Hey guys, it's me from last night's thread: >>61547652
I will start taking questions again and answer some ones I missed from the old thread. Feel free to ask away.
My summary for anyone who's missed:
>I don't work at p4k but I do have plenty of inside info regarding them and all major publications and their writers. I will answer any questions.
>Why did they close Altered Zones?
I honestly don't know. I fucking loved Altered Zones, they were crucial in the big hypnagogic pop scene and they were one of the best parts of P4k. A lot of people (including me) are unclear about why they shut down. Maybe they died out along with the hypnagogic scene they were supporting at the time? I honestly don't know.
>What's in your opinion the most reliable site to discover new music?
Tiny Mix Tapes and RateYourMusic are my personal favorites. I always thought it was up to whatever you decide honestly and how you find it. The little blogs are always great.
does pitchfork genuinely care about black people and feminism?
what are your thoughts on brandon stosuy?
is meredith graves as much of a careerist cunt as she seems to be?
how did pitchfork muster up the shamelessness to book r. kelly as a fest headliner?
oh, and what are your thoughts on poptimism and the way P4K has managed to convince animal collective and arcade-fire loving hipsters to take taylor swift and ariana grande seriously?
how much longer do you think poptimism will last?
>does pitchfork genuinely care about black people and feminism?
i mean, i bet there are some people there that care about all those issues but it's mainly just them latching onto the Internet slacktivist bandwagon, where somehow "defending" these rights gets them clicks, and that's what's trendy i guess.
he's nice. i've talked with him a few times. he can be a bit too predictable sometimes, though.
pretty much. she's very stuck-up and i don't know why. i actually dug some of PP's music but she just seems so unbearable. Cokemachineglow made fun of her on twitter recently (I mentioned this in previous thread) where they said something like "if you don't like perfect pussy you're a mean misogynist!!!"
one word: money. it goes from both ends of the spectrum, and lots of advertising.
Scaruffi is a literal nobody, I have no idea why this board thinks anyone gives a shit about him or sees him as an actual music critic as opposed to just some guy with a website.
i'm kinda angered by it and p4k's recent coverage of pop music is fueled by these big labels reaching out to them and offering them more deals. Conde Nast's parent film trailer company is probably using some of this Top 40 pop in their trailers and that probably explains why.
Explain Payola, its is actually running Pitchfork? Yes.
It's about commerce, iTunes, Beats 1... Business... money interests.
They only hype and praise artists that got them more popular visits-wise
Poptism = more money !?
no but it's honestly hard to make this shit up dude, and i'm not pretending like most of the fake threads you see on here, i'm going pretty in-depth. believe me or not, i don't care.
i don't know how many p4k writers know about him, but i see a small number of people reference him (namely musicians) and he's known as a wise old man, but i'm afraid it's mostly just this if you asked a p4k writer online:
oh yeah dude, the payola shit is totally killing pitchfork. like i said, pitchfork used to be fine all of those years before conde nast took over and they became corporate, but now they're running iTunes and Beats ads and it's just disgusting. i can understand someone to make a living but jesus.
i don't understand, sorry. is that a question?
could you maybe expand on that last bit some more?
read the previous thread. the stuff i'm saying is pretty hard to make up on the spot and i'm going in-depth here, i mean, compare my posts to all the fake AMAs you've seen on here.
Why aren't journalistic music publications employing anyone with a University degree in Musicology or similar fields?
You know, someone who's equipped with the actual tools to analyze and dissect music?
Why is David Bowie is accepted? He is like the more boring artist nowdays..... i mean fucking 8.5.
the audience obviously is ever changing retard. the main demographic is probably people first discovering music on their own. usually kids in their early teens. that population grows up quick but its easily replaced.
i don't know. i hope it happens soon. they seem to be on their last legs.
there will always be brainless who are followers, especially to a major site like pitchfork. so much shit has happened with them recently that's it's honestly sort of hard to tell.
probably because those people with a degree are too intelligent and p4k look for people who they can hire so that they can tell them what to do, tell them to acquire all of these pr firms and shit, that sorta thing.
I don't know about specific people, as I really don't "admire" that many, but some of the top writers at The Wire and Quietus are great reviewers. I honestly like reviewers that try to do something avant-garde with their writing style.
What was the most recent year when Pitchfork had any integrity?
yes it can. it cant be objectively evaluated. obviously how much someone likes something is an opinion. but people who study music and its histories and progress and write papers analyzing it have much more authority than someone who just really likes indie.
Dude, he's one of the most famous musicians of all time. Hunky Dory, Low and Ziggy Stardust are incredible albums and he has a massive discography of course they're going to cover him.
any predictions regarding the score to animal collective's new album?
their type of late-2000s "indie" music seems awfully obsolete and irrelevant these days and since P4K pretty much owns that band it would be funny as fuck to see them get panned and ruined
again: it's not the artists who fund reviews, it's the pr firms + labels. i don't know the specific involvement in that review but it seemed like it was mainly just hype and advertisement-based, not so much money as with the other BNM reviews.
Whats its a "PR firm" ?
basically a indie artist success ride should be >>>
1. become popular, pop indie (youtube, soundcloud etc)
2. do a couple of shows
3. get signed
4. pr firm / labels bough reviews and shit
5. growing in popularity and money
6. label bough radio plays
7. billboard charts
Can you please tell me the worst Pitchfork Employees? Like Graves or that chick who wishes she was black
Also, do you also agree that most of Pitchforks reviews are complete fucking bullshit? I mean seriously, at least 3 of the 5 new albums of the week have reviews that talk about NOTHING. 5 paragraphs of some random story then 3 paragraphs of attaching meaningless words to very specific sections of songs.
I mean seriously people? Why are you believing him? I mean what he's saying wouldn't surprise if it is actually real however he gave no sort of actual proof that he is what he claims to be except:
> look guyzzz my li... I mean facts are way too specific to be tru... I mean false, right guyzz?? XD
places like Pitch Perfect PR, and Motormouth Media.
if you're talking about specifically big league sites then and yeah either that or become good friends with the writers.
Garvey, contributor Sarah Sahim, Laura Snapes, Mark Richardson, Ian Cohen, basically them.
also well that's because their reviews are simply repeating what a press release email tells them in a different format.
this explains why they talk about the artist's background so much instead of the actual music.
regurgitating a press release email like that is essentially plagiarism but the people who write those press release emails are fine with it because it's business and they're making money off of it.
>what use is musicology when discussing music which musicologists don't understand
Why do you assume they don't understand it?
They've spent years studying the evolution of music, the theory, practical analysis.
Surely a half-baked indeeh album won't present a major obstacle to their analytical minds.
No, what I'm saying is that it is highly likely that there are /pol/tards with a rageboner out there that would really like to discredit an outlet which is into diversity. While I personally think that pitchfork is shit, I don't think that Op is what he claims to be. In fact I think that op is a faggot
1) they'll send them advanced copies and press emails, so i'm not sure how much is going on there but they honestly aren't the worst offender out of all the labels p4k covers.
2) i don't know haha. they are one of my favorite bands, though!
>it is highly likely that there are /pol/tards with a rageboner out there that would really like to discredit an outlet which is into diversity
are you really this fucking naive regarding pitchfork's interests in diversity?
this shit is essentially an ad
dude, i own 2 of their albums on vinyl and their debut on cd. they rock.
and that's a good question: probably some of the bigger labels, like Columbia, Top Dawg, Cash Money, Young Turks (great guess), Merge, and Matador.
Firstly, Rap is generally so simple that they can dissect it with ease. Academic music analysis provides you with abstract tools, independent of the genre. For instance, a scholar would probably point out the presence of post-African repetitions.
if you build yourself as press enough (have a blog with plenty of content to back you up) you can probably get a press pass for free and just say that you're a journalist wanting to cover the festival. the chances of this are slim but it's worth a try; i know plenty of people who do this.
well, you can still get covered by other publications, the good ones, without paying, but the funded shit is mainly for people who want a whole rockstar treatment, not an indie lifestyle.
Rough Trade are alright, again, they aren't nowhere near at the top of the list of p4k's worst offenders.
and honestly dude, i wouldn't let labels buying p4k out for reviews ruin your love for an album or artist. i know it's hard to find out this shit but you can't forget what made you come to this discussion place in the first place: your love of music. that's stronger than anything p4k will ever sell.
i;m not saying they're not capable
but you find me one thesis or essay on intonation patterns in rap records
the patterns are there like they are in all music but theorists just class it all as 'spoken' and leave it there
>You can explain why Pitchfork is obcessed with Trap rap artists so much?
The main target audience of trap rap is particularly easy to manipulate.
Trap/pop-rap is what's on top of the charts right now, and the labels/distributors who put that shit out are p4k's top buyers; they are the ones who are willing to pay the most because they're the ones who have released chart-topping singles/albums.
it's easy: they have the money to pay p4k with, and p4k has the audience to reach out to and share that music with.
Garvey lying about being hacked to get attention on social media and "sympathy" from colleagues in order to make some false claim of misogyny in the music industry (which i'm not saying there isn't, there's plenty of it and it's horrible, but Garvey is an insult to actual victims of this). I am dead serious. I'm not even joking/memeing here.
When that whole incident went down with Kanye To The "hacking" her computer, here's what happened:
KTT sent her an image of her computer desktop, an image that Garvey had posted before, to scare her and claim that they "hacked" her computer. Garvey knew that they were lying but she played along with it and acted as if it was some act of sexism. it was all just for attention. she had her trained skills of succumbing to trends to hop on an existing bandwagon.
oh no dude, they're fine. the smaller sites/blogs are always safe/honest and not bought out.
if you learn anything from this, it's that you should always support/follow the smaller music review sites/blogs and not the big league corps like P4K, Stereogum, FADER, CoS, etc.
i know stuff about some smaller mags
i'm not gonna name them cos i know some of them lurk here
but one of them was quite surprising to me, given how small the artists are that they cover
Another question for OP,
Why do record labels feel the need to advertise/pay for positive reviews for genuinely good artists like iceage (their signed to matador), is their like only a limited number of good reviews P4K and other major publishers hand out, and its sort of a the highest bidder's label gets handed the most BNM's?
I understand artists like young thug and other meme's like this paying for positive reviews.
Thanks for the response, anon. I didn't figure they'd be paid off, or as paid off, but of the few articles I've read from sites of that ilk, some read a little fishy and I've always wondered.
it's honestly just how p4k makes their business. they get money from those advertisements but they need to make a living from this shit, and that's where all that money comes in.
I'm not sure. I've had so-so experiences with metal journalists I've talked to, honestly.
>no but it's honestly hard to make this shit up dude, and i'm not pretending like most of the fake threads you see on here, i'm going pretty in-depth
lol wtf, no you haven't. there's nothing in here that couldn't be easily assumed
Please tell me about those
Meaghan already blocked me, cause i'm too rude, but Zoe is a cute and gentle, i want to buy her. BNM pussy.
In capetalism world you can buy evrrything nigga
I was more asking from the record label's perspective, whats their motive's for paying for good artists?
Just seem's unnecessary
Do Pitchfork not give out BNM unless its paid for or trendy?
because in the end, the record label is motivating p4k more than p4k normally would if they discovered the music themselves without pay. and the amount of money they p4k they gain from from the amount of record sales and attention a positive review gets them.
and i would say 80% of the time that is the case with BNMs, yes. like i said, sometimes the non-paid reviews are just artists being friends with writers or sometimes it's just a stroke of pure luck.
like copy and paste the questions and answers from both threads into a new Reddit thread and format it a bit so it seems like you're the one who's answering all of these questions.
Op is there such thing as reversal payola?
As some example, paying some publication to review some album with a shitty score, or pay to not review something.
If the answer is yes, what happen if the other side tries to pay for the good score, is there a bidding war?
Literally any indication that he has a source for "inside info regarding them and all major publications and their writers." He said in the previous thread that this is all stuff that "is well known within the music industry and critic circles but they keep it hush hush." Ok, so how is he privy to this info? Was he a writer? Does he know writers? If yes then there would be screenshot verifications that he could provide. Is he in a band? Was in a band? Again, easy to back up. However he is claiming to know anything, there's a way to prove it in 2016.
Then he should prove it. He should post some sort of interaction or picture or something to back up what he's saying. Without that then this is meaningless. And he can't really use the "but that would out me!!" excuse if, like he said, everyone in the industry and in critic circles is aware of this, an industry built on freelancers where any one of us could apply and get hired or start our own blog and then we'd suddenly know all this. If it's such a widespread secret then there's really no fear to speak out about it.
>Could you expand a little bit?
As some example, you said you can pay pitchfork to make a review of a sunn o)) and give a high score to it like 9.5 or whateaver.
It is possible to pay pitchfork to (as an example) make a review about boris album and give a bad score to it like 2.1?
so this mean what reviwers need to do is just find alot of good bands they like and make reviews about them
And then when someone pay them to review an band album of the band X with a high score, they would review albums of that band they hate (not the album X since they were paid for the score and cant express their opinions) to counter their their own shilling
bullshit. the study of music cannot possibly devise an objective system of measuring artistic value. it isn't a fucking science. We can learn the theory of music, the history, the implementations, etc., but objective value/worth cannot be known.
fuckin /mu/ amirite
>either way this never happens
Then why mtv plays the same shit over and over,
instead of playing the same shit ALOT OF TIMES and then playing the stuff they want in the middle of this paid shit?
So by what you answered so far, pitchfork is a big corrupt plastic circlejerk that simply panders to what is trendy and should not be taken seriously whatsoever?
Hey what else is new? But thanks for confirming it anyways.
yeah op is clearly full of shit. he keeps saying this is all stuff that would be difficult to make up and that's not true at all, these are all surfacy answers to common assumptions made in nightly pitchfork threads
nah, here's what happens:
the reviewers rarely, if ever, get a say in what they review or what they actually think of an album. a label or pr firm will email these writers new releases from them and then executives will work out a deal with them so that they p4k to give it a high rating.
sometimes reviewers are forced to praise shit they dislike or pan shit they love, as i've said before. as an anon pointed out, most notably with Drake, which is completely true.
check out the other thread. ive been following this for a while and OP seems consistent
Yeah, but nothing classic came out. As a music reviewer, isn't a release that'll be remembered as a classic the holy grail?
Besides, I'm not exactly talking about the quality of the music... I'm referring mostly to how music is evolving and changing.
>i'm sorry but what the fuck does that mean. what does mtv have to do with any of this. what.
If paying to make some stuff get a bad rating was not a existing thing,
The tv station called MTV, would play justin biebr, lady gaga, nicelback, "all about the bass girl", rihanna, songs .... X times (they were paid to do it)
and between those songs they got paid to play, they would play other stuff they like or thing should be on their channel
do you honestly think a fake AMA person would take it this far and do 2 threads of this
i don't think i've ever seen a fake AMA last this long, which is partly leading me to believe that it's genuine
I wish I knew. I just don't see music evolving or changing at all. I feel like musical evolution has been a sort of spiral coming out of the 2000's, where you have the choice to stay here or take a few steps back.
Basically, I have a lot of trouble envisioning "futuristic music" that wasn't already conceived in the 70s. Basically what I'm saying is that with advancing technology, the evolution of music hit a peak and the only direction to go now is backwards. Maybe that's just my philosophy with making music, but what do you think?
lol yes? it takes no effort and this is a board where people have built elaborate fake ARGs and scavenger hunts which actually do take effort. answering a bunch of questions with "yeah pr teams pay them" over and over can be done on the toilet while watching tv.
>not OP but what the actual fuck are you talking about
will explain with a example
>You have a radio station
>Justin bieber make a 5 minutes song.
>their label, pay to to play this song 4 times a day for 2 weeks.
> 20 minutes (5 minutes * 4) of your radio station will be wasted playing justin bieber songs
>all the other time of the day can be used to play any 'shit' you want, from sunn o))), to sachiko M, rebbeca black, phillip glass.........
Now imagine you can pay someone to not play (or give a bad review to) something you dont want:
>You have a radio station
>Justin bieber make a 5 minutes song.
>their label, pay to to play this song 4 times a day for 2 weeks.
>their label also pay to make sure you dont play sun o))) and rebecca black
> 20 minutes (5 minutes * 4) of your radio station will be wasted playing justin bieber songs
>all the other time of the day can be used to play any 'shit' you want, but not rebbeca black or sunn o)))
MTV works more like the second, since you only see paid shit there and nothing else, yet he say situation 2 cant exist
>all the other time of the day can be used to play any 'shit' you want, from sunn o))), to sachiko M, rebbeca black, phillip glass.........
lol where the fuck did you get this assumption? that's not how licensing, singles, distribution, program directors, radio formats, etc work at all.
distributors pay clear channel (or whoever) to have their songs played on specific formats. CHR (top 40), AC (adult contemp), HAC (hot adult contemp), AAA (idr but this is more "indie" adult contemp), ALT (alternative), etc. MOST of the songs being played are in this category. when they have space to fill, they can play past songs that were distributed to them previously. why are they limited to this? because that's what they have the licenses to play on that specific format. it's a well oiled machine. the reason small time college stations are able to play whatever song they want are simply because their listenership is small.
Well, I doubt people in the 70's could have envisioned futuristic music.
Besides the evolution of music doesn't happen in one single year, it takes decades, so it might just be a bit to early to predict whether or not music has reached its "peak". All the realisation of the so called envisioned futuristic music came after the fact.
Im confused by the relevancy of the Britney Spears thing? Crappy popular pop Music has always existed and always will. blame the "sheeple"
>Well, I doubt people in the 70's could have envisioned futuristic music.
>Besides the evolution of music doesn't happen in one single year, it takes decades
English punk rock appeared out of nowhere and fucked the music industry up in months
Beyonce's "4" was originally supposed to get a 7.3, a standard score for top-40 pop albums at the time (2011). This was a tipping point for them because they realized that capitalizing on the critical acclaim of Beyonce (instead of panning her or giving her a basic score like people assumed they would do) would reach to a larger audience that considered them "pretentious." The 8.0 received a huge amount of hits and it encouraged them to continue to inflate standard top-40 pop.
See I can make up specific bullshit too.
yes, they are limited by the format they select to follow, you wont see phillip glass or black metal on a hip-hop station, but between hip-hop stuff, when they arent playing their 'paid for' stuff, they will be able to play anything they want (that is rap).
also I know that as some example a internet station need to pay for some organization (ascap is the name if I remmeber), this because its assumed (the logic behind it is that) you are profiting over someone else work. But if you pay the organization to play 3pac song, you will be able to play the artist 3pac
everything this radio would need to do to play 3pac is to pay the organization (ascap???), play it and also not forget to play the stuff they received money to play
well is anything real?
So this confirms that all the reviews are actually native advertising.
Which makes me think about this even deeper, as you said, the whole following trends thing, trying to appeal to sjw's, sjw musicians will pay to advertise their shitty music disguised as a review and the people posting it dont actually support it.
How do the people at p4k fucking sleep at night, how do they not put a shotgun int heir mouth?
no wonder they are all jaded hollow shells of people.
Im glad to have this info, one of my hobbies is to study advertising and bullshit, i like knowing the tricks, you know, like how they tell you arent man enough if you dont drink DR. pepper, questioning masculinity, oldest trick in the book
>when they arent playing their 'paid for' stuff, they will be able to play anything they want (that is rap).
This is where you're wrong. From a purely legal standpoint they might be able to, from a contract standpoint most stations and specifically Clear Channel have with distributors they wouldn't. They can play what's sent to them. When an artist's album comes out, why don't stations play deep cuts instead of just the singles, when they clearly can play and promote that artist? Because that's not how the contract works with singles.
what you said is logically consistent. if there is pressure to only keep 9.3s and above as albums that are being pushed for the p4k drones to buy, shy would new bermuda be a 9.3 even if that was the cap? It could be less, and it is. No issue here. The same way if I am grading papers and only the white kids can get above an 80, I dont give all the best black kids 80s; I give them high 70s and spread the scores out.
he also said that conde nast's parent company produce film trailers and p4k would hype music featured in them but Advance Publications as far as i'm aware do not own any companies that do that.
I think it's great to be paid to do what you love (i.e. music journalism) but so long as it's not this shady bullshit p4k are pulling. You just got to look for the smaller sites that still have integrity, they are out there.
I don't get this...
so Labels and PR people pay to be reviewed/get good scores
but what about the bands that have poor reviews? Did the label just not pay enough? Or did Pitchfork decide to review them on their own merit? I doubt a label would pay for a 3.4 review or something
also in the last thread he claimed to know that several pitchfork darlings were rapists, and when posters asked who they were he was like "uh hehe whoops i forgot :) but its true though"
give me a break
because it's implied throughout here that the reason they give really really high reviews is either to build hype because they were paid or because it's zeitgeisty for them to do so, so if they WANTED to give it higher than a 9.3 but couldn't, there'd be no reason to go all the way down to a 9.0 instead of just a 9.3. in fact they'd have motivation, monetary or otherwise, to not go that low if "originally" it was supposed to be higher than a 9.3.
also this >>61558386
also stuff like this is so stupid "This pr firm, a major one (i won't name names but if you look up popular ones on google you'll bound to find them in the first results)," there is literally 0 reason he couldn't just name it instead of keeping it vague. he's done similar stuff a bunch of times and there's no reason to.
>When an artist's album comes out, why don't stations play deep cuts instead of just the singles, when they clearly can play and promote that artist? Because that's not how the contract works with singles.
Yes If I pay you to play 'any song from aeroplane over the sea' 5 times per day, and you play a song from 'on avery island' album, those avery island songs wouldnt count as the 5 ones you needed to play.
but then if you fill your contract (playing 5 times 'aeroplane over the sea' songs per day) you can play anything you want, including others neutral milk hotel songs or even play more than 5 times a day songs from 'aeroplane over the sea'
IF YOU CANT do that,
so, if the contract I create to you, can include stuff like, what songs you cant play (instead of just saying you must play X per day [or week] during Z weeks)
this means the reversal of payola exist and I can as some example force some hip-hop radio station to not play death grips, I just need to make a contract like this:
"play the Mos Def song Life Is Real one time per week, during 10 weeks. another thing during this time you cant play songs from the artist called death grips"
Ok, I know English is your second language but please try to understand what I'm saying. All but the very smallest of stations have contracts with distributors that basically say "if you want to receive distribution from us then you will be limited to our database." These stations CANNOT play whatever they want when it's their own time.
well in the end i hope we all learn the valuable lesson that we live in a capitalist society based on money and not artistic value.
Gonna go kill myself now.
the entire reason that 4chan has the "things posted here should be considered a work of fiction" thing is to avoid this.
i can say "kanye west murdered my dog and stabbed my son" and nothing will happen.
if he wanted to name which PR firm did something he absolutely 100% could.
>so this mean what reviwers need to do is just find alot of good bands they like and make reviews about them
>And then when someone pay them to review an band album of the band X with a high score, they would review albums of that band they hate (not the album X since they were paid for the score and cant express their opinions) to counter their their own shilling
you are thinking too small
>Get paid to play skrillex
>Play after it 3 brostep artists that are way better then him
>Get paid to play those post-grunge bands labelled as emo by mainstream media
>play after it goth bands that would make those post-grunge bands complaints looks like a child complaining about him mom
>get paid to play "the hardest band ever"
>play a doom metal song, breakcore, speedcore.... song after it
>get paid to play pink floyd and the the beatles
>play musique concrete songs from the 50s while specifically saying they are from the 50s
captured tracks are one of the worst labels in general. mmm i just love to purchase derivative jangle/dream pop album #473824483283248482... why do people keep eating this shit up
>These stations CANNOT play whatever they want when it's their own time.
And so, this means that payola reversal exist, I was just trying to prove it existed, because you said it didnt here
not really, no. i don't think that ever happens. there's rarely any competition of sorts going on like that.
>the entire reason that 4chan has the "things posted here should be considered a work of fiction" thing is to avoid this.
except it doesn't
i know /b/ does, but what other boards have this?
the thing about radio stations (at least in america) is that they are all owned by the same giant evil corporation known as clear channel (rebranded as iheart media)
And the music labels, of which there are only 4 real music labels
>In 2004, the merger of Sony and BMG created the 'Big Four' at a time the global market was estimated at $30–40 billion. Total annual unit sales (CDs, music videos, MP3s) in 2004 were 3 billion. Additionally, according to an IFPI report published in August 2005, the big four accounted for 71.7% of retail music sales
these 4 lables pay clear channel to play a specific list of songs, usually top 40 pop songs.
So the whole game is rigged
But that's not the what reverse payola was as you described. Playing songs that you haven't been approved for can allow that artist to sue your ass which is why they stick with what they know they have licenses for.
Well, its either that or they REALLY know how to sign artists who will produce BNM's.
Some bands need to be given lukewarm reviews in order to make the good reviews have apparent merit. These bands either
a) aren't good,
b) didn't pay enough, or
c) aren't branded well enough (i.e., unlikely to get 'hot').
oh sure i know about faux indie labels there are millions
just saying that distro isn't enough of a reason to think a label sold out, there are all sorts of weird distro deals, cartels and so forth
>oh a fun game to play is go to wiki and find the "tottally real for real indeh label" and find out who distributes or owns them, this usually leads back to one of the big 4
I usually do this, a better way is to go to discogs.
I found earth doom band is on big label
I found some artist of the sub-genre called classic trance there too
they have statistics and i can say they got their favorite artists, the most popping of them you know who is them
- trap black artists
- pop rap drakes
- r&B miguels jeremihs
- beach house, tame, deerhunter, deaffheaven
nah don't give P4K undeserved credit, that was just good marketing in general, I don't think Pitchfork has given either artists a BNM.
As you said, they're branding to hipsters, liking Beyonce and Justin Bieber would not be a hipster move.
even beiber got a 6.2
Step back for a split second. This is absolutely insane.
lmao. I find it interesting, on mu there are ppl who legitimately listen to Sky Ferriera's music. There's nothing special about her, other than her appearance and Disney training.
they seem to get some decent respect from people. i don't think i've come across much hate from them.
it has to do with a number of things. first, it has to be well-branded and marketed, like >>61558809 said. they have to have a good pr team behind them.
another thing is that it has to fit in line with p4k's review groove, like it can't be something like crunkcore like >>61558917 said. it has to apply to that social trend factor i was discussing earlier.
I'm assuming its not soley money, P4k isn't that retarded to just BNM anything and everything any label pays them 2. They wan't to appear hip and trendy, so they are probably selective to only pick bribes from records they think have the highest chance of being "trendy" on tumblr and reddit.
yeah like i said, "it has to apply to that social trend factor i was discussing earlier."
pitchfork have an idea for what they want to market, and it still can't just be anything. they have to restrict it somehow by keeping an eye on social trends.
exaclty. adele's album was pretty high on the year end list and every starbucks drinking faggot thinks 'hey this is actually a good album. i'm such a special snowflake i enjoy holly herndon AND adele!!!'.
can you explain to me the reasoning behind when they give an album a really high score like 8.1 or 8.3 but not BNM? are they saying "this is good but not marketable enough" or what is the deal there?
if the review reads exactly like a press release, yes.
this is the case with a lot of bought reviews. they emulate what they're told in an email by the firm so that they can market it even more and to a larger audience.
when the reviewers clearly hate everything outside of their niche, for example Kim Kelly of Noisey, she only likes North, east Europeian Black metal. Otherwise they only like something different ironically
I know what you're saying, its just like this review pre-ready.
"After weeks of rumours and speculation, Views From the 6 is finally here. Canadian powerhouse hip-hop star Drake dropped his long-awaited album on [WEDNESDAY], featuring some of the hottest names in the music industry, including [DELETE THE ONES THAT ARE NOT FEATURED] Nicki Minaj, Fetty Wap, Kanye West, Lil Wayne, The Weeknd, Rihanna.
The album's release comes after the "Hotline Bling" singer told a Miami crowd on New Year's Eve that Views From the 6 is coming "very soon." Views From the 6 is [DELETE ONE OF THESE ENDINGS TO THE SENTENCE BASED ON FACTS] streaming exclusively on Apple Music OR streaming on Apple Music, Spotify, Tidal and can be purchased on iTunes.
The 29-year-old performer's latest album has [NUMBER OF TRACKS], beats from up-and-coming producer [NAME OF PRODUCER] from [NAME OF SUBURB], Ontario, and its lyrics [HYPER-LINK TO METRO LYRICS] continue the "Hotline Bling" storyline of an even more melodic Drake than fans were introduced to on 2015's If You're Reading This It's Too Late.
It's only a matter of time before Drake lights the internet on fire with [SONG MOST LIKELY TO TURN INTO A MEME]. He also keeps his hometown in the spotlight with Toronto-referencing lines like [LYRIC] and [LYRIC].
The album has already caused many celebrities to take to Twitter, Instagram and other social media websites to share their early opinion.
[EMBED MEDIA FROM: Instagram, Twitter, Facebook]
At least one artist, though, [DELETE ONE ENDING BASED ON REACTION FROM MEEK MILL] is not as impressed OR staying silent.
Drake is the first of many high-profile artists whose albums were rumoured to drop in 2015 who failed to release before the year's end.
Whether this keeps Drake's hot streak alive or not, one thing is for sure: 2016 going to be a big year for Drake and a big year for Toronto.
[EMBED TWEET FROM @NORM]"
>p4k gets paid for reviews
>p4k gives positive reviews to buzzworthy bands
>p4k gives positive reviews to bands that they have a good relation with
>p4k gives positive reviews to bands that will play at their festival so they can get more tickets sold
this has all been known since 2009
inb4 some shill faggot tries to refute the last point by saying "ofc they'd only invite bands they like xDDDD!!"
fucking kill yourself op you've offered nothing new
OP here. this was what I was talking about earlier with TinyMixTapes, who are against p4k and this scheme of theirs -- that's why their reviews are so avant-garde and strange, because they try so hard not to read like a press release in their reviews.
So if it is so important for bands to be buddies with p4k authors if you aren't supported with a lot of cash, how difficult is it then for for example non-american acts to get good coverage from pitchfork? Is the popularity of certain scenes directly related to the fact that sites like p4k have their roots in the nearby area?
i don't think p4k will just cover any indie band with a soundcloud or bandcamp even if they are buddies. it has to come into play with the trendy aspect, and it also has to come in at the right time with p4k's review timeline groove, which features a recurring order of different genre > different genre > token genre > different genre.
OP, just use a trip-code.
Also, was Rolling Stone’s history the same as Pitchforks’?
Did Rolling Stone also begin to accept bribes and slowly just become a normie, Music reviewing magazine?
What do you / other Music Journalists think of Fantano?
What is the future of Music Reviewing?
9/11 was less severe than the whole *Pitchfork selling out* situation
Its ridiculous you guys believe OP really knows anything. Everything hes said can be made up by anyone with an average knowledge of music journalism and a twitter account.
>im going pretty deep here
Thats such bullshit. If you have listened to chris otts interviews then youd know how is talking to someone whos been inside
>How difficult is it to get out of a label contract, change labels or go independent?
just do the death grips style
anyway it you dont want to keep the band name is problably way easier than if you want
but op or someone must be the best ones to talk about it
>>Get paid to play skrillex
>>Play after it 3 brostep artists that are way better then him
>>Get paid to play those post-grunge bands labelled as emo by mainstream media
>>play after it goth bands that would make those post-grunge bands complaints looks like a child complaining about him mom
>>get paid to play "the hardest band ever"
>>play a doom metal song, breakcore, speedcore.... song after it
>>get paid to play pink floyd and the the beatles
>>play musique concrete songs from the 50s while specifically saying they are from the 50s
Anyway, I hope one day we join together and create some random harsh noise, or drone doom metal album and then pay radios to play an song from the artist.
>"we arent /b/ we arent a army, stop with this bullshit idea"
You are liying to yourself, if you dont think random drone doom metal, speedcore or whateaver suddently blasting on normalguys radio stations wouldnt be a funny thing
too late to use a trip but oh well. might start a 3rd thread soon if you guys want.
I honestly don't know dude: Rolling Stone have been around for a long fucking time, and I don't know the general progression but it has to be written down somewhere.
Me and a lot of music junors heavily dislike Fantano, I discussed this earlier.
I'm not sure; hopefully something more avant-garde and out there.
here's the thing: a lot of this information i got doesn't come directly from p4k writers, it comes from the writers of the safe and honest sites that are smaller (the ones i recommended you should read instead of The Fork), and i have a good reputation with those smaller sites and their writers so i wouldn't want to do 2 things:
1) if they find this thread somehow they'll see me posting messages they sent to me in private, even if i blur out my name
2) it would be aware to people that they were the source of spilling the beans
also look at this shit if you want if you want some proof:
desu I've known this about P4k since mid 2014, hasn't really made me check out Pitchfork any less. Instead I just read there reviews with a grain of salt. They are very good at predicting trendy music and I want to be part of the discussion on music boards.
Plus not everything they are paid to review is utter garbage so, honestly all I've taken from this is not to take pitchforks ratings so seriously.
yeah i mean it's more of an ethics thing really: the fact that these people are comfortable with doing it. i just want to make sure everybody knows this and they're not fooled; always support the smaller sites/blogs. if anything, they'll cover interesting new shit that p4k wouldn't even dare of covering now.
I know you said Pitchfork only does the whole SJW stuff because trends, but can you give us an example of a person there who spouts these beliefs in public but have actually totally different beliefs or don't practice what they preach?
>how can i get into music festivals for free?
I don't know if this is possible in the US but here fuckloads of people just sneak in. It really isn't that hard. Ireland btw, small country but there are a couple of big festivals and shitloads of Irish people go to festivals in England.
i'm not entirely sure if there's a staff writer who has differing political views like that, all i was saying was that the "SJW" thing these staff writers are trying to push is simply fueled by a collective pressure to be a part of a trend. what their true political beliefs are may remain a mystery.
Ohh 100%, i mean if you're music scope encompasses only Fantano and P4k, you don't listen to much music.
But if you want just the overview of whats popular in "underground culture", those two places are a good start.
But yes, I think honesty Is key and its shady that they are trying to deceive people about their reviews.
hehe... a guy from reddit who predicted p4k scores pretty well and was obsessed with p4k, analyzing them, he hasn't been writing anymore, at least with that name
the 9.3-stuff reminded me of him... he was speculating about that on reddit and all the other redditors were like "you just overanalyzing they are just reviewing albums not having a conspiracy blabla..."
i knew there was something fishy about that/is with p4k and their perverse rating system
sorry about the streamofconciousness with bad grammar :)
Sasha Geffen (writer for p4k, CoS, Impose, and others) constantly calls out musicians and writers for saying the word "faggot" but did indeed call somebody on twitter a "faggot" herself. i don't know where the tweet went, i can try to find it.
she's very hypocritical and snobby. i wonder if she was getting paid when she called that person a "faggot."
I didn't listen to too much 2015 music but TPAB could feasibly be a mainstream classic and something like Huddreems could be a cult classic. I'm sure there's plenty more I haven't heard too.