A new article about the meteoric rise of Pitchfork raises the question that everyone has thought about but nobody has cared to ask: Has Pitchfork ruined the role of music critics, and thereby devalued music in general? Should we be upset about the all-powerful Pitchfork? Don’t we all prefer thT hip blogs do our musical thinking, investigating, and indie-act-supporting for us?
Yes, we do. But while Rolling Stone (and a slew of wonderful indie music magazines that died in the late 80s/early 90s) used to be revered by the hip and strange for their music picks and eclectic/genius music critics, now the sheep have flocked to Pitchfork. What does that mean for the indie music scene?
It’s the web publication’s absolutist tone (“It’s also revealing that they don’t allow comments,” DeRogatis notes) mixed with its ambitions as a concert promoter that causes alarm. As the two grow more codependent on each other, it becomes difficult to tell when, and if, it is wearing the mask of a critical outlet or an indomitable, cash-hungry marketing organism. This is certainly not unfamiliar terrain.
Thank god we don’t pull that bullshit here. Hipsterjew will never make money, and we are proud of it. We will speak our mind without being swayed by thousands of Jewish dollars (i.e. money given to us by the League of Wealthy Jews and in return we do their bidding). We won’t compromise or sell ourselves out for ‘the brand’. ‘The brand’ will never force people to keep from swearing, hating on The Strokes, or lashing out at longboarders. Fuck no.
But it still causes one to ask whether or not a glowing review, say of the recent Bon Iver album (which was given a 9.5 out of 10), is a heartfelt piece of criticism, or a way to sell tickets for its upcoming Paris festival, which the band is headlining. While Pitchfork certainly isn’t committing a war crime with its festival, DeRogatis said coupling its critical brand with its festival arm is dangerous because it trivializes the role of the critic by treating music simply as entertainment. It’s more important, he says, and deserves to be treated as such. (newcity)
Aha! I fuckin’ knew it! Bon Iver can suck it, over-hyped Pitchfork-promoted mediocrity. Down with the Pitchfork-music-machine!
Maybe it’s about time to give the music critics back to the people — the music blogs that we all love and hold dear.
ears
02/15/2012
Bon Iver is musical trash. Any faggot can lock themselves in a cabin for a few months and write some sappy bullshit songs using the 3 chords at the beginning of a guitar instruction book. Fuck that.
ears
02/15/2012
Ironic, that you comment on other websites not allowing comments, and yet your own faggotass blog doesn’t allow them either.
Fuck off hipster trash.
The Duckman
02/15/2012
Actually, we have a new system where your first comment has to be approved… so… suck it
Jon
02/21/2012
Absolutely. We liked pitchfork before it was popular, and now that it is we will have to find another source for our opinions. When will people learn to just stay mediocre, like the bands we like.. and you guys!
Marty Millis
03/01/2012
Thumbs up Jew, but careful with that axe, Pitchfork hate is about as cliche and predictable as the shit ON Pitchfork, if you ask me. I know you didn’t ask me, but that’s kind of the whole point of allowing comments on your blog, and yes indeed it DOES make you superior to Pitchfork.
That said, I remember Pitchfork in the early 00′s, when most of the reviews were still written by Ryan Schreiber (sp?) himself or his college buddies, the writing was not very arrogant and sometimes not even that good. In those days PF was so unelitist they used to review punk pop EMO bands like the Juliana Theory. They gave the Juliana Theory like a 7.1 or something. If you don’t believe me I can’t prove it, because they’ve ERASED that review, and many others which would conflict with their current aesthetic.