I’ll add that the decline of the AV Club bummed me out most of all. (It should win the Rod Stewart Award for Worst Fall from a High Peak.)

As far as non-music media go, Lonely Planet in, say, 2020 was not as essential as Lonely Planet in the 1990s, but the guidebooks were still useful. But they, too, turned to shit after a recent buyout.

Wood Goblin wrote: Thu Jan 18, 2024 10:26 amAs far as non-music media go, Lonely Planet in, say, 2020 was not as essential as Lonely Planet in the 1990s, but the guidebooks were still useful. But they, too, turned to shit after a recent buyout.

Funny you mention LP.

For mostly pragmatic reasons, I would post on its forum occasionally before a trip. Usually if like, I was trying to figure out an "unofficial" means of transportation in Eastern Europe or the ins and outs of border posts in Central Asia. The people who replied could suck sometimes, sure, but an awful lot of them were seasoned travelers w/great ideas. Nowadays you have what, Tripadvisor, to replace that? Even the forums there are so much less useful, savvy, or critical. B/c the platform is more tied to commerce (as opposed to information and criticism) from the start. Social media takes that many steps further into superficial bullshit.

And yeah, I've noticed a general shift in the physical LP books, as well. They used to have details and advice about public transportation (granted, more current timetables often exist online, though not always) but nowadays, it's like they just assume you're renting a car in a lot of places. You have much less idea of how to get from point A to point B. And overall, nowhere near the level of detail (and again, criticism) they once displayed. It's like they just assume you're gonna go online instead. But the problem w/online stuff is that it's usually nowhere near as well-researched as say, an old LP guide or a Rough Guide or even an ancient Let's Go (back when that was a thing).

I never read Pitchfork because I didn't need write-ups on Vampire Weekend or TV On The Radio.

OrthodoxEaster wrote: Thu Jan 18, 2024 10:44 am

Wood Goblin wrote: Thu Jan 18, 2024 10:26 amAs far as non-music media go, Lonely Planet in, say, 2020 was not as essential as Lonely Planet in the 1990s, but the guidebooks were still useful. But they, too, turned to shit after a recent buyout.

Funny you mention LP.

For mostly pragmatic reasons, I would post on its forum occasionally before a trip. Usually if like, I was trying to figure out an "unofficial" means of transportation in Eastern Europe or the ins and outs of border posts in Central Asia. The people who replied could suck sometimes, sure, but an awful lot of them were seasoned travelers w/great ideas. Nowadays you have what, Tripadvisor, to replace that? Even the forums there are so much less useful, savvy, or critical. B/c the platform is more tied to commerce (as opposed to information and criticism) from the start. Social media takes that many steps further into superficial bullshit.

And yeah, I've noticed a general shift in the physical LP books, as well. They used to have details and advice about public transportation (granted, more current timetables often exist online, though not always) but nowadays, it's like they just assume you're renting a car in a lot of places. You have much less idea of how to get from point A to point B. And overall, nowhere near the level of detail (and again, criticism) they once displayed. It's like they just assume you're gonna go online instead. But the problem w/online stuff is that it's usually nowhere near as well-researched as say, an old LP guide or a Rough Guide or even an ancient Let's Go (back when that was a thing).

LP apparently grew vastly worse in 2023, after being bought out by some firm called Red Ventures. There were apparently many layoffs (mainly in content creation) and a huge switch in strategy toward making money via “microtransactions.” Supposedly, the content is generated by AI now, though who knows if that’s true.

I can count the number of Pitchfork reviews I've read on one hand. They always seemed WAY more about the writer trying to get something across than actually having to do with the music. Actually, I take that back. If it was a smallish band and Pitchfork deigned to review, it was like that. A 'critic' using someone's album as a random jumping off point to make a statement about some OTHER band or other thing or themselves or whatever...and then at the end give the album they barely mentioned a 6.1 rating. And if it was a mainstream album the review would be some obnoxiously verbose deep dive. Again, my sample size was small, but enough to get the gist that it was definitely not for me.

Reviews, criticisms, interviews can be wonderfully informative and open up worlds of stuff that you might otherwise never find. But there is that specific kind of writer/critic/interviewer who already knows what they want to say before they've heard the music or conducted the interview and they find a way to twist the words or the album or the book into support for the pre-formed statement they are trying to make even if it's totally wrong. I haven't been interviewed many times, but a few. I remember one guy opening with a big minded question about the band I'm in, and rather than just say "no, not at all" I tried to politely be like "well, not really, but I can see what you're thinking" and when I read the thing in print he had just totally turned my 'No' into a 'Yes' because he wanted his supposition to be validated. It was about him, not me, not the band. That's how Pitchfork has always felt. And, yeah, Krev is right. They're always falling all over themselves about the stupidest shit. Fuckin' Vampire Weekend. FFS.

I read it pretty regularly up to about 2002, and a few more years after that more as a hate/make fun of read. I certainly picked up some things from the early years (maybe not the top review of the day, but 2 or 3 notches down) even if some of those recommendations were a little white and collegiate in hindsight. Even in its current state, this bums me out a little, and pretty soon all record 'reviews' will be those dipshit amateur recaps on YT.

Tom Wanderer wrote: Thu Jan 18, 2024 11:13 am A 'critic' using someone's album as a random jumping off point to make a statement about some OTHER band or other thing or themselves or whatever...and then at the end give the album they barely mentioned a 6.1 rating.

But even this could at least launch an interesting conversation. I certainly bonded with other people BITD on things they got really wrong or shrugged off. I'll certainly take that over a world where most music instantly vanishes and no one cares.

Wood Goblin wrote:LP apparently grew vastly worse in 2023, after being bought out by some firm called Red Ventures. There were apparently many layoffs (mainly in content creation) and a huge switch in strategy toward making money via “microtransactions.” Supposedly, the content is generated by AI now, though who knows if that’s true.

Jesus. I haven't cracked one in physical form since maybe 2021. But that's even more disheartening—if not completely shocking. I can confirm that it's relatively common for travel writers to have never ventured anywhere near the places they're writing about (unless you count a homepage or a press release). So this is kind of the next logical step. Just keep regurgitating. We're a long way from the days of foreign correspondents and rigorous fact checking for such pieces.

I've preferred both the Bradt Guides and the Rough Guides to LP for a long time, but still...

In their defense..

-The Sunday reviews are good reads.
-Negative (5.0 or less) reviews are fun to read (Maneskin, Greta Van Fleet, Hozier, etc).
-Sometimes one of their reviews gives me more info on a band that I'm curious about that is coming to my town.
-I know this crowd hates festivals in general, but I have enjoyed the times I've been to the Pitchfork Music Fest.

penningtron wrote: Thu Jan 18, 2024 11:40 am I read it pretty regularly up to about 2002, and a few more years after that more as a hate/make fun of read. I certainly picked up some things from the early years (maybe not the top review of the day, but 2 or 3 notches down) even if some of those recommendations were a little white and collegiate in hindsight. Even in its current state, this bums me out a little, and pretty soon all record 'reviews' will be those dipshit amateur recaps on YT.

Yeah, I've learned to expect a lot less from outlets like Pitchfork, and now my standard is if I can get a good recommendation or two out of their end-of-year lists, I view that as being well ahead of the curve. And Pitchfork cleared that bar.

Their relentless hipsterism was tiring, sure. But there's no way this new version of the magazine, rolled into fucking GQ, of all things, isn't going to be much, much worse.

good riddance


bring back real zines