Pitchfork Dating Review: Anna Gaca

You have to be pretty stupid to date during the pandemic. You have to pretend that everything is fine and splashy — even when it turns out that your date is a hateful and sour critic from Pitchfork who has never felt a single emotion in her adult life, a writer now wasting her formative years taking out her failings and resentments on beloved pop music albums. I suppose that this is what some people in New York call earning a living.

Still, I decided to give Anna Gaca a try in my own capacity as a professional critic. Some may argue that dating is way too personal of an experience to warrant a snarky review. Still, if Lorde could bare her heart and soul on Solar Power and be attacked for her vulnerability, why then not apply the same rude and ruthless approach to dating a music critic? In the interest of full disclosure, I was paid $600 by Chuck Woolery, with the understanding that Mr. Woolery himself would give me a call the next morning and chortle “two and two” over the phone in his ongoing attempts to prove his relevancy.

Gaca and I met in a slightly divey gastropub on the edge of Prospect Heights. I picked a round wooden table adjacent to an open window, positioning myself so that the light would accentuate my best side and I would appear thoughtful and approachable. I slowly sipped on a pint of eight dollar lager to uphold my masculinity. Gaca showed up ten minutes late with a decided “I just woke up in Bushwick and put something random on” vibe. She was clearly unprepared for the date, although I recognized her look of performative impoverishment from pictures I had seen of her on the Internet.

There was a time in which a date with a Pitchfork contributor was a monument years in the making, but, on my date with her, Gaca asked me to be satisfied with everyday beauty. When I stood up to say hello and offer a pre-conversational hug, sniffing up the gastropub’s jasmine air, Gaca punched me in the face and loosened one of my bicuspids. “I’m only here because of Chuck,” she said. Fair enough. If it had not been for Mr. Woolery’s ongoing campaign to steal back his hosting job from Andy Cohen, the two of us clearly wouldn’t be there. Gaca appeared to be emulating the pugilism of early-1990s riot grrrl bands, but without any of the subtle hooks of Bikini Kill or Heavens to Betsy. Her blunt uppercut to my jaw was, shortly after I recovered from the painful sting, without the vibrancy of purposeful fourth-wave feminism. No startling changeups. Not even an improvised kick to the shin. Just a mild act of distracting violence intended to disguise the truth that Gaca wasn’t very interesting at all.

Gaca wore a faded gray Bernie Sanders T-shirt, a wool coat that Gaca described as “twee as fuck” (in the summer?), and her bangs, as I anticipated, dangled below her eyes with a slovenly recklessness, cloaked by onyx sunglasses that suggested one too many lines snorted up her beak the night before. Imagine someone who had studied Diane Keaton circa 1975 a little too closely and mish-mashed this aesthetic with the disheveled garb of a starving Pratt student heavily into Gothic punk and you have some idea of the walking sartorial disaster known as Anna Gaca.

Gaca then handed me a tracklist. The date was apparently going to be divided into seventeen songs. I appreciated this self-aware, scaled-back approach to dating. It had the makings of a meaningful concept album, but was very disappointing in the execution. Gaca’s first track was “Let Me Tell You About Myself,” a tedious trance-like number in which Gaca relied too much on stilted hand gestures while offering general details about her interests. Lots of cliched talk about preferred television shows, memes, and, strangely enough, real estate. It was all very tedious. But then Gaca has been putting out material like this for several years. Longtime Gaca collaborator Puja Patel’s sinister influence was all over this track, as Gaca droned on and on about how Pitchfork was a force to be feared.

The sheer pretentiousness of this opening track could not prepare me for the blathering second track, “I Drink to Avoid My Problems,” which Gaca performed noisily while downing two vodka shots. I had seen such casual alcoholism before and had been there many times myself. But there was nothing especially interesting here. Gaca cleaved to this dirge of self-loathing and self-pity with all the inflexibility of a hot yoga teacher refusing to crack open the window on a summer day. Several people in the bar offered me looks of remorse and sympathy.

The most promising track on the Gaca date was “I’m Going to Tell You Something Personal,” in which Gaca briefly opened up about herself. Some story involving a turtle in third grade that I found slightly moving. Even so, the track’s late placement wasn’t enough to salvage her disastrous set. To date Gaca is to not feel a tug on your sleeve or a stare directly into your eyes. As a potential lover, Gaca feels like she’s doing far less than she’s capable of.

When I went to pay the bill, I couldn’t help but feel an overwhelming sense of disappointment. So many promising women in Brooklyn to date and I had to endure a pedestrian misanthrope? Had I really landed into some trouble with my dentist over a potential romance as dull and as tepid as Gaca? When I told Mr. Woolery about what had happened the next morning, his forceful chortle was a lonely bleat adding yet another layer to my COVID-enhanced depression. The implication you get on a date with Gaca is that she does not want to do this, not like this, forever; that true happiness is beyond her understanding, no matter how many times she drops chintzy phrases like “deep blue shadow over the water” in her overwrought, purposeless, and mean-spirited writing.

Is Anna Gaca the Worst Writer Ever?

To read a piece of needlessly hostile “journalism” is to be a victim of circumstance — of unimaginative hyperbole, petty music nerd hatred completely disproportionate to, oh say, Trump’s racist speech last night, and other mediums where faux sophistication is derived from an outrageous sentiment, and does this fucking sentence ever end, and are there even copy editors at Spin to confiscate the endless clauses and the glaringly atrocious syntax, and is this even a sentence or a question. Spin regrets the error.

I could spend the rest of this essay thoroughly satirizing Anna Gaca’s hate-infested piece on Imagine Dragons. It’s easy as hell. But I won’t.

You probably came here for a hit piece. You came to follow the rabbit hole. You came to fritter away your time, perhaps seeking an inconsequential expression of enmity to make you feel superior to other people. Especially famous ones.

Well, I’d like you to consider instead a strain of Internet vitriol that you may very well be participating in, recently seen in a warped attack on the band Imagine Dragons.

Now I like Imagine Dragons. I’m far from a hardcore fan. Imagine Dragons is never my first or even my ninety-eighth choice when listening to music. But I have performed their song “Whatever It Takes” at karaoke to appreciative audiences. Imagine Dragons is a completely mainstream but perfectly respectable pop rock band. What was the band’s crime against humanity? To be successful and thus played everywhere. In supermarkets. On Lyft rides. On radio stations. I once heard “Radioactive” on the telephone while I was on hold. The band’s offense is to be inoffensive. Ubiquitously inoffensive.

So when the band bombed on Monday night during a college football halftime show in Santa Clara, California, the Internet pounced on Imagine Dragons and singer Dan Reynolds as if the new Nickelback had at long last emerged from some demonic realm beneath the earth. It was aided and abetted by Ms. Gaca’s Spin article, which gave many license to hate further upon a band that had done nothing wrong other than perform a bad set and have its music played over speakers seemingly against the public’s will. Or, as Ms. Gaca herself phrased it:

Since 2012’s breakthrough “Radioactive,” dynamics have been their blunt-force instrument of choice, each new single crashing through the hyperreality of pop radio to pound another bland hook into a powerless public.

The hyperbole here, driven by words like “blunt-force,” “crashing,” “pound,” and “powerless,” is truly ridiculous. First off, the public is not “powerless.” They can choose to not listen to Imagine Dragons. They can refuse to buy Imagine Dragons’s albums or see them live. They can politely ask the Lyft driver to turn the radio off if Imagine Dragons comes “crashing through.” I’ve done this myself with other bands. It neither impacted my Lyft rating nor did it result in acrimony. Furthermore, what could be more pedestrian and quotidian than pop radio? There is nothing “hyperreal” whatsoever about listening to Mark Ronson’s “Uptown Funk” for the fifty-seventh time while grocery shopping. It is far from surreal and it is about as normal as you can get. To summon this bizarre level of rage and to suggest that there has been some violent imposition comparable to being viciously attacked in the streets by a thug are the telltale marks of a writer incapable of conveying a reasonable opinion.

Every band has an off gig. Every person has an off day. There isn’t a human being walking this earth who hasn’t made a mistake. And if you’re the kind of person who is just waiting for someone you despise to screw up, what does this say about you? Wouldn’t that time be better spent creating or making something? Or perhaps basking in culture that you enjoy or hanging out with friends that you do like?

I can’t imagine the level of pressure on someone like Dan Reynolds to be flawless at all times. But I really warmed up to the guy after seeing his Instagram videos:

X

A post shared by Daniel Coulter Reynolds (@danreynolds) on

View this post on Instagram

O

A post shared by Daniel Coulter Reynolds (@danreynolds) on

In these three videos, Reynolds is honest, sensitive, kind, strong, and objectively decent. How could you hate the guy? Even if you don’t like Imagine Dragons. He is, in short, a human being.

As for Anna Gaca, I don’t hate her at all. But I now know who she is and how she writes. And if I ever see her byline on an article, I’m not going to read it.

But I will still listen to Imagine Dragons.

1/10/2019 UPDATE: Hyperbole would appear to beget hyperbole. Writer Ed Burmilia has actually compared Anna Gaca’s hit piece to H.L. Mencken’s famous obituary of William Jennings Bryan.

I realize that Burmilia is nobly sticking up for a fellow media colleague. But there is a salient difference between the two writers. Mencken used tangible examples to uphold his opinion, such as Bryan’s waffling on Prohibition, whereas Gaca invents bizarre conspiracies such as the “‘recognizable young rock band’ benefits plan.” (And the original version of Gaca’s piece contained a prominent factual error about the Grammy Awards, which was later corrected by Spin.) Imagine Dragons, much like anything, is fair game for criticism. The question here is why the band requires such an extraordinarily aggro response completely disproportionate to its professed sins.

Mencken: “But what of his life? Did he accomplish any useful thing? Was he, in his day, of any dignity as a man, and of any value to his fellow-men? I doubt it. Bryan, at his best, was simply a magnificent job-seeker. The issues that he bawled about usually meant nothing to him. He was ready to abandon them whenever he could make votes by doing so, and to take up new ones at a moment’s notice. For years he evaded Prohibition as dangerous; then he embraced it as profitable. At the Democratic National Convention last year he was on both sides, and distrusted by both. In his last great battle there was only a baleful and ridiculous malignancy. If he was pathetic, he was also disgusting.”

Gaca: “And there’s hardly a safer way to hold market share than being traditional enough to capitalize on the Recording Academy’s ‘recognizable young rock band’ benefits plan (they were nominated for two more Grammys in 2018), yet flexible enough to bend wherever the whims of popularity dictate.”