we're reporting on other music sites now?

hang on a review site where users can actually assign ratings?... what a terrible idea!

@heck

This is interesting on so many levels, so yeah.

If this means I can finally tell that dude that writes hip hop reviews he’s a hack I support it

Screw em.

They pretentiously loved themselves so much they thought the world would line up to read their articles and content as if they were generational poets.

Now that they’ve become irrelevant they finally want to embrace social media interactions two decades after their competitors?

No thanks.

can't wait to tell the p4k comment sections about grotesque

I couldn't care any less about this if I tried.

-- They pretentiously loved themselves so much they thought the world would line up to read their articles and content as if they were generational poets.

For a time, that was true, but it seems that it isn't anymore. Nowadays, music is everywhere and people don't really need media like Pitchfork to tell them what to listen to. In fact, it's people that need to talk about the stuff they listen to.

Which brings the question: is music reviewing still relevant?

Imho, it still is for reasons that go beyond "professional" criticism and the production of economic value for the sake of it.


-- I couldn't care any less

Normally, I would be on the same boat, but what pushed my buttons was an article I read in a Greek news medium

http://www.kathimerini.gr/culture/music/563909626/ekdimokratismos-i-pligma-stin-kritiki/

Its title has the journalist wondering whether Pitchfork's plan will democratise music criticism or degrade its quality, a rhetorical question by itself, because Sputnik - which is not mentioned in any of the aforementioned pieces - has been answering this question for the past 20+ years.

At least Sputnik works because there is good counterbalance between reviewer and audience; reviews are not centralized to a monolithic panel of reviewers and there is expectation that reviews are fallible and subject to critique (good and bad).

i'm so glad the king has allowed the peasants to prove themselves worthy of their presence. you should be grateful!

@Christbait

Precisely.

Hipsters are a scourge on humanity,

I give it 7 minutes.

itll never catch on

honestly i doubt anyone truely cares about pitchfork anymore. they had their heyday but their attitude has driven a lot of people off. plus the rumors of them being paid under the table to give certain albums high scores really didn't help.

"plus the rumors of them being paid under the table to give certain albums high scores really didn't help."

I mean considering some of the shit they've given high scores to, that wouldn't surprise me at all. There were some ratings that went beyond, "oh you pretentious contrarian snob" into, "how much money did they cram in your ears to get this rating?"

My input is that they delete the entire website

yeah, I haven't visited that site in the longest time because I was put-off by the pretentious vibe of much of the writing. Last time I was around, much of their schtick shifted from 'we are superior due to our all-knowing fountain of indie music history knowledge' to 'oh wow pop is now the greatest of all the genres' - which, if that total 180 doesn't show you they were paid off, idk what would, lol

I know it's cool to hate pitchfork, and fair enough, they're pretentious douches, but I find a lot of their ratings pretty accurate and I've found a lot of great music because of that relic of a site.

So they're pretty much rotten tomatoes for music now?

Can't say I've ever even been on Pitchfork lmao. Always heard bad things, no use for it tbh.

Sputnik/p4k collab incoming

“If this means I can finally tell that dude that writes hip hop reviews he’s a hack I support it”

if this means I can tell the dude who reviewed Belong’s last album and spent 90% of it talking about the legacy of My Bloody Valentine instead of, you know, the fucking album that he was supposed to be reviewing that he’s an idiot and needs to learn that there is indeed such thing as too much context, then I support it.

rym has destroyed both sput and pitch

it's not even close

We're at the top of our game wym

rym suck in terms of community, sput is still where it's at
database wise rym blows sput out of the water, but it's not hard to add something to sput's database.

they are very big babies about a lot of stuff on RYM; your comments can vanish for basically nothing, tho with how many comment sections descending into shitshows i do kinda get it. still!


cheq grotesque yea

yall straight hating in here damn.

..."there is indeed such thing as too much context"

ah yes, this was a major issue back in the day too. A lot of their writing descended into impenetrable history lessons with a huge emphasis on societal context (like seriously some of the tangents were unbelievable), trying to make every single release sound like the most important statement to ever happen, or completely worthless because it failed to deliver that expectation. Like, sometimes it ain't that deep. Any chance you could provide an idea of what the album your reviewing actually sounds like?

Reminded of that notorious Lateralus review

https://web.archive.org/web/20150716064402/http://whirrhatespitchfork.tumblr.com/

They launched their subscription service today, can only read 4 reviews before hitting the paywall, it’s over for them imo.

Maybe I'll be surprised and this will take off for Pitchfork but I can't imagine there is much of an appeal to pay to read someone else's take on a random album. People will just pay intermittently to shitpost in the comments or mass brigade a particular album.

I can’t think of it as anything other than a death knell. Music reviews/journalism seem to be on their way out in general, and these legacy sites just don’t have the pull or influence anymore. Stereogum did the same thing a while ago, I think both will be gone by the end of the year. But who knows

"They launched their subscription service today, can only read 4 reviews before hitting the paywall, it’s over for them imo."

No fuking way lol. Do they think they're the New York Times?

Wild. So free review sites are struggling to stay relevant and the solution is to charge people for content that used to be free? lol, good convincing people on that one

Good riddance for pitchfork, the last time I took them seriously was around 2005.

similar timeline for me I reckon, haha

"So free review sites are struggling to stay relevant and the solution is to charge people for content that used to be free?"

i mean isn't that why stuff like substack and patreon is so successful? p4k will almost surely support itself better on the ~10% of readers willing to pay the $5 than they've been with ad money, the demand just isn't there anymore to get by any other way, social media killed journalism. every publication worth a shit is now either a) behind a paywall and/or b) so neck deep in podcasting or games that the writing is now secondary anyway.

Calling pitchfork reviews journalism is quite generous. They're just opinion pieces. What's interesting is most large video game publications don't do this and that industry is multiple times the size of all other entertainment industries combined. That'd be the space to pull this nonsense before music publications. Pitchfork pulling this is desperate, most likely will not work, and we'll be hearing of a sale or bankruptcy or merger or some such thing in the future. But you're right Alex, social media is the reason for this.

"What's interesting is most large video game publications don't do this and that industry is multiple times the size of all other entertainment industries combined."

its almost like, as you said, the demand for video game content is large enough to survive the old way (and frankly, their overheads are surely a lot lower given the amount of slop is in this space). a non-insignificant part of their readership is also likely under 18 so a paywall is a bit of a tougher sell than a p4k, who is owned by the same company as the new yorker, variety, architectural digest etc.

i think they'll be okay

"Surviving" and squeezing all the money they can out of folks are two different things. They don't need it to survive, but it would be a good space to attempt to nickel and dime folks and they haven't done it yet. The amount of minors who game like you mentioned definitely has something to do with that, I agree. It's just a hilarious move by p4k that seems designed as a last gasp for money before implosion rather than an actual long term solution for anything.

it's interesting to me at least from what i observe with my eyes, that the surge in music popularity online is almost all kids. look at rym. it's literally all kids. they listen to fantano and watch people who stream themselves listening to music. they ain't paying for an outdated relic like pitchfork lol

And that's the big difference here: most people these days are informed through videos and podcasts and not reading. Also, that video has to be broken up into about a dozen different 15-20 second clips, you have to snap zoom or add a visual "cut" every 2-3 seconds to maintain the viewer's attention, and it'd be best if it could be meme'd somehow to maintain relevance.

I genuinely think there is a subset of users who will stay loyal and subscribe, but this certainly doesn't have mass appeal and, like Alex said, is directed at a particular niche audience with the means to pay and who have an interest in reading more long-form reviews.

absolutely true, didn't even mention short form stuff. true reviewers and people who like to read them are the last of a dying breed. sad but true. gotta accept that. i do it purely because i would still be jabbering about music into the void without this place, might as well clean up my thoughts and structure it. even if it's smaller than it was, i'm glad sput can provide a quality alternative to those who seek out written work. it still has tremendous value in my mind.

Pitchfork honks. I think they are good for people who don't know a lot about music and want to learn more, but they don't have the cultural relevance they used to. Asking for subs bc they are dying is laughable

-- most people these days are informed through videos and podcasts and not reading

True, but the percentage of readers is more or less the same over the years, otherwise major book stores over the world would declare bankruptcy.


-- true reviewers and people who like to read them are the last of a dying breed

What I like to believe is that both groups hold their strength in numbers but they are quieter than they used to, because the margin for self expression decreases over time, and the internet overall has changed for the worst.


-- even if it's smaller than it was, i'm glad sput

Not sure if it's smaller, see argument in my previous quote.

"True, but the percentage of readers is more or less the same over the years, otherwise major book stores over the world would declare bankruptcy."

I think that is an adjacently-related example but I get your point. I was more mindful of who is the likely audience for some of the stuff on social media and it doesn't seem like it is directed at the same sort who enjoy browsing a Barnes and Noble.

and major book stores have absolutely been closing at rapid pace. at least in the states. definitely miss there being a barnes and noble in every mid sized city.

A couple of major book stores have closed over the past few decades in Greece as well, but it was mostly succession reasons that were to blame.

In general, the only positive thing right now is reports of people like yours truly abandoning social media altogether, albeit at a slow, but steady pace.

Why would I ever use any music website other than Sputnik?
Genuine question.