Pitchfork Pre-Acquisition
Remember back in the day when music artists were genuinely fearful of what acclaimed music-media critics had to say about their art? The masses threw their eggs into one basket because we were told that pretension equates to intelligence, and we ran off with that narrative, all wide-eyed and ready for an album review to quote like the bible.
This isn’t to say music journalism is a lost art form, because it’s not. However, monopolized music journalism has taken over. Indie publishing houses dedicated to opinionated, individual music journalism, or even a slightly less commercialized music magazine, can make the difference between a publication publishing a review to please, versus publishing a review because that is the true opinion of its editors. Why has Pitchfork stopped striking a nerve in its readers like the good ol’ days? Condé Nast views truth as a liability. Or are our music tastes shifting to a more slop-pop-centric flavor?
As with any successful publication, you’ll anger the odd reader. Good music is in the ear of the beholder, sure, but it’s safe to say that some music is objectively critically acclaimed while other tunes are not. The one thing Pitchfork had above other music publications? They were honest, unforgiving, and sometimes, downright harsh. Any magazine that willingly (and ungenerously) scores Amy Winehouse’s Back to Black a 6.4/10 or Nicki Minaj’s Pink Friday a 6.5/10 has its work cut out for it. Pitchfork was never officially crowned the end-all be-all of musical taste-making. However, the magazine competed well with Rolling Stone, and the editorial staff discovered how they could maintain their readership despite the rather disagreeable music reviews they shared with millions.
@rapisfunn on X via smuckersbytyler on Instagram
Some would argue that even before Condé Nast acquired the magazine, the editors were far too pretentious, album reviews were considerably too editor-specific, and were not open to alternative perspectives. Journalism does not exist to please; it exists to inform. Pitchfork, pre-Condé Nast, had reader-angering opinions, but it also had individuality. In continuing to publish this type of content before Condé Nast took them by the headphones, the magazine indirectly maintained its position that independent journalism should emphasize an editor’s true opinion.
Condé Nast Has a Reputation to Uphold
All good things must come to an end someday, and in the 21st century, that takes the form of mass media monopolies acquiring independent businesses. Condé Nast, one of the most influential mass media companies in print and digital journalism, owns Vogue, The New Yorker, GQ, Glamour, and Architectural Digest, among many others. It’s safe to say that they acquire well-received, authoritative taste-makers in their respective genres and industries, but with this comes a certain level of caution.
A mass media company as reputable as Condé Nast does not only have Pitchfork on the line, but also their respective brands under the same journalistic umbrella. This is speculative, but it makes sense as to why Pitchfork has dropped the ball on criticism and instead opts for people-pleasing reviews that do not jeopardize their traffic. Upon looking at Pitchfork’s album reviews page, the first 12 albums listed (except Ed Sheeran’s most recent album, Play) receive a score of six or greater. Citing an old rating key, Pitchfork explains that a 6.0-6.9 suggests the album “has its moments, but isn't strong.” Out of the random 12 albums most recently listed under their album reviews tab, eight received above a 7.0 rating, a few making it into the lower to mid-eight range. Is there just better music out there nowadays? Can we put Justin Bieber's SWAG at a 7.3 in good faith when Winehouse’s final studio album received nearly one whole point lower? Call me a music snob, but it reeks of excessive ‘poptimism’, which is the belief that pop music is just as worthy of musical criticism as other genres are.
Pitchfork, Stans, and Other Music Magazines are Spearheading Hyper-Poptimism
The rise of hyper-stan culture has not made anything easier on journalists. The leaders of Gen Z stan culture, Taylor Swift-obsessed fans who call themselves Swifties, have directly harassed Pitchfork’s writers, most notably in 2020. Swift’s eighth studio album, Folklore, received an 8.0 rating paired with a glowing review of the singer’s creative vision in tandem with her effortless vocals and picture-esque lyricism. Even still, Swifties were not satisfied and took to the internet to express their outrage. The editor who rated the album, Jillian Mapes, was then doxxed by Taylor Swift fans who found the review to be dishonest and stingy. Now, super-stans have the upper hand regarding music magazines that garner mass influence, because nobody wants their fave being put through the wringer by an intellectual media critic. It’s isolating to feel as though a music journalist has it out for you and believes your music taste is bad, but equally as harmful to create a void of any opposing discourse and honest conversations about, well, objectively “bad” music. Former readers and contributors share a similar sentiment and lament that Pitchfork has been successfully “gutted and then tossed aside by some executives who are trying to overthink their way toward a few more points of revenue.”
Additionally, what’s with the album re-reviews, not only from Pitchfork editorial staff, but also from other reputable music mags like Rolling Stone? Albeit that some albums—cough cough, Back to Black—deserved better. However, writers should stand on business instead of backtracking for the sake of remaining in their readership’s good graces. Pitchfork’s retracing of their steps reads as unreliable. At the very least, keep the writer’s “poor” first review, and tack on the next writer’s re-review onto the first. Magazines like Pitchfork and Rolling Stone gained traction for going against the grain, and it’s a shame that Pitchfork has decided to reduce the flame on their hot takes and go in a different, more ‘poptimistic’ direction.
Pitchfork Disagrees with Me, Obviously
In 2021, Pitchfork boasted that it had “changed for the better” over the years and hoped that loyal readers would agree with that sentiment. Their primary focus on this notion is that music criticism should be both serious and fun. Well, I could have told you that. Music criticism doesn’t have to coddle, and the critics who do so are abandoning the most important part of journalism in its entirety. Many music enthusiasts have stopped listening to Pitchfork’s reviews because their own opinions oppose each respective album reviewer’s take, time and time again. There is a delicate balance between people-pleasing and contrarian pretension, and Pitchfork has yet to find that balance post-Condé Nast acquisition. Maybe it’s finally time to form our own opinions…
