Think there could be a few reasons for the tone of her initial review, little of which has to do with true condescension. First, you have to take her pedigree into account. She's been around for a good long while, played with a cast that includes Devendra Banhart, Sharon Van Etten and Phosphorescent. She's put out two records under the Lower Dens moniker, and has been touring her ass off since at least 2004. I read less true malintent in her King Krule review and more than a little frustration: after all, for all of her insider accolades, she enjoys little recognition within the broader scene. From this perspective, her treatment of Archy Marshall (you show promise, but you're not there yet) is understandable, if not warranted on those grounds alone.

Secondly: she did temper what she said early on by pointing out that the most constructive reviews- and correspondingly the rarest- forego hyperbole for frank, un-dramatic appraisal. And that's exactly what she was trying to do. She never said "OMG THIS IS SHIT WHY IS EVERYBODY SO BLAH ABOUT BLAH," nor did she follow the more popular path of rolling out the red carpet for Marshall. If it comes off as condescending, it's because she's being honest without being intentionally mean-spirited, and supportive without being overly enthusiastic. That comes off as condescending, but I'm not sure it really is. When I think condescending, I think an album review that's just a picture of a monkey pissing in its own mouth. Funny, gets a lot of page views, adds nothing to the conversation.

Third: part of it might be that her ideas in the initial submission just aren't as developed as those in the following submission. Indirectly, her review is much more about the state of the hype cycle and a music business all too willing these days to leverage it at the cost of the musician's career arc. It's a fair point, and the one that I think you and I are gravitating towards the most.

Last point hearkens back to what you said:

Let's say I'm in a band and we're putting together our first album. We're just people doing this to make music and play shows, but somebody in a blog gets word of it and suddenly the hype cycle is in effect.

Totally agree with everything you said here. Band shouldn't get negative blowback purely for being swept up in the hype. However- a certain problem does arise, I think, when the band starts themselves believing the myth propagated by that very hype, starts equating their value and prowess to something totally peripheral to their actual work. That, to a degree, is what I get from Mr. Marshall- in interviews, he seems very much caught up in the Myth of Archy. Which even if he wasn't what 19 years old and just starting out, kind of cries out for a reality check. There's nothing inherently wrong with calling him out on that, saying, "you're very good, but you're not as great as the hype cycle paints you." Especially since the alternative is just allowing him to rest on his laurels and not try and hone his craft. Which I think is what Hunter was kind of saying.

Anyhow, I don't think it's a perfect review, but I do think there's some truth in it. It's also just interesting getting the vantage point of an artist I thoroughly admire (srsly, check out Twin Hand Movement holy jeez). Although like I said, I have to dig deeper into King Krule before I take either side with more than a couple grains of salt.