Any review site like p4k before they turned full SJW?

scaruffi.com

>>71156774
p4k was never good though

>>71156774
p4k used to be so reliable
its a shame what happened

>>71156830
it was though

2000-2010 p4k will be looked back as having captured the zeitgeist of the generation

>>71156853
no it wasn't lmao

>>71156895
name a publication that was more accurate looking back on the decade

>>71156901
none of them

>>71156906
so p4k was the best

>>71156910
no the worst

>>71156901
accurate? nobody has listened to three quarters of the absolute shit whitebread indie rawk they tried so hard to build up over all those years since.... those years

Pitchfork has always been incredibly liberal, it's just that social justice is a part of liberalism right now.

>>71157938
Pitchfork is Conde Nast. Don't kid yourself.

And numerical rankings on art has always been, and will always be, tacky.

It's really just a way for corporate interests to influence culture.

>>71157972
I don't see how this conflicts with my comments

pitchfork turned into tmz. they have articles about beyonces pregnancy.

anyone been on markprindle?

Pitchfork is gay

>>71158010
Didn't mean it directly at you.

Just don't believe that P4K's 'political' content is in anyway organic, and isn't just the same drek being dished out by the entirety of MSM in the US right now.

THE MAINSTREAM METEOR IS AT IT AGAIN!

i like tinymixtapes, but idk if its like p4k pre 10's

They just gave BNM to Lana del Rey. Every time I think they can't sink any lower, they outdo themselves.

>>71158035
>Just don't believe that P4K's 'political' content is in anyway organic,
The scary part is it's not just Pitchfork the website, it's become the artists they choose to pay attention to as well. 'They're' (Soros etc.) literally sponsoring content.

Be very skeptical about any 'artist' you see the Pitchforks of the world championing right now.

>>71158035
I think it's organic in the sense that they hire 20-something urban hipster writers which tend to be liberal and focused on social justice right now. Like, I believe the actual writers believe in what they're writing. But the decision to hire those specific writers is less organic and is motivated by profit.

>>71158121
>'They're' (Soros etc.)
Is it possible to dislike Pitchfork and lib bloggers but not be a /pol/ack retard about it?

>>71158147
they have always been about profit.
indie music sucks ass right now

File: just.jpg (80KB, 640x813px) Image search: [Google]

80KB, 640x813px

>>71158035
I highly doubt Conde Naste has that controlling a partnership with p4k. All they care about is the money—they leave the editors to keep making it. Only when the magazine stops making money as fast as they want do they bring in the replacements

>just the same drek being dished out by the entirety of MSM in the US right now
Just addressing this separately and hopefully uncontentiously: it's not just MSM—every online publication and news outlet now has to play the toxic pageview game which can mostly be attributed to Google and AdSense

The only publications immune to this are those that only rely on subscription. (I'm usually pretty satisfied with the content in my Wire, Financial Times, and Economist subscriptions.)

>>71158121
>'They're' (Soros etc.) literally sponsoring content.
Citation really needed here

>>71158162
It's 100% true, and you 'd have to pretty dense not to notice it.

>>71158178
>I highly doubt Conde Naste has that controlling a partnership with p4k
bwhahahahahahha.......stopped reading right there.

>>71158181
Of course, why back up what you're talking about when you can just say "you'd have to be dumb not to see the truth!"

>>71158178
>>'They're' (Soros etc.) literally sponsoring content.
>Citation really needed here
have you not turned on any MSM in the last 18 months or so? Maybe you've been in a coma?

6 companies own 90+% of the US media (including Pitchfork).

>>71158203.
My conspiratard dad who fried his brain with drugs in the 80's says shit like this about contrails and reptilian people all the time. "You'd have to REALLY be naive to not see it" without any actual logical train of thought behind it.

>>71158203
yeah yeah yeah....and CNN is totally on the level too.

>>71156851
It used to be alright up until a few years ago. Must have been around 2012 when it turned to absolute shit for me personally.

>>71158235
no indie music turned to shit

>>71158162
>>71158178
>>71158203
>>71158224
The Jews really don't like it when someone starts saying the truth.

>>71158096
TMT is alright but you have to do a lot of manual filtering because their site gets bogged down in trans and SJW pandering (Gloss and Hirs reviews, also that Preoccupations review). Their year end list have also been kind of suspect the past few years. But their articles are top notch and consistently reading chocolate grinder will lead you to great music.

>>71158247
Pitchfork basically covers no independent artists. It's legit 'fake indie'.

>>71158224
Because if they actually elaborated it would quickly turn into Charlie's Pepe Silvia, so they just say that you'd REALLY have to be dumb to not SEE how it REALLY is

>>71158232
Totally

>>71158274
MOST Pitchfork reviews are of independent artists, though. It's just the artists /mu/ talks about. When p4k covers an actual independant artist people here go "literally who" and would rather talk about Kanye.

>>71158274
because all of them suck.

File: Screen Shot 2017-02-21 at 12.24.00 PM.png (614KB, 1338x655px) Image search: [Google]

614KB, 1338x655px

>>71158315
this
>>71158274
pic related

>>71158253
Smooth brains really need le joos to be after them

Pitchfork has always been about catering to white liberal college kids.

What they're doing is no different than what they've always been doing, they're following ideological trends to stay relevant.

>>71158357
>they're following ideological trends to stay relevant.
more like they're attempting to create them.

>>71158253
if someone asks you to elaborate on something vague you said it's JDL

>>71158357
This. It's just that white liberal kids used to care about plaid shirts and Wes Anderson and now they care about poptimism and SJW stuff. If Pitchfork was still focused on what they used to focus on, their main demo would be 35 years old and they'd be the new Rolling Stone.

>>71158253
this

>>71158403
>they'd be the new Rolling Stone.
they ARE the new Rolling Stone.

Pitchfork is as shitty and corporate now as Rolling Stone was in the 90s.

t. oldfag

>>71158505
oldfags don't use
t.oldfag
fucking newfag kys

>>71158377
Maybe they're creating them within a music journalism context, but I would call it reinforcing rather than creating. It's really no different than the indoctrination you see in liberal arts college courses.

Jesus how the fuck did that come off so /pol/, anyways if you've been in those classes you'll know what I'm talking about.

>>71158357
but all mass media does this, it's just called pandering to an audience.

until gays were seen as ok by the wide public, hollywood kept them first as degenerates, then as jokes, then as the supporting friend.

i mean shit, see the way hollywood has acted about black people: in the 80s they were aggressive, in the 90s your black friend was your soul sista in the 00s they were the sassy one and so on and so on.

it's an essential part of being a for-profit media to try to pander and maintain an audience.

>>71158377
nah dude, media trails the audience and then they both reinforce each other.

it's all a massive circle jerk anyway.

will this anti-sjw meme ever end?

>>71158516
>media trails the audience
like they did during the election?

Yeah, no. P4K (Conde Nast) has a political agenda and broadcasts it. It's not some reflection of the mores of an actual independent music scene. They (and now more than ever) create the narratives.

>>71158516
>but all mass media does this, it's just called pandering to an audience.
Well yeah, obviously. I was just responding to the fact that OP was sniffing around for ulterior motives beyond make that money dolla dolla bills yall namsayin.

>>71158588
>Well yeah, obviously. I was just responding to the fact that OP was sniffing around for ulterior motives beyond make that money dolla dolla bills yall namsayin.
profit is secondary to these people. conditioning the culture is first.

>>71158571
>It's not some reflection of the mores of an actual independent music scene
...you mean the scene of young 20-something artists mostly in cities, a demographic that has leaned insanely liberal for decades?

>>71158571
>like they did during the election?
yes?

>>71158626
I mean, yes. But not entirely. I'm literally sitting right now in the heart of hipster Brooklyn, and even here people all don't buy into the 'liberal' agenda like the pitchforks of the world would have us believe.

lol it was awful. unbearably white indie. anybody who was white enough and good looking enough could get a bnm.

>>71156853
they captured the zeitgeist of white middle class 20 somethings. and they still do. they help to define it. the zeitgeist has changed so the publication that captures it changed to suit.

>>71158640
It was literally the opposite anon. Media ignored and tried to control the audience, not vise versa.

>>71158571
Are you even familiar with local scenes? Political activism has seen a huge rise in the last few years in shows, and the whole "safe space venue" concept is everywhere. It started grassroots long before big publications jumped onboard.

>>71158605
You're giving Pitchfork way too much power. It's entertainment journalism first and foremost, and people have no obligation to it. If it wasn't catered to them, they'd ditch it for something else. Lot of dead, irrelevant music papers already, nothing keeping Pitchfork from being another.

>>71158695
>>>71158571 (You)
>Are you even familiar with local scenes? Political activism has seen a huge rise in the last few years in shows, and the whole "safe space venue" concept is everywhere. It started grassroots long before big publications jumped onboard.
Yes, of course, it's been around since the literal beginnings of the indie music scene.

But the Jello Baifras and Ian Mackayes and Penny Rimbauds of the world are a LONG way away politically from the empty sloganeering of contemporary p4k artists.


Pitchfork is corporate 'liberalism' not left wing politics.

>>71158670
The types of people who read Pitchfork do though. This is basic lowest-common-denominator marketing. If you're not pandering to your audience then there is no audience to pander to. Like this:

>I'm literally sitting right now in the heart of hipster Brooklyn, and even here people all don't buy into the 'liberal' agenda like the pitchforks of the world would have us believe.

They don't buy into the liberal agenda, so they wouldn't read Pitchfork, but they are being indoctrinated by it? See what I mean?

I'm not trying to defend Pitchfork, it's a shitty site, but these blogs are trying to get as many clicks as necessary, and if there wasn't an audience to click those links then there would be no profit, so they pander.

>>71158767
You haven't noticed the (purposeful?) contraction of independent media in this country?

Again, despite what this jackass >>71158509 says, I'm 40.

I've watched it happen.

>They don't buy into the liberal agenda, so they wouldn't read Pitchfork, but they are being indoctrinated by it? See what I mean?

I know exactly what you mean. It's like chicken v. egg. But I would say that the agenda being pushed by Pitchfork is the same that's being pushed by academia etc. It really is indoctrination. People who are of the socioeconomic demographic that read Pitchfork, have been fed this propaganda since elementary school.

>>71158732
Plenty of people don't care about that difference (or even see it) and so it doesn't matter as long as Pitchfork still caters to them. Activism is on the rise among Pitchfork's demographic (and, less significantly, among its subject matter), so they better damn sure go along with it if they want to keep readers.

>>71158835
>40 yrs old
>on 4chan
yeah that check outs
alright bud show us a picture of a record you own

>>71158315
because they do absolutely nothing worthwhile. hence why the only p4k approved shit that crosses over to /mu/ taste is hip hop and electronic/experimental.

indie has been dead since phoenix and the white stripes

>>71158837
>Activism is on the rise among Pitchfork's demographic (and, less significantly, among its subject matter), so they better damn sure go along with it if they want to keep readers.
bwhahahahna....this reads like it's straight from one of Soros' NGOs.

>>71158861
I'm at work. Why would anyone go on /mu/ and lie about being 40?

>>71158100
A consolation prize only after years of shitting on her for being (((problematic)))

>>71156944
This, does anyone still listen to Clap Your Hands Say Yeah or The Rapture

>>71158908
what kind of shit job do u have

>>71158890
But... it's true? I'm not saying anything positive or negative about what's happening, just that it IS happening, DOES happen on a grassroots level, as opposed to entertainment blogs playing master puppeteer.

I definitely agree that indoctrination plays a big part in this whole thing, but not via fucking Pitchfork. They really can't do much beyond reinforcing ideas. Like I said way earlier, you need to look at bigger institutions, particularly liberal arts college programs.

>>71158998
>This, does anyone still listen to Clap Your Hands Say Yeah or The Rapture
so many of the 'indie' bands of the early aughts where crypto-corporate garbage, shilled shamelessly by Pitchfork.

>>71158100
pitchfork created lana del rey though, so it's kind of going full circle.

>>71159026
The youth activism (at least here in NYC) seems to be maybe 10% organic, and 90% corporate staged. And most of the people I do see irl echoing say P4K talking points, are very young women.

I mean (and I know I'm not saying anything new here), but the msm is not an accurate reflection of reality.

>>71159102
where does vice and pitchfork get its funding?

we'll start there to prove how corporate interests and political interests overlap

>>71158200
Why?

>>71158213
>have you not turned on any MSM in the last 18 months or so?
No, I have watched MSM passively. I at least read the NYT, and occasionally WSJ. I rarely watch TV, but Fox is constantly on in the one dining hall I usually go to on my campus

What are you implying?

>>71158315
This. As much as p4k is a tastemaker, it really caters to an audience like every other service or content-based business.

>>71159129
Interesting questions. I actually live near Vice HQs. It's INCREDIBLY shady and I don't believe it's a business.

I mean, I'd say all of this is ultimately a reflection of a culture that allows for the central banking system.

yes... i know conspiracy/tinfoil etc.

>>71159040
>>71159050
>so many of the 'indie' bands of the early aughts where crypto-corporate garbage, shilled shamelessly by Pitchfork.

Yes, and deep down they knew what shameless shills they were, so when the opportunity came to tear apart Lana Del Rey, she was used as a scapegoat for their own journalistic insecurities

Half the people here only hate LDR because Pitchfork told them to in the first place

>>71159197
yes, the funny part is many of the 'indie' rockers came from wealthier backgrounds than LDR. (see for example: Gavin Newsom's niece).

>>71159195
nah dude. the entire purpose of media companies in the internet age is to build up a portfolio to be marketable to youth. it's not even a secret.

young republicans wear sperries and brooks brothers and drink bud heavy and participate in sports

young democrats wear converse and vans and watch merryl streep movies and obsess over the newest social trends. which side of the spectrum do you think pitchfork and vice falls on to market to these people?

>>71159285
I have a lot of friends who work in the industry.

I'll say it again... I don't believe that Vice is a business that is accountable to P&L like normal businesses.

File: 1487623415815.jpg (28KB, 571x451px) Image search: [Google]

28KB, 571x451px

>>71158253
I can't tell what this post is implying

>>71159326
prob isn't. Some anon had a thread the other day showing how DFA records was basically a front.

>It's enough to remind me that I really, honestly, do not want a band like Hot Hot Heat to fail-- I know you're thinking, "hey look, it's the good old Pitchfork build 'em up and knock 'em down routine," and the thought hurts. Backlash continues to be the primary fuel source of indie scenery, and due to its omnipotence everything gets confusing and complicated when a band really does fall down the well of follow-up album expectations. Anyway, you'll just have to trust me when I say that Elevator isn't the victim of political bias, it's just disappointing, an effort that finds Hot Hot Heat in a piss-poor dead heat with late-coming doppelgangers the Bravery...the Crisp Rice to HHH's Rice Krispies.

Posted: 2005 http://pitchfork.com/reviews/albums/3929-elevator/

Everything was always terrible

>>71159369
shh
remember the JEWS ruined pitchfork

>>71159102
I can't speak for NYC but I can see why a place like that is ripe for manufacturing/monetizing activism. But I'm in a small Midwest city, and that's simply not happening here on the 90/10 scale you're describing. And I'm saying from personal experience as opposed to any kind of media coverage (which locally ranges from tepid support to straight up hostilility towards liberal activism).

>>71159386
Pitchfork chases trends, SJWism is a trend

>>71159426
>SJWism is a trend
SJWism is a trend like 'Communism' was a trend.

It's a little more nefarious than Sam Smiths or whatever.

>>71158890
>muh Soros
Of course, Conde Nast want to attract your run-of-the-mill white millennial college-educated guy in his twenties who is an overzealous liberal.
Since Americans are so hysterical right now when it comes to politics, they are became hysterical too.
But Georges Soros and all the powerful billionaires you never heard of doesn't give a fuck about indie music. They just invest in big media groups like Conde Nast and give general guidelines like "don't talk too much about that company, they are owned by some friends of mine, okay?", or they fire some people if they do something who makes too much undesirable noise.
But all these powerful people don't really care about Pitchfork, they more care about CNN, FOX, MSNBC, etc.

>>71159535
this
rich white ppl don't care about music

>>71159326
it's not, that's what i'm saying. they could ( and probably do) operate on a huge loss, it wouldn't matter in the slightest. the value of those industry connections and consumer data is so high in theory that they could spend billions to pump out terrible vague writing and still increase in value. it's a shell, a loss leader

>>71159535
>But Georges Soros and all the powerful billionaires you never heard of doesn't give a fuck about indie music.
Pitchfork isn't really 'indie' music anymore is it?

And it's so irrelevant they had pitchfork darling Beyonce shill WITH Clinton the night before the election.

But sweet disinfo....


>>71159555
PUHleeze. Look into the backgrounds of some of the people in current 'indie' bands.

They ARE rich white people.

but again, nice try.

>>71159618
No, I know. I understand branding, big data etc.

And I'm also aware that Vice isn't really a magazine/tv show.

Like I said I have a lot of friends in advertising. I have friends who run large digital agencies.

That being said, I'm still saying is Vice is more like a government agency than a company.

Has anyone suggested any good pitchfork alternatives?

>>71159660
their parents are rich white people
not them

>>71159708
>their parents are rich white people
>not them
kek, you're really splitting hairs.

'Indie' rock is full of 'bohemians' with 200k college degrees.

>>71159742
idc how much college degrees they have,
none of these clowns have cash money. its all from their parents

>>71159699
ah ok, then i've misconstrued your tinfoil hat theories for ignorance. this gets closer to the underlying question then.

i do think political parties (especially dems) have huge influence on the media, but it's impossible to prove the degree to which money plays a part in that. it still all goes back to corporate interests though, in that media companies exist due to advertising either way.

if you ask me, the true players in worldly decisions like the CEO of P&G, Coca Cola, Google, etc. treat politics like football bets, and spread their money around as such.

>>71159754
Oh, yeah. They're not MAKING any money. But a lot of them don't really have to.

>>71159793
>i do think political parties (especially dems) have huge influence on the media,
they were literally caught colluding with them (wikileaks).

It's a fuck load more than just 'influence'.

>>71159793
>if you ask me, the true players in worldly decisions like the CEO of P&G, Coca Cola, Google, etc
kek....yeah, the 'true players'. Ok.

>>71159849
collusion still doesn't stop them from doing anything they want to do. i.e., make as much money as possible

and what, you don't think the people with the most money to spend don't get to make the most decisions with what to do with that money? this isn't conspiracy stuff, it's just how the world works on a macro level

>>71159801
tru

>>71159924
>and what, you don't think the people with the most money to spend don't get to make the most decisions with what to do with that money?
I think you need to think harder about who it is that truly has the most money to spend.

As I believe Kanye put it:

>Who the real owner if your boss gets a salary?


And if you believe that CEOs are the true power players, you probably also believed that up to 2 months ago the most powerful man in the world was Barack Obama.

Marcel

>>71159993
only in the sense that they're not spending personal funds, but company funds.

all you need to do to find the most powerful individuals in the world is find the people that donate the most money

>>71160143
the banks own the corporations anon.

When you start looking at the people behind the banking system, you'll be on the right track.

>>71156830
You're just too young to remember

>>71156774
Sputnikmusic was always much better

>>71160190
nah, banks own the government. corporations own the banks

hi i like music review websites they are very useful because i can no how good an music is before i am listen and that is useful because i am only listen to good music and so i use review websites. it is very useful to no how good music because you dont want to be listen to bad music cuz then you a fool so make sure you check review site and not be a fool

idk why it's so hard for people to use p4k as a general guide for what new music comes out. you don't need to take their reviews as gospel but having a site that reviews pretty much everything is very useful for keeping up with new releases or discovering stuff that you wouldn't otherwise. that's how it use it and it saves me a lot of time bitching about the MAINSTREAM SJW METEOR.

>>71160604
kek. nigga plz

>>71160891
>that reviews pretty much everything


kek. pleeb detected.

>>71160921
give me any source possible to indicate that without debt, banks wouldn't exist. and that companies don't need debt to establish credit in the first place.

pitchfork has always been liberal conservative

>>71160792
it's not about that since rolling stone. it's more that p4k can control what bands we pay attention to simply by giving them press.

there's too much music to give a fair shot to everything.

>>71161091
>debt,
is basically what money is backed by now.

And the Federal Reserve System literally prints money. They run the show.

ill put my dick inside just hold the door

>>71161250
wat. dude you just went full retard.

countries buy up other countries' debt with money

the fed would never jeopardize our economic state, that's what it's there for

pitchfork has ALWAYS been what I would usually call when a robbery happens is the police even thought i do not trust to be interpreted right by the fucking fake media organisations who believe that everything you do is justified. seriously fuck pitchforks SJW ass garbage media.

>>71156774
why would you want to read "reviews" that just talk about the context of milquetoast indie rock

>>71156774
rym