MagazineFilter
January 19, 2024 9:47 AM Subscribe
Condé Nast is folding Pitchfork into GQ, with layoffs (NYT). Sports Illustrated lays off most of its staff, threatening iconic brand’s future (WaPo)
If there are any young people (<30 years old) here, kindly tell this old geezer: do sites like Pitchfork matter to you?
posted by senor biggles at 9:51 AM on January 19 [7 favorites]
posted by senor biggles at 9:51 AM on January 19 [7 favorites]
It seems that magazines (like newspapers) are over, for the most part. I'm sure the internet plays a big part, but if that's the case, then why have book sales remained so healthy?
posted by Pararrayos at 9:58 AM on January 19 [4 favorites]
posted by Pararrayos at 9:58 AM on January 19 [4 favorites]
I'm depressed that reporting on life, news, etc. is no longer any kind of viable career. It's not like the need went away, it 's just...money and now AI. *cries*
posted by jenfullmoon at 10:06 AM on January 19 [19 favorites]
posted by jenfullmoon at 10:06 AM on January 19 [19 favorites]
Pitchfork Editor Forced to Review Cigars for GQ Calls La Aroma de Cuba Mi Amor Belicoso “Sonically Challenged” and “Derivative”:
Longtime GQ Editor Kevin DeLaste says many Pitchfork writers have had trouble adjusting to their new roles.posted by Artifice_Eternity at 10:07 AM on January 19 [41 favorites]
“Adam’s first piece for us was about the best ties for men for 2024 and he used the word ‘angular’ 175 times. And that seems to be the case with most of the staff we brought over from Pitchfork, we had one of them write up a piece on the Tesla Cybertruck and within two sentences it turned into an article about how Frank Ocean’s ‘Blonde’ was ahead of its time,” said Delaste. “We also had to institute a new policy where if you listen to Neutral Milk Hotel you have to do it wearing headphones and you are not allowed to sing along. It was a huge distraction to our team working on a feature about the gadgets Chris Hemsworth can’t live without.”
Editor DeLaste? Well played.
posted by EvaDestruction at 10:14 AM on January 19 [2 favorites]
posted by EvaDestruction at 10:14 AM on January 19 [2 favorites]
People Hated Pitchfork Because It Mattered
posted by 1970s Antihero at 10:15 AM on January 19 [8 favorites]
posted by 1970s Antihero at 10:15 AM on January 19 [8 favorites]
So, I'm not terribly surprised that Sports Illustrated is collapsing, especially after they published this image in response to college athletes finally being allowed to own their own NIL rights. While part of the story is that of the hollowing out of the media, another part is that SI very much represents the "old guard" of sports journalism, in comparison to places like Defector, The Athletic, and Secret Base - and all the old, dated, and often abusive mentality that goes along with that.
posted by NoxAeternum at 10:24 AM on January 19 [8 favorites]
posted by NoxAeternum at 10:24 AM on January 19 [8 favorites]
A rule to live by: If you want your business to live, don't sell to Advance. (Or any other big media holding company. They're all vampires.)
posted by Just the one swan, actually at 10:29 AM on January 19 [7 favorites]
posted by Just the one swan, actually at 10:29 AM on January 19 [7 favorites]
bet that a lot of the people in the head offices think that they'll just be able to replace this with ai-drivel and it'll result in the same embarrassment pivot-to-video did, and with the same results: that is to say, "oops!" and then no change
national geographic is also dead, btw.
posted by i used to be someone else at 10:33 AM on January 19 [12 favorites]
national geographic is also dead, btw.
posted by i used to be someone else at 10:33 AM on January 19 [12 favorites]
I was just puttering along the other day and wondering whether Pitchfork had become the Rolling Stone of the 80s and 90s, culturally-speaking, in other words was it a thing that had opened new doors for me in my youth and now in middle age, was it sort of just giving me a shallow but deceptive sense of being "informed" about music? Hard to know, speaking from middle age, how out of touch you are, and also I guess it's a pretty unimportant question in the scheme of things.
Count me among those who loved to hate Pitchfork, partially because I'm ambivalent about the whole concept of album reviews to begin with. But my morning routine since about 18 or so has been to open a tab for a national paper, a tab for the local paper, and Pitchfork (and, later, AskMeFi and even later, MeFi, howdy frenz). I don't think I've read an entire Pitchfork review in 10 years or more, but it was nice to know about five new albums every day that weren't always Beyonce or Taylor Swift or Harry Styles (nothing against those artists, I actually love Beyonce, but you get my point).
I've found second-tier sites like Stereogum and Consequence of Sound (and the sadly long-departed Tiny Mix Tapes) to be more enjoyable to read because they are less self-serious, but you have to admit, it seemed like Pitchfork's writers did their best to know what was going on in music, and the site was more comprehensive than the others.
I guess I find this sad because of the ache of lost youth, but also in part because I do hate to see any form of journalism get parceled out for its brand, leaving a legacy but no clear descendent in its wake. I'm sure something will come along. I know very little about popular culture, and a little bit of something about men's clothing since I wear various forms of it, and so I do hate to think of Gentleman's Quarterly handling music the way it handles those other two topics. Take what sounds like the truth, and then deliver it like you are a douchebag, and all your readers are also douchebags.
And you hate to see the new boss come in and lay waste to the place. Fuck the bosses.
posted by kensington314 at 10:36 AM on January 19 [12 favorites]
Count me among those who loved to hate Pitchfork, partially because I'm ambivalent about the whole concept of album reviews to begin with. But my morning routine since about 18 or so has been to open a tab for a national paper, a tab for the local paper, and Pitchfork (and, later, AskMeFi and even later, MeFi, howdy frenz). I don't think I've read an entire Pitchfork review in 10 years or more, but it was nice to know about five new albums every day that weren't always Beyonce or Taylor Swift or Harry Styles (nothing against those artists, I actually love Beyonce, but you get my point).
I've found second-tier sites like Stereogum and Consequence of Sound (and the sadly long-departed Tiny Mix Tapes) to be more enjoyable to read because they are less self-serious, but you have to admit, it seemed like Pitchfork's writers did their best to know what was going on in music, and the site was more comprehensive than the others.
I guess I find this sad because of the ache of lost youth, but also in part because I do hate to see any form of journalism get parceled out for its brand, leaving a legacy but no clear descendent in its wake. I'm sure something will come along. I know very little about popular culture, and a little bit of something about men's clothing since I wear various forms of it, and so I do hate to think of Gentleman's Quarterly handling music the way it handles those other two topics. Take what sounds like the truth, and then deliver it like you are a douchebag, and all your readers are also douchebags.
And you hate to see the new boss come in and lay waste to the place. Fuck the bosses.
posted by kensington314 at 10:36 AM on January 19 [12 favorites]
I do wonder how many Substacks were conceived yesterday and born today.
posted by kensington314 at 10:46 AM on January 19 [3 favorites]
posted by kensington314 at 10:46 AM on January 19 [3 favorites]
SI also showcased amazing sports photography so a huge loss there too.
posted by girlmightlive at 10:47 AM on January 19 [12 favorites]
posted by girlmightlive at 10:47 AM on January 19 [12 favorites]
"This decision was made after a careful evaluation of Pitchfork’s performance, and what we believe is the best path forward for the brand so that our coverage of music can continue to thrive within the company."
Translation: Your favorite brand sucks.
posted by swift at 10:49 AM on January 19 [20 favorites]
Translation: Your favorite brand sucks.
posted by swift at 10:49 AM on January 19 [20 favorites]
I'm sure the internet plays a big part, but if that's the case, then why have book sales remained so healthy?
Books are forever, magazines are temporary.
If I find a two year old book, I can read it or give it away, but someone else will read it and it will still be relevant to them.
Magazines, in general, and particularly "news of the week" magazines like SI, are temporary, completely ephemeral, and the information in them is obsolete within a week or a month. Why pay money to have paper copies of obsolete information hanging around? That kind of information is designed to be read online.
posted by anastasiav at 10:51 AM on January 19 [5 favorites]
Books are forever, magazines are temporary.
If I find a two year old book, I can read it or give it away, but someone else will read it and it will still be relevant to them.
Magazines, in general, and particularly "news of the week" magazines like SI, are temporary, completely ephemeral, and the information in them is obsolete within a week or a month. Why pay money to have paper copies of obsolete information hanging around? That kind of information is designed to be read online.
posted by anastasiav at 10:51 AM on January 19 [5 favorites]
If the SI news isn't bad enough for you, there's also this from Dave Zirin, the excellent sports reporter at the Nation, the other day:
The NFL May Buy a Stake in ESPN. Is This the Death of the Network’s Journalism?
The NFL is in negotiations to buy a stake in the self-proclaimed “worldwide leader in sports.” On a financial level, the plan makes sense...Such a move feels predestined partly because ESPN has increasingly become an “all NFL, all the time” network. Since Disney bought the rights to broadcast games on ESPN, the network has hired more and more ex-players as talking heads and laid off or forced out many of its award-winning journalists.
Over the last 15 years, reporters at ESPN have done many of the most important exposés of the NFL...These stories were often buried on the website and usually ignored on both the network’s flagship show SportsCenter as well as its hours of shout-festy NFL-centric programming. In addition, back in 2019, ESPN canceled its award-winning investigative program Outside the Lines as a daily show and then in early 2023 canceled it as a weekly. OTL could be counted upon to shine light when the league wanted to do business in shadows.
Scroll down to the story from former ESPN employee Jim Trotter, who talks about how the NFL got ESPN's newsroom head to spike his story about Damar Hamlin's near-death on the field, and the NFL's initial decision to continue playing the game until the players and coaches said fuck no. The future of NFL coverage right there.
posted by mediareport at 10:52 AM on January 19 [12 favorites]
The NFL May Buy a Stake in ESPN. Is This the Death of the Network’s Journalism?
The NFL is in negotiations to buy a stake in the self-proclaimed “worldwide leader in sports.” On a financial level, the plan makes sense...Such a move feels predestined partly because ESPN has increasingly become an “all NFL, all the time” network. Since Disney bought the rights to broadcast games on ESPN, the network has hired more and more ex-players as talking heads and laid off or forced out many of its award-winning journalists.
Over the last 15 years, reporters at ESPN have done many of the most important exposés of the NFL...These stories were often buried on the website and usually ignored on both the network’s flagship show SportsCenter as well as its hours of shout-festy NFL-centric programming. In addition, back in 2019, ESPN canceled its award-winning investigative program Outside the Lines as a daily show and then in early 2023 canceled it as a weekly. OTL could be counted upon to shine light when the league wanted to do business in shadows.
Scroll down to the story from former ESPN employee Jim Trotter, who talks about how the NFL got ESPN's newsroom head to spike his story about Damar Hamlin's near-death on the field, and the NFL's initial decision to continue playing the game until the players and coaches said fuck no. The future of NFL coverage right there.
posted by mediareport at 10:52 AM on January 19 [12 favorites]
I wonder what kind of music these particular decisionmakers at Conde Nast listen to. I'm guessing just Bruce Springsteen and maybe a dash of Dave Matthews Band.
posted by kensington314 at 10:56 AM on January 19 [2 favorites]
posted by kensington314 at 10:56 AM on January 19 [2 favorites]
Well at least it took about seven years longer for Conde Nast to destroy Pitchfork than it did Women's Sports & Fitness.
posted by BrotherCaine at 11:01 AM on January 19 [2 favorites]
posted by BrotherCaine at 11:01 AM on January 19 [2 favorites]
Springsteen? Too arty. Bon Jovi all the way.
posted by pxe2000 at 11:01 AM on January 19 [4 favorites]
posted by pxe2000 at 11:01 AM on January 19 [4 favorites]
Can they all coalesce around defector or start some other blog?
posted by BrotherCaine at 11:03 AM on January 19
posted by BrotherCaine at 11:03 AM on January 19
I do wonder how many Substacks were conceived yesterday and born today.
Ew, I hope not. Haven't we learned yet not to drink at the Nazi bar?
posted by The Pluto Gangsta at 11:08 AM on January 19 [16 favorites]
Ew, I hope not. Haven't we learned yet not to drink at the Nazi bar?
posted by The Pluto Gangsta at 11:08 AM on January 19 [16 favorites]
“Both Pitchfork and GQ have unique and valuable ways that they approach music journalism,” Ms. Wintour said, “and we are excited for the new possibilities together. And by ‘together’, let me clarify that this does not include you, Chad, or you, Jill, or you three over there; you can clear out your desks now. Security will be here in 5 minutes to assist you.”
posted by caution live frogs at 11:09 AM on January 19 [5 favorites]
posted by caution live frogs at 11:09 AM on January 19 [5 favorites]
Many of us on MetaFilter have, sure. But journalists looking to monetize their journalism in an era of dead and dying options open Substacks every day, just as I'm sure Heather Cox Richardson and Yascha Mounk's Substacks probably get linked somewhere here once or twice a week.
posted by kensington314 at 11:10 AM on January 19 [3 favorites]
posted by kensington314 at 11:10 AM on January 19 [3 favorites]
The NFL May Buy a Stake in ESPN. Is This the Death of the Network’s Journalism?
Combine that with ESPN's foray into sports betting and you have a recipe for toxic vertical integration, with the league, the media coverage, and the gambling all rolled into one, each part exerting perverse incentives on the rest.
posted by jedicus at 11:11 AM on January 19 [9 favorites]
Combine that with ESPN's foray into sports betting and you have a recipe for toxic vertical integration, with the league, the media coverage, and the gambling all rolled into one, each part exerting perverse incentives on the rest.
posted by jedicus at 11:11 AM on January 19 [9 favorites]
anastiasiav: Books are forever, magazines are temporary.
Oh, I don't think I would go that far. Many magazines publish long, stand-alone pieces that are quite good, and others give a platform to writers who produce good stuff on the regular.
The book "The Best American Sports Writing of the Century" entirely (IIRC) features pieces that ran in magazines or newspapers. All of them still hold up -- which I say not because of survivorship bias, but because they are examples of "temporary" writing that were simply good.
And I have happily re-read William Langewiesche pieces that were originally in the Atlantic, and which are still quote good.
posted by wenestvedt at 11:17 AM on January 19 [12 favorites]
Oh, I don't think I would go that far. Many magazines publish long, stand-alone pieces that are quite good, and others give a platform to writers who produce good stuff on the regular.
The book "The Best American Sports Writing of the Century" entirely (IIRC) features pieces that ran in magazines or newspapers. All of them still hold up -- which I say not because of survivorship bias, but because they are examples of "temporary" writing that were simply good.
And I have happily re-read William Langewiesche pieces that were originally in the Atlantic, and which are still quote good.
posted by wenestvedt at 11:17 AM on January 19 [12 favorites]
People Hated Pitchfork Because It Mattered
For me, it's about Pitchfork long, slow shift away from reporting on music as a creative work. One signifier of this is historical revisionism behind going back to low-scoring reviews they were embarrassed by.
Changing your mind about something because you had a chance to have a relisten/rethink is fine, but I suspect this sort of thing wasn't done for that reason, rather to make the site more relatable to a younger advertising demographic, which can be a bit of a kiss of death if your reputation or brand was built upon being a self-proclaimed cultural authority.
posted by They sucked his brains out! at 11:18 AM on January 19
For me, it's about Pitchfork long, slow shift away from reporting on music as a creative work. One signifier of this is historical revisionism behind going back to low-scoring reviews they were embarrassed by.
Changing your mind about something because you had a chance to have a relisten/rethink is fine, but I suspect this sort of thing wasn't done for that reason, rather to make the site more relatable to a younger advertising demographic, which can be a bit of a kiss of death if your reputation or brand was built upon being a self-proclaimed cultural authority.
posted by They sucked his brains out! at 11:18 AM on January 19
Many Pitchfork writers have had trouble adjusting to their new roles.
"All you need is three pairs of these hot new cords and the truth".
posted by Paul Slade at 11:26 AM on January 19 [11 favorites]
"All you need is three pairs of these hot new cords and the truth".
posted by Paul Slade at 11:26 AM on January 19 [11 favorites]
The brief Defector story about SI links to a piece from July, written when the NYT disbanded its sports department, that's also worth a look: The Slow Hemorrhage Of The American Sports Desk (usual archive sites work if you hit a paywall)
posted by mediareport at 11:43 AM on January 19
posted by mediareport at 11:43 AM on January 19
I don't read Pitchfork, but with Pitchfork AND Bandcamp being demolished because of union busting, I am worried about the state of cultural criticism in general.
posted by tofu_crouton at 11:59 AM on January 19 [8 favorites]
posted by tofu_crouton at 11:59 AM on January 19 [8 favorites]
MetaFilter: I guess I find this sad because of the ache of lost youth
posted by ZaphodB at 12:16 PM on January 19 [7 favorites]
posted by ZaphodB at 12:16 PM on January 19 [7 favorites]
I've continued to find their Best New Music lists useful, even though I don't remember the last time I actually read a review or article.
posted by kickingtheground at 12:17 PM on January 19 [1 favorite]
posted by kickingtheground at 12:17 PM on January 19 [1 favorite]
...to make the site more relatable to a younger advertising demographic, which can be a bit of a kiss of death if your reputation or brand was built upon being a self-proclaimed cultural authority.
Paging Jann Wenner to the white courtesy phone.
posted by BigHeartedGuy at 12:21 PM on January 19 [2 favorites]
Paging Jann Wenner to the white courtesy phone.
posted by BigHeartedGuy at 12:21 PM on January 19 [2 favorites]
kensington314: I do wonder how many Substacks were conceived yesterday and born today.
This new one, Swimsuit Edition, has a weird focus on red/white/black and swastikas, which the aesthetes say is the only right way to dress your female chattels.
Well, sh_t, that was too long a stint drinking at the Nazi Bar.
butsrsly: Ars Technica has been hassling me for a subscription for the past month, how close to bankruptcy / "private equity buyout replaces the humans with a weak LLM" is Condé Nast?
posted by k3ninho at 12:50 PM on January 19 [1 favorite]
This new one, Swimsuit Edition, has a weird focus on red/white/black and swastikas, which the aesthetes say is the only right way to dress your female chattels.
Well, sh_t, that was too long a stint drinking at the Nazi Bar.
butsrsly: Ars Technica has been hassling me for a subscription for the past month, how close to bankruptcy / "private equity buyout replaces the humans with a weak LLM" is Condé Nast?
posted by k3ninho at 12:50 PM on January 19 [1 favorite]
Changing your mind about something because you had a chance to have a relisten/rethink is fine, but I suspect this sort of thing wasn't done for that reason, rather to make the site more relatable to a younger advertising demographic
Gen-z readers and advertisers were so furious about Wilco's Sky Blue Sky 5.2 score in 2007 they were gonna risk losing ad revenue
posted by windbox at 12:58 PM on January 19 [2 favorites]
Gen-z readers and advertisers were so furious about Wilco's Sky Blue Sky 5.2 score in 2007 they were gonna risk losing ad revenue
posted by windbox at 12:58 PM on January 19 [2 favorites]
It’s been a very, very long time since I wrote anything for Pitchfork. And I’ve written at length about my many conflicting feelings about the site and the tiny little bit I was a part of.
But this makes me genuinely sad. Even if I was one of the reviewers they revised out in latter years. I was a regular reader all the way through
posted by thivaia at 1:09 PM on January 19 [13 favorites]
But this makes me genuinely sad. Even if I was one of the reviewers they revised out in latter years. I was a regular reader all the way through
posted by thivaia at 1:09 PM on January 19 [13 favorites]
thivaia, what was it like writing for Pitchfork in the pre-Nast era?
posted by kensington314 at 1:27 PM on January 19
posted by kensington314 at 1:27 PM on January 19
It seems that magazines (like newspapers) are over, for the most part.
I'm a magazine and newspaper photographer (in addition to other types of photography) and the past couple of years have been tough. There are still outlets that publish, but there've been a few wake-up calls. One of the first I remember was being unable to find a copy of Bloomberg Businessweek anywhere in Boston to see how my work looked in print. That was probably 2017 and I later learned that the only place that carried the weekly issues is in the airport.
Another wake-up call was covering the closure of the Out of Town News newsstand that had been in Harvard Square for decades; it ended up lasting a year or two longer after the NYT story I worked on and by that time all but the Coop's newsstand remained in Harvard Square, but when I'd moved there around 2010, there were at least 3 or 4 full newsstands.
Another was spring last year, covering Trump's first indictment in Manhattan and I wanted a picture of front pages of newspapers that day with the news on the cover. I walked a couple extra miles to check as many newsstands as I could and slowly came to the realization that the newsstands on the streets of Manhattan no longer carry news publications. They were full of snacks, lottery tickets, drinks, etc., but no newspapers or magazines. I did eventually find a stack of Posts and Times in a bookstore in Penn Station on my way back home.
There've been others, but those are the big ones. Thankfully there are still news publications putting out great work and in print, so I continue to do this sort of work.
national geographic is also dead, btw.
Not quite, but definitely in the death throes. That linked story is about laying off staff writers, but I don't think photographers have been staff for decades, and many publications don't have any (or maybe many) staff writers. But the death probably started when Fox bought Nat Geo in 2015, continued through the last almost decade with staff cuts and focus on TV, and in December it was announced that the magazine would quit regular newsstand distribution, though they plan to keep sending print issues to subscribers.
posted by msbrauer at 1:33 PM on January 19 [20 favorites]
I'm a magazine and newspaper photographer (in addition to other types of photography) and the past couple of years have been tough. There are still outlets that publish, but there've been a few wake-up calls. One of the first I remember was being unable to find a copy of Bloomberg Businessweek anywhere in Boston to see how my work looked in print. That was probably 2017 and I later learned that the only place that carried the weekly issues is in the airport.
Another wake-up call was covering the closure of the Out of Town News newsstand that had been in Harvard Square for decades; it ended up lasting a year or two longer after the NYT story I worked on and by that time all but the Coop's newsstand remained in Harvard Square, but when I'd moved there around 2010, there were at least 3 or 4 full newsstands.
Another was spring last year, covering Trump's first indictment in Manhattan and I wanted a picture of front pages of newspapers that day with the news on the cover. I walked a couple extra miles to check as many newsstands as I could and slowly came to the realization that the newsstands on the streets of Manhattan no longer carry news publications. They were full of snacks, lottery tickets, drinks, etc., but no newspapers or magazines. I did eventually find a stack of Posts and Times in a bookstore in Penn Station on my way back home.
There've been others, but those are the big ones. Thankfully there are still news publications putting out great work and in print, so I continue to do this sort of work.
national geographic is also dead, btw.
Not quite, but definitely in the death throes. That linked story is about laying off staff writers, but I don't think photographers have been staff for decades, and many publications don't have any (or maybe many) staff writers. But the death probably started when Fox bought Nat Geo in 2015, continued through the last almost decade with staff cuts and focus on TV, and in December it was announced that the magazine would quit regular newsstand distribution, though they plan to keep sending print issues to subscribers.
posted by msbrauer at 1:33 PM on January 19 [20 favorites]
It'll be weird to see Pitchfork go from cork-sniffing discussions of the Florida rap scene to just a podcast review feature on the GQ website.
posted by kensington314 at 1:46 PM on January 19 [1 favorite]
posted by kensington314 at 1:46 PM on January 19 [1 favorite]
butsrsly: Ars Technica has been hassling me for a subscription for the past month...
No shit. That full-page “please support us” pop-up is a pain in the ass. Admiral must be rolling in dough these days, seeing as they seem to have a monopoly on ad-block sniffing and begging pop-ups.
posted by Thorzdad at 2:20 PM on January 19
No shit. That full-page “please support us” pop-up is a pain in the ass. Admiral must be rolling in dough these days, seeing as they seem to have a monopoly on ad-block sniffing and begging pop-ups.
posted by Thorzdad at 2:20 PM on January 19
If there are any young people (<30 years old) here, kindly tell this old geezer: do sites like Pitchfork matter to you?
Yeti the Younger is turning 20 in five days and finds Pitchfork eyerollingly insufferable. I am pretty sure that's over a review he disagrees with, but I forget if Sophie, Arca, or Bjork was the victim. That's his pantheon.
posted by Pudding Yeti at 2:21 PM on January 19 [5 favorites]
Yeti the Younger is turning 20 in five days and finds Pitchfork eyerollingly insufferable. I am pretty sure that's over a review he disagrees with, but I forget if Sophie, Arca, or Bjork was the victim. That's his pantheon.
posted by Pudding Yeti at 2:21 PM on January 19 [5 favorites]
It seems that magazines (like newspapers) are over, for the most part. I'm sure the internet plays a big part, but if that's the case, then why have book sales remained so healthy?
Because subscriptions and newsstand never paid for the costs, including dead trees and mailing, of magazines. Advertising did, and online markets have torpedoed that budget.
posted by warriorqueen at 2:42 PM on January 19 [9 favorites]
Because subscriptions and newsstand never paid for the costs, including dead trees and mailing, of magazines. Advertising did, and online markets have torpedoed that budget.
posted by warriorqueen at 2:42 PM on January 19 [9 favorites]
mediareport already pointed out the Defector piece on SI, but there's also a piece just up by Ray Ratto. Earlier in the week, Israel Daramola wrote about Pitchfork's ignominious end, through the filter that we're losing some real cultural value in the death of criticism:
Meanwhile, the RIPSI hashtag on Twitter is filled with examples of why the bleeding out of journalism has hurt us. It's essentially a bunch of idiots who've been sucked into culture warriorhood claiming that SI is dead because it (wait for it) it went woke, having plus sized and trans models on the cover of the swimsuit issue. If SIs death makes the news at all, this is almost certainly the tack that Fox or Newsmax will take, rather than doing any actual reporting on the fact that, once again, shareholder value and the need to squeeze all blood from any available stone has killed another industry, and left us poorer and less able to resist the next inevitable death.
posted by Ghidorah at 3:14 PM on January 19 [6 favorites]
What has filled the vacuum left behind by actual music criticism is a loose collection of YouTubers and influencers who feed slop to their younger audiences, and fan communities that engage with music solely through their obsession with a particular pop act. This has all helped produce a mass of music fans who don't understand the value of criticism and outright detest being told the things they like might suck... It is hard not to see this development as a true indicator that we're nearing the endpoint of robust, meaningful music criticism as a concept. The idea that music journalism has no value is one of the most pervasive thoughts circulating among the suits who control the industry. What those people continue to deprive us of is smart, varied music coverage produced by actual journalists, most of whom now find themselves being squeezed out of an industry that only rewards slavish devotion to the biggest pop stars, or a constant courting of drama, gossip, and violence that is only tangentially related to music.Criticism is one of the ways we learn to evaluate. Sure, you might not agree with this critic or that critic, but their criticism can push us to respond, to form our own ideas. Past that, it makes us realize we should have standards, we shouldn't just accept whatever slop is pushed towards us, no matter how shiny the package is. Pitchfork wasn't for me, but that didn't make it any less valuable.
Meanwhile, the RIPSI hashtag on Twitter is filled with examples of why the bleeding out of journalism has hurt us. It's essentially a bunch of idiots who've been sucked into culture warriorhood claiming that SI is dead because it (wait for it) it went woke, having plus sized and trans models on the cover of the swimsuit issue. If SIs death makes the news at all, this is almost certainly the tack that Fox or Newsmax will take, rather than doing any actual reporting on the fact that, once again, shareholder value and the need to squeeze all blood from any available stone has killed another industry, and left us poorer and less able to resist the next inevitable death.
posted by Ghidorah at 3:14 PM on January 19 [6 favorites]
With these organizational changes, some of our Pitchfork colleagues will be leaving the company today
Anna Wintour or her drones emitting weak, cowardly, passive corporate-bland-speak for layoffs. BARF.
posted by lalochezia at 3:18 PM on January 19 [2 favorites]
Anna Wintour or her drones emitting weak, cowardly, passive corporate-bland-speak for layoffs. BARF.
posted by lalochezia at 3:18 PM on January 19 [2 favorites]
I think part of the problem for a music review site is that these days you can just listen to the new song or album anywhere, anytime for pretty much free. You don't need a critic to tell you if it's good or not.
Back in the dark ages there was no way to do this if your local radio stations didn't have a song in it's rotation. You had to rely on critics to rate an album before you bought it. It's hard to believe now, but long ago, records were expensive for a lot of people.
posted by freakazoid at 3:43 PM on January 19 [8 favorites]
Back in the dark ages there was no way to do this if your local radio stations didn't have a song in it's rotation. You had to rely on critics to rate an album before you bought it. It's hard to believe now, but long ago, records were expensive for a lot of people.
posted by freakazoid at 3:43 PM on January 19 [8 favorites]
I think part of the problem for a music review site is that these days you can just listen to the new song or album anywhere, anytime for pretty much free. You don't need a critic to tell you if it's good or not.
A counterpoint that I'd offer though: there's just exponentially more recorded music now, it's truly daunting. Relying on various forms of curation--college radio, mixtape DJs, concert lineups, the thank you section of the CD liner notes, music critics, you name it--has always been a part of following music, and I find it's more that way than ever. It's really helpful to have someone say, hey, I know there's an endless stream of technical death metal albums out these days, but you should really check this one out is really helpful. Pitchfork, even though I didn't read the reviews, it was one of those sources for me and many other people.
I can't believe I'm attesting to the value of Pitchfork, but there it was, I just did it.
posted by kensington314 at 3:52 PM on January 19 [8 favorites]
A counterpoint that I'd offer though: there's just exponentially more recorded music now, it's truly daunting. Relying on various forms of curation--college radio, mixtape DJs, concert lineups, the thank you section of the CD liner notes, music critics, you name it--has always been a part of following music, and I find it's more that way than ever. It's really helpful to have someone say, hey, I know there's an endless stream of technical death metal albums out these days, but you should really check this one out is really helpful. Pitchfork, even though I didn't read the reviews, it was one of those sources for me and many other people.
I can't believe I'm attesting to the value of Pitchfork, but there it was, I just did it.
posted by kensington314 at 3:52 PM on January 19 [8 favorites]
I think part of the problem for a music review site is that these days you can just listen to the new song or album anywhere, anytime for pretty much free. You don't need a critic to tell you if it's good or not.
For some of us, very much this ... there are ways to monitor the nearly constant slew of releases and use one's own senses as the guide for what to pursue further +/or support by purchasing. But it is time consuming, so there's some merit to the value of music journalism ... for some.
My bias comes from living as a music creator with a music critic during college, I realized then that music journalism is very much its own 'art' (?) form in some ways and while it does intersect with music in many ways, history does show many times how unrelated (+/or unfair) the two can be ....
I do think that music journalism was much more important before record stores like tower allowed us to preview albums, and then all that followed made it even more convenient to use our curiosity alone to determine what we like and what we do not .. and imo allowing perception be the sole judge without having the cultural context served up for us makes the music all the more enjoyable, as perhaps we are approaching it with more of one hemisphere than the other ... again, for those who have the time / desire.
posted by clandestiny's child at 4:03 PM on January 19 [3 favorites]
For some of us, very much this ... there are ways to monitor the nearly constant slew of releases and use one's own senses as the guide for what to pursue further +/or support by purchasing. But it is time consuming, so there's some merit to the value of music journalism ... for some.
My bias comes from living as a music creator with a music critic during college, I realized then that music journalism is very much its own 'art' (?) form in some ways and while it does intersect with music in many ways, history does show many times how unrelated (+/or unfair) the two can be ....
I do think that music journalism was much more important before record stores like tower allowed us to preview albums, and then all that followed made it even more convenient to use our curiosity alone to determine what we like and what we do not .. and imo allowing perception be the sole judge without having the cultural context served up for us makes the music all the more enjoyable, as perhaps we are approaching it with more of one hemisphere than the other ... again, for those who have the time / desire.
posted by clandestiny's child at 4:03 PM on January 19 [3 favorites]
Pitchfork, "bro-ified" alt rock radio, and structural issues in the financialized media industry
posted by indexy at 4:04 PM on January 19 [4 favorites]
posted by indexy at 4:04 PM on January 19 [4 favorites]
This writeup by an art critic about being mobbed by art stans for a thoughtful critique of a popular TikTok painter points to folks not understanding what criticism is even for, any longer. It's pretty troubling and I don't see that toothpaste going back into the tube any time soon.
This is apart from the discussion that can be had about P4K's merit as an outlet for serious critique, I don't much have skin in that game.
posted by german_bight at 4:10 PM on January 19 [10 favorites]
This is apart from the discussion that can be had about P4K's merit as an outlet for serious critique, I don't much have skin in that game.
posted by german_bight at 4:10 PM on January 19 [10 favorites]
If there are any young people (<30 years old) here, kindly tell this old geezer: do sites like Pitchfork matter to you?
It wasn’t that great lately, and it wasn’t that great back in the day either, but it was undoubtedly one of the most influential music publications of a long era so it feels pretty weird for it to be (essentially) folding. And it seems like a bad sign as far as the state of the business in general.
posted by atoxyl at 4:19 PM on January 19 [4 favorites]
It wasn’t that great lately, and it wasn’t that great back in the day either, but it was undoubtedly one of the most influential music publications of a long era so it feels pretty weird for it to be (essentially) folding. And it seems like a bad sign as far as the state of the business in general.
posted by atoxyl at 4:19 PM on January 19 [4 favorites]
The last few times I enjoyed music writing I was on bandcamp. Hoping they hold on to the bits they got to retain.
Also +1 for Out Of Town news. Used to buy Irish newspapers for my Nana there in the 80s.
Now that even olds have smartphones, waiting rooms all over earth, magazines are gonna feel that.
posted by drowsy at 4:40 PM on January 19 [1 favorite]
Also +1 for Out Of Town news. Used to buy Irish newspapers for my Nana there in the 80s.
Now that even olds have smartphones, waiting rooms all over earth, magazines are gonna feel that.
posted by drowsy at 4:40 PM on January 19 [1 favorite]
For me, it's about Pitchfork long, slow shift away from reporting on music as a creative work. One signifier of this is historical revisionism behind going back to low-scoring reviews they were embarrassed by.
Not really.
I was a college student when Pitchfork was a Big Deal and a lot of their negative reviews were dismissive, tossed-off nonsense without a shred of respect for the artists involved. Pitchfork earned their bad reputation and deserved to eat piles of shit to get out from under it.
I don’t agree with them scrubbing the original reviews from their site, though. If you’re showing your ass, you fix that by putting on pants, not by denying that you were in fact naked.
posted by rhymedirective at 5:27 PM on January 19 [8 favorites]
Not really.
I was a college student when Pitchfork was a Big Deal and a lot of their negative reviews were dismissive, tossed-off nonsense without a shred of respect for the artists involved. Pitchfork earned their bad reputation and deserved to eat piles of shit to get out from under it.
I don’t agree with them scrubbing the original reviews from their site, though. If you’re showing your ass, you fix that by putting on pants, not by denying that you were in fact naked.
posted by rhymedirective at 5:27 PM on January 19 [8 favorites]
Maximum Rocknroll is still going strong, FWIW, and is far less doctrinaire about what types of music it covers than it was back in the days of Tim Yohannon and the print edition.
I had an intense, intense dislike of Pitchfork and its "Lester Bangs for the Starbucks set" posturing during its heyday, but I have to say I'll miss it now that it's going away. Part of the problem is that at the time there was a wealth of written music reviews, not just from competitors to Pitchfork like cokemachineglow and Tiny Mix Tapes, but from various "let's publish metadata on the open web" ventures like AllMusicGuide and from a million varied blogs.
It seems like that's all going away in favor of a) influencers / content creators, who seem way shadier and more vulnerable than any of the music sites ever were from a payola standpoint, or b) recommendation engines like Spotify's, which are able to tell you that 73% of users who liked Track A also liked Track B, but are totally incapable of finding tracks with (say) combined male/female vocals and a pensive mood, or identifying important musical influences of a given band.
posted by whir at 6:03 PM on January 19 [1 favorite]
I had an intense, intense dislike of Pitchfork and its "Lester Bangs for the Starbucks set" posturing during its heyday, but I have to say I'll miss it now that it's going away. Part of the problem is that at the time there was a wealth of written music reviews, not just from competitors to Pitchfork like cokemachineglow and Tiny Mix Tapes, but from various "let's publish metadata on the open web" ventures like AllMusicGuide and from a million varied blogs.
It seems like that's all going away in favor of a) influencers / content creators, who seem way shadier and more vulnerable than any of the music sites ever were from a payola standpoint, or b) recommendation engines like Spotify's, which are able to tell you that 73% of users who liked Track A also liked Track B, but are totally incapable of finding tracks with (say) combined male/female vocals and a pensive mood, or identifying important musical influences of a given band.
posted by whir at 6:03 PM on January 19 [1 favorite]
Surely, Hipsterrunoff has stayed true. Carles wouldn't let us down.
posted by DeepSeaHaggis at 6:39 PM on January 19 [1 favorite]
posted by DeepSeaHaggis at 6:39 PM on January 19 [1 favorite]
I am worried about the state of cultural criticism in general
You sweet summer child
posted by Reasonably Everything Happens at 7:00 PM on January 19 [2 favorites]
You sweet summer child
posted by Reasonably Everything Happens at 7:00 PM on January 19 [2 favorites]
What has filled the vacuum left behind by actual music criticism is a loose collection of YouTubers and influencers who feed slop to their younger audiences, and fan communities that engage with music solely through their obsession with a particular pop act. This has all helped produce a mass of music fans who don't understand the value of criticism and outright detest being told the things they like might suck... It is hard not to see this development as a true indicator that we're nearing the endpoint of robust, meaningful music criticism as a concept.
Eh, it's true that younger people don't partake of cultural criticism so much, and many have tastes more shaped by influencers, algorithms, and poorly informed yet boundlessly self-confident YouTubers.
But we'll only reach "the endpoint of robust, meaningful music criticism" if nobody wants to write it.
The thing is, blogs still exist. A ton of bloggers gave it up and channeled their efforts into social media instead. But it's still entirely possible to set up your own site, hang out your shingle, and just start writing.
"But what if nobody reads it?" That wasn't a major concern for the scrappy pioneers who inventing blogging a quarter century ago. Stop worrying about algorithms and popularity. Just do what you want to do, and say what you want to say. Maybe throw up links to your new posts on your socials, but steer clear of trying to feed the machine. That way lies nothing but running endlessly on someone else's hamster wheel, for fractions of a cent.
Basically, younger people need to wean themselves off their addictions to what I fully realize is the most deliberately addictive form of media ever created. Many -- probably most -- won't. Some will only manage to do it halfway. But it's still entirely possible for people to build their own alternative cultural universe, if they're willing to stop caring about metrics.
posted by Artifice_Eternity at 7:11 PM on January 19 [6 favorites]
Eh, it's true that younger people don't partake of cultural criticism so much, and many have tastes more shaped by influencers, algorithms, and poorly informed yet boundlessly self-confident YouTubers.
But we'll only reach "the endpoint of robust, meaningful music criticism" if nobody wants to write it.
The thing is, blogs still exist. A ton of bloggers gave it up and channeled their efforts into social media instead. But it's still entirely possible to set up your own site, hang out your shingle, and just start writing.
"But what if nobody reads it?" That wasn't a major concern for the scrappy pioneers who inventing blogging a quarter century ago. Stop worrying about algorithms and popularity. Just do what you want to do, and say what you want to say. Maybe throw up links to your new posts on your socials, but steer clear of trying to feed the machine. That way lies nothing but running endlessly on someone else's hamster wheel, for fractions of a cent.
Basically, younger people need to wean themselves off their addictions to what I fully realize is the most deliberately addictive form of media ever created. Many -- probably most -- won't. Some will only manage to do it halfway. But it's still entirely possible for people to build their own alternative cultural universe, if they're willing to stop caring about metrics.
posted by Artifice_Eternity at 7:11 PM on January 19 [6 favorites]
The article indiexy linked is a very cogent (and infuriating) analysis of the financial resoning behind this move.
...both corporate alt rock radio and Conde Nast turn towards men as the audience that will supposedly rescue their tanking media format or vertical not because men are empirically a more reliable media audience, but because investors are more likely to buy it. The audience in question here isn’t listeners or readers, it’s INVESTORS (shareholders, VCs, etc.).posted by whir at 7:19 PM on January 19 [6 favorites]
The collapse of American sports/music/culture journalism has been in the cards since businesses realized that the internet democratizing content also meant that the amount of people willing to work the pop-culture beat for free or nearly so was endless.
On one hand, its hard to do real journalism without having the backing and security of a full-time writing gig. Journalism is dead, long live the regurgitated press release.
On the other hand, just look at things like baseball writers voting for the hall of fame to see how so many people (men, they're always men) who managed to land that nearly extinct lifetime gig are myopic, vindictive, and generally poor analysis of the game they cover.
posted by thecjm at 7:32 PM on January 19 [3 favorites]
On one hand, its hard to do real journalism without having the backing and security of a full-time writing gig. Journalism is dead, long live the regurgitated press release.
On the other hand, just look at things like baseball writers voting for the hall of fame to see how so many people (men, they're always men) who managed to land that nearly extinct lifetime gig are myopic, vindictive, and generally poor analysis of the game they cover.
posted by thecjm at 7:32 PM on January 19 [3 favorites]
Ars Technica has been hassling me for a subscription for the past month, how close to bankruptcy / "private equity buyout replaces the humans with a weak LLM" is Condé Nast?
This is my primary fear; Pitchfork has always annoyed me but the moment Ars started running Wired articles on the weekend was the moment I figured Aurich and co. might be out the door any day, at which point they might as well be . . . well, Wired, I guess.
posted by aspersioncast at 8:06 PM on January 19 [1 favorite]
This is my primary fear; Pitchfork has always annoyed me but the moment Ars started running Wired articles on the weekend was the moment I figured Aurich and co. might be out the door any day, at which point they might as well be . . . well, Wired, I guess.
posted by aspersioncast at 8:06 PM on January 19 [1 favorite]
That wasn't a major concern for the scrappy pioneers who inventing blogging a quarter century ago. Stop worrying about algorithms and popularity. Just do what you want to do, and say what you want to say.
Artifice Eternity, this seems to be arguing that blogging and journalism are on an equal footing, ignoring the skillset needed for journalism, as well as the entire eco-system of fact checking, editing, and sourcing that is required for anything like journalism to exist. Not to belittle bloggers or writers, but losing funded outlets where this kind of system is nurtured and allowed to flourish, we get what we have now, substacks with names but no editor, podcasts with no fact check, and “news” with no accountability. There’s so much more to journalism than the name on the byline, and we’re living through what happens when all of that is discarded by goons with money who can’t see value unless it’s connected to dollar signs.
posted by Ghidorah at 8:39 PM on January 19 [8 favorites]
Artifice Eternity, this seems to be arguing that blogging and journalism are on an equal footing, ignoring the skillset needed for journalism, as well as the entire eco-system of fact checking, editing, and sourcing that is required for anything like journalism to exist. Not to belittle bloggers or writers, but losing funded outlets where this kind of system is nurtured and allowed to flourish, we get what we have now, substacks with names but no editor, podcasts with no fact check, and “news” with no accountability. There’s so much more to journalism than the name on the byline, and we’re living through what happens when all of that is discarded by goons with money who can’t see value unless it’s connected to dollar signs.
posted by Ghidorah at 8:39 PM on January 19 [8 favorites]
Stop worrying about algorithms and popularity. Just do what you want to do, and say what you want to say. Maybe throw up links to your new posts on your socials, but steer clear of trying to feed the machine. That way lies nothing but running endlessly on someone else's hamster wheel, for fractions of a cent.
This. A million times this.
posted by Paul Slade at 1:20 AM on January 20 [2 favorites]
This. A million times this.
posted by Paul Slade at 1:20 AM on January 20 [2 favorites]
I think part of the problem for a music review site is that these days you can just listen to the new song or album anywhere, anytime for pretty much free.
You still need music journalism (including blogs) to let you know the track or band exists in the first place though. Without some input like that, how are you ever going discover something new which turns out to be fucking GREAT? Algorithms will never do it, because all they do is serve up more of what you're already listening to.
As I type this, I'm playing a little Northern Ireland rap band called Kneecap, who I'd never heard of till earlier this week. I was prompted to find their music by a passing mention of the band on a BBC news programme which made them sound interesting. Now I'm a fan. Show me the algorithm that can pull that off for a predominately folk/blues/country guy like me.
Human DJs play a valuable role too. To quote the great music radio producer John Waters, "It's not our job to give them what they want. It's our job to give them what they don't yet know they want." Find a DJ whose taste you've learned to trust and they'll introduce you to a ton of great stuff you'd never have heard otherwise.
posted by Paul Slade at 1:57 AM on January 20 [5 favorites]
You still need music journalism (including blogs) to let you know the track or band exists in the first place though. Without some input like that, how are you ever going discover something new which turns out to be fucking GREAT? Algorithms will never do it, because all they do is serve up more of what you're already listening to.
As I type this, I'm playing a little Northern Ireland rap band called Kneecap, who I'd never heard of till earlier this week. I was prompted to find their music by a passing mention of the band on a BBC news programme which made them sound interesting. Now I'm a fan. Show me the algorithm that can pull that off for a predominately folk/blues/country guy like me.
Human DJs play a valuable role too. To quote the great music radio producer John Waters, "It's not our job to give them what they want. It's our job to give them what they don't yet know they want." Find a DJ whose taste you've learned to trust and they'll introduce you to a ton of great stuff you'd never have heard otherwise.
posted by Paul Slade at 1:57 AM on January 20 [5 favorites]
The thing I haven't heard said yet is that Pitchfork is, ostensibly, for everybody, and GW stands for Gentlemen's Quarterly. Maybe GQ has some small non-male readership, and maybe Pitchfork did lean into its bro component, but it's hard to imagine even the breadth of music reporting that happened at Pitchfork continuing in the new venue.
posted by newdaddy at 4:44 AM on January 20 [2 favorites]
posted by newdaddy at 4:44 AM on January 20 [2 favorites]
An unusual thing about music as a genre of content is that most people give up on actively searching out new music somewhere between their 20s and 40s, and nobody wants music recommendations from someone their parents' age.
Every cultural critic and platform for criticism has a commercial shelf life but in music it's brutally short. From what I've heard Pitchfork put effort into getting rid of the hipster bro editors that created its shitty reputation and hired a more diverse group of reviewers that did better work but by then the audience had aged out.
posted by zymil at 5:07 AM on January 20 [2 favorites]
Every cultural critic and platform for criticism has a commercial shelf life but in music it's brutally short. From what I've heard Pitchfork put effort into getting rid of the hipster bro editors that created its shitty reputation and hired a more diverse group of reviewers that did better work but by then the audience had aged out.
posted by zymil at 5:07 AM on January 20 [2 favorites]
"Both Pitchfork and GQ have unique and valuable ways that they approach music journalism," Anna Wintour, the "global chief content officer" of Condé Nast said,
TF does Anna Wintour know about music?
Looking forward to other indie music zines filling the gap. Opinions are a plenty and Pitchfork got eaten by the machine. Sad, but a valuable lesson. Also, I won't miss the cringy fawning over Lana Del Rey.
posted by underavenue at 6:39 AM on January 20
TF does Anna Wintour know about music?
Looking forward to other indie music zines filling the gap. Opinions are a plenty and Pitchfork got eaten by the machine. Sad, but a valuable lesson. Also, I won't miss the cringy fawning over Lana Del Rey.
posted by underavenue at 6:39 AM on January 20
I teach early college classes to high school seniors, and the last few years, my students have little recognition of the concept of magazines. When I teach citation, I have to explain to them the concept of a magazine having multiple articles, publication frequency, the delay from writing to actual publication, volumes, the difference between general publications, specialty publications and academic journals, etc. Many, many, many of them indicate they've not read a magazine. They know the websites of magazines, but not the magazines themselves.
Yes, there are always the outliers, but magazines have been dead as a mass media for a long time now.
posted by jkosmicki at 8:24 AM on January 20 [3 favorites]
Yes, there are always the outliers, but magazines have been dead as a mass media for a long time now.
posted by jkosmicki at 8:24 AM on January 20 [3 favorites]
"But what if nobody reads it?"
You're probably better off if nobody reads it. If you get popular, you get doxxed, stalked, and harassed these days.
posted by jenfullmoon at 8:26 AM on January 20 [1 favorite]
You're probably better off if nobody reads it. If you get popular, you get doxxed, stalked, and harassed these days.
posted by jenfullmoon at 8:26 AM on January 20 [1 favorite]
thivaia, what was it like writing for Pitchfork in the pre-Nast era?
I was there early, early, like 2000-2002 era. We mostly did not get paid then. We giant envelopes of promos. Then we started getting paid, like, $10 a review for what was commonly a 750 word review. We each wrote 2-3 reviews per week. I was one of the only women on staff at the time and briefly the only woman writing reviews (there were other women under the "news" heading). Our staff meetings were AIM chats (this was the early 2000s) and I was doing most of my work on dial-up in my barely post college apartment. I was a bit of an asshole and my pans got a a lot of hits. So I got sent a bunch of music they were pretty sure I would pan. Especially music by other women. I overstepped a couple of time, probably. I once got an email from a band that told me I was a poster-child for internalized misogyny and just because I so obviously hated myself didn't give me any excuse to give their record only a 6 out of 10 or whatever. I inadvertently insulted one of my personal musical heroes (self link)
I quit for several reasons--1)They were increasingly asking me to review friends' bands (including one whose bass player was periodically living in my house at the time) and I didn't feel comfortable about that. 2) They were asking us to get on Napster/Limewire and download copies of records instead of sending physical promos, which was kind of a pain in the ass--remember I still had dial-up at the time 3) I was starting to feel kinda gross about the pan-everything persona I think I invented for myself. It did feel a little sexist and weird and like a bunch of dudes on the internet thought it was hilarious when I got mean. And to that end 4) my reviews were getting more significantly edited/rewritten after I turned them in, like, to the point they didn't seem as if I had written them
Looking back, so much of bloviating, over-the-topness of those early reviews feels now like a ploy to cover up how much I didn't know. I was terrified of looking like an idiot and vindicating the dudes who never believed I could know enough about music to even discuss it with them. Or even the women-- my friends--who would smile benignly when I recommended a record to them, but only started listening to it after their boyfriends told them it was good. Fuck that noise.
Let me tell you something about me: I don't like not knowing things. I really, really don't like not knowing things around men who are all too eager to tell me about it. The music world, certainly then, was filthy with dudes that wanted to tell you about it or "help" you understand (I once literally slapped a dude in high school because he, unsolicitedly, put his hands around my waist and tried to show me how to make a barre chord) or grant you a day pass in their secret club because it's kind of adorable that you're the only girl I know that likes The Fall or whatever.
Anyway this is a ramble. After I left Pitchfork, I would have the occasional twinge over the years of maybe wanting to go back. I missed writing about music. I always wanted to write record reviews more like people write book reviews. But Pitchfork was changing and I was definitely changed. Instead, I spent almost 14 years at a record store, where I got to tell people what I thought of records (and make individual recommendations) to my hearts content. The record store is gone now, too, ps, and that's the thing I really and truly miss.
If you're reading this and thinking "Pitchfork getting folded into GQ" feels like a punchline, it does. It's also pretty sucky. Like a depressing several steps backward. There's plenty of great music criticism being written by and for women, even though, even now (maybe even especially now), I still catch a whiff of "Dudes, let's discuss the history of recorded music in all of its far-flung genres and styles and politics and how they all influence/inform each other" vs. "Ladies, you're not going to believe which of her exes that Taylor Swift song is about. Here's 1500 words about friendship bracelets and somebody getting the side-eye at an Awards show." I mean, I don't think there has been a time in history when there were more women making incredible and incredibly diverse music as there is right now. And there are still a shockingly large number of people who believe they can't, even if they aren't as explicit about it as , say, Jann Wenner.
I don't know. This is a ramble. I hope I, at least partially, answered your question.
posted by thivaia at 9:09 AM on January 20 [29 favorites]
I was there early, early, like 2000-2002 era. We mostly did not get paid then. We giant envelopes of promos. Then we started getting paid, like, $10 a review for what was commonly a 750 word review. We each wrote 2-3 reviews per week. I was one of the only women on staff at the time and briefly the only woman writing reviews (there were other women under the "news" heading). Our staff meetings were AIM chats (this was the early 2000s) and I was doing most of my work on dial-up in my barely post college apartment. I was a bit of an asshole and my pans got a a lot of hits. So I got sent a bunch of music they were pretty sure I would pan. Especially music by other women. I overstepped a couple of time, probably. I once got an email from a band that told me I was a poster-child for internalized misogyny and just because I so obviously hated myself didn't give me any excuse to give their record only a 6 out of 10 or whatever. I inadvertently insulted one of my personal musical heroes (self link)
I quit for several reasons--1)They were increasingly asking me to review friends' bands (including one whose bass player was periodically living in my house at the time) and I didn't feel comfortable about that. 2) They were asking us to get on Napster/Limewire and download copies of records instead of sending physical promos, which was kind of a pain in the ass--remember I still had dial-up at the time 3) I was starting to feel kinda gross about the pan-everything persona I think I invented for myself. It did feel a little sexist and weird and like a bunch of dudes on the internet thought it was hilarious when I got mean. And to that end 4) my reviews were getting more significantly edited/rewritten after I turned them in, like, to the point they didn't seem as if I had written them
Looking back, so much of bloviating, over-the-topness of those early reviews feels now like a ploy to cover up how much I didn't know. I was terrified of looking like an idiot and vindicating the dudes who never believed I could know enough about music to even discuss it with them. Or even the women-- my friends--who would smile benignly when I recommended a record to them, but only started listening to it after their boyfriends told them it was good. Fuck that noise.
Let me tell you something about me: I don't like not knowing things. I really, really don't like not knowing things around men who are all too eager to tell me about it. The music world, certainly then, was filthy with dudes that wanted to tell you about it or "help" you understand (I once literally slapped a dude in high school because he, unsolicitedly, put his hands around my waist and tried to show me how to make a barre chord) or grant you a day pass in their secret club because it's kind of adorable that you're the only girl I know that likes The Fall or whatever.
Anyway this is a ramble. After I left Pitchfork, I would have the occasional twinge over the years of maybe wanting to go back. I missed writing about music. I always wanted to write record reviews more like people write book reviews. But Pitchfork was changing and I was definitely changed. Instead, I spent almost 14 years at a record store, where I got to tell people what I thought of records (and make individual recommendations) to my hearts content. The record store is gone now, too, ps, and that's the thing I really and truly miss.
If you're reading this and thinking "Pitchfork getting folded into GQ" feels like a punchline, it does. It's also pretty sucky. Like a depressing several steps backward. There's plenty of great music criticism being written by and for women, even though, even now (maybe even especially now), I still catch a whiff of "Dudes, let's discuss the history of recorded music in all of its far-flung genres and styles and politics and how they all influence/inform each other" vs. "Ladies, you're not going to believe which of her exes that Taylor Swift song is about. Here's 1500 words about friendship bracelets and somebody getting the side-eye at an Awards show." I mean, I don't think there has been a time in history when there were more women making incredible and incredibly diverse music as there is right now. And there are still a shockingly large number of people who believe they can't, even if they aren't as explicit about it as , say, Jann Wenner.
I don't know. This is a ramble. I hope I, at least partially, answered your question.
posted by thivaia at 9:09 AM on January 20 [29 favorites]
Thanks thivaia! You sure did.
posted by kensington314 at 9:55 AM on January 20 [1 favorite]
posted by kensington314 at 9:55 AM on January 20 [1 favorite]
What has filled the vacuum left behind by actual music criticism is a loose collection of YouTubers and influencers who feed slop to their younger audiences, and fan communities that engage with music solely through their obsession with a particular pop act.This is an older professional critic complaining that tastemaking works differently now. That kind of change happens every generation or two, and it doesn't mean that Kids These Days Are Doing It Wrong. The "actual music criticism" this guy is talking about was invented in the late 1960s and lasted through the end of the hipster era -- it's a product of the album era, the era of rockism, the era when music was a core part of young people's identity. Music is less culturally central now because the material conditions have changed, so it makes sense that thoughtful engagement with music looks different now too. But some Taylor Swift stan deconstructing the differences between Red and Red (Taylor's Version) isn't less critically engaged than previous generations. And the average young person today probably has broader, more diverse, more interesting tastes than my generation did, back when the mainstream music press and radio and MTV were the ones feeding us the slop.
It is sad and bad that paid publications like Pitchfork are being gutted by corporate greed, but criticism is a lot less dependent on that kind of infrastructure than journalism proper is. Zines and fanzines published a ton of great criticism by amateurs working for free. Pitchfork itself didn't pay contributors in the early days. Mark Fisher -- arguably the most important music critic of his generation -- was a blogger, not a professional critic. Criticism will survive. Writers might not get paid for it, though. (And that sucks!)
posted by Gerald Bostock at 11:34 AM on January 20 [6 favorites]
b) recommendation engines like Spotify's, which are able to tell you that 73% of users who liked Track A also liked Track B, but are totally incapable of finding tracks with (say) combined male/female vocals and a pensive mood, or identifying important musical influences of a given band.
I dunno, I've been increasingly impressed with Spotify's curated playlists - they actually will put on artists who have influenced by other artists I've listened to, or based on vocal quality, etc. It's really improved.
Anyway, I imagine part of the problem with quality criticism is that interest in it has always been somewhat niche, and as others have noted, magazines are a dying medium getting replaced by podcasts and social media. And now that advertising in increasingly linked to how many "clicks" something gets, it's easier for the higher-ups to justify downsizing on anything with niche to somewhat niche appeal. I wouldn't be surprised if it was more or less being subsidized for some time by Condé Nast's more profitable magazines.
posted by coffeecat at 12:08 PM on January 20 [1 favorite]
I dunno, I've been increasingly impressed with Spotify's curated playlists - they actually will put on artists who have influenced by other artists I've listened to, or based on vocal quality, etc. It's really improved.
Anyway, I imagine part of the problem with quality criticism is that interest in it has always been somewhat niche, and as others have noted, magazines are a dying medium getting replaced by podcasts and social media. And now that advertising in increasingly linked to how many "clicks" something gets, it's easier for the higher-ups to justify downsizing on anything with niche to somewhat niche appeal. I wouldn't be surprised if it was more or less being subsidized for some time by Condé Nast's more profitable magazines.
posted by coffeecat at 12:08 PM on January 20 [1 favorite]
Also, while not entirely MagazineFilter, the recent On The Media episode "Trouble at The Baltimore Sun, and the End of an Era for Pitchfork" seems relevant. Also mentions Sports Illustrated and LA Times.
posted by coffeecat at 12:12 PM on January 20 [2 favorites]
posted by coffeecat at 12:12 PM on January 20 [2 favorites]
At least we still have the acid tongue of NME with us.
I clipped and saved a few of their reviews in the 1990s that I can still quote, because their savagery was so casual.
posted by wenestvedt at 1:41 PM on January 20
I clipped and saved a few of their reviews in the 1990s that I can still quote, because their savagery was so casual.
posted by wenestvedt at 1:41 PM on January 20
The thing is, blogs still exist. A ton of bloggers gave it up and channeled their efforts into social media instead. But it's still entirely possible to set up your own site, hang out your shingle, and just start writing.
I mean, sure it is, I guess, if you have a shingle, can afford the time to do so (not sure who paid for the shingle), and are confident that all the shingle people have a perspective on the culture that's not a product of having time and their own shingle.
I don't think I can say this strongly enough: blogs aren't journalism, and they cannot replace or provide a substitute for journalists. Being a critic is a profession because it isn't just hanging out and writing words, anymore than I'm a chef because I made my own dinner..
Some journalists also blog, sure, but the idea that under- or unemployed journalists can meaningfully do so without a revenue stream as writers is wishful economic thinking at best given how little journalists already don't get paid. Cultural criticism, music criticism, whatever criticism you like, doesn't have to exclusively be done by professionals. But good writing isn't a magic thing done for free by people somehow free of economic pressures, or that will cover the culture properly if performed independently depending on enthusiasm rather than a comprehensive economic structure supporting a bigger picture.
Writing, criticism, it's been a career for a reason. And if you value it, and feel it has a place, then it's worth recognising the difference between hobby writing and there being a space where there are financial rewards and professional spaces that enable good writing by good writers about interesting things.
It's especially true with news journalism, but fucking hell: the loss in what's written is not compensated by blogging; the loss in cultural criticism by the destruction of a space that recognises the value of criticism in tangible terms, is not compensated by opt in self publishing; the loss of a profession and money for people that think well isn't compensated by saying, hey, we replaced you with someone who sets all their own exams, and no, I don't care if you can't make rent.
It's not bloggers' fault. There are some amazing blogs. They're an extra nice thing, not the thing itself. We are ruining our entire cultural landscape by expecting free stuff to fill a hole made when what's valuable is extinguished through refusing to see it as a skilled profession in its own right.
Oh, and have I hated on Pitchfork? Absolutely. But it's a worse world where capitalism fucks it to death. But sure. There's blogs. It'll all be fine.
posted by onebuttonmonkey at 1:49 PM on January 20 [9 favorites]
Would Pitchfork have even existed in the first place without capitalism, though?
posted by Selena777 at 2:08 PM on January 20
posted by Selena777 at 2:08 PM on January 20
Yeah, it wouldn't. I know. Can't lie about that.
I suppose we won't miss music criticism given capitalism's current form is also destroying the ability to make money as a minor musician, too. I'm really ranting about the bigger thing about the cost of expecting everything for free, who is paying, and how that's creating the current media/culture fuckery. It's not a coincidence that few critics or musicians in the UK are working class anymore
I miss the pittance it used to be possible to be paid and the idea that a critic had value at all. Pitchfork by no means ever exemplified either of those things. But it's better that it wasn't this now, all the same.
posted by onebuttonmonkey at 2:12 PM on January 20 [3 favorites]
I suppose we won't miss music criticism given capitalism's current form is also destroying the ability to make money as a minor musician, too. I'm really ranting about the bigger thing about the cost of expecting everything for free, who is paying, and how that's creating the current media/culture fuckery. It's not a coincidence that few critics or musicians in the UK are working class anymore
I miss the pittance it used to be possible to be paid and the idea that a critic had value at all. Pitchfork by no means ever exemplified either of those things. But it's better that it wasn't this now, all the same.
posted by onebuttonmonkey at 2:12 PM on January 20 [3 favorites]
Music criticism isn't about whether the song is good or not, it's cultural commentary / autobiographical fiction / writing for the sake of writing.
This won't mean anything to anyone else, but in the same week that pitchfork folded, the music site I wrote for ages ago - the one where all the writers are volunteers but many of them are also professionals on the side - the singles jukebox, announced its return. Music criticism is alive and well, paid authoritative music criticism is what's in jeopardy.
posted by subdee at 5:41 PM on January 20 [5 favorites]
This won't mean anything to anyone else, but in the same week that pitchfork folded, the music site I wrote for ages ago - the one where all the writers are volunteers but many of them are also professionals on the side - the singles jukebox, announced its return. Music criticism is alive and well, paid authoritative music criticism is what's in jeopardy.
posted by subdee at 5:41 PM on January 20 [5 favorites]
onebuttonmonkey, to be clear, I am actually a journalist of sorts, so I well understand the strains the profession is under.
But also, you can set up a blog for free. I know that criticism, and consistent writing of any kind, including blogging, takes time and energy, which are not always commodities in plentiful supply in everyone's life. Still, a lot of bloggers have managed to put tremendous amounts of both into their writing.
Blogs may not be exactly synonymous with professional journalism, but there's not a bright line between the two, either. That line was completely obliterated in the 2000s. I know many, many people who crossed over from one side to the other, crossed back, and/or kept one foot on each side.
My point, again, is that we aren't "nearing the endpoint of robust, meaningful music criticism as a concept" as long as people still want to do it, whether or not they get paid for it. Would it be great if they did get paid? Yes. But some will do it regardless.
posted by Artifice_Eternity at 12:28 AM on January 21 [2 favorites]
But also, you can set up a blog for free. I know that criticism, and consistent writing of any kind, including blogging, takes time and energy, which are not always commodities in plentiful supply in everyone's life. Still, a lot of bloggers have managed to put tremendous amounts of both into their writing.
Blogs may not be exactly synonymous with professional journalism, but there's not a bright line between the two, either. That line was completely obliterated in the 2000s. I know many, many people who crossed over from one side to the other, crossed back, and/or kept one foot on each side.
My point, again, is that we aren't "nearing the endpoint of robust, meaningful music criticism as a concept" as long as people still want to do it, whether or not they get paid for it. Would it be great if they did get paid? Yes. But some will do it regardless.
posted by Artifice_Eternity at 12:28 AM on January 21 [2 favorites]
If you don't have a living, you don't get to do free stuff. And if you're doing free stuff as a side gig, it isn't as good as doing it for a living. It's not just affording a blog, it's not working several jobs on the side, it's having the time to do research, and to focus on criticism as a primary activity, not a margin.
We're reaching the end of a bubble of increased meaningful cultural criticism if only those who can afford to be critics through other means do criticism. Plus the type and subjects of criticism are different when what is published is entirely self-selected, so even the field of what is critiqued changes. And the status of criticism culturally is diminished when seen as a hobbyist or non-recognised professional discipline.
I've freelanced as a side hustle myself, for what it's worth, and been in academia. Criticism is not much of a living either, but not much is better than none, and other economic pressures were lower. Sure, I can afford a shingle now; this also has changed my critical voice, as privilege will.
So I'm not without personal or peer insight - our difference I think is your optimism in the future of self-published criticism to replace - not augment - the absence that is arising where a valued profession once was.
posted by onebuttonmonkey at 1:23 AM on January 21 [4 favorites]
We're reaching the end of a bubble of increased meaningful cultural criticism if only those who can afford to be critics through other means do criticism. Plus the type and subjects of criticism are different when what is published is entirely self-selected, so even the field of what is critiqued changes. And the status of criticism culturally is diminished when seen as a hobbyist or non-recognised professional discipline.
I've freelanced as a side hustle myself, for what it's worth, and been in academia. Criticism is not much of a living either, but not much is better than none, and other economic pressures were lower. Sure, I can afford a shingle now; this also has changed my critical voice, as privilege will.
So I'm not without personal or peer insight - our difference I think is your optimism in the future of self-published criticism to replace - not augment - the absence that is arising where a valued profession once was.
posted by onebuttonmonkey at 1:23 AM on January 21 [4 favorites]
To be clear, I'm not knocking blogs or bloggers as individuals. I'm knocking a system where bloggers are the primary source of criticism, and the idea and role of critics has been deprofessionalised because it is demonetised and economically obsolete. It changes the culture for the worse and it changes the ability for us to articulate those changes in the culture.
posted by onebuttonmonkey at 1:31 AM on January 21 [3 favorites]
posted by onebuttonmonkey at 1:31 AM on January 21 [3 favorites]
At least we still have the acid tongue of NME with us.
I clipped and saved a few of their reviews in the 1990s that I can still quote, because their savagery was so casual.
Savagery in itself not a virtue, but I did love the NME's piss-taking irreverence throughout the 1970s and 1980s. For anyone in their teens at the time, the paper was a fantastic education in all kinds of counterculture too.
posted by Paul Slade at 5:09 AM on January 21 [2 favorites]
I clipped and saved a few of their reviews in the 1990s that I can still quote, because their savagery was so casual.
Savagery in itself not a virtue, but I did love the NME's piss-taking irreverence throughout the 1970s and 1980s. For anyone in their teens at the time, the paper was a fantastic education in all kinds of counterculture too.
posted by Paul Slade at 5:09 AM on January 21 [2 favorites]
SI also showcased amazing sports photography so a huge loss there too.
I wonder what they will do with their two EF 1200L lenses?
posted by TedW at 6:22 AM on January 22
I wonder what they will do with their two EF 1200L lenses?
posted by TedW at 6:22 AM on January 22
>>The NFL May Buy a Stake in ESPN. Is This the Death of the Network’s Journalism?
> Combine that with ESPN's foray into sports betting and you have a recipe for toxic vertical integration, with the league, the media coverage, and the gambling all rolled into one, each part exerting perverse incentives on the rest.
I'm sure the US Army will find a way into this mix.
posted by neuron at 12:29 PM on January 22 [3 favorites]
> Combine that with ESPN's foray into sports betting and you have a recipe for toxic vertical integration, with the league, the media coverage, and the gambling all rolled into one, each part exerting perverse incentives on the rest.
I'm sure the US Army will find a way into this mix.
posted by neuron at 12:29 PM on January 22 [3 favorites]
« Older Search is good again | Trolley Problem Solution Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by sardonyx at 9:51 AM on January 19 [6 favorites]