
Condé Nast Buys Pitchfork Media - uptown
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/14/business/media/conde-nast-buys-pitchfork-media.html
======
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.

~~~
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.

~~~
kenko
> 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

Frankly, I'd think being associated with The New Yorker and GQ would harm
Pitchfork's image more than help it.

~~~
firstworldman
Well, first of all, these kinds of things are really just insider baseball,
aren't they? I don't think most readers of magazines are interested in or
knowledgeable about the portfolio of the magazine publisher. So the influence
is primarily on people involved in the industry. But secondly, as the other
commenter points out, being associated with The New Yorker is something that
just about any journalistic enterprise would die for.

I suspect the web will eventually cannibalize GQ (not because it's bad, but
because it's not specific enough), but The New Yorker will outlive us all.

------
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/](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.

~~~
sharkweek
Yeah, definitely don't love hearing that, but if they let Mark Richardson keep
running the editorial side of things, I'm less concerned. That guy has done
wonders for the site over the past 10 years.

------
JonnieCache
For a taste of the archetypical pitchfork style, read any of their radiohead
reviews:

[http://pitchfork.com/artists/3512-radiohead/](http://pitchfork.com/artists/3512-radiohead/)

The classic is the Kid A one:
[http://pitchfork.com/reviews/albums/6656-kid-a/](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](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.)

~~~
sharkweek
Not that I'm trying to defend the ridiculousness of that sentence, but Brent
DiCrescenzo was pretty notorious for being sarcastic and witty. I was always
under the impression he was writing that infamous Kid A review intentionally
gratuitous

~~~
tb303
Yes, Brent had a fairly famous meltdown known as his Beastie Boys / To the 5
Boroughs review.

[http://bbs.beastieboys.com/showthread.php?t=21070](http://bbs.beastieboys.com/showthread.php?t=21070)

(retraction info here:
[http://bbs.beastieboys.com/showpost.php?s=1da97f1e4c1a2a3b6d...](http://bbs.beastieboys.com/showpost.php?s=1da97f1e4c1a2a3b6d21bb379192ae99&p=285589&postcount=9))

there's a good chance that absurdity was deliberate.

------
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?

~~~
jmduke
The usual routes, I think (which is to say I didn't really go out of my way to
discover music): friends & family, the radio, The O.C. soundtrack.

------
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.

~~~
rrego
I should have clarified, by saying the individual sites have low merit,
despite serving an important function. But, this is just a personal opinion;
After reading several of their reviews that were anecdotally driven,
influenced by hype, and just logorrheic. It's also difficult to be aware of
the bias in a publication with several writers.

Pitchfork today, which still wields that same influence, is different from
that of even 5 years ago, or when I last read it. Looking at the reviews from
today, they are actually pretty restrained and informative.

~~~
6stringmerc
Ah, yeah I follow you a bit better now. I'm not going to vouch for their
review style, but the existence of them is what has drawn me to the site
pretty much every day. Personally I worry a lot less about author bias in
something like Pitchfork than I would in Rolling Stone or, without naming
names, a music-oriented magazine that is mostly pay-for-print content (they do
exist).

------
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/](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](http://www.thequietus.com))

------
tptacek
_It brings “a very passionate audience of millennial males into our roster,”
he said._

Oof.

~~~
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?

~~~
tptacek
Nothing; it's just uncomfortable when someone has a bead on you. The same
feeling as being at an NMH show a year or so ago and noticing that I was in a
sea of beards and flannel shirts.

------
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](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...](http://www.redditblog.com/2013/08/reddit-myth-
busters_6.html#independent-reddit-inc)

~~~
DaveWalk
My apologies. I guess I have to now call Reddit “part-sibling-once-removed” of
Condé Nast.

------
whatok
Is Pitchfork still cool with hipsters?

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

------
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.

