« My Listening Hours: Rest of 2010 So Far | Main | My Listening Hours: Krautrock Roundup »

July 08, 2010


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

I think you're being unfair to that guy. I think he definitely has his own taste and values his opinions. He's just a FAN of Pitchfork. Like, you know how you might write about a record or movie? He's writing about this publication. It's kinda like a not-fully-formed version of Emdashes, the blog about the New Yorker -- http://emdashes.com/

I see that he has his own tastes and opinions; that's what I respond positively to. I just think using the filter of writing about Pitchfork weakens his perspective. Pitchfork already has a public editor in the form of all the bloggers already monitoring its every move.

Gahhh writer I like writing about other writer I like WORLDS COLLIDE

I kind of agree with you. But I'm also glad someone intelligent is reading Pitchfork every day and remarking on it so I don't feel the need to (as much).

I both agree and disagree with you. If he had not taken the angle to review Pitchfork itself, which was a clever little move, than would you be reading his opinions at all? Or would he just be one of the many anonymous music bloggers that you skipped over? I think the focus allowed him to gain attention and thus a more public voice. And I admire that. Also while I agree with you that there was WAY too much discontent about Altered Zone before anyone even got a look at the site, the kid makes a valid point about the site's influence thrusting musicians into the spotlight. Nathan Williams being the prime example that I think a lot of people would bring up. I'm glad he choses to discuss whether this is a positive or negative aspect of music criticism and is noting that the site has the potential to change the game for musicians. Which it does. But ultimately I sgree with you that Pitchfork should do its own thing and you should do yours and that a lot of people put far too much stock into it then they should. It's full of great info and strong writing from good critics, but it doesn't create your opinion unless you let it.

I think it's premature to think anyone featured on Altered Zones is de facto "thrust into the spotlight." There are a lot of bands on Pitchfork whose reviews have no effect on their careers. Same goes for bands featured on a blog like Gorilla vs Bear and same will go for many bands on AZ. And if some band who wishes they could be obscure accidentally gets some recognition, we can all claim that AZ is a failure.

who is releasing music and wishing to be obscure? that seems very suspect to me. if you really want to be obscure, don't put it out into the fucking public arena, because this is the way the world works these days. it is simply up to all of us to adapt.

also: it's not pitchfork's fault that fame spreads quickly and that people get noticed early in their careers. the hype cycle is short everywhere these days - are you people paying attention to the larger world outside of music??? that is simply a phenomenon of the internet age, and it happens with everything these days - fashion, art, literature, music, celebrity, news stories! pitchfork is one notable contributor, but it is most certainly not their "fault". it is our collective short attention spans that have enabled this phenomenon, and we have no one to blame but ourselves.

ugh, this non-conversation is about as interesting as yet another facebook self-portrait of some idiot holding a camera in the mirror. but here i am, and i love you all anyway.

Somewhat related to the discussion (p4k's impact): http://bit.ly/9cEHWd

The comments to this entry are closed.

My Photo