Firstly, lets get some positive aspects out there. The original Pitchfork was established way back in 1995. I don't know about you but I didn't even understand the concept of the Internet in 1995. Clearly Pitchfork was ahead of the curve back then. It's taken many years for traditional media outlets to get on-board the information superhighway (haven't used that term for years now). Even today the big players are still trying to work out this whole world wide web caper. Certainly they're guilty of only looking for a profit from their readers. In 1995 it was only the technology literate that would dear take on a dedicated Internet publication. Demand must of been quite low, but you must remember that almost anything could pass for quality online journalism in 1995. Sounds cynical but there's no publishing guidelines for those who choose to express their opinion on the Internet (see northamericanscum.com).
Another feather in that streetwise Indie cap that Pitchfork wears out every Saturday night is the fact that there has not been a music website as consistent. Since 1996 they've been publishing content daily, which is more than some websites manage even today. In 1999 they went even further and started to publish four length reviews a day. What does this really mean (other than I can read Wikipedia)? So many music websites have come and gone but Pitchfork seem to still be consistently pumping out the content like music was better 10 years ago (bad pun!). And for the most part they've had their finger on the pulse with most new music coming out of North America. Too many time have I been disappointed when similar websites pack it in or just stop publishing all-together. Stylus Magazine being one that is still online for no real reason other than to remind us that it once existed. Lost At Sea is another webzine that is frustratingly slow at being updated.
One last positive point that myself and Hugh are in agreement with is that Pitchfork is pretty much on the money when it comes to the whole information chase. Nowadays it far too cool for bands to put any kind of information on their websites or Myspace pages. It's like they think there's something cool about giving journalists nothing to write about. The sad thing about this is then those journalists will get pissed off and then listen to your band's crappy music and write things which you'll hate because you were too lazy cool to play the promotion game. So much of modern journalism is based on what information is handed directly from an artists MR people (PR if you're going to be anal!), which is more often than not written by the artist themselves. But Pitchfork seem to know much more about the music they review than even the artists do. So really, most Pitchfork hating artists have no on but themselves to blame because they've been caught up in trying to impress Pitchfork with their mysterious coolness.
Keep your pants on! The hate session will be coming in the next few days...
Well would you look at that, it was written almost exactly a year ago.
ReplyDeleteNicely said- there seems to be plenty of controversy surrounding Pitchfork- I remember having some kind of drunken chat to Chris Z about it on Saturday night. He was talking about how art collectors/specialists/whoever can put a price on art, but can anyone really put a price on music? Anyway, there's some wanky philosophical shit to think about.
Ultimately even if people try to cut them down, I think they're still pretty darn respectable, and it's up to audiences to decide whether they want to read it or not, and how much they want to be influenced.
Ellie xo