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.
--
>>61550412
>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.
>>61551826
>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?
>>61555353
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?
BUMP, i was in this last night and it was amazing
>>61555353
>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.
Which music review site do you believe to be incorruptible? TMT & The Quietus are my personal favourites.
can you post some actual proof that you have the credentials you claim, instead of obvious shit like "did you know pitchfork gets paid for reviews???" or "people don't like chris ott"?
How is Scaruffi seen in the branch?
>>61555435
I'm pretty sure he's only known here on 4chan.
(not OP)
>>61555435
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.
>>61555391
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.
>>61555421
see: >>61549224
>>61555274
>>61547652 (OP)
Explain Payola, its is actually running Pitchfork? Yes.
It's about commerce, iTunes, Beats 1... Business... money interests.
>>61547652 (OP)
They only hype and praise artists that got them more popular visits-wise
>>61547652 (OP)
Poptism = more money !?
>>61555425
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.
>>61555435
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:
>>61555456
>>61555274
I'm new to this thread, why do people believe that you are what you claim to be and not just some lying dude on the internet?
>>61555529
People are dumb and they want to believe. He hasn't said anything that a casual reader of Pitchfork couldn't figure out on their own
>>61555483
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?
>>61555529
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.
how much longer do you think pitchfork has got until their audience starts getting disillusioned with them?
or is their audience so brainless that it's never gonna happen?
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?
In your opinion, who is the best reviewer working today? Like, whose writing style and approach to reviewing do you admire the most?
Why is David Bowie is accepted? He is like the more boring artist nowdays..... i mean fucking 8.5.
>>61555606
I haven't denied the fact that people can come up with pretty detailed lies. I mean, are people in this thread even serious? Are they asking you questions ironically?
>>61555619
gtfo. music cannot be objectively evaluated
>>61555616
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.
>>61555651
>I'm actually serious
>>61555653
> true, I used to read them when I was in high-school in the mid 2000's.
>>61555631
hahaha pleb
>>61555616
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.
>>61555619
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.
>>61555625
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.
>>61555619
what use is musicology when discussing music which musicologists don't understand
What was the most recent year when Pitchfork had any integrity?
>>61555616
teens and low-level "normies" likes pitchfork, it's like the mcdonalds of music journalism
how do i "fuck" meaghan garvey?
>>61555651
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.
>>61555631
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.
>>61555694
Yeah that avant style is honestly what draws me most to Tiny Mix Tapes and Brent Dicreszsgekfasdf's reviews back when p4k was just starting up
Are you Chris ott?
>>61555724
OP, come up, i want to know this too
, wanting to be a Future 2
>>61555718
2013 honestly. that's a very good question.
>>61555727
I agree.
>>61555735
no lol. i answered this a couple times in the previous thread haha.
>>61555724
>>61555748
i don't know guys
was sufjans score last year genuine or did he slip them some moneys?
>>61555772
just answer the question op. spill your secrets. how do i "fuck" meaghan garvey??????????
>>61555772
can't you just ask meaghan? run over now and ask her, tell her 4chan wants to meet up for some "fuck"
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
>>61555801
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.
>>61555815
i don't predict any of that shit but i honestly feel like it could go either way. i don't trust p4k as a legitimate source for music criticism and you can kinda see why lol.
>>61555816
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.
>>61555643
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
>>61555841
How is the artist still "indie" with
>pr firm
>label
>>61555860
Oh my god shut the fuck up. You're literally saying
>wake up sheeple
goddamnit go listen to Hopsin or fucking Tool or something
are sacred bones records in bed with p4k?
are iceage really cokeheads and junkies?
>>61555841
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.
>>61555846
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.
>>61555860
Go to bed Laura Snapes
>>61555888
He believes indie is referes to the artists music, not financial backing.
>>61555860
stop being the denier in every thread lmao shut up
>>61555702
>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.
>>61555893
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
>>61555897
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!
>>61555888
its the commercial trend appealing to a new consumers, call it "indie music"
really is not indie
>>61555888
indie is a type of record label (ie not a major label)
originally 'not the big 4' but now its more like 'not the big three'
>>61555888
indie has never meant "unsigned." it originally meant artists on independent labels.
>>61555941
Iceage are dope as fuck desu, I own their records on vinyl.
What is the worst record label for bribing publications for good reviews?
Young Turks?
>>61555928
but what use is musicology when they don't understand the music?
not all music is studied by musicologists
rap for example
>>61555651
Ah, okay, Taylor Swift has the same artistic merit of Schubert.
>>61555938
>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?
http://pitchfork.com/thepitch/853-chance-the-rappers-set-at-pitchfork-was-peakblackness-and-peakchicago/
this shit is essentially an ad
>>61555990
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.
how can i get into music festivals for free?
Mostly for photog and journalism but wanna see music 4 free bc broke af
>>61555905
So, basically if i was an playboy rich guy and i want to become a New indie rock star, i can buy it all??? buy fans, buy reviews, buy coachella places
>>61556019
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uMXuHBEn8F8
>>61556019
it worked for the queer from DIIV
>>61555905
what the fuck is wrong with Mark Richardson? he actually writes about music and has taste
>>61555997
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.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hip-Hop_in_academia#College.2Funiversity_programs_and_degrees
>>61556016
Basically, you have to win promotions or... become a girl, i know a bunch of cases, that girls just have to suck the dick of the security guards get into the shows
>>61556016
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.
>>61556019
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.
>>61556015
what about Rough Trade Records?
I REALLY liked Girl Band's 2 recent releases from last year, so It would break my heart if it was just because of corporate advertising
>>61556041
>trying to seem smart by spouting a Stockhausen meme interview quote
>>61556041
>Rap is generally so simple that they can dissect it with ease.
if that's your opinion then it hasn't been studied by musicologists
>>61556073
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.
>>61556009
As I already said, I think that pitchfork is shit but I still think that Op isn't what he claims to be
>>61556108
I'm not a musicologist but several universities offer courses on hip hop so there are bound to be some who are fully capable of analyzing hip hop.
>>61556041
> Stop trying to derail this thread.
You can explain why Pitchfork is obcessed with Trap rap artists so much? its because it attracts views and shares? Or they are the top PR client ?
Post some proof, OP. All of this means nothing without it.
>>61556122
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
pish
>>61556110
Girl band never got a BNM from pitchfork, I was just asking in general. I actually found them from /mu/ but nonetheless good message.
>>61556125
>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.
>>61556125
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.
>>61555274
Which famous journalist is secretly gay?
>>61556143
what proof would he have to post?
>>61555274
Wich one of those 2 will become the new trend
New lad
or
yuccie
???
>>61556143
What proof do you want mate?
(Not OP)
what's the most disgusting thing you know about a pitchfork employee?
someone should send these two threads to p4k on twitter or some shit and see what happens
What about lesser review publications like Sputnik or Absolutepunk? Are they paid off or just hype/ad-based?
>>61556184
nothing will happen, OP even said Pitchfork doesn't give a shit about 4chan in the other thread. They mostly cater to Reddit users.
>>61556181
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.
>>61556200
so post it on Reddit then without tracing it back to here.
>>61556248
how?
>>61556198
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.
>>61556270
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.
Do people actually believe this OP? Offer some proof. You've said literally nothing insightful that any random anon could have said.
How do I get Zoe Camp to fall in love with me
Don't you think that metal journalists generally are nicer and less pretentious dudes?
>>61556270
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.
>>61556330
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.
>>61556441
I'm not sure. I've had so-so experiences with metal journalists I've talked to, honestly.
>>61555498
>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
>>61556402
what proof would he offer?
>>61556287
Please tell me about those
>>61556414
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
>>61556622
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?
>>61556670
not OP but I think you have to be Marcel to date Zoe Camp because I've seen some screencaps around where Zoe has some interactions with him and it seems like they're dating.
>>61556687
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.
>>61556693
not date, lol
>>61556734
what do you mean?
I hear there's an insider's equivalent to /mu/, what is it?
>>61556269
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?
>>61556644
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.
>>61556803
I'm not sure,exactly what you mean here. Could you expand a little bit?
>>61556830
OP said that he is friends with many writers for many publications and he's "deeply embedded within this journalism industry/scene".
>>61556848
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.
>>61556831
>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?
>>61556890
a picture of him with Lennon
>>61556767
> putting in that much effort just to piss of P4K and redditors.
ahaha nah, i'll pass.
>>61556913
not really, no. i don't think that ever happens. there's rarely any competition of sorts going on like that.
>>61556913
Like, why would this be a thing?
which label or PR firm would want their artists to be given bad scores?
like. why?
>>61556983
i think he meant if competing labels wanted to have p4k give their competing albums a bad score
either way this never happens
>>61556946
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
>>61555725
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
>>61557061
stop derailing this thread
>>61557009
>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.
>>61556890
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
>>61557043
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.
Do you think that music's progress has gotten stale over time, even if you don't want to admit it? I mean admitting it is sort of blasphemous, but it's pretty true. 2015 sucked.
>>61557089
i'm sorry but what the fuck does that mean. what does mtv have to do with any of this. what.
>>61557107
I think its more worrying knowing that Fantano genuinely likes drake, than P4 pretending to like him.
>>61557108
No it didnt, just the shit that was advertised to us sucked harder than usual. Every year has good music for the most part if you dig deep enough.
>>61557102
check out the other thread. ive been following this for a while and OP seems consistent
>>61557094
yeah, basically.
>>61557181
it's easy to be consistent about easy to make up bullshit without providing any proof
>>61557156
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.
>>61557129
>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
>>61557212
holy fuck dude stop being the "wake up sheeple" person and just leave. you're in the minority here.
>>61557228
lol why are you so mad about this cuck
take his dick out of your mouth for a second
>>61557212
You know he's not forcing you to believe this shit. besides it's not like most of /mu/ didnt already know this shit.
>>61557222
not OP but what the actual fuck are you talking about
>>61557214
> how music is evolving and changing.
explain what u mean anon
>>61557241
yeah but that doesn't mean i can't point out how dumb this is and how dumb all the people asking questions are
>>61557263
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
>>61557263
> not admitting that these 2 threads have been the best on /mu/ for quite a while.
depressing ik, but true.
>>61557258
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?
>>61557287
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.
>>61557243
>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
>>61557355
Also, if the song "Toxic" by Britney Spears was released today and hit #1, it wouldn't phase me at all. That's what I mean by music not evolving and hitting a peak.
>>61557402
>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.
>>61557355
>>61557451
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"
>>61557402
MTV/Billboard is an absurdant capitalism poptism medusa.
@thread: Is there a way to make a New Nirvana?
>>61557568
>Well, I doubt people in the 70's could have envisioned futuristic music.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U8jOhqOsouM
>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
>>61555274
>music journalism insider
The fuck is this shit supposed to be?
Unless you know who fucks who, you're "knowledge" is worthless.
And even then, it's pathetic.
>>61557686
Yeah but you were talking about classic records, not all classic punk records came in one year. one decade, yes, but not one year.
>>61557726
Not him, but I'd wager that the last 'classic' punk album that came out was The Shape of Punk to Come.
>>61557760
>The Shape of Punk to Come.
what about Relationship of Command?
op has said some pretty specific stuff like how mature themes was supposed to get an 8.5
also i want him to be real because 9.3 bnm cap is a fascinating
>>61557941
he said he simply checked pitchfork and saw the review after it was published on their website.
>>61557941
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.
>>61557941
and he also said new bermuda would have gotten higher than 9.3 if there wasn't the cap, but new bermuda didn't even get a 9.3. can't believe you guys are buying this.
How does everyone view Chris Ott?
>>61557532
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.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/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
Hey remember Hipster Runoff what happen to that
>>61555456
He's pretty well known in italy
>>61558243
define well known.
>>61558185
>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.
>>61558132
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.
>>61557716
>you're "knowledge" is worthless.
fascinating, tell me more dear wiseman
>>61558132
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.
>>61557999
that was about the David Bowie album.
I was talking about Universal Themes, which was supposed to get an 8.5.
>>61558178
he's universally hated by all music critics.
>>61558188
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.
What's the industry's opinion on absolutepunk? They feature some of the worst reviews I've ever come across.
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
>>61558386
>>61558132
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
>>61558360
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.
>>61558488
not him but you obviously have no idea how libel law works
>>61558320
>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"
>>61558488
>>61558477
p4k shills plz go.
Im sure you are being paid to advertise niggger rapper number 2808408408 to appeal to your demographic right now
>>61558513
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.
>>61555990
Captured Tracks is fucking disgusting with their bribery
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.
>>61556019
it worked just fine for Tobias Jesso Jr.
>>61558510
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.
>>61557043
>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
OP please respond to >>61558449
>>61558600
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
>>61558570
>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
>>61556946
not really, no. i don't think that ever happens. there's rarely any competition of sorts going on like that.
>>61558626
>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?
>>61558570
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.[27] Total annual unit sales (CDs, music videos, MP3s) in 2004 were 3 billion. Additionally, according to an IFPI report published in August 2005,[28] 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
>>61558677
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.
>>61558600
Well, its either that or they REALLY know how to sign artists who will produce BNM's.
>>61558703
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
>>61558619
Adele said she loved him
Wonder if the label paid for that.
>>61558194
he writes for vice now and has a really cynical personal website, carles.buzz
>>61558766
distribution doesnt make a label suddenly become a major label
altho some major labels deliberately use indie distribution to get their artists to qualify for the indie chart
>>61558449
**NOT OP**
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').
>>61558809
so a lot of it is based on possible profit potential for the reviewing website?
yeesh
>>61558846
that's how all media works
>>61558809
8/10 of the times its probably just c im guessing (im not OP or that guy.)
>>61558801
Lol, major labels see hipsters as a market so they either buy or make up some fake hipster label to appeal to them.
And if you arent owned by them you will be.
>>61558875
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
>>61558766
>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
I wonder, if a Crunkcore band (if they still exist) paid Pitchfork a shit ton of money for a good review, would they do it?
>>61558917
Ruins the p4k brand.
Though they have managed to convince us that Beyonce and Justin Beiber are hip, so they could probably cram anything down our throats at this point.
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
- kanyes
- pop rap drakes
- r&B miguels jeremihs
- lorde
- beach house, tame, deerhunter, deaffheaven
>>61558968
so everything discussed here basically
eww
>>61558846
they have a brand, you have to fit on their pattern to get all that praise desu, for example they're social justice warriors and pro-diversity
as >>61558946
stated
>>61558946
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.
Is OP still even here?
>>61556019
Worked for Zachary Cole.
>>61559045
beyonce: 8.8
http://pitchfork.com/reviews/albums/18821-beyonce-beyonce/
4: 8.0
http://pitchfork.com/reviews/albums/15585-4/
even beiber got a 6.2
http://pitchfork.com/reviews/albums/21248-purpose/
Step back for a split second. This is absolutely insane.
>>61559167
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.
>>61558616
why would you want your society to be based off of artistic value? if someone didn't like your shitty track would you just not get heat?
>>61559167
DIIV is so shit im not even joking,
That being said, I did like Under the Sun single.
Maybe, im just too brainwashed.
>>61558293
known by the wells
>>61559271
wells?
if pr firms can buy the review they want, why don't most people get rave reviews? Are BNMs that expensive?
>>61558444
they seem to get some decent respect from people. i don't think i've come across much hate from them.
>>61558449
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.
>>61559195
everything is embarrassing is a great song. her albums is solid. but yeah i'm don't get people that have over 200 plays on last fm.
>>61559312: see >>61558809
>>61559312
it has to do with what pr firm that they acquire and if it applies to all of these things: >>61559315
>>61559321
everything about everything is embarrassing is embarrassing
>>61559312
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.
>>61559346
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.
>>61559346
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!!!'.
>>61559381
Are you OP? cuz I honestly have no idea who OP is anymore.
>>61559427
yeah, I'm OP.
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?
>>61559341
why? it's a great synth-pop song. even if it's practically a dev hynes song.
is there a way to tell when a writer has been "influenced" into praising the music they're reviewing?
other than the album being obvious shit
>>61559535
i honestly don't know the specifics of getting in depth with that. i just know shit like >>61559346 has been repeating.
>>61559576
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.
>>61559576
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
>>61559599
I know what you're saying, its just like this review pre-ready.
http://www.chartattack.com/news/2016/01/05/drake-views-from-the-6-review/
"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]"
>>61559686
exactly. this shit is so fucking twisted.
>>61559686
examples of pfork reviews that seem like press releases?
Slightly related, but maybe OP knows about this as well; how many tracks are 'ghost written'? Like does the whole phenomenon of 'ghost producers' exists in non-EDM as well?
>>61559755
i don't know. that's a kind of "pop music industry" question and not something regarding music journalism. i just kinda know what happens with publications and websites.
Wouldn't this whole scheme come toppling down as soon as one disgruntled pr firm employee or music journalist decides to spill the beans?
>>61558875
>>61558895
>>61558898
How difficult is it to get out of a label contract, change labels or go independent?
>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
>>61559791
it's common knowledge
So why does pitchfork even cover black metal and drone and other music w/o commercial viability? to maintain the illusion that they care about music?
>>61559874
Black metal and drone has a hipsterish image, unlike power metal for instance
