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

31–40 of 78 posts

Re: Condé Nast Buys Pitchfork Media

#31

Post by bufordsharkley »

AndrewKemendo wrote: post #21
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.

My college radio station (circa 2010-2012) was more in a "don't play Pitchfork" more-hipster-than-hipster bent.

That attitude has faded in the last couple years. Here, at least, it has become less relevant.

Re: Condé Nast Buys Pitchfork Media

#32

Post by santaclaus »

steveklabnik wrote: post #6
tptacek wrote: post #2

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

For those who aren't familiar, Pitchfork is basically _the_ hipster music magazine. Source: I live in Brooklyn. (This post made with tongue firmly in cheek, of course. By virtue of the fact that I know about it, it can't possibly be hipster enough.)

Ehhhh, Pitchfork tends to only hit the mainstream independent labels at this point, local tea shops play albums that they review, for chrissake. Popular among the Mumford & Sons crowd.

Source: I live in Portland.

(Also tongue in cheek.)

Re: Condé Nast Buys Pitchfork Media

#33

Post by draw_down »

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

Ahhh get outta here. People love to cite that thing, it's 15 years old at this point. Come on.

Re: Condé Nast Buys Pitchfork Media

#35

Post by firstworldman »

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?

The point is that millennial males do not lack for adequate representation in the current media landscape. I'm certain they'll regret having gone with that quote. It will be the most seized upon line in the press release.

Re: Condé Nast Buys Pitchfork Media

#36

Post by 6stringmerc »

ebbv wrote: post #8

I don't even like Pitchfork that much (while I have learned about some artists from them, largely their tastes don't align with mine), but this makes me sad. Conde Nast buys everything. I can't really blame Conde Nast for this entirely, the owners who choose to sell out are really to blame. It's unfortunate. But I can't say I'd choose any differently if presented with such a large pay day. I'm disappointed because si…

I see Ars as a very interesting microcosm of online journalism.

What made Ars great over time and high profile were some very skilled, diligent, audience-mindful writers and editors. As those writers (and editors) got discovered, they were lured to other publications (ex: Washington Post). The replacements, and replacements of replacements, have not been of equivalent caliber, which could also be reinforced in the long run by a 'corporate mentality' of viewing employees as more-or-less interchangeable parts with dollar signs attached (simplistic but just to make a point).

Re: Condé Nast Buys Pitchfork Media

#37

Post by 6stringmerc »

Okay, so the reason for the sale according to Pitchfork is to grow. I know that's a popular reason, and often cited around here. But...why?

To put a music style analogy out, once a band reaches profitability, it's not customary to go adding 2-3 new members. Side projects, maybe, but it's not like this kind of thing.

I just hope the publication continues its high quality.

Re: Condé Nast Buys Pitchfork Media

#38

Post by tb303 »

sharkweek wrote: post #22
jmduke wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Yes, Brent had a fairly famous meltdown known as his Beastie Boys / To the 5 Boroughs review.

http://bbs.beastieboys.com/showthread.php?t=21070

(retraction info here: http://bbs.beastieboys.com/showpost.php?s=1da97f1e4c1a2a3b6d...)

there's a good chance that absurdity was deliberate.

Re: Condé Nast Buys Pitchfork Media

#39

Post by firstworldman »

6stringmerc wrote: post #37

Okay, so the reason for the sale according to Pitchfork is to grow. I know that's a popular reason, and often cited around here. But...why? To put a music style analogy out, once a band reaches profitability, it's not customary to go adding 2-3 new members. Side projects, maybe, but it's not like this kind of thing. I just hope the publication continues its high quality.

I would guess that the sale would make more sense in the context of a place like HN than it would to most fans of the site. They will benefit from the infrastructure and experience that Conde Nast offers, plus the brand lift of being associated with the house that publishes some of the best and most esteemed magazines in the world elevates them to another level as a publisher. The advertising benefits of that will be huge. The sponsorships they'll be able to get for the live events and video series will be bigger. The scope of the site could become more journalistic.

Re: Condé Nast Buys Pitchfork Media

#40

Post by hamburglar »

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…

The best thing ever written on Pitchfork was David Cross making fun of Pitchfork: http://pitchfork.com/features/guest-lists/6044-david-cross-a...
Post reply on HN