Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

How Condé Nast bought and destroyed Pitchfork

semafor.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

141–150 of 213 posts

Re: How Condé Nast bought and destroyed Pitchfork

#141

Post by Staple_Diet »

lmm wrote: post #90
Cheer2171 wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I still think you might be missing the point of Pitchfork. Pitchfork is more about the cultural conversation around media than the content of that media. Take their 1.9 review of Tool's Lateralus [1], which was very positively reviewed at the time by most people who liked metal and prog rock, and has since become one of the most influential metal/prog albums. Most reviews of the album went something like: "If you don…

> Most reviews of the album went something like: "If you don't like metal and prog rock, then you probably will hate this album, because it is a tour de force of these relatively unpopular genres. If you like metal and prog rock, then you probably will love it." Because that's pretty much all a reader needs to know. ... > The point of the review is that if you're a fan of metal, Tool's Lateralus is a 10.0. If you don…

A more contemporary example might be Rick and Morty.

Now R&M is an immensely popular show, but we all know there is a subsets of its fanbase who are intolerable and who unironically speak about this cartoon as being for people with high IQs. Now imagine if a contemporary publication published a review of the latest season and chose not too focus on the content but rather parody these fans. Fans of the show will watch the new season regardless of the rating and people who hate it won't, but both would get a chuckle out of a parody of that intolerable fan and for R&M they benefit either way by being mentioned. Further, as stated by previous commenter, this type of review opened up a conversation about whether a fanbase becomes a legitimate reason to dislike an artist/creation.

Also, if unfamiliar with Tool, check out any of their songs on YT and read the comments, you will understand the need for the parody.

Re: How Condé Nast bought and destroyed Pitchfork

#142

Post by xref »

I see Ars Technica taking a lot of flak in the comments but lawdy, they’re still pretty great and one of the news sources I actually pay for (full-text rss feeds are a nice bonus).

Just to pick a few of their writers who still kill it: Lee Hutchinson for anything sysadmin related, Eric Berger does the best space/rocket coverage on the entire internet, Jonathan Gitlin does a ton of in-depth automotive coverage and his passion for it bleeds through in every article, Andrew Cunningham’s insane macOS reviews that he took over from John Siracusa. I could go on but would basically be copy-pasting from their staff directory…

https://arstechnica.com/staff-directory/

If Condé Nast eventually kills the site so be it, but its been 16y since their acquisition and still a daily read for me.

Re: How Condé Nast bought and destroyed Pitchfork

#143

Post by sph »

resolutebat wrote: post #55
CodeWriter23 wrote: post #7

Condé Nast is where awesome goes to die.

Much to my surprise, they have managed to avoid killing Reddit so far. (Well, technically Reddit is owned by Conde's parent Advance, not Conde itself.)

You haven't been looking hard enough if you believe Reddit is still the same it was pre-API bullshit.

Fake comments, more pliable moderators, dead subreddits are everywhere now.

Re: How Condé Nast bought and destroyed Pitchfork

#144

Post by KingMob »

rospaya wrote: post #140
Solvency wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

As if reviews are some obscure niche subject for weirdoes. Someone tell Letterboxd, Rolling Stone Magazine, Stereogum, IMDB.

I think it's the combination of the rise of accessible playlists AND P4k's review style. Many who read P4k just to find new bands, viewed the review style as an impediment, not a benefit, and left once there were better alternatives.

Personally, I left after the whole Black Kids debacle, where they overhyped, and then trashed, a promising young band and destroyed their career.

Re: How Condé Nast bought and destroyed Pitchfork

#145

Post by nottorp »

xref wrote: post #142

I see Ars Technica taking a lot of flak in the comments but lawdy, they’re still pretty great and one of the news sources I actually pay for (full-text rss feeds are a nice bonus). Just to pick a few of their writers who still kill it: Lee Hutchinson for anything sysadmin related, Eric Berger does the best space/rocket coverage on the entire internet, Jonathan Gitlin does a ton of in-depth automotive coverage and his…

Well there are signs. There have been less in depth articles in the past years.

And they have started pulling in the occasional Wired article, most of the time digital security fearmongering with zero to negative value. They're clearly marked as Wired on the front page now, I think because people complained, but I'm guessing Conde Nast is forcing them to keep pulling them, which is worrying.

I'm still paying for a subscription though.

Re: How Condé Nast bought and destroyed Pitchfork

#146

Post by ordinaryperson »

nottorp wrote: post #145
xref wrote: post #142

I see Ars Technica taking a lot of flak in the comments but lawdy, they’re still pretty great and one of the news sources I actually pay for (full-text rss feeds are a nice bonus). Just to pick a few of their writers who still kill it: Lee Hutchinson for anything sysadmin related, Eric Berger does the best space/rocket coverage on the entire internet, Jonathan Gitlin does a ton of in-depth automotive coverage and his…

Well there are signs. There have been less in depth articles in the past years. And they have started pulling in the occasional Wired article, most of the time digital security fearmongering with zero to negative value. They're clearly marked as Wired on the front page now, I think because people complained, but I'm guessing Conde Nast is forcing them to keep pulling them, which is worrying. I'm still paying for a su…

The terms of the Conde's acquisition state they are not allowed to interfere with the operation of the site.

The depth of articles or the decision to pull in Wired content is strictly an editorial decision made by Ars editorial leadership.

Re: How Condé Nast bought and destroyed Pitchfork

#147

Post by zoklet-enjoyer »

xref wrote: post #142

I see Ars Technica taking a lot of flak in the comments but lawdy, they’re still pretty great and one of the news sources I actually pay for (full-text rss feeds are a nice bonus). Just to pick a few of their writers who still kill it: Lee Hutchinson for anything sysadmin related, Eric Berger does the best space/rocket coverage on the entire internet, Jonathan Gitlin does a ton of in-depth automotive coverage and his…

Jan 9, 2020, I was sitting in the break room scrolling through Ars when I read this article.

https://arstechnica.com/science/2020/01/never-before-seen-vi...

It scared the shit out of me. If it wasn't for Ars coverage, and specifically Beth Mole, I would have been caught up in the TP panic with everyone else. But I had stocked up early haha. What a weird time.

Does anyone remember a website with videos from China of people passing out in public and streets being cleared?

Re: How Condé Nast bought and destroyed Pitchfork

#148

Post by paganel »

drawfloat wrote: post #134
jollofricepeas wrote: post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

It’s a little from column a and a little column b in practice. Puja Patel (editor in chief) is fairly open about being in a mission to increase diversity and specifically covering fewer white male bands. You may spin that as “wokeness” (note: the parent never used that phrase) but it’s one and the same to covering what younger listeners were interested in over most of the last decade too. In lots of ways raging again…

[flagged]

Re: How Condé Nast bought and destroyed Pitchfork

#149

Post by hnnnnnnngggggg »

reb wrote: post #95
hnnnnnnngggggg wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Pitchfork is not dead ass now but close. 15 years ago we were in lockstep. I find Gorilla vs Bear best of playlist retains that OG Pitchfork vibe the best.

Is that available on spotify? I desperately check gvb every six months or so, but it seems like a husk at this point

https://open.spotify.com/playlist/6gsuuOM6lSq6JnDLHO20hl

Re: How Condé Nast bought and destroyed Pitchfork

#150

Post by slater- »

lukas099 wrote: post #75
Cheer2171 wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I still think you might be missing the point of Pitchfork. Pitchfork is more about the cultural conversation around media than the content of that media. Take their 1.9 review of Tool's Lateralus [1], which was very positively reviewed at the time by most people who liked metal and prog rock, and has since become one of the most influential metal/prog albums. Most reviews of the album went something like: "If you don…

Kinda wrong about tool because they're a metal band that a lot of non-metal people actually like

“You’re wrong about Tool a lot of people like them” is like the most Tool Fan thing to say haha
Post reply on HN