Posts Tagged ‘Scott Plagenhoef’
Pitchfork Shoots Barrelled Fish W/Elephant Gun
The only time a piece of music writing is better than the music being written about is when the music being written about sucks.
This is the case with electronica band Owl City, which makes soulless music. Pitchfork, perhaps in an effort to seem current or some shit, reviewed “Fireflies,” the title track from Owl City’s new album.
Did they review it because it falls under the auspices of experimental music, and yet made it on the radio, providing them with crossover justification? Did they review it because they know what we all know, that you feel less dirty and less derivative when you talk shit about a bad band than when you talk hearts-for-”i”s about a good band?
At least Ian Cohen gave it a “1.”
All I know is that Scott Plagenhoef told me there is an unofficial moratorium on writing about emo at his site. Well, I can see now that this makes total sense: ban good music based on its shitty genre and review shitty music based on its great genre.
Goddamit, Pitchfork, behave!
There Will Be Blood: Notes from the Future of Music Coalition’s Journalism Panel
Yesterday, 13 music journalists convened at Georgetown University for the Future of Music Coalition’s Policy Summit panel, “Critical Condition: The Future of Music Journalism.”
Our ranks included reps from online-only (Scott Plagenhoef of Pitchfork, Maura Johnston of Idolator), old media vets (Greg Kot of the Chicago Tribune, Tom Moon of the Philadelphia Inquirer), and some in-betweeners.
While there were a few too many panelists for a coherent discussion, the ideological breakdowns were awkwardly clear: New media vs. old media, generalists vs. niche(ists?), and many, many iterations of “Kids these days don’t know how to write about music,” followed by, “We’re all fucked.”
After the jump, who said what and why.
Read More “There Will Be Blood: Notes from the Future of Music Coalition’s Journalism Panel” »
The Federal Trade Commission Goes After Bloggers, Spares Journos Who Do the Same Thing!
According to GalleyCat, the Federal Trade Commission will fine independent bloggers up to $11,000 if they fail to disclose that they’ve received a product for free. This means book reviewers who get books for free, music reviewers who get music for free, stroller reviewers who get strollers for free, have to say as much in their reviews or risk massive, disproportionate penalties.
The FTC has argued that this standard doesn’t apply to traditional journalism outlets because “the newspaper receives the book and it allows the reviewer to review it, it’s still the property of the newspaper.”
It’s an innocuous but offensive requirement, but I’m more interested in the FTC’s imagined relationship between publishers and record labels and journalists and newspapers.
