Re: Conde Nast folds Pitchfork into GQ

Here.

So many talented writers and critics have posted on Twitter that they lost their role in this transition. Huge loss. Pitchfork has its detractors, understandably, but a lot of talent is being lost.

I can't think of any other mainstream music outlet that has included "college"/non-commercial radio in its coverage. I certainly wouldn't have known about resources like radiosurvivor.com if it weren't for PF.

As for the music itself, PF deserves all the criticism it gets for ignoring "unsigned" artists - the overwhelming majority of the artists they cover are in fact on major indies & indie indies. There are countless singer-songwriters and bands who I think we've all seen (whether opener or headliner) who are still touring in support of stuff they put out 3-4 years ago. Those are the artists who PF has failed.

I have a lot of issues with Pitchfork, from the cruel shitposting and trashing artists like Liz Phair for music they'd love now in the 2000s to the brand-friendly poptimism of their last decade (as well as obviously performative political posturing like attacking St. Vincent for a line about calling 911 in one song and that godawful 2023 article about how indie rock supposedly is the most heterosexual genre in existence), but they review much more music than any comparable outlet. You can see the tension of trying to reach a wide audience as the popularity of the indie rock that defined them declines; they seem distant from pop and hip-hop, as much as they cover them, while this wasn't the case when they wrote about Animal Collective or Clap Your Hands Say Yeah. For years, they've provided Philip Sherburne a platform to write about experimental electronic music several times a week. The quality of their Sunday essays on landmark albums is variable, but these pieces are extensively researched and well-written. On X, one of their former editors pointed out that they've fought hard to center women in the current music scene, and as part of a men's magazine, this is likely to vanish. Under GQ, one can guess they'll run articles like "BTS Talk About Their Favorite Designer Brands." The fact that so much of their staff has left (or been fired) is a terrible sign.



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 01/18/2024 07:07PM by steevee.

I have a love-hate relationship with Pitchfork...mostly hate. I check the reviews every day, but roll my eyes at 95% of what I see on that site. But they surprise me sometimes. The "talented" writers who lost their jobs will land on their feet if they are indeed so talented.

Corporate logic, if it can be called that, is maddening. "Hey! Here's this thing that made a name for itself and built a viable brand doing a specific thing for a loyal consumer base. Let's buy it! Then within a few years, we'll reign in all the quirks and idiosyncrasies that said consumer base values and make it indistinguishable from all the other brands that we own that were once quirky little endeavours that we then neutered. And in the process, we can jettison all the people that gave the brand its identity - which was its only real value in the first place - and give ourselves nice raises and bonuses for slashing the fat from payroll."

They did it to Deadspin. And the AV Club, which lives on in name but is barely a shadow of what it once was since its loyal community was run off years ago. InBev bought up multitudes of craft beer companies, slashed operations at all of them, and from what I'm told nearly all those once unique brands now are pretty much indistinguishable from one another. But hey, it's great business. Fuck the dopes.who were stupid enough to be fans of those things before Corporation Incorporated bought them.

Like nearly everyone else here, I've had a not exactly love/hate relationship with Pitchfork - more like an "Oh, fuck off/Hmm, you might actually be right about that for once" relationship - but I'd much rather have that than "CHOAM is a major advertiser across our brands and they own a label that just signed Bobbi Jo Ingenue, so how about her debut album being album of the year?"

I never hated pitchfork. Their writers and reviews led me to TONS of bands I wouldn’t have known otherwise. As an old coot, I could kinda stay relatively current by checking in on their best new music recommendations.

I’m not happy to hear they’re chopping staff. To be able to write about music passionately, enough to make your reader excited about hearing it, is truly a valuable skill. The TP staff certainly did that for teenaged me.

"More like an 'Oh, fuck off/Hmm, you might actually be right about that for once' relationship" sounds more accurate for me as well. I'm not too familiar with their earlier writing, partly because what little I saw was clearly not on the same level as the writers I liked reading, but I started checking them out more when I noticed veteran critics recommending them. (I forgot who said it, but I remember someone making a comment about how there weren't many women in rock criticism, and the counterargument was that a lot of excellent writers were now being published in Pitchfork, probably the first notable gig for many of them. That was definitely a new development as reportedly there weren't any women reviewing music when the publication first started or when it developed a large readership.) I wasn't expecting something like Trouser Press or Creem in its heyday, but at minimum it had its share of good writing with the bad, and it seemed like a viable, stable outlet for developing new writers at a time when journalism of any kind was struggling to stay afloat. I think that last point made me want to root for it or hope for improvements rather than wish any ill will against it.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 01/18/2024 11:11PM by belfast.

The new Pitchfork Festival:

Headliner: BROOKS BROTHERS

smaller print: Armani/Pierre Cardin/Ralph Lauren

still smaller: Calvin Klein/Tommy Hilfiger /Nike/Ray-ban/Tommy Bahama

Side-stage: O.P./ Vans/ FUBU/ Adidas/ whatever Kanye and Jay Z’s companies are called

Bizarro detail:

[variety.com]

I can see this sort of thing happening, with an online magazine like Pitchfork ... but today I read that Sports Illustrated is facing massive layoffs, and the magazine is in danger of shutting off the presses for good.

The corporatization of art itself saddens me...I blame big business for ruining punk rock (which was an art form, of sorts), it wasn't meant to be about the money, it was about the rebellion...we all need a little disestablishmentarianism in our lives to keep from growing complacent about politicians and the wealthy. When they tried to market it as something more than it wasn't, punk became unprofitable and it slowly faded into exile during the 80's (and, to be fair, much of it was 3-chord hashing, which serious musicians found dull and an inadequate medium to express themselves stylistically).

I think podcasting is slowly strangling music print, it's easier for people to listen on the go than it is to read print on their phones or printed magazines, it's a shame, but it's a trend I don't see reversing anytime soon. Plus, podcasts offer a chance to talk about older music with new generations...70% of music streamed today is old music, from the 2oth century, in fact, so there is a business in going back to the past and introducing Millennials and Gen Z to music they've never heard of. In fact, new music is in decline, only about 5 percent of streams include today's music. My nephew is in a band and they love the shoegazer bands from the 90's and rock music from the 70's.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/20/2024 07:46AM by Fleeingbandit.

deleted rant



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/21/2024 08:20AM by Nightdrive.