Halsey’s The Great Impersonator and the Anti-Intellectualism Debate
Halsey’s The Great Impersonator marks their fifth studio album and one of the most controversial moments in music criticism for 2024, from the project’s rollout to its reception. The eclectic project honours Halsey’s longstanding commitment to vulnerability, weaved between witty one-liners whilst exploring the musical styles of the last four decades.
With each song having been inspired by a particular artist or band, some influences are more evident and successful than others at times, such as in Letter to God (1983). The Springsteen tribute eloquently captures the American singer’s guilt as she recounts being diagnosed life-threatening illness and the fear of orphaning her child, wondering if the disease came as the result of praying for her life to be taken a decade prior. It was revealed this June that Halsey was diagnosed with Lupus and a rare, life-threatening T-Cell disorder. These health struggles further follow the artist’s struggle with endometriosis and their struggle to conceive, addressed on track More on her third studio album Manic (2020), before finally having her child, Ender. Lucky, a track that draws inspiration from Britney Spears, carries the star’s essence in its effective instrumentation reminiscent of the Y2K icon whilst alluding to the lonely journey Halsey went on before her audience knew she was sick – a theme built upon in the Amy Lee-inspired rock number, Lonely is the Muse, one of the strongest tracks on the album. Dog Years, by contrast, falls short of the album’s high standard with its lyricism, and whilst Darwinism is lyrically strong, its melody is sadly quite forgettable.
And I don’t wanna blame the child, but I have to speculate
If this could all just be an answer to thosе prayers that came delayеd
Because I never would have said it if I knew I’d have to wait
Until the moment I was happy, then it all disintegrates,
– Letter to God (1983)
Letter to God (1983) is the second of three iterations of this song, between Letter to God (1974) and Letter to God (1998), creating a narrative framework for the album. With each iteration, it feels as though Halsey has taken the stage to zoom out and recount the story thus far much like a play’s narrator, fitting as Halsey is reclaiming the narrative on her health from tabloid speculation with this project. This adds to the theatricality of the project established when Halsey impersonated the inspiration of each track in the lead up to its release. The attention to detail was astonishing as they recreated wardrobe and make-up looks themself, and excitement was built in the lead up to the album’s release as fans anticipated a new look each day. Life of the Spider (Draft) further contributes to the work’s raw nature as the stripped-down demo mimics the vulnerability of a sick patient with a shaved head and revealing hospitable gown, which Halsey sings about being on the album; the track’s acoustics are haunting, sounding as though it was recorded in this empty theatre in which The Great Impersonator takes place. This theme is truly brought home as Halsey ends the album with its title track, asking ‘Does a story die with its narrator?’.
Anyone who has been following Halsey’s career knows that they are no media darling. Therefore, The Great Impersonator receiving largely positive feedback across the board should speak volumes: 5 stars from NME, 9/10 from Clash, 93/100 from Variety, 87 on Metacritic, 4 stars from Rolling Stone, and the honour of New York Times’ Critics Pick. Overshadowing all this success, however, were two reviews which screamed louder than all the others – a 4.8/10 rating from Shaad D’Souza at Pitchfork and a 1/10 rating from internet critic Anthony Fantano, uploaded to his YouTube channel, TheNeedleDrop. These critics were quick to receive backlash for their reviews, particularly how they came across more as attacks on Halsey’s character than their music. D’Souza described Halsey as ‘adopting a martyr’s pose, […] self-ascribed, […] profoundly unrelatable’ and spends half a paragraph bringing up her abusive ex-boyfriend before ironically stating she ‘[attempts to] conjure a sense of victimhood,’. Fantano similarly criticised Halsey for having ‘main character syndrome’ and sounding like an ‘angsty girl’. In response to Pitchfork’s review, Halsey shared only the positive lines out of context to her socials and captioned the post ‘thank you @pitchfork for your kind words. I think it’s so beautiful that everyone interprets things differently’ – a move that some called immature and others unprofessional.
Some argued as far as to say Halsey is helping to normalise attacks of music critics; that by directing hate towards D’Souza, she contributed to the fear that music critics live in of being doxed and receiving death threats. There lies a point: art is meaningless without art criticism, and we should be able to give our personal views on subjective topics without fearing backlash when there is no right answer. Fan armies should not have power over journalists and if we lose the ability to criticise art, it could even be argued that it is a slippery slope to not being able to criticise policy or public figures in the name of not hurting anyone’s feelings. Not to mention, dwindling reception of reviews has led to many publications closing. I do not find it convincing, however, that anti-intellectualism is the problem with this specific case. If anything, Halsey’s album concept encourages younger listeners to engage with the greats and learn from their talent. No one is claiming that because Halsey was sick and scared when making this album that we cannot call it bad; a fine distinction exists between calling out reviewers for personal attacks and musical criticisms. With the case of The Great Impersonator, it was quite clearly the former. Moreover, it is worth noting that whilst Halsey does have a committed fanbase, the majority of backlash came from the general public – it was clear to the everyday listener that these reviews were unfair, not purely those who would defend Halsey regardless of the criticism.
This begs the question, why did these two men in particular give such uniquely negative reviews of The Great Impersonator? Were D’Souza and Fantano unafraid to say what others feared to, or did they have more experience and musical knowledge than the other critics? Could it really be that it was just a matter of opinion? I suppose that we will never know for certain, but my bet is on the frustration that overcomes pretentious music types when they can no longer gatekeep their favourite artists, revealing an underlying misogyny. Halsey’s unique accounts of illness are too unfamiliar for them to contend with – coming across as ‘profoundly unrelatable’, and their reviews come across as defensive over the likes of Björk and Fiona Apple being discussed in the mainstream.
Words by Shreya Mehta.
