Idolator
Chicago Sun-Times critic Jim DeRogatis starts off his chat with Pitchfork head honcho Ryan Schreiber by asking if forthcoming video venture Pitchfork.TV will work off "the YouTube or YouPorn model," and things get stranger from there. Also much more argumentative! The whole q-and-a session, which is full of questions about Pitchfork's "new model" and how it affects the idea of Pitchfork as critical enterprise, whether or not Schreiber sees himself as the new Jann Wenner, and the obligatory mention of the evilness of MTV, clocks in around 3,500 words—and that's not even counting the DeRogatis-penned intro and the slightly defensive e-mail Schreiber sends along after the two signed off. After the jump a few highlights, for those of you whose "tl; dr" filter clicked on after seeing that word count.
DeRogatis' magical Pitchfork score: 9.4. He mentions that number three times when giving examples of how bands blessed by the "Best New Music" tag could fare in Pitchfork's other business dealings—a high-rated band dealing with low-viewership video on Pitchfork.TV, for example, or the prospect of bands feeling "bullied" by Pitchfork into participating in their other ventures because they're afraid of getting dinged with a low rating. Why 9.4, though? Is it a Lost spoiler?
Schreiber wasn't allowed to stay up late and watch The Cutting Edge and 120 Minutes as a child. "I watched MTV all the time growing up. I was obsessed with music all throughout my childhood, and I watched it incessantly. And, um, as I got more turned on to music, I was like, 'Why was there never anything like this on MTV? Why was there no exposure for these things anywhere else so I could have heard it, being as big a music fan as I was my entire life, and only discovering independent music and alternative rock at like 13?' "
DeRogatis thinks that MTV founder Bob Pittman is "Satan!" Stereogum not available for comment.
Schreiber uses that sweet Pitchfork revenue to... pay off his parking tickets. The rock and roll lifestyle: It doesn't really mesh with the whole "alternate side of the street" concept.
DeRogatis is still kinda bitter about that whole Hootie and the Blowfish incident, but he won't come out and say it. Replying to Schreiber's assertion that everything he does now is borne of sincere impulses: "Well, by all of the accounts I've read, that was what Jann Wenner was like at first. When he was taking acid with the Grateful Dead in '67, he was sincere, too." Insert your own adjective for how DeRo thinks Wenner behaves now here.
Pitchfork doesn't like everything that every Animal Collective member oozes out. See?
"Synergy" is a four-letter word in DeRogatis' book. Much of the back-and-forth between the two revolves around the idea of Pitchfork, heretofore regarded as a predominantly critical enterprise, getting into the business end of promoting bands through the Music Festival, Pitchfork.TV, and picking out wildly inappropriate songs for video games. First, I'd argue that the Forkcast and the news section, both of which are less critically focused than the reviews that have been Pitchfork's bread and butter for so long and more in tune with the "new" and keeping readers informed, have a heightened prominence and importance in the RSS age. Second, while I understand his qualms about critical enterprises getting involved in the promotion of bands, and have for a while—hello, blogs!—I do have to say that if yesterday's review of Ghostland Observatory's Robotique Majestique inspires the inspid duo to stay far, far away from this year's Pitchfork Music Festival, which takes place July 18-20, the consequences aren't 100% bad.
Is Pitchfork a media empire? Yes. No. Maybe, but not really! From the e-mail Schreiber sent to Derogatis after their conversation ended: "If we were interested in broadening our readership or viewership or trying to be all things to all people, the logical step would be to start trying to get interested in records with a little more widespread appeal. But then we wouldn't be covering what we liked, or what our readers like; our lives would be a living hell listening to all that garbage and our readers would understandably turn their backs. Staying true to our vision of Pitchfork and what it represents is the easiest thing in the world for us because we aren't tempted by the alternatives." I can't help but wonder if the fact that those alternatives are currently floundering around in search of a business model is helping along that conviction at least a bit.
Pitchfork founder and indie-rock tastemaker Ryan Schreiber talks about branching out to TV and video game soundtracks while keeping the integrity in his Web zine's journalism and criticism. Can it be done? [Jim DeRogatis' Blog]
[DeRogatis pic via jimdero.com; Schreiber pic via NYM]
Comments
You know, I tried to read DeRogatis' book but I found him a pretty classic blowhard and pretty wrongheaded. Nothing I've come across since then has swayed me from that opinion. Seriously, the guy annoys me to no end.
DeRogatis is a living, breathing ham sandwich. The proof of this is in the simple fact that he's the music editor (or whatever) for the Sun Fucking Times.
His musical opinions all junior high and shit.
However, he used to play in a band called Vortis with a guy name Weinstein (sp?) , and they were really funny.
I find him more and more intolerable on "Sound Opinions". He just sounds like a cranky old man most of the time. However, for those of you on the anti "Vampire Weekend" team, he absolutely tore them a new one in his review a couple of weeks back. That being said, he never came out and said the album was bad, he just obviously, and for reasons stated here, hated the band. I thought it was just a lazy and weak review.
[www.theonion.com]
As true today as when it was written.
yeah jim's opinion matters about as much as idolators.
I heard that Vampire Weekend review, too. It sounded like something I would say if given a national platform. That is not a compliment.
Ryan Adams is not a fan.
Schreiber's whole "If our intentions are noble and we're true to ourselves, nothing bad will happen" attitude towards any appearance of impropriety reeks of a destructive naivete. If people start to perceive any kind of inverse correlation between a band's willingness to support Pitchfork.tv and their album reviews, the ship will start to sink.
I suspect the readership is more willing to tolerate the current "holier-than-thou hipster d-bag" perception of the site than any kind of quid pro quo marketing machine image that could develop.
@digitallofi: I agree, I pushed all the way through Milk It and it was a valuable exercise in reading criticism where I agreed in substance (Give Urge Overkill a chance!), but found the reasoning/arguments to be completely wrongheaded. My music collection probably looks a lot like his, but I can't stand the writing.
Can't we all just enjoy the next 3-6 years before Pitchfork gets shitty and complacent and turns into Darth Vader?
Re: "Sound Opinions" (thanks, disinterested 3rd party for bringing that up): I have long disliked DeRogatis's writing and, frankly, his tastes/general attitude toward rock and pop. But I feel like with the radio show/podcast, he's finally found his calling.
If you find him infuriating, he's not much less infuriating on the show, but he gives a show like that what it needs: a Simon Cowell-like personality. You can disagree with him, but he gives Greg Kot something to debate about and the listenership a target for either their chin-wagging or their ire.
Frankly, if he could ditch the Sun-Times and do the radio show full-time (I know, fat chance), I'd probably enjoy him more in general.
wow... that's a lot of !!!!!!!!!'s in one interview. it must have been a seriously loud discussion.
Boy, that sure made Ryan look good. Jim's kinda asking the wrong questions there. Besides the fact that every mag everywhere trades ad buys for good reviews, Pitchfork's biggest asset is their credibility. That was never the case with MTV, certainly. It seems really implausible that they'd cavalierly throw away what they've spent so long carefully building up. And I mean, c'mon, is a band really going to say, "Well, we don't want Pitchfork to cover our concert or put us in their festival, but I guess we have to..." Who doesn't want Pitchfork to cover them?
@Chris Molanphy: I agree with all you said about Sound Opinions. I think it's a great show, good guests etc. I just think Dero...(Roga?) has moved aggressively out of the demo for the type of music I like. And I'm 40.
Pitchfork Media:Idolator as CAA:Defamer as ESPN:Deadspin.
@SuperUnison: Turns into Darth Vader? Didn't that like, happen sometime during the second season of "The O.C."?
@Dick Malone: Excellent point. It isn't like, given that P4k already want to cover them in some capacity, they're gonna be like "and can you changed the 'girl we couldn't get much higher'" line.
@the rich girls are weeping: Not that I know of, but (to extend the analogy) Stereogum has probably already turned into grand moff tarkin, so maybe my prediction is off.
@gorillavsmarykate: How is Gawker Media going to be a multimillion dollar underdog (for to justify the ad hominem stuff and the snarkiness)without ubiquitous enemies?
C'mon Maura. Ghostland Observatory wouldn't play Pitchfork, it would be a step back after playing Lollapalooza twice.
It's like Godzilla vs. Mothra. I don't know who to vote for or boo.
Derogatis also puts too much importance on the reviews part of Pitchfork, which hasn't been the "key" of the site for years. Sure, it seems that way on the surface, but saying that narrow review section on the middle of the page is still Pitchfork's most important content is like saying the Queen is still the important part of UK politics. The features, the Forkcast, the News.... these are all the key items for current success. Without a constant churn of new content coming in, posts every 8 minutes, more and more new mp3s, videos, tour update postings, Pitchfork (or *any* site trying to make a go of it) would be floundering. You can't make a living of lengthy, well-written essays! The key in today's age is a constantly-updated broad offering of content; and Pitchfork is opening up a whole new area of content to offer up to their readers now. So, yes, sure, Pitchfork is "critical" and "journalistic," but c'mon, that's like 15 or 20% of their overall-- the rest is pretty much all promo and entertainment (and there's nothing necessarily wrong with that!)
HAW, DeRo's so out of it, we're so in. Curmudgeonly fat cracker don't know. **beams awesomely to twee post-ironic self**
Ghostland Observatory is awesome and that's it.
That guy is the best frontman since Howlin' Pelle Almqvist.
Comment on this post
Reply by EmailLogin with your username and password below. Or comment on this post via email.
Forgot your username or password? New User?