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

51–60 of 78 posts

Re: Condé Nast Buys Pitchfork Media

#51

Post by 6stringmerc »

rrego wrote: post #46
6stringmerc wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 tha…

Ah, yeah I follow you a bit better now. I'm not going to vouch for their review style, but the existence of them is what has drawn me to the site pretty much every day. Personally I worry a lot less about author bias in something like Pitchfork than I would in Rolling Stone or, without naming names, a music-oriented magazine that is mostly pay-for-print content (they do exist).

Re: Condé Nast Buys Pitchfork Media

#52

Post by jakejake »

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.

You're talking about a lifestyle company where a small group of people become successful and make a great living doing what they love. Absolute blasphemy around these parts! If you're not growing into a multi-billion dollar corporation then you might as well not exist!

Re: Condé Nast Buys Pitchfork Media

#53

Post by 6stringmerc »

flurie wrote: post #50
6stringmerc wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 mus…

Ah, I just took a quick glance at that review. Honestly, I can see why a reviewer would mark something so low if the impression is: I've never heard a record more angry, frustrated, and even defensive about its own weaknesses, or more determined to slug those flaws right down your throat.

To place that at the feet of Pitchfork is understandable, but in subjective art, sometimes people fail and get called out for it. I think one of the most noteworthy examples would be "The Life and Times of Chris Gaines."

Re: Condé Nast Buys Pitchfork Media

#54

Post by firstworldman »

6stringmerc wrote: post #43
firstworldman wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 tr…

I wouldn't worry too much. The most notable aspect of the recent incarnation of Pitchfork's brand is its discernment. It doesn't typically follow the hype, it creates the hype. There are always subcultural ripples that surface first in smaller ponds, but the writers and editors at Pitchfork are savvy and tend to catch on pretty quick, covering (co-opting) what's cool before most people have had a chance to catch on. The only ways that Pitchfork's brand could be hurt at this point is if they stopped focusing on 'cool' (which they won't), or if they were somehow usurped by a cooler and better outlet. Those outlets exist, but they don't have the readership, budget, marketing knowhow, or in many cases, desire to be as big as Pitchfork is. Pitchfork owns its niche, and there's virtually no competition. I have a real love-hate relationship with Pitchfork. I really waver on whether it is good or bad for music overall, but its power in the music industry is legitimately scary to many artists/labels/managers/etc.

Re: Condé Nast Buys Pitchfork Media

#55

Post by kenko »

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…

> 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

Frankly, I'd think being associated with The New Yorker and GQ would harm Pitchfork's image more than help it.

Re: Condé Nast Buys Pitchfork Media

#56

Post by flurie »

6stringmerc wrote: post #53
flurie wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 mus…

Ah, I just took a quick glance at that review. Honestly, I can see why a reviewer would mark something so low if the impression is: I've never heard a record more angry, frustrated, and even defensive about its own weaknesses, or more determined to slug those flaws right down your throat. To place that at the feet of Pitchfork is understandable, but in subjective art, sometimes people fail and get called out for it.…

Right, I'm not saying that anyone's at fault for the string of events that led to that review or even the review itself. I think at the height of Pitchfork's anti-establishment power, it wielded that power in a callous manner that ended up making careers for of some bad artists and ending careers of some good artists. So I think the charge that Pitchfork in the 1999-2006 era existed as a meritless gatekeeper stands. Whether or not Schrieber intended that is an open question, though the n+1 piece suggests that he did.

Re: Condé Nast Buys Pitchfork Media

#57

Post by tyre »

kenko wrote: post #55
firstworldman wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> 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 Frankly, I'd think being associated with The New Yorker and GQ would harm Pitchfork's image more than help it.

Could you elaborate?

In my opinion, The New Yorker is widely considered to produce high-quality journalism.

Re: Condé Nast Buys Pitchfork Media

#58

Post by firstworldman »

kenko wrote: post #55
firstworldman wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> 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 Frankly, I'd think being associated with The New Yorker and GQ would harm Pitchfork's image more than help it.

Well, first of all, these kinds of things are really just insider baseball, aren't they? I don't think most readers of magazines are interested in or knowledgeable about the portfolio of the magazine publisher. So the influence is primarily on people involved in the industry. But secondly, as the other commenter points out, being associated with The New Yorker is something that just about any journalistic enterprise would die for.

I suspect the web will eventually cannibalize GQ (not because it's bad, but because it's not specific enough), but The New Yorker will outlive us all.

Re: Condé Nast Buys Pitchfork Media

#59

Post by krebby »

kenko wrote: post #55
firstworldman wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> 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 Frankly, I'd think being associated with The New Yorker and GQ would harm Pitchfork's image more than help it.

To advertisers? Absolutely not.

Re: Condé Nast Buys Pitchfork Media

#60

Post by whatok »

bufordsharkley wrote: post #31
AndrewKemendo wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Pitchfork has also expanded what they review so you might become hard pressed to find anything to play at all after a while.
Post reply on HN