Not sure Pitchfork ever really did the new very well either, though maybe you're not saying otherwise.
As a European, my memory of the old Pitchfork, before electronic music became something indie people in America have to like to be cool, was a lot of incredibly dumb reviews. For example reviewing house or techno music and making fun of …
Not sure Pitchfork ever really did the new very well either, though maybe you're not saying otherwise.
As a European, my memory of the old Pitchfork, before electronic music became something indie people in America have to like to be cool, was a lot of incredibly dumb reviews. For example reviewing house or techno music and making fun of the fact the "lyrics" were "move your body" or something rather than the 'deeply meaningful' faux-poetry of whatever indie rock band.
In recent years I've sometimes found interesting articles on there in a sort of older person broadsheet way, the long lists of something like ambient music albums, the classic album articles, for instance. Or Phil Sherburne's work. But I completely agree a lot of poptimist writing is terrible and it has plenty of that too.
In general, and it's not just on massive sites like Pitchfork, I tend to think a lot of today's bad music writers pad out their inability to talk about sound or subcultures and their lack of budget/energy to really find out about scenes or leave their desk with the kind of barely political academic bromides about bodies and spaces that everyone who reads this blog is probably sick of by now, regardless of our respective politics.
This is particularly rife in electronic music where at the best of times it's hard to say why this person turned the dials in a way that sounds amazing and this person didn't, but I see it in most arts journalism and it is dispiriting.
No surprise really, since the arts degrees which prepared these writers for the unenviable life of freelance music journalism also pad out their lack of substance with shitty academic cliches masquerading as meaningful analysis.
Was Pitchfork ever anti-electronic? I mean, electroclash was the shit in Brooklyn circa 2000 or so, meaning embracing electronics was pretty fundamental to modern indie-rock.
Now, I do remember circa the mid 2000s when Pitchfork decided all of the sudden they had to uncritically love mainstream rap and R&B. That was really, really weird, even in retrospect.
It was for a bit, it seems weird now I know but it definitely was. I could probably dig out some reviews, I'm talking about 2001/2002. There was a time when their reviews had the vibe of one person having a laugh or riffing on stuff - I hated it as an earnest 19-year-old techno fan but it seems less bad than the current shitty thesis approach.
I don't think electroclash was ever that big on Pitchfork really? I was writing a lot about music myself back then and it didn't really permeate too much as far as I recall, and I was really into a lot of that stuff.
Then for a long time they kind of ignored club music until a pivot which prob came whenever faster broadband was rife and with the ease of access to a lot more underground electronic stuff. At least that's my theory.
No longer any need to go to a nightclub to be into nightclub music. Kinda sad given the death of nightlife in many cities.
I dunno. I sort of feel like Kid A was what broke down the electronic barrier within Indie. Not that Radiohead was ever really that indie, but I had been active within the IDM "scene" for a few years (even as a musician, on a local level), and it was notable the kind of people going to shows/making music with laptops suddenly shifted from nerds/former goths/industrial folks to indie-rock kids basically overnight.
I guess that was a big thing. I probably speak more for stuff that sells (or sold) on 12-inch and was made to be DJ'ed. I think that took a longer time to merge into indie in the ways it did, probably again significant when Thom Yorke DJ'ed on Boiler Room playing whatever shit he liked, haha.
Yeah, that could be different. I was never really into that section of electronic music in a big way aside from a handful of D&B and psytrance artists.
Not sure Pitchfork ever really did the new very well either, though maybe you're not saying otherwise.
As a European, my memory of the old Pitchfork, before electronic music became something indie people in America have to like to be cool, was a lot of incredibly dumb reviews. For example reviewing house or techno music and making fun of the fact the "lyrics" were "move your body" or something rather than the 'deeply meaningful' faux-poetry of whatever indie rock band.
In recent years I've sometimes found interesting articles on there in a sort of older person broadsheet way, the long lists of something like ambient music albums, the classic album articles, for instance. Or Phil Sherburne's work. But I completely agree a lot of poptimist writing is terrible and it has plenty of that too.
In general, and it's not just on massive sites like Pitchfork, I tend to think a lot of today's bad music writers pad out their inability to talk about sound or subcultures and their lack of budget/energy to really find out about scenes or leave their desk with the kind of barely political academic bromides about bodies and spaces that everyone who reads this blog is probably sick of by now, regardless of our respective politics.
This is particularly rife in electronic music where at the best of times it's hard to say why this person turned the dials in a way that sounds amazing and this person didn't, but I see it in most arts journalism and it is dispiriting.
No surprise really, since the arts degrees which prepared these writers for the unenviable life of freelance music journalism also pad out their lack of substance with shitty academic cliches masquerading as meaningful analysis.
Was Pitchfork ever anti-electronic? I mean, electroclash was the shit in Brooklyn circa 2000 or so, meaning embracing electronics was pretty fundamental to modern indie-rock.
Now, I do remember circa the mid 2000s when Pitchfork decided all of the sudden they had to uncritically love mainstream rap and R&B. That was really, really weird, even in retrospect.
It was for a bit, it seems weird now I know but it definitely was. I could probably dig out some reviews, I'm talking about 2001/2002. There was a time when their reviews had the vibe of one person having a laugh or riffing on stuff - I hated it as an earnest 19-year-old techno fan but it seems less bad than the current shitty thesis approach.
I don't think electroclash was ever that big on Pitchfork really? I was writing a lot about music myself back then and it didn't really permeate too much as far as I recall, and I was really into a lot of that stuff.
Then for a long time they kind of ignored club music until a pivot which prob came whenever faster broadband was rife and with the ease of access to a lot more underground electronic stuff. At least that's my theory.
No longer any need to go to a nightclub to be into nightclub music. Kinda sad given the death of nightlife in many cities.
I dunno. I sort of feel like Kid A was what broke down the electronic barrier within Indie. Not that Radiohead was ever really that indie, but I had been active within the IDM "scene" for a few years (even as a musician, on a local level), and it was notable the kind of people going to shows/making music with laptops suddenly shifted from nerds/former goths/industrial folks to indie-rock kids basically overnight.
I guess that was a big thing. I probably speak more for stuff that sells (or sold) on 12-inch and was made to be DJ'ed. I think that took a longer time to merge into indie in the ways it did, probably again significant when Thom Yorke DJ'ed on Boiler Room playing whatever shit he liked, haha.
Yeah, that could be different. I was never really into that section of electronic music in a big way aside from a handful of D&B and psytrance artists.