she experimented in other genres doesn't mean it payed off

[La Rosalia 9,906]

I thought they were gonna give her a lower score, ngl.

[LG666 1,564]

This is her Joanne era in the sense that she's clearly healing her inner child and not concerned with hits. And that's okay. Not all albums need bangers, she can make the music she needs to make.

It's a good album though and I do love the moments where the production incorporates some Garage. I definitely prefer Sawayama if I had to compare the two. I hope her next album is more dark and edgy - she has the aesthetic and the ambition for it.

[ProfessionalClown 9,637]

Tbh it s a great album but definitely not as crazy fun as her first. Her first literally had SO MUCH going on in the best way possible with some of the most ambitious production I’ve heard in a long time. I think she really subdued a lot of that this album. Frankenstein in a bop tho 

[chun li 2,218]

It really sounds like she wanted to step down, some lyrics were just really silly

[hieronymus 8,092]

1 hour ago, jimmytimestep said:

yes, she is experimenting with new sounds.

Just because the sound of SAWAYAMA doesn't fit the current pop landscape and Hold the Girl is closer to it, does not mean that Rina herself, as an artist, is doing "less experimental" things.

She IS experimenting.

...these aren't even new sounds for her. Do you know what experimentation is?

[Chesescake 3,380]

I be like:

[DavidLuis198 784]

3 hours ago, AUARAOFSHEISSE said:

It’s not like her old stuff at all rlly except for a handful of songs . most of HTG is more basic production and more quite than the rest of her work idk why people said it was like BTW

I think the comparison is because of the lyrical content, a lot of the songs have a very similar vibe and feel as the ones in BTW.

This Hell really sounds a little like a Born This Way / Bad Kids blend, both lyrically and even sonically

I don't think that's bad, Rina always said she's inspired by Gaga and it's always great to see Gaga's impact, especially on the new generation of LGBTQIA+ musicians

[StressedOut 539]

I thought the score and review were pretty fair. That last paragraph was a little too pointed tho... like... they wanted to hurt her feelings 💔 

Definitely a half step down from SAWAYAMA, but still has a few gems

[jimmytimestep 2,157]

1 hour ago, Hold My Ham said:

...these aren't even new sounds for her. Do you know what experimentation is?

I do, thanks for asking. 

please enlighten me as to what an artist should and should not consider “experimentation”. Do you define it as sounds that you, personally, as the consumer, have never heard from them?

I don’t think that just because YOU want to hear something different from what rina has commercially produced in the past means that she herself is not experimenting.  

if it is because you personally, as a consumer of music, consider “experimentation” completely new sounds that you and other consumers have not heard from them before, let me call Bruce Springsteen and tell him to do a dance pop album produced by Dr Luke, because that’s how to be “a better artist”.

Artistry and experimentation are not binary, clean cut things. Lay off. Rina and her team did what felt personally right to her/them and it succeeded. Just because you don’t like it doesn’t make it less experimental. 

[jimmytimestep 2,157]

2 hours ago, AUARAOFSHEISSE said:

just because she experimented in other genres doesn't mean it payed off

I agree with this sentiment. that said, I do feel it paid off here. But, to each their own. 

[monstertoronto 7,546]

3 hours ago, Ziggy said:

They mean the exploration leads to something lol I wouldn’t say her foray into country early aughts pop rock really found anything. Your comment doesn’t make a lot of sense to me bc you say she found artistic merit in it but then also that artistic choices don’t need justification…the merit found is that justification. They’re questioning the merit directly. On SAWAYAMA, she explored nu-metal as a means of contrast to the curated pretty pop image of ourselves and the world we put forward. It’s the Dorian grey of sorts underneath. That’s interesting and perspective. To pitchfork, this direction lacks perspective and feels shallow. That’s fair to make point of in a critique. It sounds like your issue is with critique itself because, yes, an artist can do what they want but to make a cohesive body of work, there needs to be coherence front to back in its thoughtfulness. The EP had it. SAWAYAMA had it. This doesn’t really. You can obvi still enjoy the album but a critic’s role is to judge the artistic merits of a piece and if something lacks that they’d be doing their job poorly not to point that out.

You’re entitled to your opinion, as is everyone, but I disagree with your suggestion that my comment made no sense because I say she found artistic merit and also that she doesn’t need to justify her choices. It’s your comment that doesn’t make sense to me. Artists have been making personal artistic choices that have merit to them personally since time immemorial, and for just as long artists are often loathe to justify their choices to anyone who might ask then “But what does it mean??”  Filmmakers, visual artists, particular those who do abstract art, are often assailed by critics who don’t understand their work but just because a critic cannot find the merit doesn’t mean it isn’t there. it’s certainly there for the artist and for others who understand and appreciate the work. Your example that the numeral choices can be “explained” with your example is one interpretation that can be applied by someone who sees value in that work. That you or the pitchfork critic fails to see similar “justifications” in her new work does not at all mean they aren’t there. You just don’t see them or relate to them. Off the top of my head I could say that the stadium rock aesthetic she uses is “Catch Me in the Air” is a strong choice because the topic of the song is the difficult relationship she had with her mom and how it was source of tension and secrecy, but now with time and distance and therapy, she has found value in that relationship and she chose stadium rock, which is meant to be shouted euphorically before thousands, as the best way to to proclaim her love for her mom. Or the country-leaning tinge in This Hell is impactful due to the song literally being about the LGBT community feeling under fire by right wing Christians, and taking back their hateful language about gays going to hell and reclaiming it as having a party in hell… and what better sly way to take back the hate than by using utilizing country music, whose fans and main demo in states like a Texas are often linked with homophobia, to be the music for the message telling them to bite it. There are lots of layers and meanings that I get from her choices that obviously have merit. My issue with Pitchfork’s review is that the critic didn’t catch or see any of these meanings and then decides to imply or state that such meaning much not exist if THeY couldn’t see it. A very limited view in my opinion and worthy of criticism itself. 

[Killa 14,392]

Thought this was her 3 album

[27monster27 9,462]

"Rina Sawayama’s second album is ambitious in the same way as putting on all the clothes in your closet"

Is there a specific reason behind why critics like to make sure any review that is less than positive has a dig like this? The always removes a significant amount of credibility for me.

[GABEL 1,852]

They are absolutely right about her playing safe for this album.
But why does every album need to be ambitious?  It's a solid album with catchy melodies and good production and that is a win for Miss Sawayama