Elbows Music Blog Community

It's so clever I am not surprised they couldn't resist :)

snap

We're fair game, Scott. Dig away. In many cases we (assuming we are a "we") deserve it.

And I'm sure P4k gets very little criticism from the music blogging community...

ask Hogan about my retaliatory Melberg post

ask Hogan about my retaliatory Melberg post

ha, will do -- I missed that one amidst all the anti-Hogan, Sound Team/Anathallo-related comments. Seems Marc has claimed the Sylvester/Ott/DiCrescenzo role and become the new central P4k hate figure.

ALRIGHT SQUASHED JUST CALM DOWN

Seems Marc has claimed the Sylvester/Ott/DiCrescenzo role and become the new central P4k hate figure.

I thoroughly enjoyed the SOUND Team review. I think Marc's a great writer, he's just not afraid to hand off the low score - and writing in constant first person like he does is going to incur a lot more hate mail and emotional responses than if he were to take the more authorative "omnipotent voice" approach.

i'd rather get a dozen hate mails than not, anyway. at least you know you're being read.

Okay... I surely didn't want to start another P4K thread for this, but I found it slightly interesting and figured I'd pick one that was slightly a-pro-pro and bump it.

The Daily Swarm: Pitchfork Editor Takes to Public Forum to Defend Its Greatness... 'I Think You Underestimate How Much Bigger We Are'...

Thoughts?

My thoughts... P4K is what it is, a somewhat douchey & surely full of themselves music blog dressed as a magazine. That's their thing, doesn't effect me one way or the other, right? They are definitely big in the less-than-mainstream music scene, of course, and influential. A good review or a good ranking at year-end does help sales of that album/mp3/etc.

But. At the same time, surely P4K understands that, if the plug was literally pulled right now, after the initial, "hey, wtf happened to p4k?", the world will quickly and easily move on. In fact, the vast majority of humans wouldn't even know they ever existed. That all those who "depend" on pitchfork for their news & reviews would hop over to some other site and make them the next P4K.

Ever see that episode of South Park where Walmart comes to town? What happens after Walmart is destroyed???

Yeah...

Just saying. You know?

Man, I've been a chatty online monkey this morning. Must've spiked my coffee.... Feel free to ignore!

;)

If anything, discussions like these point out the necessarily codependent relationship between the blogs and Pitchfork. And as much as Pitchfork does play king-maker, it also on occasion provides a forum for the collective voice of the blogs. We nominate someone and they use their power to make that someone successful (who many on the blogs then reject, which is another argument for another time).

To me, the discussion is about one's feeling of self-importance in the "internetal age". The dude from p4k think's he's important. But it's music, if his site disappeared tomorrow, there's a bunch more to take his place. P4K is just the example (in this case) of the potentially fun discussion!

I thought lists were just self-indulging link bait.

 __    _____ _____ _____    _____ _____ ____     _____ _____ _____ _____ 
|  |  |     |  |  |   __|  |  _  |   | |    \   |  |  |  _  |_   _|   __|
|  |__|  |  |  |  |   __|  |     | | | |  |  |  |     |     | | | |   __|
|_____|_____|\___/|_____|  |__|__|_|___|____/   |__|__|__|__| |_| |_____|

After reading over The Daily Swarm article, I've decided to chip in a few cents. The issue everyone is addressing with Pitchfork is more complicated than I think people realize. There are several factors at hand:

1. What is "indie? What is "mainstream?"
Is Pitchfork "mainstream" because it has an expansive readership? Is "indie" a genre, a moral/economic stance e.g. DIY or a label like "hipster?" Can "indie" be "mainstream?"

When considering Pitchfork relevance to "indie music" and it's scene, it's important to remember one thing: there is no indie without a mainstream, and there is no mainstream without an indie. Pitchfork is as an authority voice somewhere in the limbo state of indie blogs like mine, and major music magazines like Spin.

If Pitchfork didn't write about bands that were first mentioned on small blogs, than most people wouldn't hear about said bands and those bloggers wouldn't be complaining because no one would be listening.

2. What is the relationship of trend setters, and trends?
Is Pitchfork a trend setter, or a trend? By publicizing content after smaller blogs write about the same content, does that discredit the legitimacy of Pitchfork?

Spin Magazine's "Breaking Out" is like Pitchfork. The artists they claim are "breaking out," broke out in my mind five months earlier on several blogs, and then on Pitchfork before ever reaching print. MGMT's nomination for best new artist in 2010 furthers my point. Laughable, or just the way things go?

3. What is the blog etiquette, versus the journalist stance of reporting on growing trends?
This point is important in considering the format of Pitchfork: magazine or blog?

In the blogging community it's considered "proper" to cite a fellow blogger for introducing a story. Realistically, many bloggers report the same content, though each blog's audience of 100-10,000 doesn't really reach such a large audience that anyone notices whether or not the "proper" citing has been given.

When Pitchfork reports a trend after the fact, people notice due to their expansive readership. Similarly, in journalism (as we once knew it) the NYT or Washington Post would run a "small story" which was first published by a local paper. This would be overlooked on a national scale because unlike the internet, it was difficult to see the original "first hand" source. This is journalism . One guppy eats the other guppy, until the big fish comes along and everyone wants a piece.

4. Is Pitchfork a blog, or an online magazine?

I think Scott's statement that Pitchfork doesn't just write about everything, or anything as soon as it comes out is most pertinent in answering this question. A blog, in essence, is a channeling of thoughts by an individual on a subject. Still, the distinction between a blog and an online music cannot be clearly differentiated as many well defined magazines continue to struggle to make their content available online in a desirable format.

Pitchfork remains is an anomaly platform and example. Pitchfork's commitment to let buzz develop before writing about said buzz is not unusual, but is counter to the blog format of "be the first to report;" however, this said, Pitchfork for many is that "first" because they've never heard of Elbo.ws or HypeMachine.

The importance of this question is decided whether Pitchfork is a a blog, the trend setter, the buzz starter, or the magazine, the amplifier, the station the world tunes into.

Conclusion
These factors, a few of many of the complicated facets of this debate interest me more than bashing Pitchfork, or for that matter, shit talking any mainstream artist that is "diluting good music." When critics asked is "hip hop dead?" it was quick and easy to say "yes, thanks to D4L." It wasn't dead. It isn't dead. It's a great story line. What is dead, is the critics at high levels ability to play more than just one thing, pop music. The music industry today, from almost all angles, is concerned with making money. This means reaching the largest audience. Whether for radio, or for press, the bands, and songs worth mentioning are the ones with the largest audience. Pitchfork just waits for enough blogs to create a buzz before concluding the band is worthy of mention. Similarly, the Grammy's waits for enough print magazines before awarding MGMT "Best New Artist." Don't blame Pitchfork for discovering a marketing tool. The marketing tool has always been there. Motown did it to Stax. Nickelback did it Pearl Jam. Pitchfork did it bloggers. C'est la vie.