Hacker News Reader

Comment by 6stringmerc | Hacker News Reader

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.

View on HN

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).

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.

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.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com