Site New Answers Search Boards ILE ILM Answers New Question New Questions New Poll Blog View Register Login

Pitchfork Observed

Message Bookmarked
Bookmark Removed
http://nyobserver.com/pages/frontpage3.asp


Pitchforkmedia.com Music Dudes Dictate Culture From Chicago

by Hillary Frey

"Who are these people?" asks Michael Klausman, 29, a manager and buyer
at Other Music, the tiny East Village record store frequented by music
obsessives of the hipster order. "These unknown writers have more
legitimacy in terms of making or breaking a record than writers from
The Village Voice, Spin or Rolling Stone."

Mr. Klausman is talking about the kids behind Pitchforkmedia.com, the
online music magazine, and he's not alone in his curiosity. The site
is read, debated, demonized and lionized by dutiful hipsters from East
Fourth Street to Bedford Avenue, but no one in New York seems to know
who's running the show. Pitchfork reads like it comes straight out of
Williamsburg, with its snarky attitude and unabiding devotion to indie
rock. But—surprise!—Pitchfork comes to us via a basement in Chicago.

Despite its far-flung location, a glowing Pitchfork review sells CD's
at the Virgin Megastore in Union Square and fills up shows at the
Bowery Ballroom. A negative review can stall sales and, since
Pitchfork is nearly always the first to review a record, inspire other
critics to gang up on a new album. Indie labels from Matador to Misra,
and a handful of majors including Interscope and Capitol, are piping
money into Pitchfork as they buy up the site's ad space to market to
its coveted readership. Capitalizing on the momentum generated this
year, Pitchfork will relaunch in early 2005, replete with a new design
as well as fresh features.

As Dan Hougland, 29, a floor manager at Other Music, puts it:
"Pitchfork is totally defining a cottage industry." In the
pre-Internet era, music zealots (who typically turn their noses up at
mainstream music mags) had to comb through mail-order record catalogs
and handmade zines to find out about the next big thing. But
Pitchfork, with its trove of reviews and guides to the best records,
has made it possible for band-dudes-cum-young-professionals to stay
connected to music in their post-collegiate life. Other online review
sites exist, of course, but Pitchfork seems to have captivated New
Yorkers more than any other.

And though the site is still too small to have much influence on major
labels, the fact that it publishes daily has given it a huge edge in
the world of music media. (Chances are that the hoodie-wearing tech
guy in your office scans the site during his morning Internet-reading
rituals.) Pitchfork is a popular blogosphere reference point. The
media gossip site Gawker name-checks it frequently, and Time Out New
York references Pitchfork in its listings.

Pitchfork is still largely associated with indie rock, but the site
has given an increasing amount of coverage to pop, dance, hip-hop, rap
and Britpop in the last year or so. The willingness of its young and
largely unknown writers to slay the sacred cows of the indie scene, or
to call out a bad idea in the mainstream—recently, the song "Collison
Course," a mash-up of Linkin Park and Jay-Z, was named as a contender
for "Worst Cash-In Hybrid of 2004"—has conferred upon it a credibility
that no one seems to assign anymore to print music magazines.

Jonathan Galkin, 32, of Manhattan-based DFA records (home to the likes
of downtown favorites Black Dice and the Rapture), explains the site's
popularity among purists this way: "A Lester Bangs–type critic doesn't
exist anymore in America, because magazines don't really trash records
anymore—they're way too dependent on that label's advertising dollars.
Everything out there in print is sugar-coated, where I find that
Pitchfork is just way more honest." In addition to its five daily
reviews, Pitchfork's news items are a big draw for the site. Plenty of
readers skip the criticism but find it hard to resist the gossip—about
the latest indie band to jump to a major label, newly announced tour
dates, the breakup of a favorite group or, in a recent example, the
revelation that a member of the Vines has autism.

One might wonder: If a major music tastemaker is coming out of
Chicago, is New York losing its grip on hip? Of course, nothing seems
different. In fact, the ubiquity of the "hipster" has never been quite
this intense. You know the one: He's riding the L train, wearing a
snug striped sweater, plugged into his iPod, with some band you've
never heard of—Animal Collective, the Books, Death from Above
1979—piping into his ears. His girlfriend dons a mixture of textured
fabrics, has multi-tinted hair (though in natural shades—no pinks) and
is listening to the Futureheads. (Make no mistake: This reporter,
minus the hair style, might on certain days be mistaken for half of
this pair.) These kids used to be the arbiters of edgy taste, their CD
collections a guide to what must be purchased, owned and fetishized in
order to be part of the vanguard of culture.

But with the increasing respectability of Web journalism, a tastemaker
can come from anywhere. All a person really needs is a sprinkling of
ambition, a computer, a rudimentary knowledge of HTML and an Internet
connection. At least that's all 28-year-old Ryan Schreiber had when he
started Pitchfork back in 1995. In nine years, the site has gone from
a fan page largely written by Mr. Schreiber with a few hundred readers
to a full-fledged magazine drawing 115,000 visitors on an average
weekday. Mr. Schreiber is only beginning to realize the power that
comes with such a loyal following.

Tipping the Scales

"Pitchfork is certainly a place that other writers and people in the
industry look to as one of the barometers of what people are thinking
is cool," says Tracks magazine former editor in chief and co-founder
Alan Light, who has also stood at the helm of Vibe and Spin. "It's a
different kind of writing than print—it's kind of shoot-from-the-hip,
for better or for worse."

Mr. Hougland of Other Music explained: "The writer for Spin makes more
money, but the Pitchfork dude has way more power. If you look at the
media and the blogs, it's the music version of that."

Nothing illustrates the point better than two recent records: Funeral,
by the new Canadian band the Arcade Fire, and Travistan, by indie
darling Travis Morrison. About two months ago, Pitchfork reviewed
Funeral and gave it a rave. Writer David Moore emoted, with the
personal intensity and creative hyperbole that's a hallmark of PF
scribes: "Their search for salvation in the midst of real chaos is
ours; their eventual catharsis is part of our continual
enlightenment." Funeral earned the high mark of 9.7 on the site's
numerical rating system, where 10.0 is the top and 0.0 the bottom.
Almost immediately, it became impossible to find Funeral in a New York
City record store.

"Without Pitchfork, I can't imagine that all the hype around the
Arcade Fire would have happened," says Mr. Hougland. "It's totally
Pitchfork; it's not even worth speculating about. It's possible that
they would have gotten that popular, but it would have taken a lot
longer." Merge Records, the North Carolina–based indie label that put
out Funeral, sold out their initial printing of the record and now
have pressed an additional 60,000 to fill demand. Tickets for the
band's November show at the Bowery Ballroom sold out weeks before the
event, a rare occurrence for a group with one hard-to-find record on
its first headlining tour.

On the flip side is the dreaded 0.0, most recently awarded to Travis
Morrison's Travistan. Mr. Morrison had formerly found favor with
Pitchfork as frontman of the D.C. art-rock quartet the Dismemberment
Plan; in 1999, the D-Plan's Emergency and I was voted Pitchfork's No.
1 record of the year. The review of Travistan was so spiteful, it was
almost as if Mr. Morrison had been trashed simply for going solo.
Chris Dahlen wrote: "I've never heard a record more angry, frustrated,
and even defensive about its own weaknesses, or more determined to
slug those flaws right down your throat." In the wake of the piece, a
skepticism about Travistan took hold, with some college-radio
programmers—who normally would have been pushing a much-anticipated
solo record from someone like Mr. Morrison—making excuses for why it
wasn't in heavy rotation. At least one record-store owner initially
declined to stock the record (he later changed his mind). Other
critics followed Pitchfork's suit; a number of pieces about the record
discussed the 0.0 before even engaging with it.

Josh Rosenfeld of Seattle-based Barsuk Records, which put out
Travistan, says that although the Pitchfork pan may have stalled
interest in the record, he doesn't think the damage will be permanent.
"But what is interesting is what the difference is between the
situation we're in now and the situation we would be in now if
Pitchfork had said, `9.8! Travis has pushed the boundaries again!' A
`boy, we love art in pop music!' type of review. We can only speculate
about things like that: would his record be enjoying the reception
that people are now giving to the Arcade Fire record?"

When asked about his magazine's ability to make or break a record, Mr.
Schreiber (officially Pitchfork's editor in chief and publisher) is a
bit tongue-tied. "It's unbelievably cool to have any kind of
influence," he says. "But I'm totally taken aback by it, and I'm torn
by it. You want to be careful, because you know that if you have a
really positive response, you are going to do this great thing for
bands. And it's the greatest thing in the world to see that band going
around playing for 50 people and the next night, because of a good
review, it's sold out." Mr. Schreiber paused. "But you have to keep it
honest," he continued. "And that's why we have any impact, because
people know that they're going to get a straight answer from us. We
would never trash a band that's putting out its first record, just to
kill it. Though, with something like the Travis Morrison record, I
know that I would give it the same ranking no matter what."

A 0.0? This reporter thinks that rating is grossly unfair (and, for
the record, is a big fan of Travistan). Mr. Schreiber feels otherwise.
"I think that a record can be so unlistenable and so terrible that it
deserves that rating," he said. "It's totally subjective. So is it
devoid of worth to me personally? Yes."

The Nice Guys?

"Obviously, I never foresaw that it would get quite this big," said
Mr. Schreiber, who waxes rhapsodic about record shopping the way only
a kid who came of age before the Internet could. "I was sort of
ambitious about it, but it's obviously gone so far beyond my
expectations that it's hard for me to believe that this is my job."

Mr. Schreiber had the foresight to start Pitchfork in the pre-dawn of
the Internet era. He was just 19 years old, living with his parents
outside the Twin Cities in Minnesota, collecting records like every
other kid with not much else to do. He didn't go to college, and
instead focused on Pitchfork while working various part-time jobs,
honing his tech skills and cranking out review after review of his
favorite bands. He moved the site to Chicago in 1999 and today has the
whiff of the ex-nerd about him—one who has grown into himself a little
later in life. His creamy, lightly freckled skin, glinting brown eyes
and quick, affable smile brand him immediately as a Midwesterner, and
his surprise at Pitchfork's good fortune is genuine and disarming.

"We never did any advertising or anything—it was all just word of
mouth," Mr. Schreiber explained, leaning back in his desk chair and
taking long swigs of Diet Dr. Pepper between remarks. His is a story
of a music fan with a good idea—one that any number of young wannabe
music/writer geeks could have conceived and pursued, if only they
hadn't been busy with college, keg parties, skateboarding competitions
or whatever else we were doing in the mid-90's.

When Mr. Schreiber started Pitchfork, all he really wanted to do was
tell other people about his favorite bands. "I wanted to meet bands—I
thought that would be really cool. So I thought it would be kind of
fun to start a magazine on the Web and write about my favorite bands
and get to meet them," he explains. "And once I heard about the
promos, I was like, `Oh my God, unbelievable! Unbelievable!'"

Mr. Schreiber is no longer just a kid enamored of free CD's.
Presently, Pitchfork's office consists of two cramped but tidy
cement-floored rooms in the basement of Mr. Schreiber's three-floor
flat at the edge of Wicker Park, where he lives with his wife,
Elizabeth, and two cats. Plastic mail bins of CD's are stacked
everywhere; Pitchfork receives about 300 CD's a week for
consideration. Mr. Schreiber leaves the door to his office open while
being interviewed, either because he is unself-conscious or very
nervous—it's impossible to tell which.

Although he supervises a geographically scattered staff of about 50
via instant-messaging, e-mail, an online message board and the
telephone, only the three guys on payroll (plus a few interns) work in
the actual office. In addition to Mr. Schreiber, there's managing
editor Scott Plagenhoef, 31, who comes off like the wise and patient
big brother; where Mr. Schreiber is quick to answer or throw out an
idea, Mr. Plagenhoef is pensive and sarcastic, shaking his head at his
corner computer in silent disagreement with words flying between
others. Chris Kaskie, 24, is Pitchfork's new advertising director, as
well as the threesome's resident cutie.

These guys aren't your typical indie kids—they are all well-groomed,
two of the three are married, and they don't smoke. When Mr. Schreiber
talks of his first trip to New York City this past October, it's with
the wonderment of an 8-year-old in F.A.O. Schwarz. (Nick Sylvester,
22, a regular Pitchfork writer who also interns at The Village Voice,
hung out with Mr. Schreiber on that visit. "Ryan spent a whole day in
Times Square, and he was so happy," Mr. Sylvester recalled, in a tone
that betrayed how bizarre that notion was.) That's the irony of the
Pitchfork enterprise: The site has a reputation as a haven for snotty,
brutish—and frequently solid and original—writing, but its creator is
a sweet, optimistic guy unprepared for and unnerved by his own success.

Growing Pains

While ever-increasing advertising revenue is clearly a boon to the
site, it has also created tensions among struggling freelancers and
added to Pitchfork's growing pains. To be sure, a sense of power is
the true payoff for any Pitchfork contributor. Says Mr. Sylvester:
"You know if you drop an 8.0 on a record, 1,000 people will buy it or
download it." For the last few years, writers brought on staff would
abide by a grueling schedule, filing twice a week for six months with
no pay at all; after that initiation, they would earn what is truly a
pittance—$10 or $20 for a review, and $40 for a feature. These days,
writers are promised pay as soon as they start writing for the site,
and slightly more money per piece. In the new year, with the redesign,
Mr. Schreiber is planning to pay writers "a more competitive rate,"
and hopes to woo back some of those who have left out of frustration
or for more lucrative ventures.

Writers complaining about low or lack of pay is nothing new, even for
critics working in print journalism. And just as it is at smaller
independent publications, it's the sense of toiling together, broke,
in the service of a project people believe in that keeps Pitchfork's
staff glued together. But tension over money reached a fever pitch
among Pitchforkers when the site's billing schedule—which charted paid
advertising revenue for the site—was swiped and posted last month on
hipinion.com, a message board frequented by Pitchfork detractors. It
became clear that Mr. Schreiber was bringing in far more money from
advertising than most, if not all, of the staff suspected. Rumors
about where the money was going—into Mr. Schreiber's pocket, or his
apartment—began to fly.

However, Mr. Schreiber's frugality in terms of writers' pay seems less
malicious than a case of bad management—one that he's trying to get a
handle on. There's great hope among staffers that managing editor
Plagenhoef, who has experience in the print media, will help
professionalize the whole operation and keep writers happier. He is
obviously widely respected—everyone this reporter talked to spoke
highly of him as a writer, editor and music fan—and Mr. Schreiber acts
as if he were sent from the heavens above.

Pitchfork's relaunch early next year will be a big moment for the
site, which appears to be at a crossroads: Will it risk its hipster
credibility and keep growing and growing? Will it topple on itself? Or
will it be snatched up by some conglomerate and morphed into yet
another extension of a multimedia venture?

At this point, Mr. Schreiber scoffs at the idea that he could be
bought out. "People come back to us again and again because they know
we're not corrupted," he said. "If someone offered us tons of money to
commercialize the site, it would change into the antithesis of the
reason I started it. This is something I am so in love with—this is my
entire adult life's work." He pauses, concluding with a statement that
he may have to re-evaluate if Pitchfork continues its rise: "There
aren't any circumstances under which I would give it up."

You may reach Hillary Frey via email at: hfrey@observer.com.

― Sam Hunt (robosam), Wednesday, 24 November 2004 15:14 (twenty years ago)

I don't really think that an 8.0 sells 1,000 copies of anything.

― Sam Hunt (robosam), Wednesday, 24 November 2004 15:15 (twenty years ago)

what she left out was that i buy those 1000 albums

― Nick Sylvester, Wednesday, 24 November 2004 15:34 (twenty years ago)

more to the point: a 5.0 record sells 1000 fewer copies (and even worse, 25 fewer downloads!!)

― Dominique (dleone), Wednesday, 24 November 2004 15:37 (twenty years ago)

the kids behind Pitchforkmedia.com

Maybe it's just me getting older, but I'm getting tired of using the word "kids" to mean anyone into their late twenties. I mean, Spencer Owen isn't writing for PFM anymore.

with some band you've never heard of -- Animal Collective, the Books, Death from Above 1979

But rest assured I, the journalist, have heard of them and will name-drop accordingly! (Actually, this reminds me of an article I wrote for my high-school newspaper in 1995 on "lesser-known bands" that began something like "Tindersticks. Red Red Meat. Sound familiar? No?")

― Sanjay McDougal (jaymc), Wednesday, 24 November 2004 15:39 (twenty years ago)

Jesus a lot of ILMers like to schill for P-Fork in print.

― Alex in SF (Alex in SF), Wednesday, 24 November 2004 15:46 (twenty years ago)

that was a good piece!

― Yanc3y (ystrickler), Wednesday, 24 November 2004 15:48 (twenty years ago)

? (xpost)

― Sanjay McDougal (jaymc), Wednesday, 24 November 2004 15:48 (twenty years ago)

It was a fine piece (even if I found her tone to be a little obnoxious at times.) I'm just kinda surprised how many posters names I recognized.

― Alex in SF (Alex in SF), Wednesday, 24 November 2004 15:49 (twenty years ago)

four?

― Yanc3y (ystrickler), Wednesday, 24 November 2004 15:50 (twenty years ago)

Writer David Moore emoted

I now hunt and slay.

― Ned Raggett (Ned), Wednesday, 24 November 2004 15:51 (twenty years ago)

Hahaha yes, four (including one who was repeatedly quoted throughout the article.)

― Alex in SF (Alex in SF), Wednesday, 24 November 2004 15:51 (twenty years ago)

I read a p-fork review I liked the other day! seriously! but I think it was by dominique leone and I just liked how to-the-point it was. but yeah, baby steps.

― David Allen (David Allen), Wednesday, 24 November 2004 15:54 (twenty years ago)

is dominique leone hot?

― peter smith (plsmith), Wednesday, 24 November 2004 15:56 (twenty years ago)

Pitchfork does have an influence on what sells big at the local indie store. The kids come running for the BEST NEW MUSIC, as long as it fits within their standard indie spectrum (Arcade Fire yay, Annie boo).

― miccio (miccio), Wednesday, 24 November 2004 16:02 (twenty years ago)

How disappointing...I thought it was going to be an obituary for the site! Damn bloody damn damn!

― Ian Moraine (Eastern Mantra), Wednesday, 24 November 2004 16:03 (twenty years ago)

i just wanna mention that mark richardson is criminally looked over when pitchfork is discussed. dude is a great writer and he knows his shit. i've had the priviledge to work with him a lot lately, and he needs more love! plus he's crazy hot!!!!!

― Yanc3y (ystrickler), Wednesday, 24 November 2004 16:04 (twenty years ago)

But all of the ILM people mentioned in the article also write for Pitchfork. So I'm not surprised they're "shilling for Pitchfork in print."

YANC3Y OTM ABOUT MARK R. (For a long time, he was my favorite PFM writer. He's still great, but now he's got some competition. ;-))

― Sanjay McDougal (jaymc), Wednesday, 24 November 2004 16:05 (twenty years ago)

Wait - was Alex being pithy w/ that "OMG ILMers pimping PFork shocka!" comment, or was he actually serious?

― David R. (popshots75`), Wednesday, 24 November 2004 16:12 (twenty years ago)

I really don't think writers should ever be called "scribes" unless they're sitting in the desert writing the New Testament.

― Marcel Post (Marcel Post), Wednesday, 24 November 2004 16:24 (twenty years ago)

"Tindersticks. Red Red Meat. Sound familiar? No?"

ha ha! only needs a couple more question marks and an exclamation mark or two.

― john'n'chicago, Wednesday, 24 November 2004 16:29 (twenty years ago)

a number of pieces about the record
discussed the 0.0 before even engaging with it.

THIS close to getting referenced! Dagnabbit.

― miccio (miccio), Wednesday, 24 November 2004 16:32 (twenty years ago)

"Wait - was Alex being pithy w/ that "OMG ILMers pimping PFork shocka!" comment, or was he actually serious?"

Alex was joking about the pimping, but unless Alex is mistaken DanH and JonG both post here and neither write for PFork. But it was more me just reading an article (that happened to be about PFork) and being surprised at how many names I recognized from day-to-day interaction on this board.

― Alex in SF (Alex in SF), Wednesday, 24 November 2004 16:33 (twenty years ago)

I really don't think writers should ever be called "scribes" unless they're sitting in the desert writing the New Testament.

"And on the 73rd day, the children of Israel heard The Unicorns, and lo, it was proclaimed that they were alright if you like that sort of thing."

― William Bloody Swygart (mrswygart), Wednesday, 24 November 2004 16:34 (twenty years ago)

unless Alex is mistaken DanH and JonG both post here and neither write for PFork

You may be right; I don't recognize the names.

― Sanjay McDougal (jaymc), Wednesday, 24 November 2004 16:36 (twenty years ago)

Other Music's new release mailing is what sells me records. I paid like 28 bucks for the Bill Fay CD!

― Dan Selzer (Dan Selzer), Wednesday, 24 November 2004 16:42 (twenty years ago)

His creamy, lightly freckled skin, glinting brown eyes
and quick, affable smile

Ew, was this really necessary? It reads like bad fan fic. And Pitchfork fanfic is a scary proposition indeed.

― RickyT (RickyT), Wednesday, 24 November 2004 16:54 (twenty years ago)

HIPINION REPRUZENT!

― Patrick South (Patrick South), Wednesday, 24 November 2004 16:54 (twenty years ago)

But . . . . I liked the way the perma-staff got rated on a cute-o-meter. But should we trust Hillary's taste in cuteness? I mean, what's her type of guy? Still, those freckles sound dreamy.

― Drew Daniel (Drew Daniel), Wednesday, 24 November 2004 16:57 (twenty years ago)

They didn't mention that Ryan talks like a 12 year old valley girl, which I think is really key to understanding his character.

― Melissa W (Melissa W), Wednesday, 24 November 2004 17:04 (twenty years ago)

Hahaha evil.

― Alex in SF (Alex in SF), Wednesday, 24 November 2004 17:05 (twenty years ago)

Despite its far-flung location

she makes it sound as if Ryan dispatches Pitchfork by polar bear courier from Nome, Alaska

― raj, Wednesday, 24 November 2004 17:05 (twenty years ago)

Pitchfork does have an influence on what sells big at the local indie store. The kids come running for the BEST NEW MUSIC, as long as it fits within their standard indie spectrum (Arcade Fire yay, Annie boo).

I've run into this, too. PFM has some really good reviews, and some that I just can't relate to at all. Which is fine, until I run into people at the record store who just echo those opinions. It's just what happens when people get all of their info from one source, but since pitchfork seems to be that source right now, they're a pretty easy target.

I think I'm somehow missing the hidden "novelty" tag on some of their reviews. I think the criteria is if it's pop, rap, or a band that pitchfork writers used to like a decade ago, then it's actually a novelty review. There's some sort of hidden signals to the readership on this.

― mike h. (mike h.), Wednesday, 24 November 2004 17:11 (twenty years ago)

That first paragraph was a quote from miccio, the italics got eaten somewhere on preview.

― mike h. (mike h.), Wednesday, 24 November 2004 17:11 (twenty years ago)

I think the criteria is if it's pop, rap, or a band that pitchfork writers used to like a decade ago, then it's actually a novelty review.

Before a year or two ago, I'd have agreed with you on this point. But the TIMES THEY ARE A-CHANGIN'. Did you read the Annimal review?

― Sanjay McDougal (jaymc), Wednesday, 24 November 2004 17:15 (twenty years ago)

the amount of power PF has now frankly frightens me.

― Al (sitcom), Wednesday, 24 November 2004 17:21 (twenty years ago)

It doesn't frighten me any more than the power SPIN had in the early 90s (which was a lot then.) I'm just waiting for the PFork AIDS Myth articles.

― Alex in SF (Alex in SF), Wednesday, 24 November 2004 17:24 (twenty years ago)

I think the criteria is if it's pop, rap, or a band that pitchfork writers used to like a decade ago, then it's actually a novelty review. There's some sort of hidden signals to the readership on this.

oh come on.

― scott pl. (scott pl.), Wednesday, 24 November 2004 17:28 (twenty years ago)

I am interested to hear what Dan H thought of his quotes in this article.

― Magic City (ano ano), Wednesday, 24 November 2004 17:55 (twenty years ago)

And I miss Mark Richard-san

― Magic City (ano ano), Wednesday, 24 November 2004 17:56 (twenty years ago)

He just wrote a review today?!?

― Alex in SF (Alex in SF), Wednesday, 24 November 2004 17:56 (twenty years ago)

No, that was Mark Richardson

― Magic City (ano ano), Wednesday, 24 November 2004 17:57 (twenty years ago)

Haha I didn't realize they weren't the same person.

― Alex in SF (Alex in SF), Wednesday, 24 November 2004 18:00 (twenty years ago)

They are, I was just joking.
I mean I miss his pen name.

― Magic City (ano ano), Wednesday, 24 November 2004 18:00 (twenty years ago)

I think Ryan's been replaced by a new Ryan: the Ryan I knew didn't live near Wicker Park, and didn't look like the picture I saw recently. It's like he's been redesigned!

That was probably the most in-and-of-itself readable article about Pitchfork that I've seen: stuff like the Times Square thing, these are nice touches.

― nabisco (nabisco), Wednesday, 24 November 2004 18:03 (twenty years ago)

I think Ryan's been replaced by a new Ryan

he has lost a lot of weight - I think he's given some of it to me...

― scott pl. (scott pl.), Wednesday, 24 November 2004 18:06 (twenty years ago)

OMG, you mean some other place besides new york city can dictate the way the wind blows in rock music?!?!

asshattery aside, i enjoyed reading that piece. thanks sam!

― maria tessa sciarrino (theoreticalgirl), Wednesday, 24 November 2004 18:09 (twenty years ago)

I think Ryan's been replaced by a new Ryan

I have to admit, I was taken aback when I saw him in NYC last month -- I'd only met him once before, three years ago, but he seemed much leaner (even taller??) this time around.

― Sanjay McDougal (jaymc), Wednesday, 24 November 2004 18:13 (twenty years ago)

I always wondered about the Richardson/Richard-san business -- why he chose the pen name, then dropped it, etc.

― Sanjay McDougal (jaymc), Wednesday, 24 November 2004 18:15 (twenty years ago)

The site is read, debated, demonized and lionized by dutiful hipsters from East Fourth Street to Bedford Avenue

Ha ha ha, most of that space is taken up by the murky brown water of the East River! I hope those dutiful hipsters can swim as well as demonize / lionize! (By the way, notice how 'demonize / lionize' is a coded reference to Dominique Leone?)

― Momus (Momus), Wednesday, 24 November 2004 18:21 (twenty years ago)

hahaha!

― s1ocki (slutsky), Wednesday, 24 November 2004 18:25 (twenty years ago)

In the early days of Pitchfork Ryan called me Richard-San for some reason. It was a small joke I've forgotten, but everything was about the joke back then (some readers miss that era, actually, with all the clowning around and Brent D filing two reviews a week). A couple years ago I asked him to change it when I started writing for other places. There are so many bad reviews under the Richard-San name, though, I like to perpetuate the idea they were written by someone else.

― Mark (MarkR), Wednesday, 24 November 2004 18:27 (twenty years ago)

Death from Above 1979

i can't believe these morons are the latest "band to be name-dropped."

― contribute, Wednesday, 24 November 2004 18:28 (twenty years ago)

Mark: VERY INTERESTING

― Sanjay McDougal (jaymc), Wednesday, 24 November 2004 18:29 (twenty years ago)

I am the demon and the lion; the yin and the yang. In short, I am a Pitchfork staff writer.

― Dominique (dleone), Wednesday, 24 November 2004 18:30 (twenty years ago)

Death from Above 1979 is unlistenable.

― Patrick South (Patrick South), Wednesday, 24 November 2004 18:32 (twenty years ago)

For the last few years, writers brought on staff would
abide by a grueling schedule, filing twice a week for six months with
no pay at all; after that initiation, they would earn what is truly a
pittance—$10 or $20 for a review, and $40 for a feature. These days,
writers are promised pay as soon as they start writing for the site,
and slightly more money per piece. In the new year, with the redesign,
Mr. Schreiber is planning to pay writers "a more competitive rate,"
and hopes to woo back some of those who have left out of frustration
or for more lucrative ventures.

I know it sounds slightly, but should I go back?

― San Carlos, Wednesday, 24 November 2004 18:46 (twenty years ago)

"says," rather.

― San Carlos, Wednesday, 24 November 2004 18:49 (twenty years ago)

Pitchfork vs. Walmart!

― Alex in SF (Alex in SF), Wednesday, 24 November 2004 18:51 (twenty years ago)

That bit about the pay rates is, I think, just factually incorrect, though I doubt there's any reason to clarify.

― nabisco (nabisco), Wednesday, 24 November 2004 19:02 (twenty years ago)

Holy shit I just found that ad revenue breakdown. Jeez this is definitely a bigger business than I realized.

― Alex in SF (Alex in SF), Wednesday, 24 November 2004 19:04 (twenty years ago)

reconsidering your career options alex?

― s1ocki (slutsky), Wednesday, 24 November 2004 19:07 (twenty years ago)

xpost sort of . . .

As much as I've occasionally carped from the sidelines, to be honest I'd love to write for PItchfork, just from the point of view of advocacy for music that I don't think is getting the attention it deserves. I mean, that new Wasteland album "October" is fucking outstanding and it doesn't seem like people are noticing. It makes me wish there was some guardian angel that might scoop it up and spread the word. Certainly getting to write that "10 Best Musique Concrete" thing for PF I felt like maybe I was going to influence some kids shopping trip towards the Xenakis section, but maybe I'm fooling myself (no Xenakis section at Wal-Mart, yet . . .)

― Drew Daniel (Drew Daniel), Wednesday, 24 November 2004 19:08 (twenty years ago)

Haha yeah I'm gonna start my own site and underpay my writers. Just need to move back in with parents and then it'll start.

THE REASON WHY NO ONE IS NOTICING IS CUZ WE HAVE NO IDEA WHERE TO FIND THE DAMN ALBUM DREW!

― Alex in SF (Alex in SF), Wednesday, 24 November 2004 19:10 (twenty years ago)

I saw a copy at Aquarius! I swear!

― Drew Daniel (Drew Daniel), Wednesday, 24 November 2004 19:11 (twenty years ago)

And I've never even seen the Wasteland EP of LAST YEAR for sale and I only got Amen Fire because I bought the one copy Aquarius stocked. *Grumble*

― Alex in SF (Alex in SF), Wednesday, 24 November 2004 19:12 (twenty years ago)

Really? Maybe I will enviegle Adam into swinging by Aquarius before we got to Casanova tonight then.

― Alex in SF (Alex in SF), Wednesday, 24 November 2004 19:12 (twenty years ago)

I just called Aquarius and Cup sez you are a liar, Drew!

― Alex in SF (Alex in SF), Wednesday, 24 November 2004 19:13 (twenty years ago)

(Not directly haha, she just said they don't have it.)

― Alex in SF (Alex in SF), Wednesday, 24 November 2004 19:14 (twenty years ago)

just from the point of view of advocacy for music that I don't think is getting the attention it deserves

Drew, this is actually the reason I started writing there. It's still the main reason I do it.

― Dominique (dleone), Wednesday, 24 November 2004 19:17 (twenty years ago)

Don't forget about the low pay, Dom.

― David R. (popshots75`), Wednesday, 24 November 2004 19:19 (twenty years ago)

Alex:
No way. I totally saw one copy on the little wooden rack shelf thing, like, three days ago. I am going over to Lost Weekend later today anyway, I am going to have to go in there and tug Cup's forelock and challenge her to a thumb war or something.

Dom:
yeah, I think that's the positive thing about the visibility of PF, and that seemed like the thrust of the Arcade Fire angle in that piece too.

― Drew Daniel (Drew Daniel), Wednesday, 24 November 2004 19:20 (twenty years ago)

Hmmn. Well I am hoping that Mr. I-Sound update his site so I can't just order it from him.

― Alex in SF (Alex in SF), Wednesday, 24 November 2004 19:22 (twenty years ago)

but of course, David

― Dominique (dleone), Wednesday, 24 November 2004 19:24 (twenty years ago)

What I love about Pitchfork, and one reason why I don't really badmouth them, is that they've introduced me to new music I might not hear about in other places, ILM excepted of course. William Basinski, Max Richter, Johann Johannson, Dungen, Jason Forrest, Philip Jeck...and the first place I heard about M83 was PFM.

Those bastards led me to Sufjan Stevens, though...

― Riot Gear! (Gear!), Wednesday, 24 November 2004 19:27 (twenty years ago)

Haha, I don't actually believe there are hidden signals. And Sanjay is right - the Anniemal piece was good. It gave a great context to pop, never spoke down to me as a reader, and more importantly, never looked down on the music. To me, it shows that this is a publication that's showing some signs of maturity. More importantly, it doesn't feel out of place.

Congrats on getting some press. Hopefully it'll bring more of the right kind of attention (monetary, I mean. $20 for a review? Damn).

― mike h. (mike h.), Wednesday, 24 November 2004 19:35 (twenty years ago)

xpost

I'm actually pretty amazed by the way Pitchfork has managed to write about things like the former and yet still be able to tell a broader audience that, you know, they'll probably enjoy the Shins or whatever. There are things about both the writing and the design that make it easy to use in either direction, which strikes me as fairly cool; I know people who, say, love the Flaming Lips and use the site to "discover" stuff like Arcade Fire; and I know people who go at it in a more ILMish way; it seems to work for both.

― nabisco (nabisco), Wednesday, 24 November 2004 19:36 (twenty years ago)

how they managed to become king of the heap is definitely uh... well, it used to be really surprising, now i'd probably chalk it up to something else. something more meritous. of course, the article doesn't really go there.

seriously, there were several attempts by several groups to do exactly as pitchfork in the same time frame, and despite the fork's occasional lackluster results, they now seem to continue to spiral higher.

kudos,
m.

― msp (msp), Wednesday, 24 November 2004 19:43 (twenty years ago)

"I am interested to hear what Dan H thought of his quotes in this article"

a little paraphrased as it were but its fine, as it probably was necessary ultimately.
i went off on a tangent to the point where i think i was eventually speculating what a spin staffer's apartment was like etc.
but she got the arcade/travistan dichotomy thing from me also i think.

also dominique's stuff is more what i would go to pfork for, personally (and thanks BTW)

― noize duke, Wednesday, 24 November 2004 19:46 (twenty years ago)

I think it has much to do with the fact that PFM puts five new reviews every day, singles reviews, news, and it's an easy site to navigate.

And while it didn't say much, that Daft Punk remix album review from a few months ago was pretty awesome.

― Riot Gear! (Gear!), Wednesday, 24 November 2004 19:48 (twenty years ago)

haha, sorry mike h.!

― scott pl. (scott pl.), Wednesday, 24 November 2004 19:49 (twenty years ago)

Ha, Ryan did seem a bit wide-eyed in NYC!

That's a pretty good article, though Maria is right on about the obnoxious "NYC isn't the center of the indie universe?" tone. I would say that there are a lot of areas where NYC sets the tone for the rest of the world, but indie rock isn't exactly one of them.

― Matthew Perpetua (Matthew Perpetua), Wednesday, 24 November 2004 19:57 (twenty years ago)

that Daft Punk remix album review from a few months ago was pretty awesome.

That was Nick Sylvester's, I think!

― Sanjay McDougal (jaymc), Wednesday, 24 November 2004 20:00 (twenty years ago)

to support drew's claim upthread, i too think i saw the wasteland album at Aquarius the other day.

― ken taylrr (ken taylrr), Wednesday, 24 November 2004 20:08 (twenty years ago)

Goddammit. Why am I lied to?

― Alex in SF (Alex in SF), Wednesday, 24 November 2004 20:14 (twenty years ago)

Why the hell does the writer keep referring to people all mice and formal like "Mr. Schreiber" and "Mr. Klausman"? I HATE that.

― Mr. Snrub, Wednesday, 24 November 2004 20:23 (twenty years ago)

"Nice" even!!

― Mr. Snrub, Wednesday, 24 November 2004 20:24 (twenty years ago)

Hey, and that Arcade Fire album they "broke" is totally tearing up the Billboard charts, isn't it? Why, it's almost selling as many copies as the Liz Phair album they gave a 0.0 to last year. What a silly article.

― sixto brown, Wednesday, 24 November 2004 20:31 (twenty years ago)

"And though the site is still too small to have much influence on major
labels, the fact that it publishes daily has given it a huge edge in
the world of music media"

― DUKE COMPREHENSION, Wednesday, 24 November 2004 20:36 (twenty years ago)

Hating on PFM and their pull is so last season.

― Johnny Fever (johnny fever), Wednesday, 24 November 2004 20:36 (twenty years ago)

in some circles, bad review in pitchfork = success.

but hey, the same is said for spin, wire, etc etc. many a noise scene person has said many an unkind word about wire... and seeing coverage of stuff like no fun fest and things in wire.

ah, but it used to be in some punk circles that if your band got into mrr, you were officially lame.

pink and fuzzy and makes my arms itch...
m.

― msp (msp), Wednesday, 24 November 2004 20:37 (twenty years ago)

Hey, and that Arcade Fire album they "broke" is totally tearing up the Billboard charts, isn't it? Why, it's almost selling as many copies as the Liz Phair album they gave a 0.0 to last year. What a silly article.

Obv. none of these bands are "breaking" on that kind of scale. But when it comes to bands selling 5,000 vs. 50,000 copies of a record, barely drawing a crowd vs. packing a venue -- and those things determining whether they can afford to continue as a band, go on tour for longer stretches, make a living at it -- then Pfork does wield some influence.

― Sanjay McDougal (jaymc), Wednesday, 24 November 2004 20:46 (twenty years ago)

it seems hardly worth responding to someone who didn't notice that frey limned the reality of situation perfectly well within the article...

― duke school, Wednesday, 24 November 2004 20:50 (twenty years ago)

Seriously, by indie rockers, for indie rockers. Take it at that and leave it alone.

― danh (danh), Wednesday, 24 November 2004 20:54 (twenty years ago)

NOW HERES AN ARTICLE FOR YA
http://www.newyorkmetro.com/nymetro/urban/features/10488/

― duke woah, Wednesday, 24 November 2004 21:01 (twenty years ago)

"Pfork does wield some influence"

And Rolling Stone, Spin, and the Village Voice don't?

― sixto brown, Wednesday, 24 November 2004 21:06 (twenty years ago)

Are you dense?

― Alex in SF (Alex in SF), Wednesday, 24 November 2004 21:07 (twenty years ago)

Rolling Stone is for dentist's offices. It prepares you for the pain.

― cdwill, Wednesday, 24 November 2004 21:08 (twenty years ago)

sixto the article is right up top there. you don't even have to click or anything

― duke c'mon, Wednesday, 24 November 2004 21:10 (twenty years ago)

oh i read it all right

my favorite words: "legitimacy" and "just way more honest."

what a smug-assed load of horse poop.

― sixto brown, Wednesday, 24 November 2004 21:17 (twenty years ago)

Holy shit, that NY Metro article could've come out of The Onion. I just laughed out loud.

Meet Tiramisu, a delightful little concoction of Marscapone and ladyfingers...

― cdwill, Wednesday, 24 November 2004 21:18 (twenty years ago)

That Metro article is ridiculous.

― Alex in SF (Alex in SF), Wednesday, 24 November 2004 21:22 (twenty years ago)

“I’ve always loved Tiramisu,” she says, petting her Norwich terrier, Fiji, while sitting on one of the packed boxes strewn about her soon-to-be-vacated apartment. “Also, my dad is Ratu Josefa Iloilo, the president of Fiji, and I wanted some distance from all that.”

FIJI!

― Alex in SF (Alex in SF), Wednesday, 24 November 2004 21:23 (twenty years ago)

I think it's satirical

― Riot Gear! (Gear!), Wednesday, 24 November 2004 21:25 (twenty years ago)

Haha I hope not.

― Alex in SF (Alex in SF), Wednesday, 24 November 2004 21:26 (twenty years ago)

I'll all about Dominique. Bowers is also a good writer, though I don't necessarily agree with his taste as much as I agree with Dominique's.

― Salvador Saca (Mr. Xolotl), Wednesday, 24 November 2004 21:26 (twenty years ago)

Holy shit, that NY Metro article could've come out of The Onion

Well, it is a satire. I didn't notice that at first though. Definitely pretty funny.

― sleep (sleep), Wednesday, 24 November 2004 21:26 (twenty years ago)

I know this will taint it in some of y'all's minds but Zev Borow used to write for Might and McSweeney's.

― Sanjay McDougal (jaymc), Wednesday, 24 November 2004 21:28 (twenty years ago)

Sadly, it's not really that satyrical, since I hear tons of people saying the equivalent of 'NYC is so over'.

How can a city be "over"?

"Yeah, man, North America is SO over. I'm totally going to Antarctica to escape the scene."

― cdwill, Wednesday, 24 November 2004 21:30 (twenty years ago)

Well I mean, that's what makes it an effective satire, no? The idea is that they take it over the top (e.g. when 'Tiramisu' starts crying, the loft art exhibit / sake bar that flopped etc.)

― sleep (sleep), Wednesday, 24 November 2004 21:36 (twenty years ago)

Oh, definitely. The reality is, though, that some of the sentiments in that article are real, especially when it comes to people's attitudes on NYC.

Gavin McInnes quoting Vincent Gallo is PRICELESS, though.

― cdwill, Wednesday, 24 November 2004 21:38 (twenty years ago)

of course it's satirical, doesn't it even say so at the top?!

― s1ocki (slutsky), Wednesday, 24 November 2004 21:39 (twenty years ago)

but theres that bit about "(real) reporting" at the end too

― duke fake, Wednesday, 24 November 2004 21:41 (twenty years ago)

"downtown favorites Black Dice and the Rapture"

ha

― Does John Coltrane Dream of a Merry-go-round? (ex machina), Wednesday, 24 November 2004 21:43 (twenty years ago)

Look at us all talk about each other.

― Chris Ott (Chris Ott), Wednesday, 24 November 2004 22:07 (twenty years ago)

Ott, I heard the writer interviewed you too?

― savetherobot, Wednesday, 24 November 2004 22:14 (twenty years ago)

Yes, but my contributions were apparently discarded as a conflict of interest - I went to college with the author, and am now editing a different music site - and/or for asshole-ism. Duly on the latter count, if so.

― Chris Ott (Chris Ott), Wednesday, 24 November 2004 22:45 (twenty years ago)

I thought the New York Hipster Exodus article was sweet. Satire, but kind of mild and touchy feely. I arrived in the LES in precisely the spring of 2000 'Gabe' mentions, and I concur with what 'he' says. There was something very special in the air, right in those particular streets. I drank and partied with As Four, hung out with Fischerspooner, crisscrossed the Williamsburg Bridge on a Rocket scooter on my way to thrifting sprees at Domsey's. (Which closed down, I hear.) When I left in 2002 for Tokyo and thence Berlin one of the editors at Index magazine said 'You left at exactly the right time. Things have changed here.' But I still miss... well, Clinton Street, Orchard Street, Eldridge Street, seeing As Four jumping into a taxi on the Bowery... If they'd needed 'real' interviewees for that article, I'd have said much the same silly, rather touching stuff. Berlin isn't as boring as Bruges, but it isn't New York either.

― Momus (Momus), Wednesday, 24 November 2004 22:46 (twenty years ago)

Nick, every day is "back in the day" to someone five years later. Crystallization is a bad habit.

― Chris Ott (Chris Ott), Wednesday, 24 November 2004 22:54 (twenty years ago)

Crystallization is a bad habit.

Never touch the stuff myself. I hear you can't even buy it on Clinton Street these days.

― Momus (Momus), Wednesday, 24 November 2004 22:56 (twenty years ago)

I was there, maaaaaan

― sleep (sleep), Wednesday, 24 November 2004 23:00 (twenty years ago)

Hahaha Momus your little blurb there was almost as ridiculous as the Metro article itself.

― Alex in SF (Alex in SF), Wednesday, 24 November 2004 23:02 (twenty years ago)

What was so great about New York Fucking City back in the day, though -- and the day in question was April 9th, 2000 -- is that you could be utterly ridiculous and nobody would notice. You could look around and suddenly see that everybody was 'almost as ridiculous'. That feeling is the key to all the greatest scenes known to man, man.

BTW Putschfork is just as poofy as any of the spoofs on it, but we still love it.

― Momus (Momus), Wednesday, 24 November 2004 23:21 (twenty years ago)

Momus, I listened to the MP3 (I Refuse To Die) you put up on your blog while I walked to the pub the other night - I liked it. I hadn't heard your stuff before...you voice doesn't sound how I imagined...

Anyway, aren't all 'scenes' populated by the ridiculous? Almost everyone I meet semms ridiculous, from high-school kids to pensioners on the bus...

― Kevin Gilchrist (Mr Fusion), Wednesday, 24 November 2004 23:31 (twenty years ago)

the pensioner scene is TOTALLY RIDICULOUS!

― s1ocki (slutsky), Wednesday, 24 November 2004 23:35 (twenty years ago)

Pensioners are cool, Slocki.

― Kevin Gilchrist (Mr Fusion), Wednesday, 24 November 2004 23:38 (twenty years ago)

that's what i'm saying! they're ridiculous! they're off the chain! they're jammin' in the zone!

― s1ocki (slutsky), Wednesday, 24 November 2004 23:39 (twenty years ago)

Oh, sorry - I thought you weren't being serious for a moment...

― Kevin Gilchrist (Mr Fusion), Wednesday, 24 November 2004 23:41 (twenty years ago)

http://www.imomus.com/oldies0.jpg

'Back in the day... and I was there...'

― Momus (Momus), Wednesday, 24 November 2004 23:43 (twenty years ago)

how dare kevin suggest i don't think pensioners are jammin' in the zone.

― s1ocki (slutsky), Wednesday, 24 November 2004 23:52 (twenty years ago)

Jammin' in the zone = Jam is in the scone?

― Kevin Gilchrist (Mr Fusion), Wednesday, 24 November 2004 23:58 (twenty years ago)

Lester Bangs was a hero to most but he never meant shit to me

― MC Transmaniacon (natepatrin), Thursday, 25 November 2004 01:10 (twenty years ago)

Haha. I thought this was just a revived old thread when I saw it pop up earlier.

― LaRue (rockist_scientist), Thursday, 25 November 2004 01:20 (twenty years ago)

hipsters, or human filth

― Ben Dot (1977), Thursday, 25 November 2004 01:31 (twenty years ago)

BTW: Good reviews may mean better sales. No Shit.

― Ben Dot (1977), Thursday, 25 November 2004 01:33 (twenty years ago)

Good reviews definitely mean better sales no shit. Pitchfork is the setup man for every major trade to call out "crucial" new music.

― Chris Ott (Chris Ott), Thursday, 25 November 2004 01:35 (twenty years ago)

So, speaking of how Pitchfork sometimes does retarded shit, is it just me or are those "Pitchfork Yearbook" things they try to sell retarded shit? I mean, come on. Who the fuck wants that?

― Mickey, Thursday, 25 November 2004 02:05 (twenty years ago)

Again, that the vast majority of Pitchfork favorites go absolutely fucking nowhere, even on an indie level, apparently doesn't matter. Yes, some bands that get good reviews do okay. As do some bands that get bad reviews. Just like any other magazine. Big effing deal. When you throw that many darts at the wall, obviously a couple are going to hit the target. No matter how inchorent most of your writing is.

― sixto brown, Thursday, 25 November 2004 02:11 (twenty years ago)

You underestimate the size and susceptibility of the herd.

― Chris Ott (Chris Ott), Thursday, 25 November 2004 02:25 (twenty years ago)

Ott isn't kidding.

I couldn't read past the first graf, sorry--the "NYC = center of omniverse" tone repulsed me too much (as some of you have already noted).

― Matos W.K. (M Matos), Thursday, 25 November 2004 04:04 (twenty years ago)


Erm... Ott, you shouldn't be telling anyone that they're poorly estimating anything.

Lest we forget, you gave Hail to the Thief 9.3 fucking stars, and I quote:

"For its moments of gravity and excellence, Hail to the Thief is an arrow, pointing toward the clearly darker, more frenetic territory the band have up to now only poked at curiously. Experimentation fueled the creativity that gave us Kid A and Amnesiac, but that's old hat to Radiohead, who are trying-- and largely succeeding-- in their efforts to shape pop music into as boundless and possible a medium as it should be. Without succumbing to dilettantism, they continue to absorb and refract simpler posits from the underground, ideas that are usually satisfied to wallow in their mere novelty. The syncretic mania of Radiohead continues unabated, and though Hail to the Thief will likely fade into their catalog as a slight placeholder once their promissory transformation is complete, most of us will long cherish the view from this bridge."

-Chris Ott, June 10th, 2003

― maria b (maria b), Thursday, 25 November 2004 06:11 (twenty years ago)

is he supposed to be ashamed of that or something?

― noize duke, Thursday, 25 November 2004 06:42 (twenty years ago)

Yeah, what's wrong with that?

― Melissa W (Melissa W), Thursday, 25 November 2004 06:46 (twenty years ago)

I'm trying to figure out if Maria thinks 9.3 is too high or too low. I'm going to bet on too high, I think.

― Kevin Gilchrist (Mr Fusion), Thursday, 25 November 2004 06:54 (twenty years ago)

what kind of masquerading cunt drinks _diet_ dr pepper? that's not an edior, it's a cosmo semen stain.

― Queen Get these fuckers offfa my screen, Thursday, 25 November 2004 07:35 (twenty years ago)

I liked the part where they described the hipsters it was funny. and he had to make sure you know that he himself is like that LOOOL!

― Dan I., Thursday, 25 November 2004 09:24 (twenty years ago)

Seriously though I am beating this person in my mind for lowering the DFA (even if it wasn't one of the main production guys) to Pitchfork commentary.

― Dan I., Thursday, 25 November 2004 09:27 (twenty years ago)

Dan I. -- how do you think *we* felt to have those DFA ASSES talking about us! seriously, those guys...asses

― Nick Sylvester, Thursday, 25 November 2004 19:05 (twenty years ago)

Diet Dr. Pepper is really great!

― nabiscothingy (nory), Thursday, 25 November 2004 19:16 (twenty years ago)

I heard that Radiohead drank a hefty amount of Diet Dr. Pepper while recording Hail to the Thief.

― maria b (maria b), Thursday, 25 November 2004 22:42 (twenty years ago)

I drink a lot of Diet Dr. Pepper. Seriously.

― Matthew Perpetua (Matthew Perpetua), Thursday, 25 November 2004 22:53 (twenty years ago)

Ha, someone should write a lame lifestyle article about how Diet Dr. Pepper is the new indie "It Drink." PBR for the slsk set.

― Matthew Perpetua (Matthew Perpetua), Thursday, 25 November 2004 22:54 (twenty years ago)

pitchfork should review it!

― s1ocki (slutsky), Thursday, 25 November 2004 22:56 (twenty years ago)

diet dr pepper tastes like regular dr pepper and im sorry the other diet sodas just dont do that

― chaki in charge (chaki), Thursday, 25 November 2004 22:58 (twenty years ago)

Personally, I think that Diet Dr. Pepper is an 8.6, but Diet Cherry Coke is a 9.5

― Matthew Perpetua (Matthew Perpetua), Thursday, 25 November 2004 23:00 (twenty years ago)

magazines may or may not take it easy on an advertising outfit but how "brave" is trashing a release when you never talk to said bands themselves anyway?

give something a 3.1 in your 40,000-word reviews isn't brave when every quote on same band in the (never new) news side is pinched from the band's site.

i could carry a big stick too if i never had to meet or confront the man that was pierced by it.

"journalism"? no sire.

― aa, Friday, 26 November 2004 00:05 (twenty years ago)

or pinched from other publications . . .

"blah blah blah told nme"
"blah blah blah said on his site"

when will someone ever say something to "us" damnit?

and as for their newswire, i'm sorry but "low prep new single" or "q and u readying tour" is not "news."

according to . . .

― aa, Friday, 26 November 2004 00:08 (twenty years ago)

Give them a break. They are just compiling the stuff and don't have full-time reporters going after industry news. Maybe they should, but the fact that they compile all that info is helpful enough. Think of it as being more like a blog, and less like Reuters.

― Matthew Perpetua (Matthew Perpetua), Friday, 26 November 2004 00:15 (twenty years ago)

Anonymous Poster Strikes ILM, Derides Pitchfork *Shocka*

― sleep (sleep), Friday, 26 November 2004 14:27 (twenty years ago)

Holy shit I just found that ad revenue breakdown. Jeez this is definitely a bigger business than I realized.

-- Alex in SF (clobberthesauru...), November 24th, 2004. (Alex in SF) (link)

gi'us a clue then .. kinda interested ..

― mark e (mark e), Friday, 26 November 2004 14:58 (twenty years ago)

And the MP3 section that says "Paid promotion. No critical endorsement of these songs by Pitchfork should be assumed." in small print at the end is definitely a 9.8.

― aaaa, Friday, 26 November 2004 20:06 (twenty years ago)

Just pan down.

― Alex in SF (Alex in SF), Sunday, 28 November 2004 04:46 (twenty years ago)

or you could use this link:

http://tinyurl.com/6z3yq

― maria tessa sciarrino (theoreticalgirl), Sunday, 28 November 2004 05:09 (twenty years ago)

cool people are uncool, so of course uncool people are the coolest people of all. which makes them totally uncool.

― latebloomer (latebloomer), Sunday, 28 November 2004 07:04 (twenty years ago)

so all i'm saying is: be cool, baby. be cool.

― latebloomer (latebloomer), Sunday, 28 November 2004 07:05 (twenty years ago)

Exactly. People who think they're cool are not very cool. Murphy's Law.

― Bimble (bimble), Sunday, 28 November 2004 08:05 (twenty years ago)

par-tay

― It's hard to kill a horse with a flute (AaronHz), Sunday, 28 November 2004 08:11 (twenty years ago)

sa da tay, even.

― :| (....), Sunday, 28 November 2004 11:05 (twenty years ago)

Regarding their advertising income, I added up PFM's November 2004 ad sales and got a total of $18,248.32. If you subtract full-time staff salaries and bandwidth/equipment expenses then how much are you left with to pay the writers?

Answer: not a whole lot

― Nancy Boy (Nancy Boy), Sunday, 28 November 2004 11:51 (twenty years ago)

Oh yeah, don't forget to subtract the monthly rent for their office space, unless you think that should come out of Schreiber's pocket, in which case... are you serious?

― Nancy Boy (Nancy Boy), Sunday, 28 November 2004 11:56 (twenty years ago)

also: TAXES!

― maria tessa sciarrino (theoreticalgirl), Sunday, 28 November 2004 16:02 (twenty years ago)

What's this about Diet Dr. Pepper again?

(I admit I never tire of telling this story but -- a couple of years back I was in fact approached by PFM to see about writing for them, which was flattering on the one hand but made me leery on the other, based on a slew of stories I'd heard from friends regarding how they treated their writers. Since I was and am actually getting paid by the AMG -- itself not necessarily the highest paying place, but much more so than PFM was offering -- I was duly cautious, and my letter back to them thanked them for the offer, but I followed up with some specific questions about copyright and the like, and never heard back from them at all. The whole experience was strange and shrugworthy -- I'm glad various other folks here have a niche on the site, but frankly I enjoy contributing longer and/or more immediate(ly rambling) pieces to Freaky Trigger and Loose Lips Sink Ships than I would for PFM. I would have appreciated a lot less crypticness on their end at the time.)

― Ned Raggett (Ned), Sunday, 28 November 2004 16:13 (twenty years ago)

**...says Tracks magazine former editor in chief and co-founder
Alan Light, who has also stood at the helm of Vibe and Spin. "It's a
different kind of writing than print—it's kind of shoot-from-the-hip,
for better or for worse."**
Shoot-from-the-hip VS kiss-on-the-ass? Also, former ed-in-chief of Tracks?

― lovebug starski (lovebug starski), Sunday, 28 November 2004 18:13 (twenty years ago)

The patronizing tone of his comments just bugs the heck out of me. I mean, at least P-fork doesn't give EVERYTHING a passing grade. Oh, I forgot, that's "balanced" "professional" criticism. Better shooting from the hip than pulling punches I say. End of thread derail.

― lovebug starski (lovebug starski), Sunday, 28 November 2004 18:24 (twenty years ago)

I know othe ppl have mentioned the NYC-centric-ness but seriously...

Pitchfork comes to us via a basement in Chicago.

Despite its far-flung location,

wtf?

― djdee2005 (djdee2005), Sunday, 28 November 2004 18:55 (twenty years ago)

For the record, I went to Aquarius today and YES INDEED-Y they did have a copy of Wasteland's October and Cup actually sold it to me and they have three more copies and it is fantastic-ly great so go out and buy it.

― Alex in SF (Alex in SF), Sunday, 28 November 2004 21:26 (twenty years ago)

So what's it like, then?

― Ned Raggett (Ned), Sunday, 28 November 2004 22:53 (twenty years ago)

Slow, quiet, echo-y and intricate but without being stupidly busy, with a lot of random white-noise breaks (but quiet white-noise breaks) and it's filled with all these (or perhaps even more is a better way of putting it) gorgeous little melodies and hooks. It's like the slowest most skeletal rave record ever.

― Alex in SF (Alex in SF), Monday, 29 November 2004 00:28 (twenty years ago)

I like me the sound of that!

― Ned Raggett (Ned), Monday, 29 November 2004 00:34 (twenty years ago)

"Certainly getting to write that "10 Best Musique Concrete" thing for PF I felt like maybe I was going to influence some kids shopping trip towards the Xenakis section, but maybe I'm fooling myself (no Xenakis section at Wal-Mart, yet . . .)"
for what it's worth that piece made me totally reevaluate merzbow and got me into perrey and kingsley.

― Felonious Drunk (Felcher), Monday, 29 November 2004 16:55 (twenty years ago)

I can't think of any better town than Chicago to serve as an indie capital. The New York thing is just ridiculous: there's no indie here! There are just a whole lot of rock bands who'd like to think they're so much more than indie; it's in Chicago that you walk outside and find traditional indie rock and pop bands playing every night -- some of them including ILXors, even -- without any huge self-consciousness about being above it all. This is just the rock music of the midwest. And really, have New Yorkers recently swept up in their own Brooklyn acendancy really forgotten that Chicago -- throughout the entire 90s, from alt-rock to post-rock -- was one of the biggest focal points of the entire concept?

Re: treatment of writers: I'm just now finding time to try and write for them again, but my sense is that the expansion of the full-time staff has made the whole thing a lot more comfortable for everyone. One-time ILXor Scott P gets to handle a lot of the editorial and writer-relations stuff, which I think really unburdens Ryan to look after the business of the site as a whole, instead of having to split time between both ends. I'm pretty pleased with the way things look now.

― nabiscothingy, Monday, 29 November 2004 17:24 (twenty years ago)

I can't think of any better town than Chicago to serve as an indie capital. The New York thing is just ridiculous: there's no indie here! There are just a whole lot of rock bands who'd like to think they're so much more than indie; it's in Chicago that you walk outside and find traditional indie rock and pop bands playing every night -- some of them including ILXors, even -- without any huge self-consciousness about being above it all. This is just the rock music of the midwest. And really, have New Yorkers recently swept up in their own Brooklyn acendancy really forgotten that Chicago -- throughout the entire 90s, from alt-rock to post-rock -- was one of the biggest focal points of the entire concept?

OTMFM, nabisco. i have never considered nyc "indie rock" in any sense of the word, with all the money, power and connections that course through its veins on a daily basis.

― maria tessa sciarrino (theoreticalgirl), Monday, 29 November 2004 20:20 (twenty years ago)

I think that Maria and Nabisco are right, but also that NYC in general isn't very indie rock in a lot of ways that are really fantastic and kinda better than other places. One of the things I love about NYC is that there is community, but not so much the kind of localism that plagues smaller cities.

― Matthew Perpetua (Matthew Perpetua), Monday, 29 November 2004 20:30 (twenty years ago)

there are thousands of indie bands in new york. what the hell are you guys talking about? and only maybe ten or 20 have them have connections. as do a few in chicago, last time i checked with steve albini or the guys in tortoise.

― mordecai lezcano, Monday, 29 November 2004 20:32 (twenty years ago)

i mean, what the fuck, do you think that the only bands in new york are the strokes, liars, yeah yeah yeahs, black dice, and animal collective? what about all the ones you never heard of?

― mordecai lezcano, Monday, 29 November 2004 20:34 (twenty years ago)

Levitate.

― Chris Ott (Chris Ott), Monday, 29 November 2004 20:49 (twenty years ago)

Sorry, Mordecai: I've lived in both cities and I'm playing it straight. There's a very different quality to it all. A lot of the midwest just lives and breathes conventional indie as a matter of course, whereas here in New York there's a level of aspiration to it that changes its character entirely. (And I'm telling you: you there are more indie bands "you've never heard of" -- and never will -- in Chicago than there are around here. From what I can tell the same is true of Philadelphia, and you don't see the article marveling that GOSH WOW the guys at Magnet have any influence on anyone.)

― nabiscothingy, Monday, 29 November 2004 21:26 (twenty years ago)

There are all sorts of issues with dance music and rehearsal space wrapped up in this, but it's not worth getting into.

― nabiscothingy, Monday, 29 November 2004 21:26 (twenty years ago)

When I saw nabisco in Brooklyn that one time, I have to admit that I only saw one member of an acclaimed indie band, so he may have a point.

― Dominique (dleone), Monday, 29 November 2004 21:38 (twenty years ago)

i guess maybe this would make more sense to me if i had some idea what "conventional indie" meant at this point or why "aspirations" are a bad thing for that matter. not that i can't name scores of new york bands who know damn well they have no hopes of getting anywhere, and who are just out there slogging every week in shoebox sized bars and practice spaces just for the slog of it. as often as not in queens, staten island, jersey city, long island, and the part of brooklyn that isn't williamsburg, which is to say almost all of it. but if you're saying that chicago is the capitol of bands who don't mind settling on being mediocre and that's what makes them dedicated to their insular little scene nobody else cares about, who knows, you might have a point. or at least it certainly seemed that way back when albini was slogging off the chicago indie scene back in his matter magazine column days.

― mordecai lezcano, Monday, 29 November 2004 21:55 (twenty years ago)

or okay nabisco maybe what you're really saying is "chicago's indie scene is more like chicago's indie scene than any other indie scene anywhere," in which case you'll get no argument from me, ever, i promise!

― mordecai lezcano, Monday, 29 November 2004 22:10 (twenty years ago)

I think I'm saying (again) that there's just a different character to the way the scenes seem in the two places, both in terms of the kind of music people play and the way it fits into the greater music scenes of the two cities. My sense is that Chicago has a greater attachment to various sorts of meat-and-potatoes indie rock and pop, and that this sort of thing forms more of the basis of the whole city's scene than the same does in New York, and that moreover there's a different sense of attention to the whole country's indie product, of all sorts. I don't quite see that as much in New York. Granted, I haven't been here for nearly as long as I spent in Chicago, but still. If you led me around these cities and asked me which one seemed like it should be the home of an agenda-setting indie publication, I'd pick Chicago or Philadelphia or even Minneapolis a lot sooner than I'd imagine such a thing of New York, where aims and methods are a slightly different thing. (In fact, I don't think a cadre of strict New Yorkers -- particularly born-and-bred New Yorkers -- could speak to the indie-listening youth of the rest of the country in the way Pitchfork apparently does; they'd screw it all up entirely.)

― nabiscothingy, Monday, 29 November 2004 23:24 (twenty years ago)

Actually, scratch that and put it this way. I'd assert that there's a slight difference in the quality of indie fandom between, say, New York and the Chicago-centered Midwest. And it seems to me that the approach to indie rock that Pitchfork has always had is actually a more Midwestern one than a New York one, as befits a site started by a guy who came from Minnesota to Chicago. Reading this site all along has struck me as reading something from that area, and the idea that anyone would be surprised by that location strikes me as very, very weird. But hell, that's surely just because I'm from some of the same bits of the country that Ryan is.

― nabiscothingy, Monday, 29 November 2004 23:29 (twenty years ago)

(In fact, I don't think a cadre of strict New Yorkers -- particularly born-and-bred New Yorkers -- could speak to the indie-listening youth of the rest of the country in the way Pitchfork apparently does; they'd screw it all up entirely.)

I'm tempted to take that as a badge of honor. (Though does being a born-and-bred Long Islander count?)

― Michael Daddino (epicharmus), Monday, 29 November 2004 23:32 (twenty years ago)

NO!

― Alex in SF (Alex in SF), Monday, 29 November 2004 23:33 (twenty years ago)

Bitch.

Anyway, I'm curious how one might characterize a "Midwestern" or a "New York" approach to indie rock: I'm not sensing any concrete differences have been established.

― Michael Daddino (epicharmus), Monday, 29 November 2004 23:35 (twenty years ago)

Well, I take that back a little, what with Maria talking about "all the money, power and connections" in New York and Nabisco bringing up rehearsal space and dance music.

― Michael Daddino (epicharmus), Monday, 29 November 2004 23:37 (twenty years ago)

I think the major point that the sentence "[b]ut—surprise!—Pitchfork comes to us via a basement in Chicago" is patently ridiculous and seems to imply that a) only NYCers are snarky and b) only music criticism originating from NYC can have any sort of impact is the silly thing. This argument about indie NYC vs indie Chicago is pretty silly (I mean there is a lot of indie music of all stripes in both--they are pretty large cities.) So the thing which is completely obviously ridiculous and out-of-proporation is that the surprise exhibited by the article seems to imply that Chicago = Billings, Montana as opposed to one of the three biggest cities and one of the 4 or 5 biggest cultural centers in this country.

― Alex in SF (Alex in SF), Monday, 29 November 2004 23:41 (twenty years ago)

You guys are gonna have to help me out here...

Tried and true indie rock from metro New York:
Sonic Youth
Pavement (California was a red herring)
Jon Spencer Blues Explosion
Yo La Tengo
Matador Records

and from Chicago:
Tortoise
Liz Phair
Drag City
Thrill Jockey (originally New York though)

Chicago is indier how? Or is this just gonna develop into a class/race thing which happens every time indie is discussed on ILM?

― gygax! (gygax!), Monday, 29 November 2004 23:45 (twenty years ago)

I also wish Nabisco would explain what makes some kinds of indie rock more "meat and potatoes" than other kinds, especially since most indie in New York and Chicago both seems to have more in common with vegetables. (Also: what about Lincoln, Nebraska? I mean, come on.)

― mordecai lezcano, Monday, 29 November 2004 23:47 (twenty years ago)

Um not prolong this argument, but Touch and Go and Big Black probably belong there too, gygax.

― Alex in SF (Alex in SF), Monday, 29 November 2004 23:48 (twenty years ago)

touch and go records dude

― cinniblount (James Blount), Monday, 29 November 2004 23:49 (twenty years ago)

VERUCA SALT

― cinniblount (James Blount), Monday, 29 November 2004 23:50 (twenty years ago)

Naked Raygun and Urge Overkill vs. Live Skull and Pussy Galore, who will win?

― mordecai lezcano, Monday, 29 November 2004 23:51 (twenty years ago)

Well I can tell whose records I'd rather listen to.

― Alex in SF (Alex in SF), Monday, 29 November 2004 23:53 (twenty years ago)

Williamsburg is in fact more a less a colony of the Midwest, and if those graduates hailing from thereabouts did not come here with their degrees and actually get jobs first off, and then spent accordingly, there would have been no way that enough $$$ could have coursed thru that district for it to even really exist the way it has/does. it was the usual starving, nihilist artist thing before say 97 or so. but a lot of them have steadfastly remained Midwestern in their tastes and composure without it being much of a problem it seems.
i could personally care less about arcade fire myself but what i was saying in the article was that it is impossible to deny the swift and huge numbers of people that appear out of the woodwork when a band like that comes along, and achieves in accordance with now Mid-indie identified principles.
and you can contrast it directly with longtime luckless L.E.S.-glorifying acts who would kill/would have killed for even a sliver of those numbers, even as they sometimes often have a higher profile within the city itself. so mentioning live skull or electroclash is like the real 'red herring' in that sense.
...tho strokes/liars/YYY curiously almost combined both of these schools somehow. at least for a time...
tho really actually "NYC" is pretty much over now (all over again), isn't it?

― duke over, Tuesday, 30 November 2004 00:05 (twenty years ago)

with all the indie hate on this board, i am surprised to see such rousing arguments in praise of people's respective indies scenes.

― todd swiss (eliti), Tuesday, 30 November 2004 00:08 (twenty years ago)

(And I'm telling you: you there are more indie bands "you've never heard of" -- and never will -- in Chicago than there are around here. From what I can tell the same is true of Philadelphia, and you don't see the article marveling that GOSH WOW the guys at Magnet have any influence on anyone.)

i think ive seen more coverage for philly bands in pitchfork and stylus than magnet, though the publication does what it can without making it sound as if they're a bunch of hometown cheerleaders.

― maria tessa sciarrino (theoreticalgirl), Tuesday, 30 November 2004 00:23 (twenty years ago)

What's the point of deciding who is more indie or whatever?

I mean, look at the list of all the "tried and true" indie rock from North Carolina. But do we have "indie cred" like Chicago or New York or something? Fuck no, we're redneck idiots.

I'm not trying to argue that we deserve any cred. I'm arguing that this argument is retarded.

― Mickey, Tuesday, 30 November 2004 04:24 (twenty years ago)

How on earth is Pavement from New York? I mean I really am not that familar with them so I'm asking sincerely but I thought they were from Stockton or something. This whole indie discussion is a red herring anyway since the idiotic sentence in question (from the original article) says nothing of indie but implies that since New York is the center of the musical world how could a place as far flung as GASP Chicago have an influence? Ignoring the "indie" argument for a second, what are the major, popular artists or movements to come out of NY in the past 15 years? The 90s seemed to be much more about Chicago, Seattle, LA and the UK than about NY. Not to mention bands from Seattle and the UK recording in Chicago.

― walter kranz (walterkranz), Tuesday, 30 November 2004 08:17 (twenty years ago)

Louisville, Kentucky to thread.

Seriously, I remember growing up in the Midwest/quasi-South thing that is Kentucky and we had a total chip on our shoulder about both coasts being full of people who were stuck up and suffered from reverse-provincialism about all culture ending at the boundaries of NYC, LA, SF etc. Going to see local Louisville bands was the norm, and out of city bands had to prove themselves a little bit more, if anything. We weren't pining to actually be somewhere else. Now this whole red-states blues-states thing (which I take to be the subtext of the kind of shock in the PItchfork article that folks outside New York might have something to say about, like, art and stuff) reinforces it all all over again something fierce. I don't mean to come on like A Sad American Indie Rocker or whatever, but really. Good bands come from many different cities, why wouldn't good critics?

― Drew Daniel (Drew Daniel), Tuesday, 30 November 2004 08:26 (twenty years ago)

indie bands from chapel hill were kind of a cliche circa 1994 IIRC, mickey.

― Shmool McShmool (shmuel), Tuesday, 30 November 2004 08:55 (twenty years ago)

not prolong this argument, but Touch and Go and Big Black probably belong there too

What aboot all the Big Black stuff that came out on Homestead, a NY label?

― Vic Funk, Tuesday, 30 November 2004 13:11 (twenty years ago)

I wouldn't classify Pavement as a New York band. They were only in New York for a year or two, and they are more notable for a) SM and Spiral's Californian roots and b) the fact that the band had no hometown - SM in Oregon, Spiral in California, Mark in NYC, Bob in Kentucky, Westy in Virginia. That's part of their charm.

― Matthew Perpetua (Matthew Perpetua), Tuesday, 30 November 2004 13:29 (twenty years ago)

The midwest doesn't have a whole lot of indie bands you haven't heard of. There are a MILLION emo/punk rock bands with pop culture reference names playing at every single VFW hall throughout the entire midwest any given night. In Michigan at least.

― David Allen (David Allen), Tuesday, 30 November 2004 13:51 (twenty years ago)

indie bands from chapel hill were kind of a cliche circa 1994 IIRC, mickey.

but since 1994? jeezus, 10 years later and there's still a UN Ban on Indie Rock?

i mean, is nyc better for example because several of it's recently successful bands today ape nyc bands 30 years ago? "cliche"?

indie is not a cheesesteak or a type of pizza or whatever. scenes may be bigger and harder to survive in. practice spaces might not exist. noise ordinances. these things are true in most any city in north america.
m.

― msp (msp), Tuesday, 30 November 2004 14:31 (twenty years ago)

eh, to retract a little... perhaps more the flavors of local indie music can be like a cheesesteak in one place and a type of pizza in another and another type of pizza in another... but is any of those foods more CLICHE than the others? can one be more or less a type of food than another?

you gotta wonder how some of NYC handles it when they aren't the center of western civ. evidentally, they survive.
m.

― msp (msp), Tuesday, 30 November 2004 14:53 (twenty years ago)

Good Lord is everyone misreading this into something it's not; evidently I should have phrased that first post differently, as this seems to have turned into some kind of inter-city competition. That's not my point. The point is that different cities have different scenes and feels and approaches to this stuff. I take this to be absolutely self-evident: Athens and Olympia are different, Seattle and Austin are different, Chicago and New York are different. I don't think New York would have created Pitchfork, not quite, and within moments of the first time I read it it seemed clear to me that a midwesterner probably had. And for the purpose of looking over indie-in-general, the feel and the outlook of Chicago seem to me to be an appropriate midpoint for speaking to the most points on that spectrum -- in a way New York tends not to.

― nabisco (nabisco), Tuesday, 30 November 2004 17:32 (twenty years ago)

INDIE IS NOT A CHEESESTEAK

― Sanjay McDougal (jaymc), Tuesday, 30 November 2004 17:39 (twenty years ago)

AND ALL ALONG I HAVE BEEN EATING INDIE EXPECTING BEEF! OH NO!

― todd swiss (eliti), Tuesday, 30 November 2004 17:54 (twenty years ago)

indie is not a cheesesteak

I beg to differ.

― sleep (sleep), Tuesday, 30 November 2004 17:56 (twenty years ago)

I agree w nabisco.

― djdee2005 (djdee2005), Tuesday, 30 November 2004 17:58 (twenty years ago)

first time I read it it seemed clear to me that a midwesterner probably had.

my opinjun was that 'fork was created by people who weren't SUPER outro hip crazies. the early years featured many records that weren't the coolest of the cool. it was like they were working themselves up to "HOT SHIT".

if i was to ascribe nyc as a place that reveres the hippest and has no time for last year's dog, i'd could see how maybe the midwest, with less jadedness to go around could foster that sort of cool, yet openness to last year's dog. (i mean hey, last year's dog to the uber-hipster is quite often IT for everyone else.)

of course, for a few years, the fork has been nearer to the front i'd say. like i said, fork over the years has mutated as they got new writers, some quite good (ahem), and i think they've crispied up meanwhile realizing a few years back that "hey, we were right to have liked some mainstream shit in the first place, hence our major label coverage. quality >> politics of distribution"

that said, i don't think NYC is the hottest bastion of cool. i think the internet is. (the vulcan mind meld of viewpoints across the ponds and plains + hyperknowledge + p2p&download >>> any one locale.)

"AND ALL ALONG I HAVE BEEN EATING INDIE EXPECTING BEEF! OH NO!"

HA! dude, almost as bad as the whole mcdonald's beef-sprayed fries fiasco.
m.

― msp (msp), Tuesday, 30 November 2004 17:58 (twenty years ago)

Beef-dunked fries! (Or beef-fried.) But yeah, you're exactly right: Pitchfork's rise in readership and prominence has brought along with it a shift toward what I'd think of as a slightly more "New York" approach. Which is maybe the underlying thing here that I wasn't unpacking enough : there are ways in which "New York" relates to "national" (good ways and bad ways and just-weird ways), and that's a good part of the shift.

― nabisco (nabisco), Tuesday, 30 November 2004 18:03 (twenty years ago)

from Peter Macia's review of the new Autolux record:

Los Angeles, as we all know and love it, is a fucking cesspool. It's seething with pretty little coke-fed nihilists with shards of hair and vintage fabrics jutting from their dancing skeletons. Skid row after parties are 10 times more populated than the actual shows, and the hordes toast caffeinated vodkas to a vacuous neo-dancepunk set by a B-list celebrity DJ. It's enough to make one want to get the hell out of town, but of course it's difficult to even afford a full tank of gas these days. So instead hitch a ride with fellow Angelenos, Autolux, on their debut Future Perfect. Their optimism is reassuring.

Death to Pitchfork and corny insular indie self-hating and life-hating fuxx.

― Spencer Chow (spencermfi), Tuesday, 30 November 2004 18:29 (twenty years ago)

What Nitsuh says makes a lot of sense to me. I think the difference is that Midwest indie fans tend to relate to their music as a small, secret thing, while in New York it's just one approach among many. It's hard to believe that a kid growing up in New York needs music to save him/her, no matter what Lou Reed says; it's harder to picture that romanticized indie connection.

This all spoken as someone who spent 22 years in Michigan in 0 in NYC.

― Mark (MarkR), Tuesday, 30 November 2004 18:32 (twenty years ago)

Lou Reed sang about a "New York station" saving a suburban girl.

― miccio (miccio), Tuesday, 30 November 2004 18:35 (twenty years ago)

I mean really, how is that paragraph any different than writing about hackneyed cliches about black people or women? Moronic.

― Spencer Chow (spencermfi), Tuesday, 30 November 2004 18:43 (twenty years ago)

It's not.

― Chris Ott (Chris Ott), Tuesday, 30 November 2004 18:58 (twenty years ago)

Hahaha: “Chicago, as we all know and love it, is a cesspool. It’s seething with regular-looking medium-sized Old Style-drinking people with cute scarves and puffy jackets drawn around their sitting-on-porches bodies. Hanging out in people’s actual apartments is just as popular as going to shows, and the hordes chat pleasantly and clink their Pabst to the soft, jangly indie someone puts on the stereo. It’s enough to make you want to stay in town, and of course the rent is decent and the streets are pretty, so why not? Buy a scarf and get a job in a warm semi-vegan café and listen to the Fruit Bats or Canasta or Tenki or something.”

― nabisco (nabisco), Tuesday, 30 November 2004 19:09 (twenty years ago)

Hahahaha

― Alex in SF (Alex in SF), Tuesday, 30 November 2004 19:10 (twenty years ago)

Nice. I actully tried to start something like that, but it ended up sounding pretty mean.

― Spencer Chow (spencermfi), Tuesday, 30 November 2004 19:10 (twenty years ago)

Really? I guess I just like Chicago too much: I couldn't think of any very bad stereotype that you could level at the people there. They're cornfed and boring and meaty and dull, maybe? But even when they are, it's in the greatest way! (Yet another difference between Chicago and New York indie mentalities: the midwestern one is a lot more wary of "coolness," particularly in the nightlife/party sense stereotyped in that LA piece.) (I don't know where Peter himself is from, but still.)

― nabisco (nabisco), Tuesday, 30 November 2004 19:25 (twenty years ago)

I actually meant that mean, tired and lazy cliched criticisms could be leveled at any city. I personally like Chicago very much.

― Spencer Chow (spencermfi), Tuesday, 30 November 2004 19:32 (twenty years ago)

Yeah yeah, I know -- I'm just finding it funny that I can't even think of what the mean stereotypes or criticisms of Chicago would be! Maybe that's the only criticism: boring / lack of personality to even make fun of?

― nabisco (nabisco), Tuesday, 30 November 2004 19:35 (twenty years ago)

pitchforkmedia is OK, but i prefer fisting my grandmother. much more informative.

― rectal jones, Wednesday, 1 December 2004 16:07 (twenty years ago)

Another corny indie review of a (likely non-single) track from the forthcoming M83. Death again to Pitchfork.

― Spencer Chow (spencermfi), Wednesday, 1 December 2004 18:40 (twenty years ago)

Just for you, Spencer, my next review back for them is going to say wonderful things about LA.

― nabisco (nabisco), Wednesday, 1 December 2004 18:59 (twenty years ago)

Haha, actually if I read good things about L.A. in Pitchfork, then I'd move.

― Spencer Chow (spencermfi), Wednesday, 1 December 2004 19:00 (twenty years ago)

If William Bowers wrote a review about how cool you are, would you have to kill yourself?

― nabisco (nabisco), Wednesday, 1 December 2004 19:06 (twenty years ago)

I think Pitchfork has great taste but their reviews are way too long. That's were a site like MusicEmissions.com (http://www.musicemissions.com) is better. They are analytical and yet get their point across in under 400 words. I know I am biased here and I do check out Pitchfork on a daily basis but I really can't remember the last time I read an entire review. I don't have the time.

― Dennis Scanland, Wednesday, 1 December 2004 22:05 (twenty years ago)

Haha, Nitsuh, thanks for the shout-out.

― jaymc (jaymc), Wednesday, 1 December 2004 22:38 (twenty years ago)

but I really can't remember the last time I read an entire review. I don't have the time.

Yeah, who has time to read these days? In fact, I think Pitchfork would be even better if they just dispensed with the review altogether and just slapped on the score and were done with it.

― jaymc (jaymc), Wednesday, 1 December 2004 23:02 (twenty years ago)

If William Bowers wrote a review about how cool you are, would you have to kill yourself?

I would definitely have to seek help if I read "Spencer Chow is the next Radiohead" in Pitchfork.

― Spencer Chow (spencermfi), Wednesday, 1 December 2004 23:28 (twenty years ago)

"Spencer Chow is the next Ned Raggett"

― Ned Raggett (Ned), Wednesday, 1 December 2004 23:48 (twenty years ago)

i like the fact that pitchfork runs long reviews. quite a lot of them are obviously padded out, and demand better editing, but that's the fault of the writers, not the format, which offers the potential, sometimes met, for interesting writing.

― stevie (stevie), Wednesday, 1 December 2004 23:52 (twenty years ago)

Yeah, who has time to read these days? In fact, I think Pitchfork would be even better if they just dispensed with the review altogether and just slapped on the score and were done with it.

haha, lol...

I generally like Pitchfork, but two things in particular increasingly annoy me:
a) the ratings system - come on, those decimals are just plain silly
b) their propensity for slating albums only for the lyrics; this isn't a book club, is it? The already (in)famous Travis Morrison review did not devote a single syllable to the music - can lyrics alone be so crap as to warrant a 0.0 rating? I think not.

― Robbert (Robbert), Thursday, 2 December 2004 20:07 (twenty years ago)

Just for you, Spencer, my next review back for them is going to say wonderful things about LA.

Nabisco, I'm guessing you mean the one AFTER this Slowdive thing?

― David R. (popshots75`), Thursday, 2 December 2004 20:13 (twenty years ago)

Or is the review actually an acrostic?!

― David R. (popshots75`), Thursday, 2 December 2004 20:17 (twenty years ago)

The next one! Which will be about a band with only one very minor collection to L.A., so look out.

― nabiscothingy, Thursday, 2 December 2004 21:07 (twenty years ago)

It's hard to believe that a kid growing up in New York needs music to save him/her

Believe it. It happened to me!

(/dramatic)

― Michael F Gill (Michael F Gill), Thursday, 2 December 2004 21:09 (twenty years ago)

the ratings system - come on, those decimals are just plain silly

The decimal points are the best part of the rating system. Single digits are for wimps. There's a major difference between, say, a 7.4 and a 7.6. Everything between 1.0 and 3.5 is kind of a blur though.

The already (in)famous Travis Morrison review did not devote a single syllable to the music

Not true.

― savetherobot, Friday, 3 December 2004 03:29 (twenty years ago)

single digits are for Stylus, not wimps.

― djdee2005 (djdee2005), Friday, 3 December 2004 04:32 (twenty years ago)

ten months pass...
PFM built my entire music library. I buy what they recommend because they not only get it right most of the time, they get it right with all the geekery my dark soul can take...

― ubaka, Tuesday, 1 November 2005 00:41 (nineteen years ago)

have you seen my blog? i think you'd like it.

― M@tt He1geson (Matt Helgeson), Tuesday, 1 November 2005 01:02 (nineteen years ago)

if you were a real geek, you wouldn't need a website to tell you what to listen to, you lazy fuck.

― cutty (mcutt), Tuesday, 1 November 2005 01:03 (nineteen years ago)

if you were a real geek, you wouldn't need a website to tell you what to listen to, you lazy fuck.

geek!= punk

― Cunga (Cunga), Tuesday, 1 November 2005 01:10 (nineteen years ago)

you misunderstand. please read this:

people who ONLY use pitchfork to learn of new music

― cutty (mcutt), Tuesday, 1 November 2005 01:12 (nineteen years ago)

so this is the roomate of whom you spoke?

― Mark (MarkR), Tuesday, 1 November 2005 01:41 (nineteen years ago)

no, i don't know who this loser is.

― cutty (mcutt), Tuesday, 1 November 2005 01:56 (nineteen years ago)

cutty otm

― gear (gear), Tuesday, 1 November 2005 01:58 (nineteen years ago)

MUSIC FOUND AFTER EXTENSIVE INVESTIGATION SOUNDS BETTER

RECOMMENDATIONS BY OTHERS MAKE MUSIC SOUND WORSE

― HOW EDGY? SO EDGY, Tuesday, 1 November 2005 02:37 (nineteen years ago)

LAZY MUSIC COLLECTOR BLINDLY ACCEPTS MUSIC SUGGESTIONS BASED ON NUMERICAL SCALE

― cutty (mcutt), Tuesday, 1 November 2005 03:05 (nineteen years ago)

Thank you, cutty, for showing us who the real geek is.

― nancyboy (nancyboy), Tuesday, 1 November 2005 03:16 (nineteen years ago)

fuck off scott, why did you start posting here again?

― cutty (mcutt), Tuesday, 1 November 2005 03:23 (nineteen years ago)

New thread suggestion:

Pitchfork Bashers: Classic or Dud?

― nancyboy (nancyboy), Tuesday, 1 November 2005 03:23 (nineteen years ago)

i hate pitchfork bashers too.

― cutty (mcutt), Tuesday, 1 November 2005 03:25 (nineteen years ago)

MUSIC APPRECIATION IS HARD WORK

RESEARCH IS THE KEY

YOU WILL REACH OTHER, MORE ACCEPTABLE CONCLUSIONS

TRUST ME: I'VE DONE MY HOMEWORK

― SO-CALLED MUSIC JOURNALISM, Tuesday, 1 November 2005 05:13 (nineteen years ago)

pfm is good but blind faith is dud

― gear (gear), Tuesday, 1 November 2005 05:15 (nineteen years ago)

http://www.nrk.no/img/466283.jpeg

― login name (fandango), Tuesday, 1 November 2005 05:49 (nineteen years ago)

Pitchfork's relaunch early next year

Was this the much-trumpeted redesign that barely changed anything except to make it UNUSABLE on dial-up?

My only beef with Pitchfork really is how the Pitchforkiness seems to run so deep through the site, that with some reviews it turns a lot of (potentially) good writing bad-to-unreadable.

Most of the individual staffers and correspondents are okay-to-great, some even recognise the Pitchforkiness and manage to negotiate it well, whilst implicitly acknowledging it's stupidity.

I can pretty much deal with it's taste bias, annoying as it can sometimes be. Most sites have one.

― login name (fandango), Tuesday, 1 November 2005 08:11 (nineteen years ago)

I try to work the word "creamy" at least once into all my stories.

― Mofrackie, Tuesday, 1 November 2005 12:45 (nineteen years ago)

thank you cutty BECAUSE YOU WILL DIE ONE DAY AND I WILL BE HAPPY ABOUT IT

― ESTEBAN BUTTEZ~!!, Tuesday, 1 November 2005 12:51 (nineteen years ago)

oh yeah and here is the internet law

pitchfork: annie and RADIOHEAD
stylus: girls aloud and ELO

― ESTEBAN BUTTEZ~!!, Tuesday, 1 November 2005 12:52 (nineteen years ago)

Whoa - Brent D's investigation-of-Devendra-Banhart-and-stuff (with much talk of pedophilia) totally vanished from the site today. Huh.

― sean gramophone (Sean M), Tuesday, 1 November 2005 15:15 (nineteen years ago)

"investigation"

― Whiney G. Weingarten (whineyg), Tuesday, 1 November 2005 15:17 (nineteen years ago)

Or, um, it just got moved down one slot, Sean?

― David R. (popshots75`), Tuesday, 1 November 2005 15:22 (nineteen years ago)

well, maybe. try clicking on it.

― sean gramophone (Sean M), Tuesday, 1 November 2005 15:23 (nineteen years ago)

I get it just fine. Maybe you need to refine yr clicking technique.

― David R. (popshots75`), Tuesday, 1 November 2005 15:27 (nineteen years ago)

it was gone for a second, but that seems like an archival error. xpost

― blackmail.is.my.life (blackmail.is.my.life), Tuesday, 1 November 2005 15:30 (nineteen years ago)

haha! okay! the paranoiac in me was doubletaking.

― sean gramophone (Sean M), Tuesday, 1 November 2005 15:30 (nineteen years ago)

my bad: wrong link was there, fixed now.

― scott pl. (scott pl.), Tuesday, 1 November 2005 15:34 (nineteen years ago)

one month passes...
Scenesters think modern lovers is slang for that Yeah Yeah Yeahs' "Modern Romance" song

― scenester, Tuesday, 13 December 2005 16:39 (nineteen years ago)


You must be logged in to post. Please either login here, or if you are not registered, you may register here.
Site New Answers Search Boards ILE ILM Answers New Question New Questions New Poll Blog View Register Login