Condé Nast Buys Pitchfork Media | Hacker News Reader

Condé Nast Buys Pitchfork Media

nytimes.com

99 pointsuptown77 comments

Okay, so the reason for the sale according to Pitchfork is to grow. I know that's a popular reason, and often cited around here. But...why?

To put a music style analogy out, once a band reaches profitability, it's not customary to go adding 2-3 new members. Side projects, maybe, but it's not like this kind of thing.

I just hope the publication continues its high quality.

I would guess that the sale would make more sense in the context of a place like HN than it would to most fans of the site. They will benefit from the infrastructure and experience that Conde Nast offers, plus the brand lift of being associated with the house that publishes some of the best and most esteemed magazines in the world elevates them to another level as a publisher. The advertising benefits of that will be huge. The sponsorships they'll be able to get for the live events and video series will be bigger. The scope of the site could become more journalistic.

See, all those make sense! From what the article states though, Pitchfork had no noteworthy problems with their operation - profitable, advertising demand, innovative presentations, "gets" of the biggest names at any given time, and live music events. By my count, they'd solved the puzzle.

What other mountain is there to conquer? A bigger one? I simply don't get the desire, because while all the positives could be true, to me, I worry about the downsides. This is just me, the kind of guy who keeps a fun list of Murphy's Laws within eyesight at work.

I wouldn't worry too much. The most notable aspect of the recent incarnation of Pitchfork's brand is its discernment. It doesn't typically follow the hype, it creates the hype. There are always subcultural ripples that surface first in smaller ponds, but the writers and editors at Pitchfork are savvy and tend to catch on pretty quick, covering (co-opting) what's cool before most people have had a chance to catch on. The only ways that Pitchfork's brand could be hurt at this point is if they stopped focusing on 'cool' (which they won't), or if they were somehow usurped by a cooler and better outlet. Those outlets exist, but they don't have the readership, budget, marketing knowhow, or in many cases, desire to be as big as Pitchfork is. Pitchfork owns its niche, and there's virtually no competition. I have a real love-hate relationship with Pitchfork. I really waver on whether it is good or bad for music overall, but its power in the music industry is legitimately scary to many artists/labels/managers/etc.

> the brand lift of being associated with the house that publishes some of the best and most esteemed magazines in the world elevates them to another level as a publisher

Frankly, I'd think being associated with The New Yorker and GQ would harm Pitchfork's image more than help it.

Could you elaborate?

In my opinion, The New Yorker is widely considered to produce high-quality journalism.

Well, first of all, these kinds of things are really just insider baseball, aren't they? I don't think most readers of magazines are interested in or knowledgeable about the portfolio of the magazine publisher. So the influence is primarily on people involved in the industry. But secondly, as the other commenter points out, being associated with The New Yorker is something that just about any journalistic enterprise would die for.

I suspect the web will eventually cannibalize GQ (not because it's bad, but because it's not specific enough), but The New Yorker will outlive us all.

To advertisers? Absolutely not.

They have music festivals and other real-world events that take serious money to put on. To put a music style analogy out, why would a band release a new album and go on tour? So they can make more money.

See also: SFX entertainment.

Pitchfork's core product is the website. If the music festival shows went away, the enterprise could still be viable. I'd hope they'd structure their business plan, finances, and insurance to back-stop their exposure in that area.

To work with your music analogy, some bands don't have to release a new album to go on tour and make more money (even though they do), and this would be bands like the Rolling Stones or The Eagles. Or KISS, which I guess counts as a band, but I put more in the 'staged entertainment featuring clowns category.

You're talking about a lifestyle company where a small group of people become successful and make a great living doing what they love. Absolute blasphemy around these parts! If you're not growing into a multi-billion dollar corporation then you might as well not exist!

>lifestyle company

Ah! So that's what it's called. I was wondering if there was more to the world of business than all this "Grow or die!" that I hear, well, everywhere. Though it makes sense, "9th year of enough happy customers to pay the bills, just what we were going for" just doesn't make as good a headline as million dollar deals.

once a band reaches profitability, it's not customary to go adding 2-3 new members.

Sure it is, if they want to grow. Writers, managers, session musicians, stylists, PR people, I could go on. Just because you don't get on stage doesn't mean you aren't vital to success of a big name band.

Sigh I've had more than a few arguments about this perspective in the past, and I'll hold steadfast to one simple rule - if you're not on stage, then you're not "in the band." I didn't say "not important," but if your bassist gets sick, your PR person isn't going to get up on stage and fill in. There are ancillary roles that are important, but firing a Tour Manager or Lawyer is not the same as replacing a drummer, it just isn't. Or, in a rough analogy, just because a waiter brings you food doesn't mean they had a hand in making it in the kitchen.

I guess it all comes down to the question of what any given band is. Is it essentially a performance arts collective just trying to cover its costs or a business just trying to maximize profits. All bands fall somewhere on that spectrum, and the answer to who is part of the band depends on where they fall on that spectrum.

firing a Tour Manager or Lawyer is not the same as replacing a drummer, it just isn't.

No, and replacing your CFO is not the same as firing an administrative assistant. But they're both part of the company.

in a rough analogy, just because a waiter brings you food doesn't mean they had a hand in making it in the kitchen.

No but they are crucial to the whole restaurant experience and thus the success of the business. A bad front of house can completely wreck the best of intentions that the kitchen might have, and a great front of house can save the day if the kitchen fumbles the ball.

Hmm, well, I guess if you want to obfuscate the term "band" and expand it to be an "organization" of course we're not going to see eye-to-eye.

"Part of the company" is completely off-track and downright wrong when talking about a Lawyer versus a Drummer. A drummer contributes to the making of what the lawyer defends. This is very clear in the sense of one is a member of the band, and the other is a member of the organization. One contributes on a creative basis, the other does not. Cut-and-dried definitions here.

No front of the house could ever save a restaurant if the kitchen decides to walk out, right? No band, no organization. No pilots, no airline.

It does kind of make me chuckle that the only times I've had this kind of discussion is with a non-musician who wants to equivocate their functional role with what comes out of the guitar amp. Other people might buy it. I sure don't.

Depends on whether you care about the product or the money.

I have always been really impressed with Pitchfork's longevity - been a regular reader since the early 00s and I still check the reviews every day for a new song or album to listen to.

One of their most impressive features I thought was their 'Cover Story' articles, definitely worth a peek:

http://pitchfork.com/features/cover-story/

As everyone was tripping out over The NYT's Snow Fall (great piece, certainly), Pitchfork was at the time releasing similar articles with relative frequency. I never felt these got as much credit as they deserve.

I'm also a huge fan of Pitchfork. Even if I dislike the bands they designate at "best new music," I can never argue with the quality of their selections. No matter how esoteric or obscure a genre, Pitchfork always does an amazing job of finding bands before they crossover to the mainstream (if they crossover at all).

Because of that, it's quotes like this that worry me:

It brings 'a very passionate audience of millennial males into our roster,' said Fred Santarpia, the company’s chief digital officer, who led the acquisition

Very similar things were said by major label executives when their companies were snatching up alternative bands after Nirvana's Nevermind came out.

Yeah, definitely don't love hearing that, but if they let Mark Richardson keep running the editorial side of things, I'm less concerned. That guy has done wonders for the site over the past 10 years.

The cover stories have been really wonderful, as a guy who grew up loving magazine design (not to mention quality writing) in mags like The Face, Dazed, i-D and Raygun. For a good time, view source on the Aphex Twin feature.

Link for those lazier than me:

http://pitchfork.com/features/cover-story/reader/aphex-twin/

For a taste of the archetypical pitchfork style, read any of their radiohead reviews:

http://pitchfork.com/artists/3512-radiohead/

The classic is the Kid A one: http://pitchfork.com/reviews/albums/6656-kid-a/

Boomkat is a close second, but at least theyre trying to sell the records: https://twitter.com/boomkat_ebooks

I say this as a fairly regular Pitchfork reader: The experience and emotions tied to listening to Kid A are like witnessing the stillborn birth of a child while simultaneously having the opportunity to see her play in the afterlife on Imax is one of at least the top five worst sentences I've ever read.

(IMHO, their earlier reviews generally were of lower quality than their more recent ones, and they've benefited from discarding/discouraging the more experimental/informal review formats. The irony of this sentence being a hipster antithesis does not escape me.)

You take the bad with the good, like Zanzithoph, elephant of bizarre and archaic instruments.

http://pitchfork.com/reviews/albums/5950-horse-and-elephant-...

I think you could pull the other four sentences from this article too:

"The butterscotch lamps along the walls of the tight city square bled upward into the cobalt sky, which seemed as strikingly artificial and perfect as a wizard's cap."

"Kid A sounds like a clouded brain trying to recall an alien abduction."

"It's cacophonous yet tranquil, experimental yet familiar, foreign yet womb-like, spacious yet visceral, textured yet vaporous, awakening yet dreamlike, infinite yet 48 minutes."

"A lazy disco light spilled artificial constellations inside the aluminum cove of the makeshift stage."

It makes the vice record reviews seem positively lucid, doesn't it? Picked at random from a google search for "vice music review":

Holy shit, dude. Sometimes you just want to punch God in the face. Every time these fucking krauts spew out another aural queef nugget I try to give it a chance, but the second I hear the singer’s thin monotone melodies backed up by lifeless, pointless beats, I remember how few shits anyone would give if these dickweeds were from Chicago. Yeah, yeah, Neon Golden. Sure. I’d sooner give Udo Kier a standing 69 under the Brandenburg Gate than hear this album again. Actually, that sounds fucking awesome, that guy’s a babe.

Not that I'm trying to defend the ridiculousness of that sentence, but Brent DiCrescenzo was pretty notorious for being sarcastic and witty. I was always under the impression he was writing that infamous Kid A review intentionally gratuitous

Yes, Brent had a fairly famous meltdown known as his Beastie Boys / To the 5 Boroughs review.

http://bbs.beastieboys.com/showthread.php?t=21070

(retraction info here: http://bbs.beastieboys.com/showpost.php?s=1da97f1e4c1a2a3b6d...)

there's a good chance that absurdity was deliberate.

You can take that as a given. I've always thought Brent's Lateralus review was the high water mark (low water mark???) DiCrescenzo piece. http://pitchfork.com/reviews/albums/8104-lateralus/

The best thing ever written on Pitchfork was David Cross making fun of Pitchfork: http://pitchfork.com/features/guest-lists/6044-david-cross-a...

Here's a visually dated, but still accurate parody: http://www.somethingawful.com/fakesa/richdork/

Honestly that's not the archetypal style, most reviews are more measured and often have thoughtful things to say about the record. If anything, the Onion article in which Pitchfork gives all of music a 6.8 is a telling parody and fun summation of their style.

For what it's worth, Kid A really is one of the best records of the 2000's, so if you're going to be histrionic about one, might as well be that one.

Ahhh get outta here. People love to cite that thing, it's 15 years old at this point. Come on.

This is like saying "For a taste of the archetypical Apple design ethos, look at this 2001 iMac." Sort of, but no. They've matured a lot from their snotty early days - I don't think their reviews since, oh, 2005 would be out of place in any highbrow magazine.

Their reviews of The Beatles' catalogue are great reading, for example.

http://pitchfork.com/reviews/albums/13436-magical-mystery-to... http://pitchfork.com/reviews/albums/13432-the-beatles/ http://pitchfork.com/reviews/albums/13431-abbey-road/

The intensely overwrought style of Pitchfork is really one of the things I love most about it - that you sometimes have to fight even to figure out what genre an album is.

For the types of music I care about, I find their reviews are really very often in accordance with my own tastes, and their best-albums-of-the-year compendia are always worth a browse.

I've been reading Pitchfork for around six years now. Even though it has its share of questionable reviews and scores, its always proven an excellent bellwether for new music and introduced me to most of my favorite albums. In the age of dozens of music blogs and streaming venues, there's something refreshingly simple about their five reviews a day format; I know they've been experimenting with other content approaches (like the late Dissolve), but Ryan seems to understand the core appeal of the site pretty well.

I hope they continue to put out good reviews of great music. As long as they do that, I'll be happy.

How did you discover music before Pitchfork?

The usual routes, I think (which is to say I didn't really go out of my way to discover music): friends & family, the radio, The O.C. soundtrack.

I've been on and off pitchfork for close to 10 years. I find their reviews to be pretty polarizing, which is understandable.

I typically discover music in the following ways (aside from p4k)

- Streaming services ("for you" from Apple and recommended from Spotify)

- SoundCloud (their recommendation engine is usually pretty good)

- The Needle Drop

- Twitter (I don't have a good method for searching but I do seem to run into great stuff on twitter. ex. https://twitter.com/stadiumsshrines)

I don't even like Pitchfork that much (while I have learned about some artists from them, largely their tastes don't align with mine), but this makes me sad. Conde Nast buys everything. I can't really blame Conde Nast for this entirely, the owners who choose to sell out are really to blame. It's unfortunate. But I can't say I'd choose any differently if presented with such a large pay day.

I'm disappointed because since the Conde Nast takeover of Ars Technica, it has gone steeply down hill. I imagine the fans of Pitchfork will go through a similar experience over the next few years.

I see Ars as a very interesting microcosm of online journalism.

What made Ars great over time and high profile were some very skilled, diligent, audience-mindful writers and editors. As those writers (and editors) got discovered, they were lured to other publications (ex: Washington Post). The replacements, and replacements of replacements, have not been of equivalent caliber, which could also be reinforced in the long run by a 'corporate mentality' of viewing employees as more-or-less interchangeable parts with dollar signs attached (simplistic but just to make a point).

There was an excellent (paywalled) article on N+1 about pitchfork. It really is separate from other sites (Lack of comments, 100 different possible ratings [0.0 to 10.0)], extreme "hipster" snottiness).

The website really has, and continues to shape "alternative/indie" music tastes. It is probably the biggest indicator, and perhaps driver, of an alternative album's commercial success. Sites like these regardless of their merit (which is really low IMO), are indispensable in the saturated music market.

I was the Music Director, then General Manager for our college radio station back in 2006/7/8. We relied on pitchfork, along with indie charts, to drive what new music we played as our format was indie rock.

Totally spot on how much sway they have in the indie community.

My college radio station (circa 2010-2012) was more in a "don't play Pitchfork" more-hipster-than-hipster bent.

That attitude has faded in the last couple years. Here, at least, it has become less relevant.

Pitchfork has also expanded what they review so you might become hard pressed to find anything to play at all after a while.

Sites like these regardless of their merit (which is really low IMO), are indispensable in the saturated music market.

This is an extremely contradictory statement to me. Can you elaborate how a "sifting" or "gatekeeper" type publication has low merit when there's so much content to review/digest?

I think it's hilarious people look at Pitchfork and see snottiness, when every single genre of music eventually devolves into arguments about merit / influence / purity / micro-genres if given enough time. If Pitchfork integrated something like "-core" genre distinctions, it's because they were picking up on audiences and potential readers already using it.

I should have clarified, by saying the individual sites have low merit, despite serving an important function. But, this is just a personal opinion; After reading several of their reviews that were anecdotally driven, influenced by hype, and just logorrheic. It's also difficult to be aware of the bias in a publication with several writers.

Pitchfork today, which still wields that same influence, is different from that of even 5 years ago, or when I last read it. Looking at the reviews from today, they are actually pretty restrained and informative.

Ah, yeah I follow you a bit better now. I'm not going to vouch for their review style, but the existence of them is what has drawn me to the site pretty much every day. Personally I worry a lot less about author bias in something like Pitchfork than I would in Rolling Stone or, without naming names, a music-oriented magazine that is mostly pay-for-print content (they do exist).

A great example is referenced in the n+1 article itself: the tale of Travis Morrison after the breakup of The Dismemberment Plan. The band's Pitchfork reviews were always positive, so one would assume that the debut solo album of its principal songwriter and singer would at least be in the ballpark. Instead, it famously received a 0.0[1]. This single review killed Morrison's solo career[2]. He ended retiring from music (though the Plan reunited for an album a couple years ago).

[1] http://pitchfork.com/reviews/albums/5607-travistan/

[2] http://consequenceofsound.net/aux-out/prisoner-of-travistan-...

Ah, I just took a quick glance at that review. Honestly, I can see why a reviewer would mark something so low if the impression is: 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.

To place that at the feet of Pitchfork is understandable, but in subjective art, sometimes people fail and get called out for it. I think one of the most noteworthy examples would be "The Life and Times of Chris Gaines."

Right, I'm not saying that anyone's at fault for the string of events that led to that review or even the review itself. I think at the height of Pitchfork's anti-establishment power, it wielded that power in a callous manner that ended up making careers for of some bad artists and ending careers of some good artists. So I think the charge that Pitchfork in the 1999-2006 era existed as a meritless gatekeeper stands. Whether or not Schrieber intended that is an open question, though the n+1 piece suggests that he did.

The snottiness was okay when they primarily covered rock and generally accepted. It become truly painful when they discovered that there were other genres out there (esp. when they initially started covering rap and electronic music) and applied those same rockist standards to something completely detached.

I don't know if this still continues but my primary issue with the site has always been non-rock music acceptable to rock fans (or artists that they can write some culture piece about) rather than non-rock music that fans of those genres actually listen to.

I'm a bit concerned about pitchfork's quality going forward, hopefully it can stay good enough. I like pitchfork for alt pop music, but for ambient music nothing beats headphonecommute:

http://reviews.headphonecommute.com/

Anyone have other good music review sites?

For me and my tastes (experimental, ambient, black metal, progressive, electronic, krautrock, artscene, etc.), nothing beats TheQuietus (http://www.thequietus.com)

It brings “a very passionate audience of millennial males into our roster,” he said.

Oof.

I always viewed Pitchfork as more of a Gen X thing... they were founded in the mid 90s.

I thought it was '98. And: the site was pretty sparse until 2001; like, Ryan and Matt Lemay and Brent DiCrescenzo reviewing their personal record collections sparse.

For those who aren't familiar, Pitchfork is basically _the_ hipster music magazine.

Source: I live in Brooklyn.

(This post made with tongue firmly in cheek, of course. By virtue of the fact that I know about it, it can't possibly be hipster enough.)

Ehhhh, Pitchfork tends to only hit the mainstream independent labels at this point, local tea shops play albums that they review, for chrissake. Popular among the Mumford & Sons crowd.

Source: I live in Portland.

(Also tongue in cheek.)

Somewhat humorously, their Mumford & Sons review is one of the rare examples of me making a decision not to buy an album after reading what they had to say.

http://pitchfork.com/reviews/albums/13906-sigh-no-more/

Wow, that's not a review, that's a murder!

Hit the nail on the head though. I think it's fairly accurate as to their failings.

"Popular among the Mumford & Sons crowd."

That would be weird, because Pfork hates them.

That a bit ironic from my own perspective, because the majority of my friends who read Pitchfork are female.

But what's wrong with expressing a positive sentiment about including passionate millenial males?

Nothing; it's just uncomfortable when someone has a bead on you. The same feeling as being at an NMH show a year or so ago and noticing that I was in a sea of beards and flannel shirts.

The point is that millennial males do not lack for adequate representation in the current media landscape. I'm certain they'll regret having gone with that quote. It will be the most seized upon line in the press release.

The way people talk about Pitchfork is so aggressively cliched, same here as anywhere else. The hipster-bashing is so, so dated. And hipsters haven't even liked Pitchfork in almost 10 years.

Yeah bashing hipsters was, like... last decades trend, ya know?

> In an email to its staff, Condé Nast’s chief executive, Bob Sauerberg, said the deal “reinforces our commitment to building Condé Nast’s premium digital network, focusing on distinctive editorial voices and engaging high-value millennial audiences.”

Reading this article immediately brings Bill Hicks to mind:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tvp97SMZc6M

Does anyone have these concerns about Conde Nast's other holdings, like Reddit? (Is there anyone at Reddit who fears Conde Nast interfering with its independence?)

Conde Nast doesn't own Reddit anymore: http://www.redditblog.com/2013/08/reddit-myth-busters_6.html...

My apologies. I guess I have to now call Reddit “part-sibling-once-removed” of Condé Nast.

Is Pitchfork still cool with hipsters?

Not being cool with hipsters is the new hip.

They read Pitchfork only to be up on what Anthony Fantano is talking about.

Does anyone else think the death of The Dissolve was part of step zero for this?

First Pandora buys Ticketfly and now Conde Nast buys Pitchfork? My new prediction is that Spotify will be acquired by Proctor and Gamble.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com