Condé Nast Buys Pitchfork Media

[6stringmerc]

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.

[dagw]

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.

[jakejake]

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!

[firstworldman]

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.

[freehunter]

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.

[PhasmaFelis]

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

[sharkweek]

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.

[robbyking]

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.

[firstworldman]

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.

[JonnieCache]

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

[jmduke]

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.)

[roneesh]

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.

[saturdaysaint]

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/

[draw_down]

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

[minikites]

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

[bshimmin]

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.

[jmduke]

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.

[whatok]

How did you discover music before Pitchfork?

[ebbv]

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.

[6stringmerc]

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).

[rrego]

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.

[6stringmerc]

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.

[AndrewKemendo]

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.

[craigching]

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?

[codq]

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

[tptacek]

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

Oof.

[santaclaus]

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

[steveklabnik]

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.)

[parennoob]

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?

[draw_down]

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.

[CPLX]

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

[sneak]

> 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

[DaveWalk]

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?)

[tg3]

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

[whatok]

Is Pitchfork still cool with hipsters?

[caractacus]

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

[eronhp]

Not being cool with hipsters is the new hip.

[trackofalljades]

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

[pla3rhat3r]

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