...BREAKING...
http://thedissolve.com/features/performance-review/231-reassessing-the-best-actress-of-2001/
― socki (s1ocki), Tuesday, 22 October 2013 14:38 (ten years ago) link
scott p left?? remember fondly when he'd show up to defend p4k in ilm best of 20xx threads
― 乒乓, Tuesday, 22 October 2013 15:48 (ten years ago) link
I like that No Trivia piece a lot. One thing though - in my experience music publications don't micromanage reviews to remotely the same extent as P4K seems to. Q, for example, has given even its cover stars 3/5 reviews on occasion.
― Deafening silence (DL), Tuesday, 22 October 2013 16:24 (ten years ago) link
are people surprised that pitchfork manages scores on big albums? what year is it right now
― J0rdan S., Tuesday, 22 October 2013 16:30 (ten years ago) link
also if you're reviewing a niche album that's in your wheelhouse -- i.e. basically every time i reviewed a rap mixtape -- no one questions your score
― J0rdan S., Tuesday, 22 October 2013 16:31 (ten years ago) link
don't follow it closely anymore but scottpl must have a claim to having molded P4K's current ~aesthetic~, at least the more ILM-acceptable pts of it
that old skool P4K best of the 1990s someone posted in another thread, which ws presumably mostly ll cool schreibs, was laughable
― cozen, Tuesday, 22 October 2013 16:34 (ten years ago) link
Brandon is dumb (#34985859340293849494 in a series.)
― rap steve gadd (D-40), Tuesday, 22 October 2013 17:11 (ten years ago) link
lol https://twitter.com/nickminichino/status/392700551265533952
― deez so unusual (some dude), Tuesday, 22 October 2013 17:22 (ten years ago) link
I like the "I'm not as valuable as animal collective" realization. It must be torture to view every company expenditure as an insult.
― 6 Tuesdays on every Tuesday. This is called dumpy pants. (Sufjan Grafton), Tuesday, 22 October 2013 17:31 (ten years ago) link
hahahaha
― deez so unusual (some dude), Tuesday, 22 October 2013 17:31 (ten years ago) link
headshot
― 乒乓, Tuesday, 22 October 2013 17:33 (ten years ago) link
The main damning thing in that post is his assertion that Pitchfork pays its writers a quarter of what equivalent sites pay. Anyone know if there's any truth to that?
― intheblanks, Tuesday, 22 October 2013 17:57 (ten years ago) link
no but my friend at tiny mixtapes showed me his brand new rolex submariner the other day
― 乒乓, Tuesday, 22 October 2013 17:59 (ten years ago) link
sounds pretty dope
― intheblanks, Tuesday, 22 October 2013 18:01 (ten years ago) link
have asked this on ilm before but whats the going rate for a record review?
― the Shearer of simulated snowsex etc. (Dwight Yorke), Tuesday, 22 October 2013 18:11 (ten years ago) link
xpost think he said sites with equivalent traffic
― I got the glares, the mutterings, the snarls (President Keyes), Tuesday, 22 October 2013 18:12 (ten years ago) link
a review copy of the album in question or alternatively a link to a torrent that contains said record xp
― Mordy , Tuesday, 22 October 2013 18:13 (ten years ago) link
haha tbh i have never really envied pitchfork writers much of anything except for the pitchfork ftp that supposedly exists
― 乒乓, Tuesday, 22 October 2013 19:28 (ten years ago) link
the pitchfork advance layout & interface is really weird
― lorde willin' (upper mississippi sh@kedown), Tuesday, 22 October 2013 19:47 (ten years ago) link
No, but it seems more damning on those other sites if true. WTF are they doing paying so much at this state in the game?
― Position Position, Tuesday, 22 October 2013 19:55 (ten years ago) link
how is that damning
― katherine, Tuesday, 22 October 2013 19:58 (ten years ago) link
(I'm not going to get into this for obvious reasons, but the "quarter of what equivalent sites pay" bit can be debunked pretty quickly by going on Who Pays Writers or asking around.)
― katherine, Tuesday, 22 October 2013 19:59 (ten years ago) link
I assume he's talking about Grantland or Slate, where an individual writer's byline can be more of draw.
― I got the glares, the mutterings, the snarls (President Keyes), Tuesday, 22 October 2013 19:59 (ten years ago) link
someone just spill it how much do they pay, what are you gonna get sued or something
― twist boat veterans for stability (k3vin k.), Tuesday, 22 October 2013 20:00 (ten years ago) link
http://whopays.tumblr.com/tagged/pitchfork
― 乒乓, Tuesday, 22 October 2013 20:00 (ten years ago) link
also, today (this is more "what people pay in general" but: http://scratchmag.net/free-preview-issue/web-editors-roundtable/ )
― katherine, Tuesday, 22 October 2013 20:05 (ten years ago) link
Yeah, "damning" was probably overstating it. It just seemed like the most legit grievance in the piece, moreso than "PItchfork editors get defensive when criticized!" or "They paid a performer their asking price for a festival concert!" or "They favor strong editorial control, and sometimes that trumps the opinions of individual writers, even when the writers are experts!"
Of course, now I know that 1/4 figure is a gross exaggeration, so basically nothing "damning" at all in the piece.
― intheblanks, Tuesday, 22 October 2013 20:19 (ten years ago) link
as a freelancer i always found the raw dollar amount to be a bit overrated anyway. pitchfork pays on time every month without fail and has a lot of work available if you're proactive. both of those things are as important + sometimes more important than the fee itself.
― J0rdan S., Tuesday, 22 October 2013 20:23 (ten years ago) link
also the platform is important! as a music critic, pitchfork is pretty much the quickest way for people to become familiar with your writing. everyone grab your barf bag, but it's undeniably very good for your Personal Brand. you get twitter followers, you get more work etc etc. this is how it works now. so yes maybe you take a little less than you could get somewhere else because you want a specific piece to be seen. these are the things that you weigh as a freelancer. pitchfork isn't victimizing anyone.
― J0rdan S., Tuesday, 22 October 2013 20:30 (ten years ago) link
also an important point -- talk to any writer and you will hear at least one and probably multiple horror stories of people who got very impressive commissions that they're still waiting (after years!) to be paid a cent for
― katherine, Tuesday, 22 October 2013 20:31 (ten years ago) link
NOOOOO NOT THE EXPOSURE ARGUMENT AGAIN
― Murgatroid, Tuesday, 22 October 2013 20:32 (ten years ago) link
well pitchfork didn't make me sign a non-exposure agreement
― J0rdan S., Tuesday, 22 October 2013 20:34 (ten years ago) link
'do this for low pay because it's good for your career' is a skeezy proposition, but of course PF never proposed that to anybody, they just pay what they pay and people take it or leave, so it's a moot point. i wrote for Pitchfork when there was NO pay but choosing to do something knowing the terms and then complaining about it later is pointless. nobody can determine your price but you.
― deez so unusual (some dude), Tuesday, 22 October 2013 20:36 (ten years ago) link
Because apparently there is some confusion on this point, I went through all 28 pages, pulled out the outlets that could conceivably be running music reviews (these are straight from the site, I'm not including any personal anecdotes here).
The piece I linked: $150-250, generally, for online posts; if a piece deviates from this it's more likely to be on the lower end unless you are, like, Teju Cole. Village Voice Media: $50-75 for a blog post. (One report from SF Weekly has as low as $35.)The Atlantic: $125.Complex: $200 for a listicle of 750 words.The Awl: $50-ish.Washington Post (Outlook section / opinion): $250. (Probably not music reviews, but I'm including this just as a benchmark of the amount of money vis-a-vis traffic we are talking.)The New York Times (same): $150, plus $50 for blog posts. (Again, not music reviews, but this is as close to the upper tier of traffic as you can get.)
I could go on, but I think you get the idea. About the only way to even approach the 4x figure is outlets that pay at least 50 cents per word, which are fairly uncommon.
― katherine, Tuesday, 22 October 2013 20:36 (ten years ago) link
The pitchfork pay rates aren't bad.
― Tim F, Tuesday, 22 October 2013 20:40 (ten years ago) link
"nobody can determine your price but you."
as much as it would be good if this were true, the economy means it is not.
― katherine, Tuesday, 22 October 2013 20:43 (ten years ago) link
well i mean this more in the freelancer sense of 'at the end of the day it's your decision to work for a rate that's offered or not.' in most other senses, no, doesn't work that way.
― deez so unusual (some dude), Tuesday, 22 October 2013 20:44 (ten years ago) link
Thanks for the clarifications! You were right; asking around did lead to this being debunked pretty quickly.
― intheblanks, Tuesday, 22 October 2013 20:50 (ten years ago) link
to anyone directed here via twitter: hi, sorry I said anything, I will shut up now like a good person
― katherine, Tuesday, 22 October 2013 20:50 (ten years ago) link
hi brandon!
― 乒乓, Tuesday, 22 October 2013 20:52 (ten years ago) link
lawl
― deez so unusual (some dude), Tuesday, 22 October 2013 21:13 (ten years ago) link
would think the best comparison would be spin as that's where the dude works now, right? so does spin pay $320 for a review?
― socki (s1ocki), Tuesday, 22 October 2013 21:38 (ten years ago) link
Don't drag us into Soderberg's thing
― obie stompin' moby (Whiney G. Weingarten), Tuesday, 22 October 2013 21:57 (ten years ago) link
$80 for fifteen to twenty minutes work isn't bad
― balls, Tuesday, 22 October 2013 22:23 (ten years ago) link
Whenever I see this thread get bumped I think, I bet Harvell feels bad for titling it thus. He's too nice a guy.
― Mark, Tuesday, 22 October 2013 22:34 (ten years ago) link
oh i'm sure he's called employers worse
― da croupier, Tuesday, 22 October 2013 22:47 (ten years ago) link
i mean it's hilarious/awesome that jess wrote a lot for PF years after starting this thread but i doubt he's embarrassed or remorseful about it
― omar soul eman (some dude), Wednesday, 23 October 2013 01:47 (ten years ago) link
good thing I'm still embarrassed and remorseful for even posting in it then
― katherine, Wednesday, 23 October 2013 01:58 (ten years ago) link
hating pitchfork and coming up with reasons why its stupid is a rite of passage for every music fan who likes music that pitchfork covers
― 乒乓, Wednesday, 23 October 2013 02:04 (ten years ago) link
s1ocki: I don't know if it's that other sites pay 4x as much, it's that they pay a little more for far shorter pieces. At least that's how I interpreted this tweet from Soderberg earlier today.
https://twitter.com/notrivia/status/392744934408585216
― intheblanks, Wednesday, 23 October 2013 03:10 (ten years ago) link