Pitchfork died because it developed a problem with music itself. Prior to 2014, the site thrived because it took music at face value, and ranked new releases based upon what artists were contributing to the overall canon of progressive independent pop music. Everything changed in 2015. There was a drastic editorial shift, where the publication became repulsed by its own "unbearable whiteness" [1]. A kind of over-corr…
Wow. Yeah, that’s not what happened. I previously worked in music first at CMJ, UrbMag then Fader before working with a few indie and major labels on the digital side. Don’t try to rewrite history to make this a political or “wokeness” thing because of the view of ONE of the many contributors to Pitchfork. What happened to Pitchfork was pure economics. Pitchfork got old just like the article said. After indie, they a…
How Condé Nast bought and destroyed Pitchfork
121–130 of 213 posts
Re: How Condé Nast bought and destroyed Pitchfork
#122Re: How Condé Nast bought and destroyed Pitchfork
#123Pitchfork was gone long before Conde. Back in 2011, they panned Childish Gambino's 4th release††, giving it a 16%†. Here's what Donald Glover had to say, 2 years before the Conde acquisition: If I worked for Pitchfork, I wouldn't give myself a 9.0 either. They're a brand, they sell tickets to a show they put on every year. They're not going to give a 1.6 to someone who can be at their show and sell tickets. They're n…
A year or two I was browsing the Pitchfork "best songs of the 10's" and was rather confused that "This is America" wasn't on it. A long running feud explains it. But eh, they're allowed to have "bad" opinions. Every critic I've remotely followed has strongly disagreed with me at times.
On the other hand, "If you buy only one hip-hop album this year, I’m guessing it’ll be Camp." is a sick burn.
Re: How Condé Nast bought and destroyed Pitchfork
#124Earlier quoted context omitted.
Music, even more so than film and TV, is incredibly subjective in terms of what you find to be good. Pitchfork has trashed a bunch of albums that I love and they've adored lots of music I find to be unlistenable. I suspect this has a lot to do with identity politics and other things that I really don't want being front and center in criticism of the arts. Perhaps I'm just a troglodyte.
[flagged]
Re: How Condé Nast bought and destroyed Pitchfork
#125Pitchfork died because it developed a problem with music itself. Prior to 2014, the site thrived because it took music at face value, and ranked new releases based upon what artists were contributing to the overall canon of progressive independent pop music. Everything changed in 2015. There was a drastic editorial shift, where the publication became repulsed by its own "unbearable whiteness" [1]. A kind of over-corr…
These “ruined by wokeness” theories are awfully convenient to explain any kind of vague nostalgia. I’m guessing it goes over well on YouTube. “In my childhood, Hershey’s chocolate was a beautiful expression of the essential qualities of pure milk. But then the globalists changed the recipe to make it taste like unisex toilets and ESG investments. No wonder nobody eats Hershey’s anymore!”
Re: How Condé Nast bought and destroyed Pitchfork
#126Did anyone but Spotify really kill Pitchfork? Pitchfork really served a purpose before streaming services got good at recommending new music. Once they got "good enough", the friction of visiting Pitchfork just became high enough for me to stop visiting.
A very bizarre subset of the population enjoy reading reviews for some reason. Either to: tell them how to feel about something, to validate their own opinion because they lack social company in real life to do so, or because they enjoy it as a weird form of content in and of itself. But if you're just looking for new music, PF's old curated playlist on their site was obsolete the second Spotify started curating it's…
Re: How Condé Nast bought and destroyed Pitchfork
#127Pitchfork died because it developed a problem with music itself. Prior to 2014, the site thrived because it took music at face value, and ranked new releases based upon what artists were contributing to the overall canon of progressive independent pop music. Everything changed in 2015. There was a drastic editorial shift, where the publication became repulsed by its own "unbearable whiteness" [1]. A kind of over-corr…
These “ruined by wokeness” theories are awfully convenient to explain any kind of vague nostalgia. I’m guessing it goes over well on YouTube. “In my childhood, Hershey’s chocolate was a beautiful expression of the essential qualities of pure milk. But then the globalists changed the recipe to make it taste like unisex toilets and ESG investments. No wonder nobody eats Hershey’s anymore!”
Re: How Condé Nast bought and destroyed Pitchfork
#128Earlier quoted context omitted.
Conde Nast has never bought specialty mags, and doesn't own Outdoors or Bicycling. It bought Wired mag (but not the online site) in like 1998. The closest Conde Nast has now to a specialist site is Ars Technica, which it bought almost 20 years ago
And Ars is still great!
Re: How Condé Nast bought and destroyed Pitchfork
#129Pitchfork died because it developed a problem with music itself. Prior to 2014, the site thrived because it took music at face value, and ranked new releases based upon what artists were contributing to the overall canon of progressive independent pop music. Everything changed in 2015. There was a drastic editorial shift, where the publication became repulsed by its own "unbearable whiteness" [1]. A kind of over-corr…
Sheesh, what an exhausting, vacuous, and frankly racist screed. If there was a point, I don't think that this would be the article to make it. Thankfully though it did introduce me to a new indie artist I hadn't heard of.
There are other pale UK bands if that's your thing: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YKNt_qq6N7o https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iKcbSOjIzjQ
Re: How Condé Nast bought and destroyed Pitchfork
#130The survival of most startup media/publication companies is focused on one thing: demographics. Millennials in their 20s are different from millennials in their 30s, or Gen Z in their 20s. Considering this limited shelf value, it often results in them shutting down or being acquired. The companies that do acquire them have gone through this same cycle of failures and know that there is a high likelihood that the userbase will age out and the acquired company will eventually fall. This is so frequent, I bet they even financial engineer deals that may lead to some kind of benefit upon failure.