Condé Nast Buys Pitchfork Media • Hacker News Board

Re: Condé Nast Buys Pitchfork Media

#41

Post by firstworldman » Tue, Oct 13, 2015, 5:45 PM UTC

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…

The cover stories have been really wonderful, as a guy who grew up loving magazine design (not to mention quality writing) in mags like The Face, Dazed, i-D and Raygun. For a good time, view source on the Aphex Twin feature.

Re: Condé Nast Buys Pitchfork Media

#42

Post by 6stringmerc » Tue, Oct 13, 2015, 5:52 PM UTC

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…

Sites like these regardless of their merit (which is really low IMO), are indispensable in the saturated music market.

This is an extremely contradictory statement to me. Can you elaborate how a "sifting" or "gatekeeper" type publication has low merit when there's so much content to review/digest?

I think it's hilarious people look at Pitchfork and see snottiness, when every single genre of music eventually devolves into arguments about merit / influence / purity / micro-genres if given enough time. If Pitchfork integrated something like "-core" genre distinctions, it's because they were picking up on audiences and potential readers already using it.

Re: Condé Nast Buys Pitchfork Media

#43

Post by 6stringmerc » Tue, Oct 13, 2015, 5:56 PM UTC

firstworldman wrote: post #39

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…

See, all those make sense! From what the article states though, Pitchfork had no noteworthy problems with their operation - profitable, advertising demand, innovative presentations, "gets" of the biggest names at any given time, and live music events. By my count, they'd solved the puzzle.

What other mountain is there to conquer? A bigger one? I simply don't get the desire, because while all the positives could be true, to me, I worry about the downsides. This is just me, the kind of guy who keeps a fun list of Murphy's Laws within eyesight at work.

Re: Condé Nast Buys Pitchfork Media

#44

Post by saturdaysaint » Tue, Oct 13, 2015, 5:58 PM UTC

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

This is like saying "For a taste of the archetypical Apple design ethos, look at this 2001 iMac." Sort of, but no. They've matured a lot from their snotty early days - I don't think their reviews since, oh, 2005 would be out of place in any highbrow magazine.

Their reviews of The Beatles' catalogue are great reading, for example.

http://pitchfork.com/reviews/albums/13436-magical-mystery-to... http://pitchfork.com/reviews/albums/13432-the-beatles/ http://pitchfork.com/reviews/albums/13431-abbey-road/

Re: Condé Nast Buys Pitchfork Media

#45

Post by freehunter » Tue, Oct 13, 2015, 6:03 PM UTC

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.

They have music festivals and other real-world events that take serious money to put on. To put a music style analogy out, why would a band release a new album and go on tour? So they can make more money.

Re: Condé Nast Buys Pitchfork Media

#46

Post by rrego » Tue, Oct 13, 2015, 6:09 PM UTC

6stringmerc wrote: post #42

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…

Sites like these regardless of their merit (which is really low IMO), are indispensable in the saturated music market. This is an extremely contradictory statement to me. Can you elaborate how a "sifting" or "gatekeeper" type publication has low merit when there's so much content to review/digest? I think it's hilarious people look at Pitchfork and see snottiness, when every single genre of music eventually devolves…

I should have clarified, by saying the individual sites have low merit, despite serving an important function. But, this is just a personal opinion; After reading several of their reviews that were anecdotally driven, influenced by hype, and just logorrheic. It's also difficult to be aware of the bias in a publication with several writers.

Pitchfork today, which still wields that same influence, is different from that of even 5 years ago, or when I last read it. Looking at the reviews from today, they are actually pretty restrained and informative.

Re: Condé Nast Buys Pitchfork Media

#47

Post by thomnottom » Tue, Oct 13, 2015, 6:13 PM UTC

santaclaus wrote: post #32

steveklabnik wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.)

Somewhat humorously, their Mumford & Sons review is one of the rare examples of me making a decision not to buy an album after reading what they had to say.

http://pitchfork.com/reviews/albums/13906-sigh-no-more/

Re: Condé Nast Buys Pitchfork Media

#48

Post by 6stringmerc » Tue, Oct 13, 2015, 6:13 PM UTC

freehunter wrote: post #45

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.

They have music festivals and other real-world events that take serious money to put on. To put a music style analogy out, why would a band release a new album and go on tour? So they can make more money.

Re: Condé Nast Buys Pitchfork Media

#49

Post by darylfritz » Tue, Oct 13, 2015, 6:15 PM UTC

firstworldman wrote: post #41

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…

The cover stories have been really wonderful, as a guy who grew up loving magazine design (not to mention quality writing) in mags like The Face, Dazed, i-D and Raygun. For a good time, view source on the Aphex Twin feature.

Link for those lazier than me:

http://pitchfork.com/features/cover-story/reader/aphex-twin/

Re: Condé Nast Buys Pitchfork Media

#50

Post by flurie » Tue, Oct 13, 2015, 6:16 PM UTC

6stringmerc wrote: post #42

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…

Sites like these regardless of their merit (which is really low IMO), are indispensable in the saturated music market. This is an extremely contradictory statement to me. Can you elaborate how a "sifting" or "gatekeeper" type publication has low merit when there's so much content to review/digest? I think it's hilarious people look at Pitchfork and see snottiness, when every single genre of music eventually devolves…

A great example is referenced in the n+1 article itself: the tale of Travis Morrison after the breakup of The Dismemberment Plan. The band's Pitchfork reviews were always positive, so one would assume that the debut solo album of its principal songwriter and singer would at least be in the ballpark. Instead, it famously received a 0.0[1]. This single review killed Morrison's solo career[2]. He ended retiring from music (though the Plan reunited for an album a couple years ago).

[1] http://pitchfork.com/reviews/albums/5607-travistan/

[2] http://consequenceofsound.net/aux-out/prisoner-of-travistan-...