Your are viewing a read-only archive of the old DiS boards. Please hit the Community button above to engage with the DiS !
but I do find the increasing homogeneity of end of year lists - mainly from individuals, such as those who post on these boards, as opposed to that from publications, which I guess should be expected to an extent, since all publications are attempting to find *some* common denominator amongst their readership - quite depressing.
becoming increasingly homogenised is that in the past a lot of what people listened to or were exposed to was determined by the magazine that they could afford to buy and their peer group. So many people's end of year lists were made up of only the albums that they had actually listened to - there was often the impression that people would like something completely different, if only they'd gotten around to listening to it. Nowadays, with the internet and messageboards like this that extent beyond the half-dozen people in your social group, there's no excuse for not hearing of a band or listening to an album. People, and their tastes are much less isolated now.
that they'll all end up picking the same favourites? Because I don't think that's true. I think there'll be a number of albums that a lot of people will *like*, and for that reason, if you average out the lists, you'll invariably end up with something that looks like the Pitchfork default, but I also think that if you provide people with *all* the available options, there will be albums some people will love for the very same reason that the majority will be put off them.
The issue is that people *don't* have all the available options. What they do have is a website - i.e. Pitchfork - which fulfils their needs well enough for them not to bother looking beyond it, and when they do, it's usually just to reaffirm what Pitchfork has already said. Which is fair enough, really. Who am I to criticise how much time and energy people spend looking for new music? It's entirely up to them. But irrespective of that, it would be nice to see some individuality; I guess it's Pitchfork's 'hegemony' which prevents it.
...probably just sour grapes. Obv a PF BNM-tag is worth its weight in gold to a burgeoning indie band.
but doesn't this seem a bit like Noel Gallagher responding to a snide remark from one of Los Camp? I guess it's good to know they're only human and care what people think.
I guess the question remains, are they living up to their responsibility? Should we even expect them to be 'responsible'? Is a lot of this criticism aimed more about people, rather than editorial providing what people want?
didn't like the tone in the last part of the article - 'Don't underestimate Pitchfork'.
It's not because a site is read regularly that it is going to be taken seriously. How can a bunch of critics think they have any influence on people's taste? That's just plain megalomaniac in my view.
I read Pitchfork from time to time - but I'm more than inclined to disagree with some of their reviews. Plus, it is true - the stuff they give credit to is mosty Indie, let's face it (Beach House, anyone?). One of the biggest revelation from me in 2009 was that I actually love some 'black' metal bands (Solstafir, Thy Catafalque, Amesoeurs ..). How did I discover that? Not througho Pitchfork.
still considering specialist columns
to hear that I first heard of Amesoeurs on DiS - the threads on DiS forum are surprisingly wide ranging - that's why I like it.
Keep up the good work.:)
just a case of encouraging more people to contribute to the conversation - a lot of people reading these boards but not posting.
wondering whether to start doing some best post or best poster prize or maybe board recommendation of the week element on the site?
just started posting. Personally, I think the biggest barrier to posting is confidence in putting views out there. I have two mates who know so much about music and have really interesting opinions on lots of stuff and both got flamed / shouted down on websites so keep quiet now. I don't know what you can do about that but food for thought.
Just started actually posting. This doesn't really seem like all that much of a flaming/shouting down forum to me, unless someone makes a deliberately provocative comment. And even then, theres usually 'voices of reason'from other users. Generally, a friendly atmosphere from the 'community'
And the board recommendation idea is a good one too, if implicated properly. Although how would it be presented? Threads ordered by popularity before time of posting? I suppose it could be a sidebar or something.
I think part of the reason why music criticism is so homogenised now in terms of what people want is partially because of the rise of internet comments and internet blogs. What a music journalist wrote in the past might maybe ruffle a few feathers but (magazine letters page aside) there'd be no comeback.
I think an environment where a journalist knows he or she may be mocked or insulted en masse for stating opinions that go against the grain is a huge disincentive for anyone to state opinions that go against mass feeling. Hence most toe the line and praise the same bands as everyone else. It makes for crap journalism though.
with the board recommendation of the week - some threads I bookmark for future reference they're so good!
Just shut up, please...
... only people who like Animal Collective make end of year lists.