Review: Jennie's Lollapalooza debut offers ‘Ruby’ gems but a bit too much new material to fully grab on to 58%

By Selena Fragassi65%

8/1/2026, 9:08:14 PM

BS Summary: This article contains 24 faulty reasoning types, including Negativity Bias, Hasty Generalization, and Confirmation Bias, with Biased Writer Voice as the most egregious example at 44.6% saturation with 383 hits. Analysis detected 1,721 faulty-reasoning hits from 858 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 47.9% and a BS Rank of 58% (11,841 of 28,112 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 57.90% of the article peer group.

The smell of kerosene at the start of Jennie’s set should’ve been the first clue something was off. 
It was just a natural byproduct of using massive fireballs at the top of the show  to give the dramatic effect of “burning” a red curtain that eventually dropped to unveil the South Korean singer. 
But in hindsight it felt symbolic of a performance that lacked fire early on. 
Hopes were high for Jennie, who was making her festival debut, marking the first time a female solo K-pop star headlined Lolla. 
She followed the long line of contemporaries who have dominated the festival in recent years, from NewJeans and TWICE in 2023 and 2025, respectively, to i-DLE, who performed on Friday. 
But unlike the strong ensembles that have taken the stage as a unit, Jennie appeared to struggle on her own, especially compared to the times she’s been more dynamic with her girl group Blackpink . 
Last summer, when the quartet took on Soldier Field, Jennie was an integral part of the production, both in group numbers and her solo bits. 
At Lollapalooza, that shine dulled at times as the scale of the main stage and a dizzying number of skilled dancers and male pages that helped her with costume changes and ascending/descending stairs overpowered her. 
Adding to the issue was an unbalanced sound mix that awkwardly tuned up her vocals, making the output sound flat in spots and pointed out any flaws, though minor. 
Jennie performs on the Bud Light Stage on the third day of Lollapalooza in Grant Park on Saturday. 
Candace Dane Chambers/Sun-Times 
The effect was most apparent on “Dracula,” Jennie’s song with Tame Impala, where a blend of her singing and a recording of Tame Impala’s Kevin Parker sounded like little more than glorified karaoke. 
Last week, the two artists joined forces in Boston and performed the song live together for the first time. 
It would’ve been a great add-on to Jennie’s Lollapalooza set, too, which lacked in the surprise collaborations that have been dominating other headlining performances this weekend. 
But there were moments when Jennie still held her own. 
In just a brief one-hour set, the star packed in most of the gems off “Ruby,” her 2025 solo debut, with the support of live musicians. 
Among the highlights were pop anthem “Mantra,” the feminist chorale “ExtraL” and the hip-hop bullet “Like Jennie,” the latter a true high point of the set as the singer proved why she was tapped as a headliner in the first place. 
Even a year later, the album remains a strong entrant in the current pop canon, full of dynamite collaborations with Doechii, Dua Lipa, Childish Gambino and Kali Uchis, and showing Jennie’s wide range as a rapper on “Filter” to R&B/pop star on “Love Hangover” to balladeer on slowed-down numbers such as “Starlight” and “Seoul City.” 
Jennie performs on the Bud Light Stage on the third day of Lollapalooza in Grant Park on Saturday. 
Candace Dane Chambers/Sun-Times 
She only has so much material at the moment to make up a full headlining spot, and Jennie mined the gap with a small suite of new and unreleased music, including songs “Heaven,” “Lock It Down” and “Sweet Tooth,” adding lyrics to the screen to help the audience engage with the material (the hardcore fans in the front were eating it up but the rest of the crowd seemed to check out). 
Some of the songs  like “Less Than a Lover,” released July 24  had some time to sink in with fans, but there was too much space given to the unknown music for the masses to fully grab onto in the same way as her marquee hits. 
Jennie’s crowd at the Bud Light stage was already on the thin side to begin with as she was up against Grammy Best New Artist Olivia Dean, who headlined on the other side of Grant Park. 
But more people started to trickle out during the parade of new songs, not able to sing or dance along to the numbers, which is of course a predominant part of the K-pop experience. 
Still, Jennie was grateful for the experience and for making Lollapalooza history. 
“It has been a full journey to get here,” she said before closing out the set. 
“What a beautiful night we got together.” 
For more on Lollapalooza: 
Lollapalooza 2026 kicks off in Grant Park  Day 1, what to know 
Photos: Lorde, John Summit headline Lollapalooza Day 1 
Ahead of Lollapalooza performance, Charli xcx meets fans for a chat at Reckless Records 
Review: Sombr , with margarita in hand, struts into Lollapalooza like he owns the place 
Elizabeth Nichols dropped out of law school to pursue her music career after viral hits. 
Can she make the leap to mainstream success? 
Photos: What we saw at Lollapalooza Day 2 
Review: Lorde opens woman-forward Lollapalooza with a powerful set and Charli xcx duet 
Heavy rain is expected at Lollapalooza. 
Here’s what to know. 
Dracula (song with Tame Impala) 
With The Ie (Way Up) 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 15.4%Selena Fragassi: 2.8%Chicago Sun-Times: 2.6%Confirmation Bias15.4%This article: 2.1%Selena Fragassi: 0.2%Chicago Sun-Times: 0.5%Anchoring Bias2.1%This article: 3.8%Selena Fragassi: 3.1%Chicago Sun-Times: 2.4%Availability Heuristic3.8%This article: 3.5%Selena Fragassi: 1.1%Chicago Sun-Times: 0.7%Representativeness Heuristic3.5%This article: 1.6%Selena Fragassi: 1.3%Chicago Sun-Times: 0.7%Hindsight Bias1.6%This article: 4.2%Selena Fragassi: 1.7%Chicago Sun-Times: 0.8%Overconfidence Bias4.2%This article: 2.2%Selena Fragassi: 3.3%Chicago Sun-Times: 3.9%Framing Effect2.2%This article: 0.0%Selena Fragassi: 0.0%Chicago Sun-Times: 0.6%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 0.0%Selena Fragassi: 0.9%Chicago Sun-Times: 0.6%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 8.4%Selena Fragassi: 0.6%Chicago Sun-Times: 0.2%Sunk Cost Effect8.4%This article: 7.8%Selena Fragassi: 1.7%Chicago Sun-Times: 2.3%Optimism Bias7.8%This article: 3.0%Selena Fragassi: 1.0%Chicago Sun-Times: 1.2%Pessimism Bias3.0%This article: 29.4%Selena Fragassi: 4.0%Chicago Sun-Times: 6.4%Negativity Bias29.4%This article: 0.0%Selena Fragassi: 0.8%Chicago Sun-Times: 1.4%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 8.0%Selena Fragassi: 1.4%Chicago Sun-Times: 1.0%Fundamental Attribution Error8.0%This article: 4.1%Selena Fragassi: 0.4%Chicago Sun-Times: 0.1%Actor-Observer Bias4.1%This article: 0.0%Selena Fragassi: 2.0%Chicago Sun-Times: 1.1%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Selena Fragassi: 0.2%Chicago Sun-Times: 0.2%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 4.8%Selena Fragassi: 8.2%Chicago Sun-Times: 2.4%Halo Effect4.8%This article: 0.0%Selena Fragassi: 0.2%Chicago Sun-Times: 0.1%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Selena Fragassi: 0.0%Chicago Sun-Times: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 2.9%Selena Fragassi: 1.7%Chicago Sun-Times: 1.3%Recency Bias2.9%This article: 2.6%Selena Fragassi: 0.6%Chicago Sun-Times: 0.3%Primacy Effect2.6%This article: 0.0%Selena Fragassi: 0.0%Chicago Sun-Times: 0.0%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Selena Fragassi: 0.0%Chicago Sun-Times: 0.6%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Selena Fragassi: 0.0%Chicago Sun-Times: 0.2%Straw Man0.0%This article: 0.0%Selena Fragassi: 1.5%Chicago Sun-Times: 2.1%Appeal to Authority0.0%This article: 4.0%Selena Fragassi: 1.1%Chicago Sun-Times: 1.2%False Dilemma4.0%This article: 0.0%Selena Fragassi: 0.2%Chicago Sun-Times: 0.5%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Selena Fragassi: 0.3%Chicago Sun-Times: 0.1%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 19.2%Selena Fragassi: 5.4%Chicago Sun-Times: 3.7%Hasty Generalization19.2%This article: 0.0%Selena Fragassi: 0.0%Chicago Sun-Times: 0.1%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%Selena Fragassi: 0.5%Chicago Sun-Times: 0.5%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 4.8%Selena Fragassi: 3.2%Chicago Sun-Times: 4.3%Appeal to Emotion4.8%This article: 0.0%Selena Fragassi: 0.3%Chicago Sun-Times: 0.7%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 7.7%Selena Fragassi: 2.4%Chicago Sun-Times: 1.9%Post Hoc (False Cause)7.7%This article: 0.0%Selena Fragassi: 0.0%Chicago Sun-Times: 0.1%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%Selena Fragassi: 0.1%Chicago Sun-Times: 0.3%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%Selena Fragassi: 0.3%Chicago Sun-Times: 0.0%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 4.0%Selena Fragassi: 0.7%Chicago Sun-Times: 0.3%Composition/Division4.0%This article: 8.4%Selena Fragassi: 4.3%Chicago Sun-Times: 2.4%Anecdotal8.4%This article: 0.0%Selena Fragassi: 0.0%Chicago Sun-Times: 0.0%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 4.1%Selena Fragassi: 1.2%Chicago Sun-Times: 1.0%Ambiguity (Equivocation)4.1%This article: 0.0%Selena Fragassi: 0.0%Chicago Sun-Times: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Selena Fragassi: 0.0%Chicago Sun-Times: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Selena Fragassi: 0.0%Chicago Sun-Times: 0.0%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Selena Fragassi: 0.2%Chicago Sun-Times: 0.1%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Selena Fragassi: 0.0%Chicago Sun-Times: 0.1%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Selena Fragassi: 1.0%Chicago Sun-Times: 1.2%Unattributed Quote0.0%This article: 0.0%Selena Fragassi: 0.4%Chicago Sun-Times: 0.6%Quote-first Misdirection0.0%This article: 44.6%Selena Fragassi: 17.2%Chicago Sun-Times: 3.8%Biased Writer Voice44.6%This article: 0.0%Selena Fragassi: 0.8%Chicago Sun-Times: 1.6%Indoctrination0.0%This article: 0.0%Selena Fragassi: 0.1%Chicago Sun-Times: 0.9%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Selena Fragassi: 0.0%Chicago Sun-Times: 0.1%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Selena Fragassi: 1.2%Chicago Sun-Times: 0.6%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

858 words analyzed.

Speakers

No attributed speakers were identified in this analysis.

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

Hover over highlighted words in the article to view the associated bias or fallacy analysis.