Would You Buy Pitchfork If It Were A Print Magazine?

maybe but I think I should be one of the journalists :/

How does it work as a print magazine? How often does it come out? Does it contain everything that the website has (minus the audiovisual media, of course)? Every news story, every review, every feature, every column? If not, what gets cut? I can't answer until I know more.

Sure. I'd buy it now and then. Like maybe to read on the airplane so I don't have to think so much about dying.

probably not

the appeal of pitchfork (and other music "e-zines") to me is that they cover a huge amount of music and publish daily. they review about 100 albums a month probably, so a monthly print magazine wouldn't do justice to their format, and i'd rather get a bit of new content daily than a lot of new content weekly or monthly

also print magazines can't be viewed with AdBlock + Filterset.G, which is a serious problem I run into whenever purchasing some junk like Wired to read on a long flight or picking up whatever's lying around the dentist's office etc.

fuck no

If there were a weekly that had the exact same content -- 25 long-form record reviews, 5 features, and ... I guess just pointers to a bunch of songs/videos -- I would buy it just for the sheer fascination of having a weekly that was in such an interesting format! Really, any print weekly that published 800-word reviews of music I was even close to interested in -- I would be into that just on principle.

But god, it's hard to imagine ... I mean, it'd be cool to suddenly, magically know what it'd be like to have Pitchfork's "brand"/writers/etc. turning out big-budget, long-lead-time magazine features, or tackling that format in general. I guess there's some chance we'd see that, down the road -- but then at this point who knows what the "normal" growth path for a publication is gonna be, trad print or some web-3.0 future or what

How did Thesaurus Musicarum sell, by the way?

Really, any print weekly that published 800-word reviews of music I was even close to interested in -- I would be into that just on principle.

OTM -- i'd subscribe for that reason alone.

would def. subscribe to Stylus, too, for the record.

Why is there no option for "I would ignore this publication with a certain verve and lust for life."?

frankly i would rather listen to the verve doing a version of lust for life

that does sound pretty good

'I wouldn't so much as read it in a store.' There are already a dozen indie-courting monthlies on the shelves at your local bookstore, might as well ignore one more.

otm. i forget print magazines even exist anymore between trips to the barber shop.

would subscribe.

If I didn't think the reviewers were only seeing their gigs as a stepping-stone to some sweet-ass A&R job at a major label, and if the reviews were written with quality, rather than quantity, in mind, yeah, I'd subscribe.

Of course, what I just described is 180-degrees removed from Pitchfork or pretty much any print music magazine that is currently published.

i would subscribe or read a free subscription if they had enough class to acknowledge receipt of the album reviews i have been sending in.

i would buy it for pix of dominuqe and jessica harvell

I definitely would subscribe.

lalz @ bnw.

Part of the reason that Pitchfork is Pitchfork is because of the internet. They have really solid writing, but they also have timely news and the Forkcast section, which need the web to work. Also, by being on the web blogs and such can link to their reviews and comment on them. Since they're a pretty huge part of the indie scene you can't really talk about the reception of any new album without discussing the Pitchfork review . . . it's always the elephant in the room. Right?

i would read it under the same conditions i currently read spin: if i got a free subscription for buying some concert ticket, i would read it in the bathroom.

(nb this applies to an awful lot of magazines. like, the atlantic. so it's not a swipe at p'fork.)

this is off topic, but since this is the requisite new-answers pitchfork thread and i've been wondering about this: are the pitchfork mix commissions dead already? that optimo mix was a blast.

If it were still available online, and the print magazine was an alternative format, I would certainly choose to keep reading it online and totally ignore the print version. (Maybe I'd pick up a print copy once or twice a year to fend off Unanticipated Boredom.)

If it were available only in a print format, well now that I think about it, I'd probably still totally ignore it. There's enough interesting stuff on the web with or without PF.

"if the reviews were written with quality"

Sara Sara Sara, what do you find lacking? I'm amazed that each Pitchfork review contains so much perspective, backstory, and detail. Especially when reviews in monthly magazines often leave me wondering if the reviewer has heard an artists' past work at all.

Edits to above comment:

...MONTHLY magazines...

"artist's," not "artists"

i wouldn't even read it if it were free on the internet.

I only read stuff written by that Nick Southall tossbag.

if the reviews were written with quality

I agree with Usual Channels - most of the time I find Pitchfork reviews thoughtfully written and well argued.

As for forkcasts, I guess free CDs are an attempt at that, e.g. Uncut claims it provides a 'soundtrack' to the magazine. But yeah, Pitchfork is by definition net-based.

I'm amazed that each Pitchfork review contains so much perspective, backstory, and detail. Especially when reviews in monthly magazines often leave me wondering if the reviewer has heard an artists' past work at all.

this is OTM - and Pitchfork gets bashed way too often here. sure some of their tastes are questionable (and no publication is perfect), but if you ignore the Sufjans and Dan Deacons and read the reviews for stuff you actually have an interest in, it's pretty good writing compared to most music sites right now.

Yeah, I'd like Pitchfork-bashers to show me where there is a better music site on the web covering "the indie scene."

Cokemachine Glow, amirite?

Actually, to CMG's credit, they do post long form reviews, and some of them can be pretty good.

If there were a weekly that had the exact same content -- 25 long-form record reviews, 5 features, and ... I guess just pointers to a bunch of songs/videos -- I would buy it just for the sheer fascination of having a weekly that was in such an interesting format! Really, any print weekly that published 800-word reviews of music I was even close to interested in -- I would be into that just on principle.

OTM. i think this is why i continue to read pitchfork daily, even as i find myself increasingly less-interested in the general type of music they cover. i've maybe purchased only 3 or 4 "core indie" albums in the past year, and i tend to be more interested in the peripheral stuff pitchfork covers (e.g. stuff the wire might cover in more depth) but i love reading the long-form reviews and the individual writers' columns. the guest lists, too, even when i've never heard a specific artist's music despite reading pitchfork headlines about him/her, i'm always interested in reading these.

I'm amazed that each Pitchfork review contains so much perspective, backstory, and detail. Especially when reviews in monthly magazines often leave me wondering if the reviewer has heard an artists' past work at all.

yes. sometimes the perspectives/backstory/cultural situating/etc. can be wildly off the mark, hence the bashing they often receive here, but generally i think the writing is quite good.

it'd be pretty fascinating to see how pitchfork would format itself as a print magazine, but ultimately i think they're much better suited for the web.

kind of a reverse process going on with the wire -- anyone notice that they're putting more content online? they've also introduced an online subscription that's much cheaper than the print sub. someday i might switch to this, but for now i'm loving the print version. aesthetically, it's a lovely magazine and i like having the copy to hold. i do enough reading online so it's nice to just sit on the couch and read the magazine.

i wonder if the wire will just ditch the monthly print and go exclusively online someday. i don't know anything about magazine publishing, but i wonder how lucrative the wire really is, as the magazine seems like it would be expensive to print.

Maybe there's a way to split the difference - do the online thing, but then once a month (or even every two months, or a quarterly) cull the best stuff and slap it onto paper.

Should have been an option to say that I don't know enough about Pitchfork to answer the question

Personally, I don't know why a successful website would really want to go into paper publishing, other than that a certain vanity/prestige factor. Why go from a growing medium with low overhead to a shrinking medium with a much higher financial risk?

Plus, I don't mind when I click on the site on a morning when there's nothing there I'm interested in reading. If I bought an issue and then realized 95% of the content was completely outside of my interests, I probably wouldn't buy another.

I'd subscribe only if it included fetishist personal ads, weekly horoscopes, sale listings from the local hydroponics store, and if it peppered its content with material akin to the Weekly World News (ala "Batboy's Basement Gig with THE CRAMPS ends in RUCKUS!").

...my recylce bin runneth over.

what kind of bizarro ILX is this where people respect Pitchfork?

If I didn't think the reviewers were only seeing their gigs as a stepping-stone to some sweet-ass A&R job at a major label

Okay I have to admit this totally made my day; it's so good to laugh

Awesome mental picture of Rob Mitchum at Interscope yelling at interns: "I didn't spend years getting degrees in neuroscience to drink POLAND SPRING, I asked for FIJI"

Automatic thread bump. This poll is closing tomorrow.

what kind of bizarro ILX is this where people respect Pitchfork?

it was easier to hate pfrk about 5 years ago. nowadays there are so many shitty, poorly run music sites and blogs with awful writing and similar "tastes" that, by comparison, pfrk now is doing alright. they get the reviews on target more often than not, the features are interesting, they do some great interviews here and there (the recent PJ Harvey one comes to mind, was *fantastic*) and the news section is timely and occasionally humorous.

I'm sure it's improved a lot in the past 5 years.

what specifically makes a review "on target" in your mind?

voted for last option on impulse

Only if it came with a free mp3 CD and CaptainLorax didn't write for it.

CaptainLorax writes for them? Ouch.

No, I just felt the need to respond to the first post.

what specifically makes a review "on target" in your mind?

when the analysis is detailed and makes enough sense that it supports the opinion of the reviewer, and when the review is generally well researched and written, shows a good knowledge of an artist's history, influences, motivations, impact and intentions, and is generally engaging to read. among other things.

this review is pretty appalling. No discussion of the music, just lyric quotes and a list of some of the instruments used. It's a review of the fucking booklet!

i would subscribe or read a free subscription if they had enough class to acknowledge receipt of the album reviews i have been sending in.

-- Wrinklepaws, Friday, 7 December 2007 04:07 (4 weeks ago) Link

Awesome.

^^^ wrink p, i knew u was fam

I think I would read it more if it was a print magazine. I don't like to read anything too long on the screen...

Automatic thread bump. This poll's results are now in.

A few years ago, I probably would've said that I'd subscribe to it, but their tastes have changed almost as much as mine have. These days, they hardly ever review anything that looks even vaguely interesting to me.

That said, when they do review something I'm interested in, I generally read it.

successful poll

If I didn't think the reviewers were only seeing their gigs as a stepping-stone to some sweet-ass A&R job at a major label, and if the reviews were written with quality, rather than quantity, in mind, yeah, I'd subscribe sara, sara, sara

Do such A & R jobs even exist anymore! Jess Harvell, Dom Leone, Phillip Sherburne and some others have offered writing of quality there. I read the monthly reggae, grime, and techno columns. As has been documented here for some time, yea there is some bad writing there, but its not all bad.