Really hard to take a history of Pitchfork that does not contain the term "poptimism" seriously, and as I've said many times, the coyness over this change mostly speaks to the fear white dudes such as yourself have when it comes to acknowledging the ideological takeover of music criticism by pop supremacism. I'm glad the publication got less "dude-y," but it came to totally reject the very genres that had once made it, and it did so for straightforwardly self-defensive political reasons, not artistic or critical ones.
The word you hit upon- "imprimatur"- denotes a non-talked-about, but super-important aspect of life as a musician in 2024.
More than ever, in order to find and engage an audience of any significant size, you need an imprimatur from someone they trust; and it's harder to get/earn one than ever.
Signing to a label used to be one, but not so much anymore; landing in Pitchfork or Decibel used to be one too. So it's a loss for all of us to have one less place to seek the necessary approval for our work, whether we'd have fit in with PF's aesthetic or not.
I have been reading Pitchfork probably since it started, and for a music review site I read once a week I have all kinds of feelings about it going away. Definitely nostalgia for the MP3 blog days in college, dowloading lots of Klaxons remixes and whatnot. The site had changed a lot over time. I may not like to some of the music they've focused on recently, but that's ok, I think. It's not all about me. I have grown out of only listening to white dude guitar bands over the years. The Sunday review, I have been looking forward to every week.
The Sunday retrospectives have been great - some of my favorite Pitchfork content. It was always a nice mix of the expected and obscure (at least to me). With the move to GQ, the breadth and depth seems at risk.
What's wrong with Jamiroquai? This is exactly what I hated about Pitchfork -- that certain music was off-limits, not because it was objectively "bad" but because it somehow wasn't "indie".
That's fair. Jamiroquai had to catch a stray there as a stand-in for the unnecessary expansion of Pitchfork coverage. But I'm on the record as a fan of those first two records; I think fake Stevie Wonder is better than a lot of the wimpy R&B that passes by today. I wasn't trying to be a snob--but I get that interpretation--as much as I was just trying to say that no modern publication should try to cover *everything* because it loses what makes it special.
Pitchfork was a big part of how my social group found music back in the late 00s, and it's been a huge force socially too. I always had mixed feelings about it, since it hated all the music I love and loved all the music I thought sucked. But in retrospect I'm deeply glad it had such a powerful perspective, it wasn't afraid to have a taste of its own. That's one thing that's become somewhat unfashionable in music criticism now- being broad-minded and "chill" is the highest value. Great essay.
Fascinating piece and perspective, thanks. That Constantines album review was one of the first that really resonated with me - made me so excited to check it out (and it’s still awesome).
Great obituary, and I enjoyed your linked review of the Bizarre Ride box set! I feel like Pitchfork has been on a steady decline for decades, I’ve routinely visited it to confirm that an album that I thought was good (or bad) would be inappropriately graded. For me, the last straw was the revisionist re-grading of albums they would slam decades prior... what a cop out, own your incorrect elitism! Despite their flaws, they were influential and promoted a lot of great artists and had a lot of talented writers. It’s a shame they are gone but not necessarily all that shocking. The way people consume music is so different now that a curation/reviewing tool of its ilk has far less value to this generation of music listeners/creators.
A lot of people were upset with them changing scores but I just don't get that at all - I change my mind about albums and songs all the time. Pitchfork as a team of different people will feel predictably very differently about an art than different staff from 15 years ago.
For an average listener to change their mind about a song or album is fine. And I understand that music styles and genres alter with the zeitgeist of the time, but if you earn a living doling out reviews with the implication that your opinions are bigger and more important than the average listener and present your brand as an arbiter of taste that essentially makes or breaks artist careers than you should have the knowledge and ability to make reviews that are, if not timeless, at least, more sensitive to broader cultural trends that can sway over time. If they cannot do this, they should tread more lightly. I say this because many great artists who have gotten essentially panned with a mid review didn't make future albums or didn't see financial reward for their great, unrecognized album(s). If Pitchfork recognizes something as brilliant 25 years late, that's sad for the artists who are broken up or destitute and could have used the validation at the time. I guess it's just the nature of the beast, but I think you'd agree that reviewers should be held to the same level of scrutiny that they themselves apply to artists.
Just wanted to reach out and say that the Sunday reviews have been my favourite feature in discovering new old music and getting som really good cultural context for great albums. I hope you continue to write those types of features here on substack!
Cold War Kids, ha! This captured all the nostalgia of the blog-hunting days perfectly - opening 400 bookmarked pages every day to feverishly download mp3s because someone interesting was saying something interesting about them was such an arduous delight. Man, I hope Pitchfork festival doesn’t become GQ-palooza.
As always, a thoughtful piece. I was happy when I started to see your byline at Pitchfork after reading your stuff elsewhere, and always checked on Sunday to see if you were that week's writer (I've referred back to the Sugar recap more than a few times). Pitchfork turned me onto to some great music over the past 25 years, and the festival was/is still the best. Looking forward to your new venture.
Thank you for writing this, Eric.
Damn, I just discovered Pitchfork like fuckin 6 months ago lol. Anyway, thanks for Girl in red, Beabadoibee (‘Care’!) and probably many others!
Really hard to take a history of Pitchfork that does not contain the term "poptimism" seriously, and as I've said many times, the coyness over this change mostly speaks to the fear white dudes such as yourself have when it comes to acknowledging the ideological takeover of music criticism by pop supremacism. I'm glad the publication got less "dude-y," but it came to totally reject the very genres that had once made it, and it did so for straightforwardly self-defensive political reasons, not artistic or critical ones.
The word you hit upon- "imprimatur"- denotes a non-talked-about, but super-important aspect of life as a musician in 2024.
More than ever, in order to find and engage an audience of any significant size, you need an imprimatur from someone they trust; and it's harder to get/earn one than ever.
Signing to a label used to be one, but not so much anymore; landing in Pitchfork or Decibel used to be one too. So it's a loss for all of us to have one less place to seek the necessary approval for our work, whether we'd have fit in with PF's aesthetic or not.
I have been reading Pitchfork probably since it started, and for a music review site I read once a week I have all kinds of feelings about it going away. Definitely nostalgia for the MP3 blog days in college, dowloading lots of Klaxons remixes and whatnot. The site had changed a lot over time. I may not like to some of the music they've focused on recently, but that's ok, I think. It's not all about me. I have grown out of only listening to white dude guitar bands over the years. The Sunday review, I have been looking forward to every week.
Brilliant story telling here, of the early days of music blogging and such.
The Sunday retrospectives have been great - some of my favorite Pitchfork content. It was always a nice mix of the expected and obscure (at least to me). With the move to GQ, the breadth and depth seems at risk.
What's wrong with Jamiroquai? This is exactly what I hated about Pitchfork -- that certain music was off-limits, not because it was objectively "bad" but because it somehow wasn't "indie".
That's fair. Jamiroquai had to catch a stray there as a stand-in for the unnecessary expansion of Pitchfork coverage. But I'm on the record as a fan of those first two records; I think fake Stevie Wonder is better than a lot of the wimpy R&B that passes by today. I wasn't trying to be a snob--but I get that interpretation--as much as I was just trying to say that no modern publication should try to cover *everything* because it loses what makes it special.
It's funk without any actual human funkiness, like funk designed and produced in a corporate boardroom. Hey you asked.
Pitchfork was a big part of how my social group found music back in the late 00s, and it's been a huge force socially too. I always had mixed feelings about it, since it hated all the music I love and loved all the music I thought sucked. But in retrospect I'm deeply glad it had such a powerful perspective, it wasn't afraid to have a taste of its own. That's one thing that's become somewhat unfashionable in music criticism now- being broad-minded and "chill" is the highest value. Great essay.
Fascinating piece and perspective, thanks. That Constantines album review was one of the first that really resonated with me - made me so excited to check it out (and it’s still awesome).
I was hoping you'd have circled back to Constantines.
Great obituary, and I enjoyed your linked review of the Bizarre Ride box set! I feel like Pitchfork has been on a steady decline for decades, I’ve routinely visited it to confirm that an album that I thought was good (or bad) would be inappropriately graded. For me, the last straw was the revisionist re-grading of albums they would slam decades prior... what a cop out, own your incorrect elitism! Despite their flaws, they were influential and promoted a lot of great artists and had a lot of talented writers. It’s a shame they are gone but not necessarily all that shocking. The way people consume music is so different now that a curation/reviewing tool of its ilk has far less value to this generation of music listeners/creators.
A lot of people were upset with them changing scores but I just don't get that at all - I change my mind about albums and songs all the time. Pitchfork as a team of different people will feel predictably very differently about an art than different staff from 15 years ago.
For an average listener to change their mind about a song or album is fine. And I understand that music styles and genres alter with the zeitgeist of the time, but if you earn a living doling out reviews with the implication that your opinions are bigger and more important than the average listener and present your brand as an arbiter of taste that essentially makes or breaks artist careers than you should have the knowledge and ability to make reviews that are, if not timeless, at least, more sensitive to broader cultural trends that can sway over time. If they cannot do this, they should tread more lightly. I say this because many great artists who have gotten essentially panned with a mid review didn't make future albums or didn't see financial reward for their great, unrecognized album(s). If Pitchfork recognizes something as brilliant 25 years late, that's sad for the artists who are broken up or destitute and could have used the validation at the time. I guess it's just the nature of the beast, but I think you'd agree that reviewers should be held to the same level of scrutiny that they themselves apply to artists.
Just wanted to reach out and say that the Sunday reviews have been my favourite feature in discovering new old music and getting som really good cultural context for great albums. I hope you continue to write those types of features here on substack!
I take a different perspective in my mini-rant about the death of Pitchfork: https://open.substack.com/pub/indoorcondor/p/taking-shots-at-platformer-or-why?r=ezmke&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web
Cold War Kids, ha! This captured all the nostalgia of the blog-hunting days perfectly - opening 400 bookmarked pages every day to feverishly download mp3s because someone interesting was saying something interesting about them was such an arduous delight. Man, I hope Pitchfork festival doesn’t become GQ-palooza.
As always, a thoughtful piece. I was happy when I started to see your byline at Pitchfork after reading your stuff elsewhere, and always checked on Sunday to see if you were that week's writer (I've referred back to the Sugar recap more than a few times). Pitchfork turned me onto to some great music over the past 25 years, and the festival was/is still the best. Looking forward to your new venture.