Parent company Condé Nast chief content officer (and noted music aficionado, they said sarcastically) Anna Wintour announced the decision this week claiming this will help the brand better align with what little music coverage the organization already did. But, in truth, it feels like a way to mainstream a platform that has long been anything but. According to reports, at least 12 staff members have been laid off leaving them with just eight permanent members of the editorial staff.
The irony of merging such a fringe publication with a men’s style brand should not be lost on anyone. While reports say employees are being told nothing will change, it’s difficult to believe a corporate entity won’t want to find ways to make Pitchfork more palatable to a wider audience. It’s hard to imagine Condé Nast higher ups thinking, “You know, maybe they are right giving Rat Saw God by Wednesday an 8.8 and ranking them in the top five albums of 2023 while Taylor Swift didn’t make the top 100. Maybe we should promote fringe artists even more than we do now, which, of course, is not at all.”
Love the bands they did or not, Pitchfork has always been a place for an unknown artist to take their shot and if they were liked, it could mean the difference between going back to their job as a graphic designer for a PR firm and making a living doing what they love, never mind unleashing their artistry for generations to love and admire.
It is also, perhaps just as importantly, a way for the rest of us to curate our own playlists, something that has become increasingly difficult as streaming has flooded the world with more music than we could possibly listen to in 10 lifetimes. Pitchfork provides something the music industry had for decades before the emergence of the streaming era: tastemakers. And even a tastemaker that doesn’t share your particular preferences is valuable when trying to discern what should be your next listen.
You may find it weird that NYC Ghosts and Flowers by Sonic Youth got a 0.0 while Walt Mink’s El Producto got a perfect 10.0, but it’s the information is valuable.
Where else do you get that in one place? Where else do you get really serious quality music journalism you can honest-to-God trust to be honest to God? Certainly not in GQ, a place built for reflecting trends, not creating them.
We will reserve judgment on whether or not Pitchfork can and will retain any of the journalistic independence it had when it began as nothing more than a blog from a guy who worked at a record store. But, we aren’t hopeful and, like who they favor or not, that’s an awful prospect for all music fans.
