Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Condé Nast Buys Pitchfork Media

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 78 posts

Re: Condé Nast Buys Pitchfork Media

#21

Post by AndrewKemendo »

rrego wrote: post #18

There was an excellent (paywalled) article on N+1 about pitchfork. It really is separate from other sites (Lack of comments, 100 different possible ratings [0.0 to 10.0)], extreme "hipster" snottiness). The website really has, and continues to shape "alternative/indie" music tastes. It is probably the biggest indicator, and perhaps driver, of an alternative album's commercial success. Sites like these regardless of t…

I was the Music Director, then General Manager for our college radio station back in 2006/7/8. We relied on pitchfork, along with indie charts, to drive what new music we played as our format was indie rock.

Totally spot on how much sway they have in the indie community.

Re: Condé Nast Buys Pitchfork Media

#22

Post by sharkweek »

jmduke wrote: post #10
JonnieCache wrote: post #9

For a taste of the archetypical pitchfork style, read any of their radiohead reviews: http://pitchfork.com/artists/3512-radiohead/ The classic is the Kid A one: http://pitchfork.com/reviews/albums/6656-kid-a/ Boomkat is a close second, but at least theyre trying to sell the records: https://twitter.com/boomkat_ebooks

I say this as a fairly regular Pitchfork reader: The experience and emotions tied to listening to Kid A are like witnessing the stillborn birth of a child while simultaneously having the opportunity to see her play in the afterlife on Imax is one of at least the top five worst sentences I've ever read. (IMHO, their earlier reviews generally were of lower quality than their more recent ones, and they've benefited from…

Not that I'm trying to defend the ridiculousness of that sentence, but Brent DiCrescenzo was pretty notorious for being sarcastic and witty. I was always under the impression he was writing that infamous Kid A review intentionally gratuitous

Re: Condé Nast Buys Pitchfork Media

#23

Post by parennoob »

tptacek wrote: post #2

It brings “a very passionate audience of millennial males into our roster,” he said. Oof.

That a bit ironic from my own perspective, because the majority of my friends who read Pitchfork are female.

But what's wrong with expressing a positive sentiment about including passionate millenial males?

Re: Condé Nast Buys Pitchfork Media

#24

Post by robbyking »

sharkweek wrote: post #19

I have always been really impressed with Pitchfork's longevity - been a regular reader since the early 00s and I still check the reviews every day for a new song or album to listen to. One of their most impressive features I thought was their 'Cover Story' articles, definitely worth a peek: http://pitchfork.com/features/cover-story/ As everyone was tripping out over The NYT's Snow Fall (great piece, certainly), Pitch…

I'm also a huge fan of Pitchfork. Even if I dislike the bands they designate at "best new music," I can never argue with the quality of their selections. No matter how esoteric or obscure a genre, Pitchfork always does an amazing job of finding bands before they crossover to the mainstream (if they crossover at all).

Because of that, it's quotes like this that worry me:

It brings 'a very passionate audience of millennial males into our roster,' said Fred Santarpia, the company’s chief digital officer, who led the acquisition

Very similar things were said by major label executives when their companies were snatching up alternative bands after Nirvana's Nevermind came out.

Re: Condé Nast Buys Pitchfork Media

#25

Post by roneesh »

JonnieCache wrote: post #9

For a taste of the archetypical pitchfork style, read any of their radiohead reviews: http://pitchfork.com/artists/3512-radiohead/ The classic is the Kid A one: http://pitchfork.com/reviews/albums/6656-kid-a/ Boomkat is a close second, but at least theyre trying to sell the records: https://twitter.com/boomkat_ebooks

Honestly that's not the archetypal style, most reviews are more measured and often have thoughtful things to say about the record. If anything, the Onion article in which Pitchfork gives all of music a 6.8 is a telling parody and fun summation of their style.

For what it's worth, Kid A really is one of the best records of the 2000's, so if you're going to be histrionic about one, might as well be that one.

Re: Condé Nast Buys Pitchfork Media

#26

Post by sharkweek »

robbyking wrote: post #24
sharkweek wrote: post #19

I have always been really impressed with Pitchfork's longevity - been a regular reader since the early 00s and I still check the reviews every day for a new song or album to listen to. One of their most impressive features I thought was their 'Cover Story' articles, definitely worth a peek: http://pitchfork.com/features/cover-story/ As everyone was tripping out over The NYT's Snow Fall (great piece, certainly), Pitch…

I'm also a huge fan of Pitchfork. Even if I dislike the bands they designate at "best new music," I can never argue with the quality of their selections. No matter how esoteric or obscure a genre, Pitchfork always does an amazing job of finding bands before they crossover to the mainstream (if they crossover at all). Because of that, it's quotes like this that worry me: It brings 'a very passionate audience of millen…

Yeah, definitely don't love hearing that, but if they let Mark Richardson keep running the editorial side of things, I'm less concerned. That guy has done wonders for the site over the past 10 years.

Re: Condé Nast Buys Pitchfork Media

#28

Post by tptacek »

parennoob wrote: post #23
tptacek wrote: post #2

It brings “a very passionate audience of millennial males into our roster,” he said. Oof.

That a bit ironic from my own perspective, because the majority of my friends who read Pitchfork are female. But what's wrong with expressing a positive sentiment about including passionate millenial males?

Nothing; it's just uncomfortable when someone has a bead on you. The same feeling as being at an NMH show a year or so ago and noticing that I was in a sea of beards and flannel shirts.

Re: Condé Nast Buys Pitchfork Media

#29

Post by codq »

craigching wrote: post #27

I'm a bit concerned about pitchfork's quality going forward, hopefully it can stay good enough. I like pitchfork for alt pop music, but for ambient music nothing beats headphonecommute: http://reviews.headphonecommute.com/ Anyone have other good music review sites?

For me and my tastes (experimental, ambient, black metal, progressive, electronic, krautrock, artscene, etc.), nothing beats TheQuietus (http://www.thequietus.com)
Post reply on HN