Lana Del Rey Smashes Pitchfork in the Face with Her Face a Day After Site Pans Her Album

Lana Del Rey, girl of the moment (Getty Images)

Happy Lana Del Rey Dey! Via Getty.

The Tet Offensive of Lana Del Rey is here.

Yes, today, Lana Del Rey (the singer formerly known as Lizzy Grant only two hype cycles and one lip injection ago) will see the release of her album.

Despite the fact that ‘relevant’ tastemakers like Brian Williams, Pitchfork, Hipster Runoff, along with approximately 3/5ths of the people you overhear talking about Lana Del Rey all despise her music and/or artifice, and despite the fact that everyone (including The Observer) is tired of hearing about her, the fact is that the people still have yet to render their verdict through purchases and/or illegal downloads of her album.

Vox populi, vox Lana Del Rey.

As such, today is also the day the Lana Del Rey corporate hype machine goes into overdrive. This includes but isn’t limited to, of course, internet banner advertising on sites that ideally target Lana Del Rey’s presumed audience; for example, a site like Pitchfork Media, which originally gave Ms. Del Rey’s single “Video Games” a Best New Single designation. That’d be a great place to advertise her!

Except, not: Ms. Del Rey’s album was panned by Pitchfork Media yesterday. Even so, the “ad buy” on the site likely happened weeks ago, and nobody’s going to let good advertising go to waste. So instead, Pitchfork Media now looks like a cross between The Lana Del Report and the result of a revenge tactic.

lana del reyfork e1328033593985 Lana Del Rey Smashes Pitchfork in the Face with Her Face a Day After Site Pans Her Album

It’s really just an obvious ad buy, but it’s fun to imagine, and the incedentialism makes the entire thing just funnier and weirder and takes us all further down this veritable K-Hole of pop culture and ideas about “tastemaking” and how the democratization of “cool” is generally leading to the end of it.

This is far from the first time this has happened with the site. When Band of Horses’ sophomore album was panned, Band Of Horses’ advertising folks bought out all of the site’s display unit inventory to fill with their album’s banners.

fkamer@observer.com | @weareyourfek

Comments

  1. Tyler says:

    I don’t think a 5.5 score counts as a pan at all! (And the Band of Horses in question got a 5.3.) That’s about a 3 star-rating (out of five). We’re really stretching this out, huh?

    1. Anonymous says:

      Except they’re not judging this on a five-star scale. It’s more appropriate to convert it to a percentage scale. In which case, it would be 55%.

      55% is an F. 55% is a “see me after class” in big red letters on the top right corner of the page. 55% is “Your mom is gonna yell at you.”

    2. Foster Kamer says:

      I’d say it reads like a panning. If Lana were being graded, 55/100 is an F. True story.

  2. Brad Nelson says:

    Definitely “this is far from the first time this has happened with the site.” Or any site.

      1. Brad Nelson says:

        i mean, so many entertainment-oriented sites contain these targeted ads and often times there is a discrepancy between a review on a site and an ad campaign (when i used to frequent the a.v. club this was like a weekly concern because the commentariat there is like the apotheosis of the self-important asshole with a mostly eaten-away memory). to point it out and sort of say, “hey, look at that,” feels, i don’t know, kind of pointless? like, what does it mean, dude.

  3. Jamie says:

    Let me get this straight. Pitchfork is an online music magazine with a strict separation between editorial and advertising (as there should be). Pitchfork gave Lana Del Rey’s album a somewhat negative, but well argued and fair, review. Because a lot of people read the site for its well argued and fair reviews, Pitchfork also got paid money to run an ad for said album. How do you not see that Pitchfork comes out on top in this scenario?

  4. Lee & Zaneta says:

    I can’t get over the fact that she resembles a 19-year-old Catherine Deneuve in the banner ad. 

  5. Benton Jones says:

    this article is poorly written and doesn’t make any real points. fire the intern who wrote this and stop name dropping it’s pathetic. Soon enough you’ll be hawking articles that begin “10 bizarre tom cruise moments.”  I don’t read the observer to be ironic don’t make a fool of yourself.

  6. Tyler says:

    hint: doesn’t matter how much money it makes or how much it sells, that’s not the point of culture. if it can’t withstand the critique, it sucks.