71–80 of 213 posts
A shame they couldn't just run without a partner. Any recommendations for music news and reviews?
I still go to Pitchfork a couple times a week to see what's new. Stereogum has a ton of posts and music to discover but they also lean too much into celebrity music and gossip. Also, they aren't nearly as critical on bad music.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
To me, a good review clearly explains why . If Cheer2171 gives Casablanca a 2/5... okay? But if it gets a 2/5 and an explanation that you thought the cinematography was hacky and the drama overwrought... that's cool. I might like the cinematography and over-dramatic dialog! 110% agreed that too many reviews/critiques these days are milquetoast. Have an opinion that the reviwer is passionate about! And argue it fully…
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…
1) Do you think there's nothing to say about this (or any other album) than "fans of the genre will like it and others will not"? There's plenty of insightful things to say both to familiar audiences and others.
2) Do you think this Tool review was the first (or even first larger scale) criticism of metal fans?
I guess I will now blindly accept music recommendations from GQ instead of Pitchfork. Kinda fitting as I push towards 40. For over a decade now, anything Pitchfork rates 7.0 or above gets a listen from me, 6.0 or higher for preferred genres. This may not find the best music (whatever that is…) but it finds a lot of good stuff that I would never have known about otherwise z
This reminds me of Google under Marissa Mayer buying Zagat. Remember them? Big company buys small company, dismembers it into little pieces controlled by managers who weren't fans of the acquisition and don't respect it -- it's an old story. The founder of the acquiree quits in frustration, etc. etc.
The Zagat acquisition was not driven by Marissa, but another exec at Google Travel. When he was turfed out, that signaled the end for Zagat as well.
"On September 8, 2011, the company was acquired by Google for more than $150 million, the 10th largest acquisition by Google as of that date, at the championing of Marissa Mayer, its Vice President of Local, Maps, and Location Services."
Earlier quoted context omitted.
To me, a good review clearly explains why . If Cheer2171 gives Casablanca a 2/5... okay? But if it gets a 2/5 and an explanation that you thought the cinematography was hacky and the drama overwrought... that's cool. I might like the cinematography and over-dramatic dialog! 110% agreed that too many reviews/critiques these days are milquetoast. Have an opinion that the reviwer is passionate about! And argue it fully…
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…
This reminds me of Google under Marissa Mayer buying Zagat. Remember them? Big company buys small company, dismembers it into little pieces controlled by managers who weren't fans of the acquisition and don't respect it -- it's an old story. The founder of the acquiree quits in frustration, etc. etc.
The Zagat acquisition was not driven by Marissa, but another exec at Google Travel. When he was turfed out, that signaled the end for Zagat as well.
Not to mention: I was there when she stood up and told us how she'd made the acquisition. I don't know who your information comes from, but stop listening to them.
Culture is best discovered by accident, and considered on its merits by the individual. When some critic tells you what's good and what isn't, you'll never know if you actually like it, or you just like it because someone told you you do. Simultaneously, if that's your only outlet for finding culture, you'll miss all the rest.
It's like with movies: you can watch whatever trends on Rotten Tomatoes, or you can watch a whole bunch of random stuff at a film festival. Guaranteed you will find something at the festival that will never trend on RT but that you'll enjoy thoroughly.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This was 2011. Foodies were well past artisanal by then. As for Google: 'splain me why it wasn't just $150M down the drain? Minus the undisclosed amount: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zagat On March 6, 2018, Google sold the company to restaurant discovery platform The Infatuation for an undisclosed amount
> This was 2011. Foodies were well past artisanal by then. What does this mean?
In the evolution of popular tastes, being a foodie was not limited to a rarified minority who liked artisanal food.
In other words, dining out and reading about it had become a mainstream activity.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I disagree, because I think the idiosyncratic aspect was way more of a feature than a bug of Pitchfork. The real purpose of Pitchfork was not to say which music was good or bad. It was to say which music is worth talking about, and it made itself the center of that conversation. Getting reviewed by Pitchfork was more important than getting a good review by Pitchfork. They were notorious for giving bad reviews to good…
To me, a good review clearly explains why . If Cheer2171 gives Casablanca a 2/5... okay? But if it gets a 2/5 and an explanation that you thought the cinematography was hacky and the drama overwrought... that's cool. I might like the cinematography and over-dramatic dialog! 110% agreed that too many reviews/critiques these days are milquetoast. Have an opinion that the reviwer is passionate about! And argue it fully…
TBH, Condé Nast can only be blamed for a small part of Pitchfork's fall. They've always been wildly inconsistent in their ratings and beholden to a few darling artists, and none of the acquisitions have improved this. Over time they've lost mostly to influencers.
I disagree, because I think the idiosyncratic aspect was way more of a feature than a bug of Pitchfork. The real purpose of Pitchfork was not to say which music was good or bad. It was to say which music is worth talking about, and it made itself the center of that conversation. Getting reviewed by Pitchfork was more important than getting a good review by Pitchfork. They were notorious for giving bad reviews to good…