pitchfork is dumb (#34985859340293849494 in a series.)

this is a real weird left turn for the thread to take and but w/r/t female writers i mean you have jenn pelli and carrie batten at p4k probably making minimum wage but in a few years they could replace whatever male supervisor is on the rung above theirs. unless you know different than i abt p4k internal politics? i feel like someone could write a good thesis on this but I'm guessing in the past maybe rock writing was consumed primarily by males and thus became an attractive to a primarily male audience as a potential career? but i could be wrong or it could be a chicken and egg thing too. anyway lets face it the rising stars of music journalism are primarily women the pelli sisters and carrie batten and maria sherman and claire lobenfield of stereo gum i could go down the list. mauara i am a big fan of yours and i would really love to hear your thoughts on this?

ill cash out now but i am gonna keep reading this thread! sorry i'm anon. I'm not gonna be like "here's who i am" when i don't know who any of u are (except no trivia, maura, and chris weingarden). i'm sorry for kicking a hornets nest. esp sincerely sorry to no trivia bc i came in here ranting but it seems like i misinterpreted what he was even saying. that was shitty of me and I'm sorry.

listen, it's not that big a deal to be anon. but if you caught wind of this thread or this entire board via twitter, and decided to jump in anonymously here when you could've, y'know, tweeted these observations to the people you obviously follow, it feels a little sneaky self-aggrandizing. you don't seem like a bad guy, though, feel free to stick around the board, or come back at some point in a way that won't 'out' who dashsnowden was itt.

eh twitter isn't exactly conducive to the long-form writing that dashsnowden was doing

well those are the only 2 options, you got me

don't be self-aggrandizing and post anonymously on ILX; start a tumblr instead

guys, the Edward Snowden of Pitchforkpayrategate is already on his way to Hong Kong, he can't even hear us anymore

hahaha

jonathan franzen surveys the wreckage, calls for censorship

I think the tech corporations are like the nineteenth-century coal magnates, and the free-lance writers are like the people slaving in the mines, the only difference being that the tech corporations can’t stop congratulating themselves on how they’ve liberated everybody. I think the Internet should be really strictly regulated, the way the airwaves used to be. If an entire region of the country had its main industry suddenly lose 90 percent of its paying jobs because of the predatory practices of a different region’s industry, you might, if you were the government, step in and say, “We can’t actually let this entire region starve. We’re going to subsidize prices, we’re going to redistribute some income.” Why should Apple shareholders be getting rich while working journalists are getting fired? This is an unjust situation, and the libertarians in Silicon Valley are either moral idiots or liars. They know they’re getting away with shit they shouldn’t get away with, and all they’ve got is this idea of libertarianism. That, and the mantra of making the world a better place.

http://scratchmag.net/free-preview-issue/the-scratch-interview-franzen/

somedude: no i'm still here! but as they say in the world of sports talk radio "i will hang up and listen." feel like a dick for crashing this, honestly didn't know you all knew each other irl and now kinda want to back out as if this never happened but rly i hope u guys keep talking abt this stuff bc i will like to read it and if i get more insight into spin media or p4k or vvm or anybody else i will share it here (anon, sorry) bc i feel like writers and editors are getting FUCKED for real. but i will keep the self aggarndization to a min. ;-)

the difference between anonymity and non-anonymity is that if you aren't anonymous, everything you say in an argument like this, even your participation in an argument like this, comes with the terrifying worry of "will this ruin my career?" I mean, shit, anyone who was referred here via twitter was referred here in the context of "hahahahaha look at this fucking asshole posting here, how dare she share an opinion," so obviously there are stakes here for me.

(and I'm not even getting into the issue of having potentially signed nondisclosure and/or nondisparagement contracts that could have an effect on what you are and are not allowed to say, publicly or privately.)

tbf, you legally couldn't

exactly

jumping in waaay late but the 2nd tier alt-weeklies were already paying less than p4k is today back in 2004-5 or so, if not earlier.

Katherine - I pretty much backed off once you told me I ruined two consecutive days of your life, but hey, if you're going to keep mischaracterizing things I've said, and me responding ruins your day, well then I'm getting more and more okay with ruining your day again. I'm tempted to think you're trolling me here man. I mean who keeps on keeping on about a topic and then gets this upset when the person you're saying negative things about responds (in a fairly civil manner!!!). It's frustrating that you're categorizing my response to you as "hahahahaha look at this fucking asshole posting here, how dare she share an opinion." It's more, "Hi guys! Just stepping in here to say Katherine's debunking here seems questionable to me, and hey, please trust me that these aren't numbers I made up or exaggerated, because I don't really have any motivation for making numbers up." When you claim to be debunking what someone is saying, then you are claiming that they are not being truthful. It seems reasonable that I can respond to someone that is saying I'm not being truthful.

I believe your exact words were "SMH at these ILX dopes "debunking" my Tumblr post."

notrivia, this seems like a good one to let go

for what it's worth, though, I'm not trolling. as someone who dislikes conflict, I fundamentally don't understand the appeal of trolling in general. if I came across as trolling, it was my mistake.

Katherine - right because it was dopey and it was a number of people being like, "Aw man, case closed," not just you, but a few other dopes as well, speculating and throwing info around that's just plain incorrect. I then wrote a fairly even-handed response here on this board that didn't attack you or name call at all and you still told me I was ruining your day. I've never said anything of the sort but hey, it's kinda day-ruining to have someone play fast and loose with anonymously provided data from a fucking Tumblr about how much writers pay to suggest that I'm a liar, you feel me? Do you know how the Internet works? You say something about someone and hey, that someone might respond back to you. Also, we've interacted before! We have friends in common. Why not email me or DM me before you decide to "debunk" what I said? If you did any of these things then maybe you'd be legit in presenting me as some monster who ruined your day, but as it stands, you pretty much called me a liar, and then are surprised that I would respond. OKAY BYE NOW GUYS, NOT TALKING ABOUT THIS ANYMORE.

I'm sorry. I really don't understand what I did wrong, but whatever it is, I'm sorry for it. (For what it's worth, I know the person who runs the site and trust her -- a site that isn't even a "fucking Tumblr" anymore, even if that means anything at all and even if the submission process was truly anonymous, which it isn't -- but I'm sorry anyway. I don't understand why I couldn't have been emailed or DMed instead of being called out by name in public for posting here, but whatever it is was, I suppose I did something wrong there too, so I apologize for that too.)

(upon rereading I can see how the above can be construed as sarcastic. it's not, I genuinely don't understand how point A got to point B here and it's distressing because this isn't something I wanted to happen at all. whatever happened is a thing I am genuinely sorry for.)

o lol

"SMH at these ILX dopes "debunking" my Tumblr post."

ILX: White Dopes on P4k

"This past Thursday, the band posted to Youtube an 85-minute video which cued up the entirety of the double-album to visuals from Marcel Camus' kaleidoscopic 1959 film Black Orpheus. "

wow sorry i missed all this

Tuesday October 29th panel at Future of Music conference in DC (Registration Fee
Full Conference Registration $ 249.00
Advance/Walk-Up Day Registration: Mon, Oct 28 $ 149.00
Advance/Walk-Up Day Registration: Tues, Oct 29 $ 149.00)

Maura's gonna be there

Blurred Lines in Music Journalism-

The digital revolution hasn’t just impacted musicians; it’s also shaken up the world of music journalism. Consolidation and dwindling print revenues have led many publications to focus on clickbait and pageview counts, often at the expense of longform criticism. Meanwhile, many music journalists rely on second and third sources of income to make a living: as publicists, as PR reps, or even as musicians and songwriters themselves. How are ethical questions navigated? How have the lines blurred? Are there new models which might promise a more sustainable future? We’ll explore the changing landscape of music journalism in the new music business models.

Maura Johnson Journalist & Editor, Maura Magazine
Aaron Leitko Musician, Protect-U & Writer
Marcus Moore Music Journalist, The Washington Post, Washington City Paper, MTV Hive & HipHopDX
Tamara Saviano Grammy-winning Producer, Manager & Publicist (moderator)
Michael West Freelance Contributor, Washington City Paper, JazzTimes, Down Beat & The Washington Post

In Conference Center Salons B+C

Didn't try to get a press pass or pay the hefty admission, and skip my dayjob to go to that Future Of M thing,

man i'm bummed that i heard nothing about that in advance. i even saw maura on twitter saying she was in d.c. and was like what, you're in town, what's up?

I also wanted to see a presentation by Los Angeles critic and professor Josh Kun. I like his writing about all kinds of Mexican music from indie pop folks like Julieta Venegas to narcocorridos.

The FOM folks never do much publicity-wise on getting the word out about this annual event

The tone of their samples, which often incorporate acoustic, round-edged analog synths

lol @ "acoustic synths"

for some reason that reminds me of this blurb which still bugs me three years later. gotta be one of the dumbest things I've ever read on pitchfork.

Few 2010 sounds were as jubilant as the first few bars of "Rill Rill". Built around a riff sniped from Funkadelic's "Can You Get to That", Derek Miller's guitar-- so fraught and heavy elsewhere on Treats-- goes soft and jangly

Why would you say 'round-edged' when you could just say 'rounded'

i guess you could have a rounded surface with non-round edges?

like a butt

yeah don't forget about butts

i never have

...i never have

"All but one of the comp’s nine tracks comes in under six minutes (with three topping the 10-minute mark)"

hmm

i checked my copy. the author definitely meant to write "only one of the comp's nine tracks comes in under six minutes (with three topping the 10-minute mark)"

how is it, by the way? i'm definitely intrigued.

it's very good. there's been some talk about it on the onyaebor thread and the world music thread.

"The sweetheart of the rodeo now works at a truck stop somewhere on Route 66, handing out the men’s room key and smiling crookedly to hide her missing teeth."

Is there some sort of apparatus that sends small but painful electrical shocks to the groin of anyone attempting to write sentences like these?

he asked hopefully

In its place is red-blood, full-throated, post-hippie country rock, right down to a name that evokes both Quicksilver Messenger Service and the Grateful Dead’s “Steel Magnolia”.

if someone could shop these together... much appreciated.

http://www.bomgar.com/assets/images/blog/Grateful_Dead_(617x409)_(2).jpg

http://www.impawards.com/1989/posters/steel_magnolias_xlg.jpg

"Steel Magnolia"? Never heard that song. Any good?

The Grateful Dead feat. Dolly Parton & Sally Field

lol

Interesting thread 'cause of the behind-the-scenes stuff. I signed up for an account here *years* ago - I can find one post from 2006, in praise of the Thirteenth Floor Elevators' electric jug - and have lurked since then because I forgot my password. I'm genuinely surprised that Pitchfork pays its writers anything at all. I had always assumed the writers did it for the thrill of being in Pitchfork. Which is silly. The Chicago Sun-Times was all about Roger Ebert; Pitchfork is about Pitchfork. Thinking about online records reviews sent me into a nostalgic reverie (echo effect... screen swirls... Manny Mota... Mota... Mota...)

See, from 1998-2002 or so I supported myself as a writer here in the UK - London, obviously - working initially as a freelancer and then as a full-time internet copywriter, because in those days they would hire anybody if you knew how to spell HTML. I can remember my first paycheque (£75, which went towards a double-speed CD burner), my largest (£1,500), then landing a small book deal, and I remember wondering whether I should do something about tax. Or if I should just not bother.

I have no emotional investment in Pitchfork one way or the other. The company is clearly doing something right to have lasted so long, despite having relatively modest resources. My impression is that the writing (e.g. the Arcade Fire review mentioned above) is very bland and aspires to a kind of High Seriousness that will date badly, but this could be a US/UK thing at work; in my experience US rock writing tends to have a reverent tone, whereas in the UK we are irreverent nihilists. That Arcade Fire review would have been totally out of place in a British publication. And so I'm probably not the right person to judge Pitchfork, it's just alien to everything I know. It's aimed at a different audience, and in any case reviews from 2004 were aimed at the audience of 2004.

Think of all the record reviews that appeared in the NME and Melody Maker and The Face throughout the 1980s and 1990s - they were written for The Moment, and their success or failure was determined by how effectively they shaped The Moment, and they're just meaningless nowadays and no-one re-reads them. This hung heavy on my heart back in 2000; I've never been interested in The Moment, but as a writer you have to pretend to be sincerely fascinated in every new novelty as if it was the best thing evah and the entirety of human history was irrelevant in comparison. I grew up reading books, dammit, I'm used to long-form writing, which is very time-consuming. The edit phase is just as crucial as the writing phase but harder, because the fire has gone out, I'm burning fat instead of sugar. It's as if God has given me the skills and temperament for long-form writing but no motivation to actually write lengthy pieces. It's a lot of work for no reward. But not as difficult or as worthless as having to *read* it, amirite? Eh? (swigs from bottle)

In the end I gave it up. A friend of a friend worked for the railways in a ticket office. His job was much less glamorous than mine, but his paycheques were more regular than mine, and when he went home each Friday he was reasonably confident that he would have a job on Monday. Also, he got to wear a neat uniform. The "glamour" of writing is an illusion, and it's probably an illusion even if you're Will Self or Nick Hornby. Besides, in 2000 the top magazines and newspapers in the UK really wanted multimedia personalities rather than writers.

2000 was very early days internet-wise - I remember there still seemed to be a lot of smaller review sites, little individual islands, rather than a handful of colossi in the mould of the Onion's AV Club and indeed Pitchfork. You can see a residue of this in the IMDB's review section for films released in the early 2000s, where they still list tonnes of old pre-blog, one-or-two-man cinema review websites (Stomp Tokyo etc). At the time I had a sense that the days of one-man websites were passing in favour of professional, large-scale content generators, and that eventually the cost and difficulty of creating an individual website would make self-publishing impossible, and that the internet's voices would consolidate until the internet was indistinguishable from the world of traditional publishing. I didn't anticipate the rise of blogs, but they're still subject to the same forces, the same drive towards consolidation.

I'm surprised to learn that Stylus didn't exist in 2000. I remember Freaky Trigger though. I was an arrogant tosser, and never considered submitting any writing to it because I'd written for paper magazines that paid actual money which made me God and Freaky Trigger was just a website ner ner. I remember there was an ongoing debate as to the future of content back then. One side held that the internet would create a vast new market for writing, another side argued that the money was really to be made from platforms rather than content, and the reality seemed to be a lot of unpaid user-generated content, bot-generated blogs, review aggregators, with lower rates or no rates at all. Everybody would be writing to publicise something else, but where would it end? There's no point writing an unpaid blog to publicise your free e-book that advertises the workshop that you're not being paid for. Or worse, you're paying to attend a convention so you can advertise the book that you self-published at your own expense that summarised the workshops that cost you a fortune to hire the venue for etc.

It seemed to me that the future of online content wasn't going to have a place for long-form writing, 'cause the internet is pan-lingual and nobody wants to read huge chunks of text on their computer. And at the time in 2000 there was no practical way to read articles in a mobile context, and the market for record reviews was going to be tiny (the bigger labels didn't give a shit about the internet in 2000 - pricks - and the smaller labels never had any money). I saw the future of online publishing as a ten-page article with five pictures of Charlie Dimmock or Kylie Minogue or the So Solid Crew etc per page, and you had to click ten times to go through it, and the only writing was a bunch of captions. A bit like Buzzfeed or Reddit. A future that didn't need writers; the content would always come from *somewhere else* and the churn rate was such that (as Cracked has demonstrated) you can just repeat the same basic idea, almost the exact same content, and still win lots of hits.

At the back of my mind it struck me that publishing has always been like this, ever since the Victorian age, probably before then. The internet basically operates on the level of Sunday magazines, which have always been a lot of adverts with adverts in between the adverts. Writers very rarely make a go of it for long; the big writers are oftentimes self-important frauds who are in debt to their eyeballs, and the genuine success stories of the last two decades really made their money from selling the film rights... but even then, the process goes back until the dawn of Hollywood. Stretching back through J K Rowling to Tom Clancy, Stephen King, Alistair MacLean, Ian Fleming, Dashiell Hammett, I surmise that Arthur Conan Doyle had to fend off radio producers. Were there semaphore plays, smoke signal serials in medieval times? Roman writers who were appalled that some playwright had turned his clever treatise on society into a lot of stabbings and naked breasts? Caveman hunters who were irritated that the cave paintings were a distortion of the reality of hunting? Hmm?

I think ultimately success in writing is a bit like success in Formula One racing. You can fake it by buying a place in a team but you still have to work at least hard enough to avoid being a hazard - most of The Guardian's writers are like this, they're b-list writers who can churn out a column and have the right contacts but would fail totally for the most part on their own. For most writers you need lots of hard work and practice to succeed. And you need to keep plugging at it, *but* demoralisingly unless you live near a race track and your dad is personal friends with a team boss you're not like to get a chance. A broken leg can topple you at any time, and if you want to be a national figure you have to accept that you need an infrastructure around you, an investment, and you're not going to get that unless you can convince people that you're going all the way to the FA Cup. And ultimately your job will consist mostly of filling out forms, with very little time for writing.

That's what happened to Douglas Adams, isn't it? He ended up having to fill out lots of forms, and he got bored and stopped writing as a consequence. And then he got bored with life and disappeared - I don't buy the official story at all.

+

post more things on ILX, Ashley Pomeroy

-

and I remember wondering whether I should do something about tax. Or if I should just not bother.
you may be going to jail