7 ms·
Condé Nast Buys Pitchfork Media
- tptacek 11y agoIt brings “a very passionate audience of millennial males into our roster,” he said. Oof.
- santaclaus 11y agoI always viewed Pitchfork as more of a Gen X thing... they were founded in the mid 90s.
- tptacek 11y agoI thought it was '98. And: the site was pretty sparse until 2001; like, Ryan and Matt Lemay and Brent DiCrescenzo reviewing their personal record collections sparse.
- steveklabnik 11y agoFor those who aren't familiar, Pitchfork is basically _the_ hipster music magazine. Source: I live in Brooklyn. (This post made with tongue firmly in cheek, of course. By virtue of the fact that I know about it, it can't possibly be hipster enough.)
- santaclaus 11y agoEhhhh, 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.)
- thomnottom 11y agoSomewhat 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/ http://pitchfork.com/reviews/albums/13906-sigh-no-more/
- diyorgasms 11y agoWow, 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.
- orbitur 11y ago"Popular among the Mumford & Sons crowd." That would be weird, because Pfork hates them.
- parennoob 11y agoThat a bit ironic from my own perspective, because the majority of my friends who read Pitchfork are female. But what's wrong with expressing a positive sentiment about including passionate millenial males?
- tptacek 11y agoNothing; it's just uncomfortable when someone has a bead on you. The same feeling as being at an NMH show a year or so ago and noticing that I was in a sea of beards and flannel shirts.
- firstworldman 11y agoThe point is that millennial males do not lack for adequate representation in the current media landscape. I'm certain they'll regret having gone with that quote. It will be the most seized upon line in the press release.
- whatok 11y agoIs Pitchfork still cool with hipsters?
- eronhp 11y agoNot being cool with hipsters is the new hip.
- caractacus 11y agoThey read Pitchfork only to be up on what Anthony Fantano is talking about.
- jmduke 11y agoI'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 approaches (like the late Dissolve), but Ryan seems to understand the core appeal of the site pretty well. I hope they continue to put out good reviews of great music. As long as they do that, I'll be happy.
- whatok 11y agoHow did you discover music before Pitchfork?
- jmduke 11y agoThe usual routes, I think (which is to say I didn't really go out of my way to discover music): friends & family, the radio, The O.C. soundtrack.
- ryanSrich 11y agoI'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 https://twitter.com/stadiumsshrines)
- ebbv 11y agoI don't even like Pitchfork that much (while I have learned about some artists from them, largely their tastes don't align with mine), but this makes me sad. Conde Nast buys everything. I can't really blame Conde Nast for this entirely, the owners who choose to sell out are really to blame. It's unfortunate. But I can't say I'd choose any differently if presented with such a large pay day. I'm disappointed because since the Conde Nast takeover of Ars Technica, it has gone steeply down hill. I imagine the fans of Pitchfork will go through a similar experience over the next few years.
- 6stringmerc 11y agoI see Ars as a very interesting microcosm of online journalism. What made Ars great over time and high profile were some very skilled, diligent, audience-mindful writers and editors. As those writers (and editors) got discovered, they were lured to other publications (ex: Washington Post). The replacements, and replacements of replacements, have not been of equivalent caliber, which could also be reinforced in the long run by a 'corporate mentality' of viewing employees as more-or-less interchangeable parts with dollar signs attached (simplistic but just to make a point).
- JonnieCache 11y agoFor a taste of the archetypical pitchfork style, read any of their radiohead reviews: http://pitchfork.com/artists/3512-radiohead/ http://pitchfork.com/artists/3512-radiohead/ The classic is the Kid A one: http://pitchfork.com/reviews/albums/6656-kid-a/ 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 https://twitter.com/boomkat_ebooks
- jmduke 11y agoI say this as a fairly regular Pitchfork reader: The experience and emotions tied to listening to Kid A are like witnessing the stillborn birth of a child while simultaneously having the opportunity to see her play in the afterlife on Imax is one of at least the top five worst sentences I've ever read. (IMHO, their earlier reviews generally were of lower quality than their more recent ones, and they've benefited from discarding/discouraging the more experimental/informal review formats. The irony of this sentence being a hipster antithesis does not escape me.)
- tptacek 11y agoYou take the bad with the good, like Zanzithoph, elephant of bizarre and archaic instruments. http://pitchfork.com/reviews/albums/5950-horse-and-elephant-eatery-no-elephants-allowed-the-singles-and-songles-collection/ http://pitchfork.com/reviews/albums/5950-horse-and-elephant-...
- minikites 11y agoI think you could pull the other four sentences from this article too: "The butterscotch lamps along the walls of the tight city square bled upward into the cobalt sky, which seemed as strikingly artificial and perfect as a wizard's cap." "Kid A sounds like a clouded brain trying to recall an alien abduction." "It's cacophonous yet tranquil, experimental yet familiar, foreign yet womb-like, spacious yet visceral, textured yet vaporous, awakening yet dreamlike, infinite yet 48 minutes." "A lazy disco light spilled artificial constellations inside the aluminum cove of the makeshift stage."
- rrego 11y agoThere 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 their merit (which is really low IMO), are indispensable in the saturated music market.
- AndrewKemendo 11y agoI 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.
- bufordsharkley 11y agoMy 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.
- whatok 11y agoPitchfork has also expanded what they review so you might become hard pressed to find anything to play at all after a while.
- 6stringmerc 11y agoSites 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 into arguments about merit / influence / purity / micro-genres if given enough time. If Pitchfork integrated something like "-core" genre distinctions, it's because they were picking up on audiences and potential readers already using it.
- sharkweek 11y agoI have always been really impressed with Pitchfork's longevity - been a regular reader since the early 00s and I still check the reviews every day for a new song or album to listen to. One of their most impressive features I thought was their 'Cover Story' articles, definitely worth a peek: http://pitchfork.com/features/cover-story/ http://pitchfork.com/features/cover-story/ As everyone was tripping out over The NYT's Snow Fall (great piece, certainly), Pitchfork was at the time releasing similar articles with relative frequency. I never felt these got as much credit as they deserve.
- robbyking 11y agoI'm also a huge fan of Pitchfork. Even if I dislike the bands they designate at "best new music," I can never argue with the quality of their selections. No matter how esoteric or obscure a genre, Pitchfork always does an amazing job of finding bands before they crossover to the mainstream (if they crossover at all). Because of that, it's quotes like this that worry me: It brings 'a very passionate audience of millennial males into our roster,' said Fred Santarpia, the company’s chief digital officer, who led the acquisition Very similar things were said by major label executives when their companies were snatching up alternative bands after Nirvana's Nevermind came out.
- sharkweek 11y agoYeah, definitely don't love hearing that, but if they let Mark Richardson keep running the editorial side of things, I'm less concerned. That guy has done wonders for the site over the past 10 years.
- firstworldman 11y agoThe cover stories have been really wonderful, as a guy who grew up loving magazine design (not to mention quality writing) in mags like The Face, Dazed, i-D and Raygun. For a good time, view source on the Aphex Twin feature.
- darylfritz 11y agoLink for those lazier than me: http://pitchfork.com/features/cover-story/reader/aphex-twin/ http://pitchfork.com/features/cover-story/reader/aphex-twin/
- craigching 11y agoI'm a bit concerned about pitchfork's quality going forward, hopefully it can stay good enough. I like pitchfork for alt pop music, but for ambient music nothing beats headphonecommute: http://reviews.headphonecommute.com/ http://reviews.headphonecommute.com/ Anyone have other good music review sites?
- codq 11y agoFor me and my tastes (experimental, ambient, black metal, progressive, electronic, krautrock, artscene, etc.), nothing beats TheQuietus (http://www.thequietus.com http://www.thequietus.com)
- pla3rhat3r 11y agoFirst Pandora buys Ticketfly and now Conde Nast buys Pitchfork? My new prediction is that Spotify will be acquired by Proctor and Gamble.
- draw_down 11y agoThe 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.
- CPLX 11y agoYeah bashing hipsters was, like... last decades trend, ya know?
- 6stringmerc 11y agoOkay, 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.
- firstworldman 11y agoI 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 huge. The sponsorships they'll be able to get for the live events and video series will be bigger. The scope of the site could become more journalistic.
- 6stringmerc 11y agoSee, 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 true, to me, I worry about the downsides. This is just me, the kind of guy who keeps a fun list of Murphy's Laws within eyesight at work.
- firstworldman 11y agoI 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.
- trackofalljades 11y agoDoes anyone else think the death of The Dissolve was part of step zero for this?
- sneak 11y ago> 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 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tvp97SMZc6M
- DaveWalk 11y agoDoes anyone have these concerns about Conde Nast's other holdings, like Reddit? (Is there anyone at Reddit who fears Conde Nast interfering with its independence?)
- tg3 11y agoConde Nast doesn't own Reddit anymore: http://www.redditblog.com/2013/08/reddit-myth-busters_6.html#independent-reddit-inc http://www.redditblog.com/2013/08/reddit-myth-busters_6.html...
- DaveWalk 11y agoMy apologies. I guess I have to now call Reddit “part-sibling-once-removed” of Condé Nast.