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

61–70 of 78 posts

Re: Condé Nast Buys Pitchfork Media

#61

Post by whatok »

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…

The snottiness was okay when they primarily covered rock and generally accepted. It become truly painful when they discovered that there were other genres out there (esp. when they initially started covering rap and electronic music) and applied those same rockist standards to something completely detached.

I don't know if this still continues but my primary issue with the site has always been non-rock music acceptable to rock fans (or artists that they can write some culture piece about) rather than non-rock music that fans of those genres actually listen to.

Re: Condé Nast Buys Pitchfork Media

#62

Post by diyorgasms »

thomnottom wrote: post #47
santaclaus wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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/

Wow, that's not a review, that's a murder!

Hit the nail on the head though. I think it's fairly accurate as to their failings.

Re: Condé Nast Buys Pitchfork Media

#64

Post by CPLX »

draw_down wrote: post #34

The way people talk about Pitchfork is so aggressively cliched, same here as anywhere else. The hipster-bashing is so, so dated. And hipsters haven't even liked Pitchfork in almost 10 years.

Yeah bashing hipsters was, like... last decades trend, ya know?

Re: Condé Nast Buys Pitchfork Media

#65

Post by dagw »

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.

once a band reaches profitability, it's not customary to go adding 2-3 new members.

Sure it is, if they want to grow. Writers, managers, session musicians, stylists, PR people, I could go on. Just because you don't get on stage doesn't mean you aren't vital to success of a big name band.

Re: Condé Nast Buys Pitchfork Media

#66

Post by sneak »

> In an email to its staff, Condé Nast’s chief executive, Bob Sauerberg, said the deal “reinforces our commitment to building Condé Nast’s premium digital network, focusing on distinctive editorial voices and engaging high-value millennial audiences.”

Reading this article immediately brings Bill Hicks to mind:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tvp97SMZc6M

Re: Condé Nast Buys Pitchfork Media

#67

Post by ryanSrich »

whatok wrote: post #16
jmduke wrote: post #5

I've been reading Pitchfork for around six years now. Even though it has its share of questionable reviews and scores, its always proven an excellent bellwether for new music and introduced me to most of my favorite albums. In the age of dozens of music blogs and streaming venues, there's something refreshingly simple about their five reviews a day format; I know they've been experimenting with other content approach…

How did you discover music before Pitchfork?

I've been on and off pitchfork for close to 10 years. I find their reviews to be pretty polarizing, which is understandable.

I typically discover music in the following ways (aside from p4k)

- Streaming services ("for you" from Apple and recommended from Spotify)

- SoundCloud (their recommendation engine is usually pretty good)

- The Needle Drop

- Twitter (I don't have a good method for searching but I do seem to run into great stuff on twitter. ex. https://twitter.com/stadiumsshrines)

Re: Condé Nast Buys Pitchfork Media

#68

Post by bshimmin »

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

The intensely overwrought style of Pitchfork is really one of the things I love most about it - that you sometimes have to fight even to figure out what genre an album is.

For the types of music I care about, I find their reviews are really very often in accordance with my own tastes, and their best-albums-of-the-year compendia are always worth a browse.

Post reply on HN