WBEZ28%

Review: Lorde opens woman-forward Lollapalooza with a powerful set and Charli xcx duet 68%

By Selena Fragassi65%

7/31/2026, 8:48:27 AM

BS Summary: This article contains 26 faulty reasoning types, including Anecdotal, Framing Effect, and Appeal to Emotion, with Biased Writer Voice as the most egregious example at 26.5% saturation with 183 hits. Analysis detected 1,112 faulty-reasoning hits from 690 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 53.4% and a BS Rank of 68% (9,417 of 28,781 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 67.30% of the article peer group.

All it took was hearing the world “Girl” repeated a few times to know what was coming next. 
Rumors had been swirling all day that Charli xcx was going to pop up in Lorde’s set, especially with the “Brat” star teasing as much in a Reckless Records in-store appearance earlier in the day. 
Still, no one seemed prepared for it to actually happen. 
As the two electro pop queens launched into a hot take duet of “Girl, So Confusing,” the crowd absolutely erupted with shock and awe. 
When it was released in 2024, Charli’s song was an open letter about being compared to another woman in the music industry, specifically Lorde, but tonight it took on new meaning. 
Seeing the two join forces on the track and end with a sincere embrace was symbolic of the whole Lollapalooza weekend. 
With a bill dominated by women artists, the collab was the ultimate display of girl power and set the standard for all the other unexpected bits to come over the weekend. 
For Lorde, it was also one more way to help “complete the circle” of her Lolla journey that began in 2014 when she was just 17. 
Then, in 2017, she returned for a set that got cut short due to weather. 
Nearly a decade later, she finally owned the moment Thursday night with a masterful performance that showed how far she has come. 
Lorde performs in the rain on day one of Lollapalooza in Grant Park, Thursday, Aug. 
3, 2017. 
Ashlee Rezin/Chicago Sun-Times 
Lorde slipped in abbreviated takes of the songs she knew she had to, like “Royals,” to allow time for the other material she wanted to really focus on, particularly from her latest album “Virgin.” 
The record is a stark body of work about bodily autonomy and personal rebirth, and Lorde laid herself bare on songs like “Broken Glass” (about an eating disorder), pairing it with a set that was just as raw and stripped back. 
She also went "way back” with early cuts like “Buzzcut Season” and “Ribs.” 
And she also had the opportunity to finally do “The Louvre,” the song she was apparently “most looking forward” to performing at Lolla in 2017 before the weather interrupted. 
Beyond the well-curated set list, at the heart of the performance was a rumination on humanity trapped in a world that seems to keep wanting to sterilize existence. 
The New Zealander started the 20-song suite hooked up to machines that were monitoring her vitals while video screens took a bird’s eye view of the dizzying amount of electronics on the stage that produced the night’s synth explosion. 
Symbolically, though, the juxtaposition felt like the ultimate clash of people vs. robots. 
Lorde has often talked about her disdain for AI  taking Meta Glasses and Spotify to task in recent diatribes  and she opened up on her stance in her Lolla set, too. 
“The future looks a little bit different than I imagined. 
It’s harder and darker. 
I dream about fire all the time now, and I’m scared. 
But us meeting up and dancing and crying and singing to each other, that is one of the best ways I have to feel alive,” she told the crowd. 
“I’m sorry to say it’s going to get harder and darker, but we can stay awake, we can stay alive . . . 
I want you to ask yourself every day, am I acting trapped or do I wish I could be acting free?” 
The speech was part necessity  Lorde was trying to buy time and give security a chance to attend to fans in the crowd who kept passing out from a combination of the day’s high temps and the wall of bodies that were pressed up near the stage. 
But it also felt right on cue as a takeaway for caring about each other in these dire times. 
“We gotta stay awake in this moment . . . it’s ours and it’s beautiful,” she added. 
“And I promise I’ll keep singing to you through all of it.” 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 2.8%Selena Fragassi: 2.8%Chicago Sun-Times: 1.6%Confirmation Bias2.8%This article: 0.0%Selena Fragassi: 0.2%Chicago Sun-Times: 0.4%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 4.9%Selena Fragassi: 3.1%Chicago Sun-Times: 2.0%Availability Heuristic4.9%This article: 0.0%Selena Fragassi: 1.1%Chicago Sun-Times: 0.6%Representativeness Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%Selena Fragassi: 1.3%Chicago Sun-Times: 0.2%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 3.2%Selena Fragassi: 1.7%Chicago Sun-Times: 0.5%Overconfidence Bias3.2%This article: 9.0%Selena Fragassi: 3.3%Chicago Sun-Times: 3.4%Framing Effect9.0%This article: 0.0%Selena Fragassi: 0.0%Chicago Sun-Times: 0.5%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 0.0%Selena Fragassi: 0.9%Chicago Sun-Times: 0.5%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Selena Fragassi: 0.6%Chicago Sun-Times: 0.2%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Selena Fragassi: 1.7%Chicago Sun-Times: 2.1%Optimism Bias0.0%This article: 5.4%Selena Fragassi: 1.0%Chicago Sun-Times: 1.0%Pessimism Bias5.4%This article: 5.1%Selena Fragassi: 4.0%Chicago Sun-Times: 4.2%Negativity Bias5.1%This article: 0.0%Selena Fragassi: 0.8%Chicago Sun-Times: 1.1%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 7.0%Selena Fragassi: 1.4%Chicago Sun-Times: 0.6%Fundamental Attribution Error7.0%This article: 0.0%Selena Fragassi: 0.4%Chicago Sun-Times: 0.1%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 4.5%Selena Fragassi: 2.0%Chicago Sun-Times: 0.9%In-Group Bias4.5%This article: 0.0%Selena Fragassi: 0.2%Chicago Sun-Times: 0.2%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 4.5%Selena Fragassi: 8.2%Chicago Sun-Times: 2.1%Halo Effect4.5%This article: 0.0%Selena Fragassi: 0.2%Chicago Sun-Times: 0.0%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Selena Fragassi: 0.0%Chicago Sun-Times: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 3.2%Selena Fragassi: 1.7%Chicago Sun-Times: 0.8%Recency Bias3.2%This article: 4.8%Selena Fragassi: 0.6%Chicago Sun-Times: 0.3%Primacy Effect4.8%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: 0.2%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Selena Fragassi: 0.0%Chicago Sun-Times: 0.1%Straw Man0.0%This article: 5.9%Selena Fragassi: 1.5%Chicago Sun-Times: 2.3%Appeal to Authority5.9%This article: 7.8%Selena Fragassi: 1.1%Chicago Sun-Times: 0.8%False Dilemma7.8%This article: 3.3%Selena Fragassi: 0.2%Chicago Sun-Times: 0.5%Slippery Slope3.3%This article: 3.8%Selena Fragassi: 0.3%Chicago Sun-Times: 0.1%Circular Reasoning3.8%This article: 1.4%Selena Fragassi: 5.4%Chicago Sun-Times: 2.3%Hasty Generalization1.4%This article: 0.0%Selena Fragassi: 0.0%Chicago Sun-Times: 0.1%Red Herring0.0%This article: 4.5%Selena Fragassi: 0.5%Chicago Sun-Times: 0.2%Bandwagon4.5%This article: 8.7%Selena Fragassi: 3.2%Chicago Sun-Times: 3.7%Appeal to Emotion8.7%This article: 2.8%Selena Fragassi: 0.3%Chicago Sun-Times: 0.3%Begging the Question2.8%This article: 7.0%Selena Fragassi: 2.4%Chicago Sun-Times: 1.5%Post Hoc (False Cause)7.0%This article: 0.0%Selena Fragassi: 0.0%Chicago Sun-Times: 0.0%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%Selena Fragassi: 0.1%Chicago Sun-Times: 0.2%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%Selena Fragassi: 0.3%Chicago Sun-Times: 0.1%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 7.1%Selena Fragassi: 0.7%Chicago Sun-Times: 0.2%Composition/Division7.1%This article: 11.0%Selena Fragassi: 4.3%Chicago Sun-Times: 2.0%Anecdotal11.0%This article: 0.0%Selena Fragassi: 0.0%Chicago Sun-Times: 0.0%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 8.7%Selena Fragassi: 1.2%Chicago Sun-Times: 0.8%Ambiguity (Equivocation)8.7%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: 1.4%Selena Fragassi: 1.0%Chicago Sun-Times: 0.8%Unattributed Quote1.4%This article: 0.0%Selena Fragassi: 0.4%Chicago Sun-Times: 0.5%Quote-first Misdirection0.0%This article: 26.5%Selena Fragassi: 17.2%Chicago Sun-Times: 3.1%Biased Writer Voice26.5%This article: 7.0%Selena Fragassi: 0.8%Chicago Sun-Times: 1.0%Indoctrination7.0%This article: 0.0%Selena Fragassi: 0.1%Chicago Sun-Times: 0.4%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: 1.0%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

690 words analyzed.

Speakers

1speaker18%attributed speech563writer words
Selected voice

Lorde

100%flagged-word coverage
127 attributed words100% of attributed speech79% writer coverage
0%20.0%40.0%Indoctrination+37.8 ptsWriter: 0.0%Lorde: 37.8%37.8%Biased Writer Voice-32.5 ptsWriter: 32.5%Lorde: 0.0%0.0%Unattributed Quote+7.9 ptsWriter: 0.0%Lorde: 7.9%7.9%

Attribution is sentence-level. Pattern percentages are calculated only from words assigned to that voice.

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

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