God-Children and Ancient Lands: What The Crimson Has to Say on Hozier’s “Swan Upon Leda” by Rey Cooper

“After three years, Hozier is back.” The Harvard Crimson’s review of “Swan Upon Leda” is a summary of the exigence of the song in terms that are veiled in appreciation for a songwriter who, like a goblin of some sort, has finally emerged from his overgrown cave in the forest. The article touches upon Hozier’s motivation to release the song when he did and how it connects back to the earthen and holy motifs that Hozier has established in his previous work, most notably “Take Me to Church” from his self-titled album Hozier. 

Written by Timothy C. Fargiano, the article also goes through the song in parts, breaking it into the opening, the first chorus, and then everything else, finishing it with the second chorus. For some context on the song: Hozier released “Swan Upon Leda” on October 8th, 2022. With it, he voiced his opinion in supporting civil liberties activists around the world. He calls the song a “show of solidarity” for protesting Iranians, women in a post-Roe v. Wade society, and a pro-Palestine narrative, and he uses the greek myth of Leda and Zeus to highlight injustices wrought upon women. 

When going through the article, I found it a solid piece to read. I enjoyed how Fargiano didn’t waste a whole lot of time on trying to create a long and overbearingly flowery introduction to the piece and, after a short first paragraph, began discussing the origins of the song and Hozier’s political inspiration. He drew straight from Hozier’s own words about the subject and didn’t try to create anything farcical. 

However, one thing that I noticed was how Fargiano tries to take a stance of neutrality in his review by using Hozier himself as an outlet for his opinion – making his (Fargiano’s) opinions seem like they’re going through Hozier instead. 

Fargiano’s language in this piece is very much positively biased, using words like “ethereal,” “uplifting,” and “celestial” repeatedly. However, it doesn’t get in the way of the review and the more important message of how Hozier is aiming to help and show solidarity with people around the world through his music. 

Overall, I would say this is a good review. It gives you context on the song itself and also reveals the musicality of the song without veering into a strange inner battle for public perception, unlike some of the articles we’ve seen before (*cough* Pitchfork *cough*). Fargiano steps back from the spotlight in order to tell people about “Swan Upon Leda,” and though it isn’t perfect, it’s a good start. 

By humanizing both oppressor and oppressed, Hozier offers some hope for change; despite the celestial magnitude of systemic injustice, it is merely fallible humans who harm others, and no human is beyond redemption.

Discussion Questions: Do you believe that music is a potable medium for holding political charge? Are there any examples of songs you believe succeeded in portraying a political message? // Is there room for opinion and fact in a music review? Is bias inherently a bad thing?

On The Indiependent’s Review of Sabrina Carpenter’s “emails i can’t send” by Lakshmi Sunder

Synopsis: 

In a review titled “emails i can’t send // Sabrina Carpenter” published by The Indiependent, writer Agnius Kazlauskas reviews singer and actress Sabrina Carpenter’s fifth studio album titled emails i can’t send, released in July of 2022. Kazlauskas’ thesis is that this album—for its unprecedented introspection, vulnerability, and maturity—is Sabrina Carpenter’s “actual debut.” The writer follows the structure of analyzing each of the album’s thirteen songs individually and identifying how they model and/or differ from her past music; he bridges these songs together, at times, based on lyrical and musical parallels. Kazlauskas closes with a sort of call to action, asking, “are you ready to press the send button yourself?,” which essentially means, are you ready to begin diving into Carpenter’s music? 

What strategies does Kazlauskas use? 

Organized by songs: Kazlauskas reviews the album by dissecting each song in order of its appearance, interspersing his writing with Carpenter’s music videos. 

References to past albums: Kazlauskas underpins his thesis—that this is Carpenter’s real debut—by discussing how eics’s songs deviate from her past music. An example song is “skinny dipping,” in which Carpenter “abandons all formulas and leans into spoken word.” 

Diving the song into “chapters”: Kazlauskas divides the song into two halves, the first half representing “reflective melancholy,” as seen in songs like “Already Over,” and the second half representing “playfulness and hopeful nostalgia,” as seen in songs like “bet u wanna.” 

Is Kazlauskas biased? 

Kazlauskas’ review of Carpenter’s album is overwhelmingly positive. In fact, he really offers no criticism of the songs, though he perhaps likes some songs more than others. For example, Kazlauskas lingers on the first and last songs—“emails i can’t send” and “decode”–more than 

the ones toward the middle. If this review was a criticism at all, it would primarily be a criticism of her past albums. Kazlauskas’ thesis that emails i can’t send is unprecedented inherently undermines her other albums. Kazlauskas argues that this album has taken the “much-needed step” of reintroducing the singer to the world, reducing her former albums to mediocre mimics of radio music. It appears that Kazlauskas—while offering complex interpretations of eics’s songs—doesn’t understand the full scope of Carpenter’s past music. For example, he claims that Carpenter’s first experiment with country was in her song “Already Over,” but she has made country music from early on in her career, moving more and more into pop. 

Things to emulate: 

● Easy-to-follow structure with smooth segues 

● Descriptions understandable by those who haven’t listened to the album ● Dividing the review into sections

Things to not emulate: 

● Lack of criticism/Overdoing of positivity 

● Vague references to past albums without concrete examples of how they overly fit the mold 

Discussion Questions: 

● Sabrina Carpenter was further brought into mainstream music because of the relationship “drama” involving Joshua Bassett and Olivia Rodrigo. Does drama like this diminish music careers, or help to popularize lesser-known artists? 

● In this review, Carpenter is praised for revolutionizing her music. Is it unrealistic for listeners to expect artists to reinvent themselves, or does this keep the creative world fresh?

On Pitchfork’s Review of Gang of Youths’ “angel in realtime.” by Gryphon Alhonti

In Pitchfork’s review of angel in realtime. by Gang of Youths, Shaad D’Souza delivers blow after blow of backhanded compliments. Referring to the album as “typically overstuffed” and following up with “..and while that might sound exhausting, it’s actually pretty endearing” creates a confusing mix of signals sent to the reader. In an effort to recognize and, in a way, defend the album’s complexity and contradictions, D’Souza ends up weaving a web of adjectives and opinions so tangled, no fan nor critic could begin to comprehend their true feelings towards the album. Throughout the review, the critic recalls the band’s previous album, Go Farther in Lightness, and briefly compares the two works, eventually ending with a score of 6.8 for the newer album, and no review for its predecessor.

D’Souza’s missteps began when attempting to categorize, or perhaps contextualize, Gang of Youths’ style, both on stage and off. Starting off on a negative note, D’Souza describes the band as

…far smarter, weirder, and more compelling than the Funeral tribute act they might seem like on paper. […] Gang of Youths can be a perplexing mix of incredibly cerebral and incredibly dumb, totally ridiculous in one moment and devastatingly serious in the next.

This on-again-off-again take on both the band’s general style and music is a feeble attempt of staying “neutral,” perhaps under the impression that negative descriptors cancel out any positive bias and vice versa, rather than an actual objective take on the album angel in realtime. as an independent entity. D’Souza doubles down on this style when discussing the band’s predecessor to angel in realtime.: 

Go Farther in Lightness often sounded like a melange of influences done well, but the highlights on angel in realtime. zero in on Gang of Youths’ own territory. […] As on Go Farther in Lightness, the sound is occasionally so dense that it’s hard to listen to, with layers of interesting ideas compounded to something impenetrable.”

When squinting and tilting your head a little, you could possibly make out a valid point in his argument. But in truth, it’s not the argument itself that raises issues–it’s a genuine, valid take–but rather the method in which D’Souza has chosen to deliver it. Muddled with conflicting adjectives, D’Souza’s technique of delivery comes across as a point he is afraid of making.

In truth, angel in realtime. is a complicated, conflicting body of work, but as D’Souza himself stated,

…it’s rendered with a care that sometimes verges on fussiness—the mark of someone trying to create a perfect tribute to a complicated person…

which is a difficult task to complete on its own. However, D’Souza’s feeble attempt–and by extension, interpretation–at “neutrality” leaves the reader more confused about the review itself rather than having learned about a new album.

Discussion Questions:

1. Do reviews exist to serve the work–negatively, positively, or neutrally–or do they exist in a sphere of their own?
2. Do you read music reviews for the purpose of learning about/gaining perspective on a body of work, or for the review itself?