« Colourmusic in Brooklyn tonight! | Main | Retrohump coming... »
November 29, 2006
If Pitchfork dies, Slate, you're next
As thinking humans, we're inevitably going to have complex emotions regarding battles. While we may identify with one side over the other, empathy and humanity's dedication to self-interest leads the intelligent to at least comprehend what the other side is fighting for.
And, hey, do I feel that way about this Slate article on Pitchfork Media. I really do believe that Matthew Shaer (says the bio: a correspondent for the Boston Globe's Arts section and an editor at Boston.com) was unaware of how similar the publication that published his dreadful piece (Slate) was to the subject of his hit job (Pitchfork Media). Both are witty and insightful, but occasionally ponderous and incredibly infatuated with contrarianism (a point that Slate at least acknowledged by publishing the dare-I-say-brilliant? "What's wrong with Slate" piece penned by Jonah Goldberg).
There are many things wrong with this piece (one: why not try Ryan Schreiber for comment on what Pitchfork's goals/strategies are? Otherwise, it just seems like a blog post linking other blog posts... Look how my opinion is confirmed!). Here's one great example of using tenuous logic to prove a premise.
Pitchfork needs to provoke to survive—a strategy that arguably extends to publishing verbose and unreadable writing.
That's uber-contrarian. To attract more readers, in essence, one must write unreadable prose. Well said... Unfortunately, this is actually Pitchfork's worst trait. I cannot recall the last time I read a full P'fork review. I look at the rating, look for the key songs enjoyed, and try to find them online to make my own decision (thereby getting in and out in seconds and missing all the great eye treats provided by advertisers).
Here's another:
If a review is provocative enough, music geeks will pick up on it. By the time, say, a record-store owner gets around to weighing in on a band, a summary judgment has already been passed online. The phenomenon has a name: the Pitchfork Effect.
Nope. The Pitchfork Effect was created, in effect, to explain how bands with little or no publicity suddenly became huge. If Pitchfork decreed a 9 or above, kids would be more willing to give it a chance. In today's Web environment, things are way too complicated for the P'Fork Effect to hold much weight. For me, it's strictly a number's thing; it's not about the prose. Pitchfork has never, ever been about the writing to me. It's always been about the numbers. Does anyone who reads Pitchfork really disagree?
Idolator actually did a great job touching upon the music-related problems with the piece. But here's the most pressing issue with the piece: it is frightfully past expiration date.
ALSO: Am I crazy to think that Pitchfork's influence is waining? Before the proliferation of blogs, Pitchfork was the arbiter of music. And even if you didn't believe its rankings (and even if they completely slagged off your favorite band) you could inflict no greater punishment than refusing to visit for a week. But, in 2006, the playing field is somewhat leveled. Pitchfork Media is both ridiculed and revered - it's certainly no infallible taste-maker whose opinions people are forced to begrudgingly take as Gospel. People get their music leads from a gamut of sources (in which, perhaps, Pitchfork holds the most weight). But whereby Pitchfork provided music snobs with refuge from the Spins and Rolling Stones of the world, today's music snobs can find their next greatest band from dedicated bloggers who hold the same interests.
SUMMARY: I liken Pitchfork to my quasi-home Williamsburg (I now live directly north in Greenpoint). The best way to approach both is to be ambivalent. It's not healthy to either love or hate either.
Posted by Keith O'Brien at November 29, 2006 10:59 AM
Trackback Pings
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.merryswankster.com/movabletype/mt-tb.cgi/568
Comments
I go with the look at the score and move on route as well, although PF's extensive lists do offer occasional instances of good writing, particularly William Bowers, Rob Mitchum and Ryan Schreiber, to name a couple.
Posted by: Randall Monty at November 29, 2006 06:01 PM
Speaking of scanning PF's reviews. Here is a migraine inducing nugget from the Beast Moans review.
"Would that we typists could forego consumer-report linearity as we survey Swan Lake, opting instead in our reviews, as the act does in its songs, to isolate and juxtapose-- and then to isolate by juxtaposition-- loaded fragments, pleas, and images. Because holy hell, Beast Moans establishes a high that will likely inspire mimicry in its listeners. You'll be jotting down phrases that you hear throughout your day as if they were signs from the universe, just as this album's relentless reverb, sustain, and vibrato suggest that an act of creation is merely a series of echoes."
Posted by: Sebastian at November 29, 2006 10:27 PM
I too cannot remember the last time I read an article in it's entirety from Pitchfork.
I too simply use it as a source in which to investigate music more thoroughly, myself.
So I guess I agree with everything you said.
Good show.
Posted by: Kelli Douglas at December 1, 2006 01:17 AM
There are lots of smaller sites doing an amazing job of covering indie music. But people keep going back to Pitchfork because it's easy. Avid music fans scour dozens of smaller indie music blogs for their fix. The average person doesn't do that sort of leg work so they click on Pitchfork and miss out. But sites like http://elbo.ws/ (automated music blog aggregator) and http://WeEatMusic.com (bloggers and fans submit and vote on indie music news and videos) could help give the smaller sites more reach.
Posted by: lionshead at December 1, 2006 04:39 PM
Elbo.ws and Hype Machine (links to both on this site's homepage) are clearly helping out. I can tell you from my own personal experience as a user of those sites, and with empirical evidence from this site's traffic reports.
Posted by: Sebastian at December 1, 2006 07:12 PM
I could say something meaningful in a Mark Hogan-esque manner (angry new critic writer for Pitchfork) but instead I will just say this - DEATH TO PITCHFORK!!!!
Up with Ideas and free thought! Yeah, Pitchfork is free to say what they want, by the rest of us don't need to live and die by it! I remember when people were allowed to like the music they enjoyed without feeling guilty or stupid. Enough with the White Collar Cliques.
Posted by: Ryan at December 5, 2006 05:55 PM
