Critiquing the Critics
I have been thinking about criticism lately. Criticism in general, but also specifically related to pop music. There is a senior thesis-worthy topic embedded somewhere in the current state of music criticism, especially in the case study of web zine Pitchfork media. Considering it's meteoric rise to oracle-like status among indie bands, labels, listeners, TV networks, film studios, etc, it's not surprising how Pitchfork's readership continues to build Oprah-like traits. 'Best New Music' pulling 'Book of the Month' comparisons seems less and less dramatic a comparison as the years go by and the hot shit bands of yesterday fade into obscurity. How did this all come to be? Being an avid reader and listener since the beginning, I can't claim strict independence in my music discoveries. No doubt it has been a valuable resource for discovery, education and entertainment. It's a tension that seems to be growing among friends and the online community. "Great resource, used it extensively, but seems too big and therefore untrustworthy."
I plan on unpacking this a bit more over the next couple of weeks. Stay tuned.