How Condé Nast bought and destroyed Pitchfork(semafor.com)
semafor.com
How Condé Nast bought and destroyed Pitchfork
https://www.semafor.com/article/02/04/2024/inside-conde-nasts-breakup-with-pitchfork
212 comments
At the time this was declared as a user base driven acquisition where Conde Nast assumed that the largely 20 to mid 30s male readership of Pitchfork would graduate to one of their traditional style publications once they came of age. Clearly it was misguided to assume that cash strapped college grads who grew up on mp3's and ramen would graduate to Eames chairs and Zegna fleeces without some VC backed lottery payout.
great TL;DR
This reminds me of Google under Marissa Mayer buying Zagat. Remember them?
Big company buys small company, dismembers it into little pieces controlled by managers who weren't fans of the acquisition and don't respect it -- it's an old story. The founder of the acquiree quits in frustration, etc. etc.
Big company buys small company, dismembers it into little pieces controlled by managers who weren't fans of the acquisition and don't respect it -- it's an old story. The founder of the acquiree quits in frustration, etc. etc.
The Zagats were paid $150M for their business. Whatever frustration they may have is cushioned by that payout.
That's them. For Conde, wasted money. As with Google.
As for Zagat, Tim told us he wanted a secure job for his people after he was gone. The jury is out on that one.
As for Zagat, Tim told us he wanted a secure job for his people after he was gone. The jury is out on that one.
Zagat was pretty small potatoes. It sorta made sense at a time when foodies was sort of an artisanal thing. Not sure Google even lost out on the buy.
This was 2011. Foodies were well past artisanal by then.
As for Google: 'splain me why it wasn't just $150M down the drain? Minus the undisclosed amount:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zagat
On March 6, 2018, Google sold the company to restaurant discovery platform The Infatuation for an undisclosed amount
As for Google: 'splain me why it wasn't just $150M down the drain? Minus the undisclosed amount:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zagat
On March 6, 2018, Google sold the company to restaurant discovery platform The Infatuation for an undisclosed amount
> This was 2011. Foodies were well past artisanal by then.
What does this mean?
What does this mean?
Wasn't clear, sorry.
In the evolution of popular tastes, being a foodie was not limited to a rarified minority who liked artisanal food.
In other words, dining out and reading about it had become a mainstream activity.
In the evolution of popular tastes, being a foodie was not limited to a rarified minority who liked artisanal food.
In other words, dining out and reading about it had become a mainstream activity.
Ah thanks. I agree. And I think this led to the subsequent devaluation of the term “artisanal” due to its wild overuse. I don’t remember seeing “artisanal” TV dinners when I was a bachelor in the 1990s!
I always have to laugh when there's a cheese plate at some midrange business hotel that describes it as artisinal.
Just ask "Who's the artisan? I want to go to his workshop!"
Watch the confusion.
Watch the confusion.
offal, I guess
The Zagat acquisition was not driven by Marissa, but another exec at Google Travel. When he was turfed out, that signaled the end for Zagat as well.
Even Wikipedia knows you're wrong.
Not to mention: I was there when she stood up and told us how she'd made the acquisition. I don't know who your information comes from, but stop listening to them.
Not to mention: I was there when she stood up and told us how she'd made the acquisition. I don't know who your information comes from, but stop listening to them.
Just because Marissa took the credit doesn't mean it was her idea.
since you seem to have some inside information that Wikipedia and all of us at Google were not privy to: who is the source?
Wikipedia says otherwise:
"On September 8, 2011, the company was acquired by Google for more than $150 million, the 10th largest acquisition by Google as of that date, at the championing of Marissa Mayer, its Vice President of Local, Maps, and Location Services."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zagat
"On September 8, 2011, the company was acquired by Google for more than $150 million, the 10th largest acquisition by Google as of that date, at the championing of Marissa Mayer, its Vice President of Local, Maps, and Location Services."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zagat
This sounds ridiculous because Google was never "under" Marissa Mayer. She wasn't the CEO, so ultimately it was up to someone else. And if anyone wants me to believe that someone other than the CEO was responsible for an acquisition, and such a perspective is anything but shifting the blame from the CEO, they're going to have to try really hard to make that argument. Harder than the maximum number of characters allowed in a single HN comment.
She was head of Local at the time, which included Maps. Since I was in Maps, I sat right around the corner from her. Her credibility as the original owner of the Search UI was off the charts, although she'd pissed off enough people by 2011 that she wasn't actually in charge of it anymore.
She introduced Tim and Nina and took full credit for it. If your point is that she must have gotten the OK from Larry, Sergey, and Eric -- no argument. Any big initiative has some champion, who depends on top management approval. That doesn't mean that the CEO is personally the driver of everything.
It would not have happened had she not pushed it. If you can't accept that, then we'll just have to call this discussion Done. I was there; you weren't.
She introduced Tim and Nina and took full credit for it. If your point is that she must have gotten the OK from Larry, Sergey, and Eric -- no argument. Any big initiative has some champion, who depends on top management approval. That doesn't mean that the CEO is personally the driver of everything.
It would not have happened had she not pushed it. If you can't accept that, then we'll just have to call this discussion Done. I was there; you weren't.
There's a difference between buying a media property to try to sell more content(/advertising) into its subscriberbase(/userbase), vs keeping it as a going concern. Or sometimes, companies acquire into newer markets to try to boost their valuations based on P/E ratio.
AOL-Time-Warner (1998) and then AOL-Time-Warner-Netscape (2001) spring to mind. Although those were all pre-Enron, pre-SarbOx valuations.
AOL-Time-Warner (1998) and then AOL-Time-Warner-Netscape (2001) spring to mind. Although those were all pre-Enron, pre-SarbOx valuations.
That's what they say in the C suite anyway.
The oxygen was pretty rarefied in 1999-2001. Maybe they used nitrous.
Vindigo with Zagat was peak mobile internet. It's been downhill since 2002.
I'm not getting the connection. This says Zingy, not Zagat.
https://www.crunchbase.com/organization/vindigo-inc
https://www.crunchbase.com/organization/vindigo-inc
Early versions of Vindigo showed Zagat reviews in restaurant info, later versions used Gayot.
I see Ars Technica taking a lot of flak in the comments but lawdy, they’re still pretty great and one of the news sources I actually pay for (full-text rss feeds are a nice bonus).
Just to pick a few of their writers who still kill it: Lee Hutchinson for anything sysadmin related, Eric Berger does the best space/rocket coverage on the entire internet, Jonathan Gitlin does a ton of in-depth automotive coverage and his passion for it bleeds through in every article, Andrew Cunningham’s insane macOS reviews that he took over from John Siracusa. I could go on but would basically be copy-pasting from their staff directory…
https://arstechnica.com/staff-directory/
If Condé Nast eventually kills the site so be it, but its been 16y since their acquisition and still a daily read for me.
Just to pick a few of their writers who still kill it: Lee Hutchinson for anything sysadmin related, Eric Berger does the best space/rocket coverage on the entire internet, Jonathan Gitlin does a ton of in-depth automotive coverage and his passion for it bleeds through in every article, Andrew Cunningham’s insane macOS reviews that he took over from John Siracusa. I could go on but would basically be copy-pasting from their staff directory…
https://arstechnica.com/staff-directory/
If Condé Nast eventually kills the site so be it, but its been 16y since their acquisition and still a daily read for me.
Their automotive industry coverage is pretty good, but their car reviews are pretty awful. I'm not sure what value they add to the automotive review world -- they could carve out a niche of very detailed infotainment reviews, for example, but they don't.
To me, it seems that word came down from high that "you must do auto reviews at Ars" and they are complying with the least amount of effort possible.
To me, it seems that word came down from high that "you must do auto reviews at Ars" and they are complying with the least amount of effort possible.
Jan 9, 2020, I was sitting in the break room scrolling through Ars when I read this article.
https://arstechnica.com/science/2020/01/never-before-seen-vi...
It scared the shit out of me. If it wasn't for Ars coverage, and specifically Beth Mole, I would have been caught up in the TP panic with everyone else. But I had stocked up early haha. What a weird time.
Does anyone remember a website with videos from China of people passing out in public and streets being cleared?
https://arstechnica.com/science/2020/01/never-before-seen-vi...
It scared the shit out of me. If it wasn't for Ars coverage, and specifically Beth Mole, I would have been caught up in the TP panic with everyone else. But I had stocked up early haha. What a weird time.
Does anyone remember a website with videos from China of people passing out in public and streets being cleared?
That last paragraph didn't age well:
Regardless of the cause, health experts in China are optimistic that the outbreak will be contained and that response efforts will be better than they were during the SARS outbreak. Xu Jianguo, a former top Chinese public health official, noted to The Washington Post in a report today, "More than a decade has passed. It's impossible for something like SARS to happen again."
Comedy gold.
Regardless of the cause, health experts in China are optimistic that the outbreak will be contained and that response efforts will be better than they were during the SARS outbreak. Xu Jianguo, a former top Chinese public health official, noted to The Washington Post in a report today, "More than a decade has passed. It's impossible for something like SARS to happen again."
Comedy gold.
That last paragraph though.
When did Peter Bright leave?
In 2019, after some pretty shocking charges: https://nypost.com/2020/03/19/ex-conde-nast-tech-reporter-pe...
All his old articles had their byline removed.
All his old articles had their byline removed.
Whoooooa, did not know this
Well there are signs. There have been less in depth articles in the past years.
And they have started pulling in the occasional Wired article, most of the time digital security fearmongering with zero to negative value. They're clearly marked as Wired on the front page now, I think because people complained, but I'm guessing Conde Nast is forcing them to keep pulling them, which is worrying.
I'm still paying for a subscription though.
And they have started pulling in the occasional Wired article, most of the time digital security fearmongering with zero to negative value. They're clearly marked as Wired on the front page now, I think because people complained, but I'm guessing Conde Nast is forcing them to keep pulling them, which is worrying.
I'm still paying for a subscription though.
The terms of the Conde's acquisition state they are not allowed to interfere with the operation of the site.
The depth of articles or the decision to pull in Wired content is strictly an editorial decision made by Ars editorial leadership.
The depth of articles or the decision to pull in Wired content is strictly an editorial decision made by Ars editorial leadership.
And editorial leadership isn't dependent on Condé for their employment?
No. It’s run as a separate company inside the company.
And technically Condé does not own Ars, Advance does. Different leadership group.
And technically Condé does not own Ars, Advance does. Different leadership group.
This company in a company idea reminds me of the classic "The Front Fell Off" sketch (3 minutes you won't regret on YouTube if you haven't seen). The oil executive explains that the leaking oil tanker is no longer in the environment--"It's been towed outside the environment."
Got a bridge to sell to you then. Or if you live at the north pole, a refrigerator?
Very insightful piece of analysis. Why don’t you email the Ars editors your theory that they are corporate Condé stooges and see what they say? As I mentioned in a sibling comment it’s actually Advance that owns Ars, not Condé, and it’s a different leadership group.
Here's more insightful analysis:
Go to the bottom of the Ars Technica page, behold the Conde Nast logo and the following text:
CNMN Collection WIRED Media Group © 2024 Condé Nast. All rights reserved. Use of and/or registration on any portion of this site constitutes acceptance of our User Agreement (updated 1/1/20) ... blah blah, no more company names.
They publicly wave around the Conde Nast name. Not Advance. Not anything else except WIRED.
Go to the bottom of the Ars Technica page, behold the Conde Nast logo and the following text:
CNMN Collection WIRED Media Group © 2024 Condé Nast. All rights reserved. Use of and/or registration on any portion of this site constitutes acceptance of our User Agreement (updated 1/1/20) ... blah blah, no more company names.
They publicly wave around the Conde Nast name. Not Advance. Not anything else except WIRED.
Your revised theory is that Ars is actually a Condé company because of the logo in the footer? Not sure that’s how corporate law works.
Take a minute and do some research. Advance owns Ars and the terms of the acquisition allow it to have total independence.
But again, I recommend you contact the Ars editors directly and share your theory that the Condé logo at the bottom of the page proves that they are in fact Condé stooges and have no editorial independence. See what they say. Their DMs are open.
Take a minute and do some research. Advance owns Ars and the terms of the acquisition allow it to have total independence.
But again, I recommend you contact the Ars editors directly and share your theory that the Condé logo at the bottom of the page proves that they are in fact Condé stooges and have no editorial independence. See what they say. Their DMs are open.
Do you have any opinions on the retro game value pumping scheme that ars had a few articles involved in it. I've only seen half sided pieces from them on those sorts of articles, I mentioned in the article having been made aware from a Karl Jobst video but they just tore me to shreds about the Karl getting canceled/nazi stuff. Like sure, he may or may not be whatever, but the information he put together was pretty convincing and didn't have anything to do with that.
Honestly I've felt Ars' community has been almost completely useless since the last update to the comments system. They removed the ability to tag comments with "Interesting" "Knowledgeable" "funny" whatever, I would just cut through the dunking on elon posts and get to the meat with top most knowledgeable.
Not to say that isn't a fun time to dunk on elon.
Honestly I've felt Ars' community has been almost completely useless since the last update to the comments system. They removed the ability to tag comments with "Interesting" "Knowledgeable" "funny" whatever, I would just cut through the dunking on elon posts and get to the meat with top most knowledgeable.
Not to say that isn't a fun time to dunk on elon.
TBH, Condé Nast can only be blamed for a small part of Pitchfork's fall. They've always been wildly inconsistent in their ratings and beholden to a few darling artists, and none of the acquisitions have improved this. Over time they've lost mostly to influencers.
I disagree, because I think the idiosyncratic aspect was way more of a feature than a bug of Pitchfork. The real purpose of Pitchfork was not to say which music was good or bad. It was to say which music is worth talking about, and it made itself the center of that conversation. Getting reviewed by Pitchfork was more important than getting a good review by Pitchfork. They were notorious for giving bad reviews to good music.
If you're familiar with pro wrestling / kayfabe, then Pitchfork was the heel. They provide something for fans to root against. Look at how much sympathy artists get from their fans when Pitchfork published a bad review. If they didn't think an album was worth talking about, they ignored it. It is worse to be ignored by Pitchfork than it is to get a 0.0 review consisting entirely of a video of a monkey urinating into his own mouth (Jet's 2006 "Shine On").
Music criticism had been corrupted and corporatized and in the way video game reviewing still is. Everything from the big labels got an above-average but not perfect score, so nothing really stood out. You couldn't really be all that critical. Music reviews were boring. Pitchfork shook that up precisely because they printed controversial reviews. And as you just admitted, that was there from the start, so it is not a reason for the fall.
You never knew what to expect out of Pitchfork, and that was why people followed it so closely. But nobody read Pitchfork the way HNers probably read Metacritic or Rotten Tomatoes. Neither reviewers or readers were trying to objectively identify the best music. The 0.0 to 10.0 rating is not intended to be a scalar vector or even quantitative; it is an opening to a conversation, expressed as a float.
If you're familiar with pro wrestling / kayfabe, then Pitchfork was the heel. They provide something for fans to root against. Look at how much sympathy artists get from their fans when Pitchfork published a bad review. If they didn't think an album was worth talking about, they ignored it. It is worse to be ignored by Pitchfork than it is to get a 0.0 review consisting entirely of a video of a monkey urinating into his own mouth (Jet's 2006 "Shine On").
Music criticism had been corrupted and corporatized and in the way video game reviewing still is. Everything from the big labels got an above-average but not perfect score, so nothing really stood out. You couldn't really be all that critical. Music reviews were boring. Pitchfork shook that up precisely because they printed controversial reviews. And as you just admitted, that was there from the start, so it is not a reason for the fall.
You never knew what to expect out of Pitchfork, and that was why people followed it so closely. But nobody read Pitchfork the way HNers probably read Metacritic or Rotten Tomatoes. Neither reviewers or readers were trying to objectively identify the best music. The 0.0 to 10.0 rating is not intended to be a scalar vector or even quantitative; it is an opening to a conversation, expressed as a float.
To me, a good review clearly explains why.
If Cheer2171 gives Casablanca a 2/5... okay?
But if it gets a 2/5 and an explanation that you thought the cinematography was hacky and the drama overwrought... that's cool.
I might like the cinematography and over-dramatic dialog!
110% agreed that too many reviews/critiques these days are milquetoast. Have an opinion that the reviwer is passionate about! And argue it fully and well!
There is no "right" in "like."
If Cheer2171 gives Casablanca a 2/5... okay?
But if it gets a 2/5 and an explanation that you thought the cinematography was hacky and the drama overwrought... that's cool.
I might like the cinematography and over-dramatic dialog!
110% agreed that too many reviews/critiques these days are milquetoast. Have an opinion that the reviwer is passionate about! And argue it fully and well!
There is no "right" in "like."
Speaking of video game reviews, that's why I've focused on Rock Paper Shotgun back in the day when they didn't do "reviews" but "Wot I think". Each article was an honest and earnest, detailed description of a human experience and their genuine thoughts. You wouldn't always agree with the reviews but it'd always be an interesting and informative read.
I haven't followed it in ages, but Critical Distance aggregates the kind of writing you're looking for: https://www.critical-distance.com/
What do you think of RPS now? I read your comment as implying you might not like RPS so much anymore, but I may have misunderstood.
RPS got bought out about five years ago and all of the old guard left. The new RPS is about 70% run-of-the-mill reporting that you can see anywhere, 10% awful promos for hardware sales, and 20% starry-eyed young journalists trying to emulate what RPS used to be.
Despite all that it’s still the best single site for gaming criticism, sadly.
Despite all that it’s still the best single site for gaming criticism, sadly.
I feel they still have some flavour they used to, but it got diluted. Partially it's the natural author / rehiewer turnover,Partially it's the volume of Deals and Hardware video articles and generic press release news. They don't even call them wot I think anymore :).
It's still the single gaming site I follow the most. But it's not quite as concentrated fun as it used to be.
Cannot speculate how much of that is due to being bought out and integrated a few years back. I think it's correlation as much as causation.
Some of the old gang have started their own things but they tend to be very niche.
It's still the single gaming site I follow the most. But it's not quite as concentrated fun as it used to be.
Cannot speculate how much of that is due to being bought out and integrated a few years back. I think it's correlation as much as causation.
Some of the old gang have started their own things but they tend to be very niche.
Sure, for example Roger Ebert's review of "Shallow Grave" complains that nobody he knows is anything like these characters. I'd watched and greatly enjoyed the movie by the time I read that review, but he's probably right. However all the people I lived with at the time were way too much like those characters.
I still think you might be missing the point of Pitchfork. Pitchfork is more about the cultural conversation around media than the content of that media. Take their 1.9 review of Tool's Lateralus [1], which was very positively reviewed at the time by most people who liked metal and prog rock, and has since become one of the most influential metal/prog albums. Most reviews of the album went something like: "If you don't like metal and prog rock, then you probably will hate this album, because it is a tour de force of these relatively unpopular genres. If you like metal and prog rock, then you probably will love it." Because that's pretty much all a reader needs to know.
Pitchfork's "review" does something completely different. It isn't really about Tool's music, it is about Tool's fans. The "review" is in two parts. The first part is some odd self-referential material that regular Pitchfork readers will recognize as signaling that a parody review is coming.
Then the second part is a parody review in the voice of a sixteen year old boy writing a class essay about his summer vacation for his high school English teacher. Except it isn't about his summer vacation, it is about how awesome this album released over the summer is compared to the pop and dance music that stupid girls listen to. It is intentionally parodying the most obnoxious teenage Tool fan you can think of, who thinks he is really smart and is a fan of music only intelligent people can appreciate, when in fact he is just attracted to an aesthetic at a surface level in the exact same way he criticizes of pop and dance music fans.
The review is so utterly positive about the album, but for reasons that have so little to do with the actual music. The positive review is positive for all the wrong reasons. It is not a commentary on the music, but on the fans of the music and the "I'm cool because I listen to something underground that most people would hate" attitude. It obsesses about the drummer's specialized technical equipment. It invents some ridiculous cosmic cycle that Really Good Music only comes once every 16 years, and we have been waiting for this album since Metallica released And Justice For All in 1987.
The point of the review is that if you're a fan of metal, Tool's Lateralus is a 10.0. If you don't like metal, which most people don't like, it is a 0.0. What other commentary about the music do we actually need? So they decided to use it as an opportunity to criticize the fans. It got a ton of attention and sparked a whole wave of meta-criticism about metal and if it is or isn't appropriate to criticize an artist for their fans, which is an eternal question in criticism that we are still having today.
[1] https://pitchfork.com/reviews/albums/8104-lateralus/
Pitchfork's "review" does something completely different. It isn't really about Tool's music, it is about Tool's fans. The "review" is in two parts. The first part is some odd self-referential material that regular Pitchfork readers will recognize as signaling that a parody review is coming.
Then the second part is a parody review in the voice of a sixteen year old boy writing a class essay about his summer vacation for his high school English teacher. Except it isn't about his summer vacation, it is about how awesome this album released over the summer is compared to the pop and dance music that stupid girls listen to. It is intentionally parodying the most obnoxious teenage Tool fan you can think of, who thinks he is really smart and is a fan of music only intelligent people can appreciate, when in fact he is just attracted to an aesthetic at a surface level in the exact same way he criticizes of pop and dance music fans.
The review is so utterly positive about the album, but for reasons that have so little to do with the actual music. The positive review is positive for all the wrong reasons. It is not a commentary on the music, but on the fans of the music and the "I'm cool because I listen to something underground that most people would hate" attitude. It obsesses about the drummer's specialized technical equipment. It invents some ridiculous cosmic cycle that Really Good Music only comes once every 16 years, and we have been waiting for this album since Metallica released And Justice For All in 1987.
The point of the review is that if you're a fan of metal, Tool's Lateralus is a 10.0. If you don't like metal, which most people don't like, it is a 0.0. What other commentary about the music do we actually need? So they decided to use it as an opportunity to criticize the fans. It got a ton of attention and sparked a whole wave of meta-criticism about metal and if it is or isn't appropriate to criticize an artist for their fans, which is an eternal question in criticism that we are still having today.
[1] https://pitchfork.com/reviews/albums/8104-lateralus/
It’s maybe worth mentioning that there have been many phases of Pitchfork over the years. That review would never be published today - the Pitchfork that wrote that review is already quite different from the scrappy 1997 Pitchfork (which probably had more in common with that 16 year old), and it’s miles removed from late-aughts/early 2010s Pitchfork (“peak Pitchfork”, perhaps, in terms of cultural clout), which was less snarky, more thoughtful, a little duller maybe…which itself is several steps away from the Pitchfork of today. Over the years the vibe has gone from “Chicago record store geek” to “Williamsburg hipster” to “Park Slope dad” to “underpaid TA in a first-year seminar on critical theory”, although the transition has always been gradual and vestiges of the past often remain.
This exactly; not a week goes by that the words "I am Ringo, elephant of Beatles Worship" (off an Of Montreal review by Matt LeMay) doesn't go through my head. But Pitchfork stopped being that long before Conde acquired them.
Similarly "I had never even seen a shooting star before" will always live rent-free in my head
I don't disagree with your first sentence but your last paragraph...uhhh.
1) Do you think there's nothing to say about this (or any other album) than "fans of the genre will like it and others will not"? There's plenty of insightful things to say both to familiar audiences and others.
2) Do you think this Tool review was the first (or even first larger scale) criticism of metal fans?
1) Do you think there's nothing to say about this (or any other album) than "fans of the genre will like it and others will not"? There's plenty of insightful things to say both to familiar audiences and others.
2) Do you think this Tool review was the first (or even first larger scale) criticism of metal fans?
> Most reviews of the album went something like: "If you don't like metal and prog rock, then you probably will hate this album, because it is a tour de force of these relatively unpopular genres. If you like metal and prog rock, then you probably will love it." Because that's pretty much all a reader needs to know.
...
> The point of the review is that if you're a fan of metal, Tool's Lateralus is a 10.0. If you don't like metal, which most people don't like, it is a 0.0. What other commentary about the music do we actually need? So they decided to use it as an opportunity to criticize the fans. It got a ton of attention and sparked a whole wave of meta-criticism about metal and if it is or isn't appropriate to criticize an artist for their fans, which is an eternal question in criticism that we are still having today.
So Pitchfork's review conveys the same thing as other reviews, but in a more obtuse way, and this makes it better?
...
> The point of the review is that if you're a fan of metal, Tool's Lateralus is a 10.0. If you don't like metal, which most people don't like, it is a 0.0. What other commentary about the music do we actually need? So they decided to use it as an opportunity to criticize the fans. It got a ton of attention and sparked a whole wave of meta-criticism about metal and if it is or isn't appropriate to criticize an artist for their fans, which is an eternal question in criticism that we are still having today.
So Pitchfork's review conveys the same thing as other reviews, but in a more obtuse way, and this makes it better?
A more contemporary example might be Rick and Morty.
Now R&M is an immensely popular show, but we all know there is a subsets of its fanbase who are intolerable and who unironically speak about this cartoon as being for people with high IQs. Now imagine if a contemporary publication published a review of the latest season and chose not too focus on the content but rather parody these fans. Fans of the show will watch the new season regardless of the rating and people who hate it won't, but both would get a chuckle out of a parody of that intolerable fan and for R&M they benefit either way by being mentioned. Further, as stated by previous commenter, this type of review opened up a conversation about whether a fanbase becomes a legitimate reason to dislike an artist/creation.
Also, if unfamiliar with Tool, check out any of their songs on YT and read the comments, you will understand the need for the parody.
Now R&M is an immensely popular show, but we all know there is a subsets of its fanbase who are intolerable and who unironically speak about this cartoon as being for people with high IQs. Now imagine if a contemporary publication published a review of the latest season and chose not too focus on the content but rather parody these fans. Fans of the show will watch the new season regardless of the rating and people who hate it won't, but both would get a chuckle out of a parody of that intolerable fan and for R&M they benefit either way by being mentioned. Further, as stated by previous commenter, this type of review opened up a conversation about whether a fanbase becomes a legitimate reason to dislike an artist/creation.
Also, if unfamiliar with Tool, check out any of their songs on YT and read the comments, you will understand the need for the parody.
> subsets of its fanbase who are intolerable
I hear this relentlessly but I can't say I have ever seen what this is first hand. If R&M comes up on r/television I don't see anything unusual. Where do people run into this fanbase?
I hear this relentlessly but I can't say I have ever seen what this is first hand. If R&M comes up on r/television I don't see anything unusual. Where do people run into this fanbase?
It's for the ladies' eyes only- and even then they have to demonstrate that they're within 5 IQ points of my own (preferably lower) beforehand. Nothin personnel kid
Apologies for the long quote but this goes some way in covering it;
>As fan communities now have endless forums and formats to debate and discuss, there’s been a shift from simply being a fan of something to somehow assuming ownership of it. The combination of Reddit boards and social media means internet die-hards begun viewing their roles not as passive viewers, but as active policers. Some critic doesn’t like the latest Marvel film that you’re pretty sure you’ll love? Get ’em.
>And this curious urge – worse in the sci-fi and superhero genres and infinitely worse in young male fans – has reached its nadir in the young, male sci-fi fandom of Rick And Morty.
>Even mentioning the show my colleagues at GQ provoked a response of mild disgust. They hadn’t seen it, one said, but had always been put off because of the fans. I know exactly what they mean. And it has only gotten worse.
>When, in a joke in the third-series premiere, Rick says his whole motivation isn’t to avenge anyone’s death, but was instead “driven by finding that McNugget sauce. That’s my series arc”, referring to a promotional Szechuan dipping sauce that McDonald’s used to sell in the late 1990s for a promotional tie-in with the movie Mulan, the fans took him at his word and the very next day began online petitions to demand its return. McDonald’s, never one to bypass free PR, announced a few months later the sauce would come back for a limited time. But it didn’t have enough for the demand, so the fans then protested – online and in person – and, in some cases, the police were called. To repeat: McDonald’s dipping sauce.
>If sauce entitlement is one thing, the fans took it to a whole new level by the end of the third series. The Rick And Morty writing room had always been a bro club and so creator Harmon had hired some new female comedy writers to even out the imbalance. The fans, convinced they were the cause of what they saw as a dip in quality in the third series, went after the new female writers online individually, abusing, threatening and slandering them on Twitter and creating Reddit threads just to smear them. They even doxed them, publishing their personal information online.
>And don’t just take my word for it. Even Harmon despises this sector of his own fandom.
>They want, he told Entertainment Weekly, “to protect the content they think they own – and somehow combine that with their need to be proud of something they have, which is often only their race or gender… I’ve made no bones about the fact that I loathe these people. It fucking sucks.”
The full article: https://www.gq-magazine.co.uk/culture/article/rick-and-morty...
>As fan communities now have endless forums and formats to debate and discuss, there’s been a shift from simply being a fan of something to somehow assuming ownership of it. The combination of Reddit boards and social media means internet die-hards begun viewing their roles not as passive viewers, but as active policers. Some critic doesn’t like the latest Marvel film that you’re pretty sure you’ll love? Get ’em.
>And this curious urge – worse in the sci-fi and superhero genres and infinitely worse in young male fans – has reached its nadir in the young, male sci-fi fandom of Rick And Morty.
>Even mentioning the show my colleagues at GQ provoked a response of mild disgust. They hadn’t seen it, one said, but had always been put off because of the fans. I know exactly what they mean. And it has only gotten worse.
>When, in a joke in the third-series premiere, Rick says his whole motivation isn’t to avenge anyone’s death, but was instead “driven by finding that McNugget sauce. That’s my series arc”, referring to a promotional Szechuan dipping sauce that McDonald’s used to sell in the late 1990s for a promotional tie-in with the movie Mulan, the fans took him at his word and the very next day began online petitions to demand its return. McDonald’s, never one to bypass free PR, announced a few months later the sauce would come back for a limited time. But it didn’t have enough for the demand, so the fans then protested – online and in person – and, in some cases, the police were called. To repeat: McDonald’s dipping sauce.
>If sauce entitlement is one thing, the fans took it to a whole new level by the end of the third series. The Rick And Morty writing room had always been a bro club and so creator Harmon had hired some new female comedy writers to even out the imbalance. The fans, convinced they were the cause of what they saw as a dip in quality in the third series, went after the new female writers online individually, abusing, threatening and slandering them on Twitter and creating Reddit threads just to smear them. They even doxed them, publishing their personal information online.
>And don’t just take my word for it. Even Harmon despises this sector of his own fandom.
>They want, he told Entertainment Weekly, “to protect the content they think they own – and somehow combine that with their need to be proud of something they have, which is often only their race or gender… I’ve made no bones about the fact that I loathe these people. It fucking sucks.”
The full article: https://www.gq-magazine.co.uk/culture/article/rick-and-morty...
Yes, but obtuse is probably not the right word.
When Apple launched iTunes in 2001 it destroyed the value of music reviews. Buying physical albums used to be expensive, and sometimes you would kind of get cheated. You would hear a banging single on the radio and buy the whole album only to realize that the other tracks were just filler. So, a review by a good critic could save you from wasting money on a low-effort album.
With iTunes and similar services, users can buy individual tracks instead of a whole album and listen to previews before they buy. Why waste time reading a review if you can listen yourself and decide whether it's worth buying? And now with the broad availability streaming services like Spotify, written reviews are even less valuable; you pay the same regardless of what you listen to so there's no financial risk of trying new music.
With iTunes and similar services, users can buy individual tracks instead of a whole album and listen to previews before they buy. Why waste time reading a review if you can listen yourself and decide whether it's worth buying? And now with the broad availability streaming services like Spotify, written reviews are even less valuable; you pay the same regardless of what you listen to so there's no financial risk of trying new music.
> I disagree, because I think the idiosyncratic aspect was way more of a feature than a bug of Pitchfork. The real purpose of Pitchfork was not to say which music was good or bad. It was to say which music is worth talking about, and it made itself the center of that conversation. Getting reviewed by Pitchfork was more important than getting a good review by Pitchfork. They were notorious for giving bad reviews to good music.
This was my view of it, I constantly found the reviewers irritating and I rarely paid much attention to the scores, it was just a good source to check out new, interesting music that wouldn't get any exposure anywhere else
This was my view of it, I constantly found the reviewers irritating and I rarely paid much attention to the scores, it was just a good source to check out new, interesting music that wouldn't get any exposure anywhere else
As someone who rarely visited pitchfork, this adds a lot of context, thank you
Music, even more so than film and TV, is incredibly subjective in terms of what you find to be good. Pitchfork has trashed a bunch of albums that I love and they've adored lots of music I find to be unlistenable. I suspect this has a lot to do with identity politics and other things that I really don't want being front and center in criticism of the arts. Perhaps I'm just a troglodyte.
Pitchfork was the way it was before the rise of identity politics in the 2010s. They’re inconsistent but they did document a lot of music over the past decades so I can’t be too mad at them.
> Pitchfork was the way it was before the rise of identity politics in the 2010s.
Is it really so implausible that a notoriously hip indie music blog would have been ahead of the curve on a cultural trend? Certainly some of the people who became big names in 2010s identity politics movements were writing on similar blogs a decade or more before their cultural moment (e.g. I didn't follow Pitchfork, but I remember Laurie Penny writing extensively for Freaky Trigger).
Is it really so implausible that a notoriously hip indie music blog would have been ahead of the curve on a cultural trend? Certainly some of the people who became big names in 2010s identity politics movements were writing on similar blogs a decade or more before their cultural moment (e.g. I didn't follow Pitchfork, but I remember Laurie Penny writing extensively for Freaky Trigger).
New York digital media was the epicenter so I wouldn't be surprised if it wasn't a factor, at least for the past few years. The Reply-All meltdown comes to mind.
WaxProlix(2)
Pitchfork was gone long before Conde. Back in 2011, they panned Childish Gambino's 4th release††, giving it a 16%†. Here's what Donald Glover had to say, 2 years before the Conde acquisition:
If I worked for Pitchfork, I wouldn't give myself a 9.0 either. They're a brand, they sell tickets to a show they put on every year. They're not going to give a 1.6 to someone who can be at their show and sell tickets. They're not the same publication that I grew up with anyway. It's changed, and that happens. Any good idea starts with a movement, becomes a business, and ends up a racket. And I'm not calling Pitchfork a racket, but they're a business.
† I'm not dignifying 0.0-10
†† I had called this his 4th album but this was his first LP
If I worked for Pitchfork, I wouldn't give myself a 9.0 either. They're a brand, they sell tickets to a show they put on every year. They're not going to give a 1.6 to someone who can be at their show and sell tickets. They're not the same publication that I grew up with anyway. It's changed, and that happens. Any good idea starts with a movement, becomes a business, and ends up a racket. And I'm not calling Pitchfork a racket, but they're a business.
† I'm not dignifying 0.0-10
†† I had called this his 4th album but this was his first LP
He also said he’d knock out Ian Cohen on sight if he saw him down LA Fitness after that review, man of many opinions lmao
A year or two I was browsing the Pitchfork "best songs of the 10's" and was rather confused that "This is America" wasn't on it. A long running feud explains it.
But eh, they're allowed to have "bad" opinions. Every critic I've remotely followed has strongly disagreed with me at times.
But eh, they're allowed to have "bad" opinions. Every critic I've remotely followed has strongly disagreed with me at times.
It's not that they didn't like Childish Gambino (I don't either), but rather that the idea that Pitchfork had long since sold its soul for access was already floating out there in the air years before the Conde buyout.
On the other hand, "If you buy only one hip-hop album this year, I’m guessing it’ll be Camp." is a sick burn.
On the other hand, "If you buy only one hip-hop album this year, I’m guessing it’ll be Camp." is a sick burn.
I circled back to the source, the italic stress on one
"If you buy only one hip-hop album this year, I’m guessing it’ll be Camp."
really sticks the landing.
https://pitchfork.com/reviews/albums/16074-camp/
Meanwhile, antipodeanally https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sr3iI8gg2fo never made it to Pitchfork just NME https://www.nme.com/en_au/reviews/album/king-stingray-album-...
"If you buy only one hip-hop album this year, I’m guessing it’ll be Camp."
really sticks the landing.
https://pitchfork.com/reviews/albums/16074-camp/
Meanwhile, antipodeanally https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sr3iI8gg2fo never made it to Pitchfork just NME https://www.nme.com/en_au/reviews/album/king-stingray-album-...
[deleted]
This is like blaming the stock market going up or down on the president. Conde Nast may have simply been the last one holding the "hot potato". In the face of social media platforms sucking the userbase away from blogs and traditional websites, can you really blame them? Does Chrome even have a way to follow RSS feeds, or do you need to install a shady plugin?
Partially, but can't go back in time and prove otherwise. When Conde Nast started buying up specialty like Bicycling, Outdoors, and Wired they transformed them into generic "lifestyle" magazines (10-15 years ago). I remember flipping through Bicycling and seeing 3 car advertisements before getting to the first that had anything to do with cycling and all the columns and editorials contained product pitches for personal care products("What I'm obsessed with this week!").
Would these magazines have survived without Conde Nast? I don't know. I know I stopped buying/reading/visiting websites of all of them soon after because I got bored seeing the same things regardless of the title. I guess the counterpoint would be any niche publication that is still doing well in today's publishing environment.
Would these magazines have survived without Conde Nast? I don't know. I know I stopped buying/reading/visiting websites of all of them soon after because I got bored seeing the same things regardless of the title. I guess the counterpoint would be any niche publication that is still doing well in today's publishing environment.
Conde Nast has never bought specialty mags, and doesn't own Outdoors or Bicycling.
It bought Wired mag (but not the online site) in like 1998.
The closest Conde Nast has now to a specialist site is Ars Technica, which it bought almost 20 years ago
It bought Wired mag (but not the online site) in like 1998.
The closest Conde Nast has now to a specialist site is Ars Technica, which it bought almost 20 years ago
Condé Nast turned Wired and Ars from being magazines for tech workers interested in long-form articles, into magazines for VC bros who want to read about Porsches and Burning Man. They became catalogues for Silicon Valley Money to keep in a rack next to the toilet.
And Ars is still great!
I read Ars multiple times a week. It's not Pulitzer-winning stuff, but certainly more thoughtful than The Verge. Can someone help me understand why it's being panned as losing quality?
It has monthly page view quotas for writers, which changes what gets covered.
It laid off or lost most of its best tech policy writers, including Joe Mullin, Cyrus Farivar, David Kravets, and Timothy B Lee.
It laid off or lost most of its best tech policy writers, including Joe Mullin, Cyrus Farivar, David Kravets, and Timothy B Lee.
it really isn't. but to be fair, it got a lot worse many years after the acquisition (2008), so it's hard to be certain whose fault it was.
Press X for doubt
Ars used to have interesting articles about novel intersections between technology and the law. Now it’s like a Sharper Image catalogue.
You are correct, it's a Hearst publication. Thought it was CN. Still, Hearst could be said to be doing the same thing: watering down niche publications in the name of synergy.
There's web-based readers that work in Chrome. After Google Reader died, I moved to Feedly which seems to still work alright.
There's also TheOldReader which is the same UI as Google Reader and works great.
I use InoReader - excellent and works quite nicely (even the free version).
Exactly. We always tend to blame the purchaser, but why not the seller? If their business was good and they cared about the product, why sell? And if the business was bad, can't blame they buyer, either.
To your second question: ethics, it turns out, aren't as powerful as a mountain of cash to ski down like Scrooge McDuck.
I guess I will now blindly accept music recommendations from GQ instead of Pitchfork. Kinda fitting as I push towards 40.
For over a decade now, anything Pitchfork rates 7.0 or above gets a listen from me, 6.0 or higher for preferred genres. This may not find the best music (whatever that is…) but it finds a lot of good stuff that I would never have known about otherwise z
For over a decade now, anything Pitchfork rates 7.0 or above gets a listen from me, 6.0 or higher for preferred genres. This may not find the best music (whatever that is…) but it finds a lot of good stuff that I would never have known about otherwise z
I’m not a fan of their embrace of pop music. Music publications are useful to the extent that they introduce you to music you wouldn’t have otherwise heard. You can’t avoid hearing pop music all the damn time. Why anyone would want to read about it as well is beyond me.
Since day one, Pitchfork (all white nerds) used to love to throttle good music but they'd always give a pass to mainstream rap, praising even the most generic mass produced hip hop, like they always secretly wanted to fit in with that crowd.
This is because the production value and musical vision & execution of mainstream rap has been very high for a long time. Combined with the extremely low cost of entry (a microphone), most bad rap is solo indie production and most stuff that gets picked up by labels is high quality on the genre's terms¹.
This has recently become true of pop as well, which is one of the defining qualities of the "poptimism" era. It's not that all the music critics simultaneously sold out and started giving undeservingly good reviews to pop, it's that the baseline standard of musical quality in pop became very high.
¹: There has always been, and continues to be, a subsection of rap that also succeeds on musical terms inherited from outside of hip hop, especially from jazz. This is usually what people who are not extremely into hip hop mean when they talk about "good rap." But someone who doesn't appreciate the role of eg lil wayne & young thug is frankly not informed enough about the genre & its conventions to have a useful opinion about quality within it.
This has recently become true of pop as well, which is one of the defining qualities of the "poptimism" era. It's not that all the music critics simultaneously sold out and started giving undeservingly good reviews to pop, it's that the baseline standard of musical quality in pop became very high.
¹: There has always been, and continues to be, a subsection of rap that also succeeds on musical terms inherited from outside of hip hop, especially from jazz. This is usually what people who are not extremely into hip hop mean when they talk about "good rap." But someone who doesn't appreciate the role of eg lil wayne & young thug is frankly not informed enough about the genre & its conventions to have a useful opinion about quality within it.
..and yet they dinged Childish Gambino's critically aclaimed album[1] - maybe the white nerds were contrarian, or just didn't "get" hip hop.
1. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39284608
1. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39284608
Do we even need that anymore? I play games of "follow the recommendation algorithm" around my streaming service and I've been very successful in what I've found. Been able to surface a lot of artists I wouldn't have otherwise known about. Between that and Reddit's genre-specific offerings I'm golden.
I think so. Like OP, I would browse Pitchfork's reviews every so often, and often come away with things I never considered. That's the difference between looking at music reviews and following the algorithm. The latter points you to things that sound like what you're listening to, but the former opens your eyes to radically different sounds, or interpreting them in ways you hadn't considered.
Fair enough. I think it's two different search methods - it seems you're looking for breadth of musical experience while I'm looking for depth. I want to find that indie band with 3 followers, you want to see what's popular enough to be in Pitchfork but in a totally different genre.
I listened to the catalog of ONE (very good) parody band and Spotify spent the next four months presenting me only meme songs so yeah, those recommendation algorithms aren't very helpful IMO
Pitchfork is not dead ass now but close. 15 years ago we were in lockstep. I find Gorilla vs Bear best of playlist retains that OG Pitchfork vibe the best.
Is that available on spotify? I desperately check gvb every six months or so, but it seems like a husk at this point
Did anyone but Spotify really kill Pitchfork?
Pitchfork really served a purpose before streaming services got good at recommending new music.
Once they got "good enough", the friction of visiting Pitchfork just became high enough for me to stop visiting.
Pitchfork really served a purpose before streaming services got good at recommending new music.
Once they got "good enough", the friction of visiting Pitchfork just became high enough for me to stop visiting.
A very bizarre subset of the population enjoy reading reviews for some reason. Either to: tell them how to feel about something, to validate their own opinion because they lack social company in real life to do so, or because they enjoy it as a weird form of content in and of itself.
But if you're just looking for new music, PF's old curated playlist on their site was obsolete the second Spotify started curating it's own genre playlists.
But if you're just looking for new music, PF's old curated playlist on their site was obsolete the second Spotify started curating it's own genre playlists.
As if reviews are some obscure niche subject for weirdoes. Someone tell Letterboxd, Rolling Stone Magazine, Stereogum, IMDB.
I think it's the combination of the rise of accessible playlists AND P4k's review style. Many who read P4k just to find new bands, viewed the review style as an impediment, not a benefit, and left once there were better alternatives.
Personally, I left after the whole Black Kids debacle, where they overhyped, and then trashed, a promising young band and destroyed their career.
Personally, I left after the whole Black Kids debacle, where they overhyped, and then trashed, a promising young band and destroyed their career.
A well-written critique can help you put into words how you feel about a subject.
Was this not always the plan? Conde Nast is in the business of corporate influence across its portfolio. Indie music and Pitchfork placed all genres and labels on a roughly equal footing. Killing indie music and bringing back label music required that Pitchfork dissolves away.
Condé Nast is where awesome goes to die.
Even Ars Technica is getting stale.
They still have a couple of decent writers. But CN’s business model is buy publications with lots of eyeballs and increase the revenue per eyeball while decreasing the total number of eyeballs per publication but firm-wide across all properties eyeballs are on an upward trajectory. It’ll last as long as it does then there will be nothing but crap. Like SciFi turning into the wrestling channel at scale.
>But CN’s business model is buy publications with lots of eyeballs and increase the revenue per eyeball while decreasing the total number of eyeballs per publication but firm-wide across all properties eyeballs are on an upward trajectory
According to Wikipedia, their last acquisition was Pitchfork in 2015. That's almost 10 years ago. Prior to that, the last popular property appears to be Ars in 2008 and reddit, in 2006. They don't actually seem to be buying many properties...
According to Wikipedia, their last acquisition was Pitchfork in 2015. That's almost 10 years ago. Prior to that, the last popular property appears to be Ars in 2008 and reddit, in 2006. They don't actually seem to be buying many properties...
> It’ll last as long as it does then there will be nothing but crap.
Perhaps that is closer than we think
Perhaps that is closer than we think
Syfy makes it airs the occasionally great original content. Everything else, is and has been, junk filler on repeat for over two decades.
Hrm, acquired in 2008. I thought it was earlier. For an alleged $25m per crunchvase, if they are to be trusted (probably not).
Probably correct. The top contributors were some internet.nerds that were top notch on the tech side and rose on merit and the trust they built with their audience. Splitting $25m among the 5-7 of them probably seemed like winning the lottery.
They seem to be doing okay with the New Yorker, although I do not know how the magazine was viewed before their acquisition.
Every year they don't ruin the New Yorker, I breathe a sigh of relief.
Granted, Si Newhouse bought it in 1985 - the only time the magazine's ownership changed! - and so maybe it enjoys a sort of grandfathered status at Conde Nast even with Newhouse dead?
I mean, I say that, but they recently ruined the previously-excellent iPad app, which has resulted in me going back to paper issues, but if that's the extent of the tomfoolery I'll take it.
Granted, Si Newhouse bought it in 1985 - the only time the magazine's ownership changed! - and so maybe it enjoys a sort of grandfathered status at Conde Nast even with Newhouse dead?
I mean, I say that, but they recently ruined the previously-excellent iPad app, which has resulted in me going back to paper issues, but if that's the extent of the tomfoolery I'll take it.
I’m not so sure. I wouldn’t blame Condé Nast for this. But I’m sick of the New Yorker writers basically making shit up and pretending it’s true. Ragebaiting autofiction, but within the boundaries of acceptable Ivy League New York 23 year old discourse. Is that not ruined?
Uh, citation needed.
Much to my surprise, they have managed to avoid killing Reddit so far. (Well, technically Reddit is owned by Conde's parent Advance, not Conde itself.)
They have tried really hard, have made it a completely different site than what they bought and driven out the original base.
You haven't been looking hard enough if you believe Reddit is still the same it was pre-API bullshit.
Fake comments, more pliable moderators, dead subreddits are everywhere now.
Fake comments, more pliable moderators, dead subreddits are everywhere now.
I don't like the changes any more than you do, but as far as I can tell the API boycotts have had zero impact on the subreddits I follow.
They’re working on it.
Are people still on Reddit since last summer?
Yes, a lot of people, but anecdotally I know a lot of “long-time Redditors” who stopped using Reddit after the API fiasco. I, for one, never returned and only use HN now.
Same story here. It's a shame.
bad leadership strategy. Plain and simple. They like many once powerhouse IP controlling firms have failed to realise the very thing that gave those IPs any value in the first place..... individual identity that was not centralized by some corporate quarterly objectives.....
I have been reading the Wikipedia articles on media and publication conglomerate M&A (mergers and acquisitions) for a while now. Media M&A is never foolproof, and my thesis is that M&As take into account the probability of failure, which represents the majority of the deals.
The survival of most startup media/publication companies is focused on one thing: demographics. Millennials in their 20s are different from millennials in their 30s, or Gen Z in their 20s. Considering this limited shelf value, it often results in them shutting down or being acquired. The companies that do acquire them have gone through this same cycle of failures and know that there is a high likelihood that the userbase will age out and the acquired company will eventually fall. This is so frequent, I bet they even financial engineer deals that may lead to some kind of benefit upon failure.
The survival of most startup media/publication companies is focused on one thing: demographics. Millennials in their 20s are different from millennials in their 30s, or Gen Z in their 20s. Considering this limited shelf value, it often results in them shutting down or being acquired. The companies that do acquire them have gone through this same cycle of failures and know that there is a high likelihood that the userbase will age out and the acquired company will eventually fall. This is so frequent, I bet they even financial engineer deals that may lead to some kind of benefit upon failure.
From roughly 2006-2012 this site greatly influenced my taste. I visited the site multiple times a day and read pretty much everything they published. I used to always check the site at 11pm when they reliably published a new set of 5 album reviews.
At some point banner ads for big liquor companies started to show up. Then coverage for mainstream music became more frequent. This was a clear signal that they had sold out and their reputation was shot. I view them now as the new incarnation of Rolling Stone magazine. Still feel for the writers who got fired in this latest reorg.
At some point banner ads for big liquor companies started to show up. Then coverage for mainstream music became more frequent. This was a clear signal that they had sold out and their reputation was shot. I view them now as the new incarnation of Rolling Stone magazine. Still feel for the writers who got fired in this latest reorg.
Some will say this is a casualty of the overall shift in how music tastes are made and spread, I disagree, Pitchfork always had an eclectic mix of music it reviewed. I didn’t like a lot of it, hated a chunk of it but loved some of it and it felt like you could discover incredible music that wouldn’t break through without pitchforks platform, alongside mainstream pop that was actually sonically worthwhile.
I’ll miss this site. If anyone has any YT channels or other similar music sites, I’d love some recommendations
I’ll miss this site. If anyone has any YT channels or other similar music sites, I’d love some recommendations
Actually sounds like a good thing to me. Any organization that styles itself an industry taste maker is simultaneously repressing the organic creation of culture by the disorganized masses.
Culture is best discovered by accident, and considered on its merits by the individual. When some critic tells you what's good and what isn't, you'll never know if you actually like it, or you just like it because someone told you you do. Simultaneously, if that's your only outlet for finding culture, you'll miss all the rest.
It's like with movies: you can watch whatever trends on Rotten Tomatoes, or you can watch a whole bunch of random stuff at a film festival. Guaranteed you will find something at the festival that will never trend on RT but that you'll enjoy thoroughly.
Culture is best discovered by accident, and considered on its merits by the individual. When some critic tells you what's good and what isn't, you'll never know if you actually like it, or you just like it because someone told you you do. Simultaneously, if that's your only outlet for finding culture, you'll miss all the rest.
It's like with movies: you can watch whatever trends on Rotten Tomatoes, or you can watch a whole bunch of random stuff at a film festival. Guaranteed you will find something at the festival that will never trend on RT but that you'll enjoy thoroughly.
> It's like with movies: you can watch whatever trends on Rotten Tomatoes, or you can watch a whole bunch of random stuff at a film festival. Guaranteed you will find something at the festival that will never trend on RT but that you'll enjoy thoroughly.
Not my experience at all. Turns out critics are actually decent at judging stuff, and good movies really are better than bad ones.
Not my experience at all. Turns out critics are actually decent at judging stuff, and good movies really are better than bad ones.
So how come I've seen so many great movies at film festivals that no critic writes about?
There are plenty of reasons a critic might not write about a film - perhaps it's not being widely distributed, or they don't think people will be interested, or it's difficult to write about, or they simply haven't heard of it.
(I've seen some great films at film festivals, but I absolutely have had festivals that were a complete bust. So I took exception mainly to your "guaranteed" claim, which you seem to be stepping back from now)
(I've seen some great films at film festivals, but I absolutely have had festivals that were a complete bust. So I took exception mainly to your "guaranteed" claim, which you seem to be stepping back from now)
I'm not stepping back from anything. Plenty of critics have hated films that end up being cult classics. A critic is no substitute for individual sensibilities. You can defer to them all you want, doesn't mean it's a great way to develop culture. But it is a great way to develop an insular culture.
> I'm not stepping back from anything.
Well then, to put it more bluntly, I once went to a film festival and didn't find anything that I enjoyed thoroughly. So your guarantee is bollocks.
Well then, to put it more bluntly, I once went to a film festival and didn't find anything that I enjoyed thoroughly. So your guarantee is bollocks.
but sometimes bad movies are more interesting than good ones (good, not great)
Meh. Occasionally you get a movie that failed in an interesting way, but most bad movies are just bad in the same handful of ways, and I lost interest in watching that fairly quickly. I know some people enjoy hate-watching as a social experience but I don't.
To be fair I also lost interested in "okay" movies. If I watch one it better be great or baffling.
A shame they couldn't just run without a partner. Any recommendations for music news and reviews?
The Wire is quite good if you’re willing to pay for it. It’s a print monthly first and foremost so the news isn’t up to the minute, but digital subscriptions are reasonable and the reviews are best in class imo
For a lot of music I listen to I like The Quietus: https://thequietus.com
I still go to Pitchfork a couple times a week to see what's new. Stereogum has a ton of posts and music to discover but they also lean too much into celebrity music and gossip. Also, they aren't nearly as critical on bad music.
I still go to Pitchfork a couple times a week to see what's new. Stereogum has a ton of posts and music to discover but they also lean too much into celebrity music and gossip. Also, they aren't nearly as critical on bad music.
Before their Conde Nast acquisitions, I used to visit both Ars Technica and Reddit reasonably often, both were sites were eventually stripped of their personality to the point where I no longer bother with either.
Yeah here in the Netherlands there was a similar community called Tweakers that's similarly been ruined by a takeover by a huge Belgian media company. It's so commercial now :(
Condé Nast might have helped run it into the ground but the unrecoverable dive started a long time ago. Pitchfork's content slowly turned into something more like a parody of pretentious music criticism. Paragraph after paragraph of drivel with seemingly no relation to the music. More like someone's journal entry repurposed as an album review. Maybe because they realized how stale their content had become they seemed to shift more and more of their focus towards hip hop and other genres that their traditional indie/rock readership didn't care as much about.
Conde Nast acquisition is literally what made Pitchfork shift into Hip Hop and Pop music abandoning their indie rock roots.
> Paragraph after paragraph of drivel with seemingly no relation to the music. More like someone's journal entry repurposed as an album review.
That was the best part! I found myself losing interest and moving onto cokemachineglow.com once they started doing more straightforward reviews. It's not for everyone, of course[1].
[1] https://www.somethingawful.com/fakesa/richdork/
That was the best part! I found myself losing interest and moving onto cokemachineglow.com once they started doing more straightforward reviews. It's not for everyone, of course[1].
[1] https://www.somethingawful.com/fakesa/richdork/
hey, kinda like reddit. Sensing a pattern here
> But she also faced pressure to cut costs as traffic from social media platforms declined and Spotify’s algorithms siphoned off more casual fans who’d used Pitchfork for music discovery.
This is pretty much it. There’s no need for arbitrary tastemakers now. What’s good can emerge from what similar listeners happen to like right now. It takes even less effort for users as well and probably gives better results.
This is pretty much it. There’s no need for arbitrary tastemakers now. What’s good can emerge from what similar listeners happen to like right now. It takes even less effort for users as well and probably gives better results.
My small-sample research into Spotify user satisfaction with new music discovery is that it is a mixed bag. I have not tried it, but the common Spotify dissatisfaction was enough for several of us to investigate novel new music discovery ideas. Nothing forthcoming.
Spotify's algo for discover weekly can be incredible but you have to give it a fuckton of data to work with. My liked songs is >8k I follow probably 1000 artists (the UI doesn't give me a count).
It will surface bands with <20k listeners and songs with <1k plays out from nowhere tailored to exactly what makes the brain go burr.
For small sample sizes Pandora is still king.
It will surface bands with <20k listeners and songs with <1k plays out from nowhere tailored to exactly what makes the brain go burr.
For small sample sizes Pandora is still king.
Except Spotify's discover weekly is stupendously dumb and desperate. I've put 10 years of my music listening into Spotify and it still has no damn clue what I enjoy, and anytime I listen to a song more than a few times, Spotify spends the next 4 weeks trying to cram songs with the same "tags" down my throat.
I had to spend three weeks clicking the "Don't like this" button on EVERY song in my discover weekly before the algorithm figured out "hey, maybe this guy from rural america doesn't actually like songs that are exclusively japanese meme songs"
Like everything in ML, Spotify recommendation works great if you have average or unspecial tastes, because it's just regurgitating the average of your cohort back at you.
I had to spend three weeks clicking the "Don't like this" button on EVERY song in my discover weekly before the algorithm figured out "hey, maybe this guy from rural america doesn't actually like songs that are exclusively japanese meme songs"
Like everything in ML, Spotify recommendation works great if you have average or unspecial tastes, because it's just regurgitating the average of your cohort back at you.
If you find any better (particularly opensource) novel music discovery methods can you post about them? I use Spotify solely for its discovery and radio features and find them only ok. Would love to find some other options.
big fan of nts.live for this purpose
Given that a lot of editors and writers are being let go; wouldn't this be a great opportunity for them to start a new publication?
"Music writing says: Slow down. Pay attention.”
It does?
New Music Express still seems to be doing OK.
[1] https://www.nme.com/
It does?
New Music Express still seems to be doing OK.
[1] https://www.nme.com/
I think it's a bland corporate shadow of the lively print weekly of a generation ago.
> "Music writing says: Slow down. Pay attention.”
> It does?
It does. Music is, for most regular people during most of their regular lives, a 3- or 4-minute phenomenon that happens in the background while they're doing other things. To write about music (especially regular, popular music) at all is to invite people to slow down and pay attention, like writing about breathing, or about balance and proprioception.
> It does?
It does. Music is, for most regular people during most of their regular lives, a 3- or 4-minute phenomenon that happens in the background while they're doing other things. To write about music (especially regular, popular music) at all is to invite people to slow down and pay attention, like writing about breathing, or about balance and proprioception.
When I read the music press in the 90s it was to get the latest news on tours, learn what was cool, chase the cool myself and read lurid accounts of whoever was injecting heroin in they eyeballs or whatever. It was to press the accelerator pedal of consumption and novelty instead of waiting for it to trickle through from other sources.
I will be downvoted for this comment: This article is classic naval gazing. TL;DR: "Indie" music review magazine/website sells out to giant corporation (GC). Then "outraged" fan writes piece using their other/new indie news platform.
Rinse and repeat. We see this over and over again. How about the deeper question: Why did they sell out? Money and/or power.
> the most important music publication of its generation
What does this even mean? Is AllMusic less influential or important? This whole article reads like a bitter fanboi's sayonara to "the better, olden days".
Rinse and repeat. We see this over and over again. How about the deeper question: Why did they sell out? Money and/or power.
> the most important music publication of its generation
What does this even mean? Is AllMusic less influential or important? This whole article reads like a bitter fanboi's sayonara to "the better, olden days".
Add arstechnica to that list
Pitchfork died because it developed a problem with music itself.
Prior to 2014, the site thrived because it took music at face value, and ranked new releases based upon what artists were contributing to the overall canon of progressive independent pop music.
Everything changed in 2015. There was a drastic editorial shift, where the publication became repulsed by its own "unbearable whiteness" [1]. A kind of over-correction began, with the publication championing what they felt was the 'right' kinds of music to promote.
It never caught on. The old audience moved on, and the younger audience were left scratching their heads as to why they should like artists being lauded by the reviewers as being of high cultural significance.
[1] https://pitchfork.com/thepitch/710-the-unbearable-whiteness-....
Prior to 2014, the site thrived because it took music at face value, and ranked new releases based upon what artists were contributing to the overall canon of progressive independent pop music.
Everything changed in 2015. There was a drastic editorial shift, where the publication became repulsed by its own "unbearable whiteness" [1]. A kind of over-correction began, with the publication championing what they felt was the 'right' kinds of music to promote.
It never caught on. The old audience moved on, and the younger audience were left scratching their heads as to why they should like artists being lauded by the reviewers as being of high cultural significance.
[1] https://pitchfork.com/thepitch/710-the-unbearable-whiteness-....
Wow.
Yeah, that’s not what happened.
I previously worked in music first at CMJ, UrbMag then Fader before working with a few indie and major labels on the digital side.
Don’t try to rewrite history to make this a political or “wokeness” thing because of the view of ONE of the many contributors to Pitchfork.
What happened to Pitchfork was pure economics.
Pitchfork got old just like the article said.
After indie, they attempted to pivot and become more accepting of “young hip-hop” and world music (latin, Afro beat) that younger audiences listened to in the way that Fader did.
This worked for awhile.
Until…
1. Old Millenials and GenXers aged out
2. Music discovery moved to TikTok and the streaming platforms themselves.
The bottom line is that young people could careless what a bunch of gatekeeping olds think is the “right music” anyhow.
Yeah, that’s not what happened.
I previously worked in music first at CMJ, UrbMag then Fader before working with a few indie and major labels on the digital side.
Don’t try to rewrite history to make this a political or “wokeness” thing because of the view of ONE of the many contributors to Pitchfork.
What happened to Pitchfork was pure economics.
Pitchfork got old just like the article said.
After indie, they attempted to pivot and become more accepting of “young hip-hop” and world music (latin, Afro beat) that younger audiences listened to in the way that Fader did.
This worked for awhile.
Until…
1. Old Millenials and GenXers aged out
2. Music discovery moved to TikTok and the streaming platforms themselves.
The bottom line is that young people could careless what a bunch of gatekeeping olds think is the “right music” anyhow.
It’s a little from column a and a little column b in practice. Puja Patel (editor in chief) is fairly open about being in a mission to increase diversity and specifically covering fewer white male bands. You may spin that as “wokeness” (note: the parent never used that phrase) but it’s one and the same to covering what younger listeners were interested in over most of the last decade too. In lots of ways raging against wokeness is just the latest era of “old man shouts at cloud”.
The issue with that is it’s the same shift a lot of outlets made to try and keep pace too, which has resulted in a bunch of legacy outlets with little distinct editorial voice left. That’s not a barrier to keeping clicks, but it does feel like a failing strategy to retain cultural cache.
Though I digress, by all accounts Pitchfork had actually gone from losing money pre Puja to actually making money, so this was probably not about the outlet failing in some way. I personally agree with those noting how soon this has come after the staff unionisation vote
The issue with that is it’s the same shift a lot of outlets made to try and keep pace too, which has resulted in a bunch of legacy outlets with little distinct editorial voice left. That’s not a barrier to keeping clicks, but it does feel like a failing strategy to retain cultural cache.
Though I digress, by all accounts Pitchfork had actually gone from losing money pre Puja to actually making money, so this was probably not about the outlet failing in some way. I personally agree with those noting how soon this has come after the staff unionisation vote
paganel(2)
Another until - the rise of buying digital singles / streaming.
A big reason for Pitchfork was a simple heuristic for "should I buy this album".
Now that no one buys albums, that problem isn't such a pressing concern.
Steve Jobs had more to do with this than Condé Nast IMO.
A big reason for Pitchfork was a simple heuristic for "should I buy this album".
Now that no one buys albums, that problem isn't such a pressing concern.
Steve Jobs had more to do with this than Condé Nast IMO.
My tweet from 2015:
#pitchforkmedia... "now with more rap."
https://twitter.com/akaspick/status/606803688888377344
As a reader since the early 2000's, I noticed the shift pretty quick.
#pitchforkmedia... "now with more rap."
https://twitter.com/akaspick/status/606803688888377344
As a reader since the early 2000's, I noticed the shift pretty quick.
Old people aged out of reading music blogs? Is that a known phenomenon?
At what point does l33tbro use the term "wokeness?"
These “ruined by wokeness” theories are awfully convenient to explain any kind of vague nostalgia. I’m guessing it goes over well on YouTube.
“In my childhood, Hershey’s chocolate was a beautiful expression of the essential qualities of pure milk. But then the globalists changed the recipe to make it taste like unisex toilets and ESG investments. No wonder nobody eats Hershey’s anymore!”
“In my childhood, Hershey’s chocolate was a beautiful expression of the essential qualities of pure milk. But then the globalists changed the recipe to make it taste like unisex toilets and ESG investments. No wonder nobody eats Hershey’s anymore!”
[deleted]
[deleted]
Sheesh, what an exhausting, vacuous, and frankly racist screed. If there was a point, I don't think that this would be the article to make it. Thankfully though it did introduce me to a new indie artist I hadn't heard of.
Who? Belle and Sebastian ?
There are other pale UK bands if that's your thing: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YKNt_qq6N7o https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iKcbSOjIzjQ
There are other pale UK bands if that's your thing: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YKNt_qq6N7o https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iKcbSOjIzjQ
Dirty Projectors, one of probably many pale UK bands that I haven't dug into. Belle and Sebastian aren't generally my vibe for some reason, but I think do have a few songs I get on my Spotify radio from time to time
Ah, cheers for clearing that up :-)
I went through The Unbearable Whiteness of Indie article trying to guess your reference - B&S got the greatest wordcount IIRC.
Can't say I've heard of Dirty Projectors and their "use of attenuated 'afro' elements" - I'll chase it up, but often I prefer to see some back wash on the culture: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BOValSt7YOY https://youtu.be/tvY31eN3gtE?t=41
I went through The Unbearable Whiteness of Indie article trying to guess your reference - B&S got the greatest wordcount IIRC.
Can't say I've heard of Dirty Projectors and their "use of attenuated 'afro' elements" - I'll chase it up, but often I prefer to see some back wash on the culture: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BOValSt7YOY https://youtu.be/tvY31eN3gtE?t=41
You’re arguing that a younger audience would never care for what critics have to say, in which case, Pitchfork was doomed to die regardless of the choices they made: if you’re not bringing in a new audience, you’re dying, because of churn.
Perhaps wokeness hastened the loss of the old audience but evolving to meet the changing tastes of your potential audience is important, otherwise, you’re setting a date for your death.
That said, I don’t think it was a cynical attempt to ride a trend but rather evolution in response to the writers and editors evolving in their understanding of music and the world. After all, Pitchfork was always a representation of the tastes of the writers and editors. Of all the people you’d expect to be at the forefront of cultural evolution, writers about culture are up there.
Perhaps wokeness hastened the loss of the old audience but evolving to meet the changing tastes of your potential audience is important, otherwise, you’re setting a date for your death.
That said, I don’t think it was a cynical attempt to ride a trend but rather evolution in response to the writers and editors evolving in their understanding of music and the world. After all, Pitchfork was always a representation of the tastes of the writers and editors. Of all the people you’d expect to be at the forefront of cultural evolution, writers about culture are up there.
[deleted]
The writing in the Semafor article oddly made me not care one bit for Pitchfork's fate. Something about the talking up of it's importance was off-putting, or maybe there just isn't an interesting story there.
I was an avid pitchfork reader in the 2000s, but by 2015 I hadn't used the site in years. I didn't even know this had happened. The last thing I remember on pitchfork was their crappy redesign in 2009.
Can you link a particular review from before 2014 that you really like?
[deleted]
http://web.archive.org/web/20240205170646/https://www.semafo...