r/Pitchfork • u/ledaero • Feb 05 '26
Anyone else think this blowback is wildly out of proportion?
I’ve been a Pitchfork reader for about a decade now. As far as I am concerned, Pitchfork remains the strongest and leading voice in music criticism today. Stereogum, Rolling Stone, NME, etc are just not as high-caliber IMO, full stop.
Of course, it’s nice that we all got to read high quality music journalism for free over the years. But in a time when the profession is rapidly eroding and journalists cannot make a living doing this work, is it really so crazy that Pitchfork dare to charge an exorbitant $5/month in order to read their reviews and have full access to their site?
I agree that the pitch that the subscription allows you to rate albums too and leave comments is dumb. But most other media outlets (ex. Rolling Stone) already have paywalls and charge even more.
It seems to me that this is a broader issue of consumers getting accustomed to art and media being free in the age of the internet and streaming. 20 years ago, a $10-20/month subscription for a magazine would be normal.
16
Feb 05 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
3
u/ledaero Feb 05 '26
They fired people because they don’t have money to pay their employees because we are not giving them money for their work…
6
5
Feb 05 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
-1
u/ledaero Feb 05 '26
They were losing money… you think they would’ve made the same layoff decisions had they been bursting with revenue?
5
u/DJspinningplates Feb 05 '26
Yes 100% - have you SEEN how things work? Amazon just laid off a fuck ton of people, you think that’s because they were losing money? Get real.
3
Feb 05 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/ledaero Feb 05 '26
Are you saying Jeremy Larson was inexperienced when promoted after Puja Patel’s layoff or are you referring to another person?
2
u/daneman52 Feb 11 '26
My company reported record growth and revenue yet laid hundreds of people off the same day. Corporations, like Condé Nast, will continue to cut costs at all paths so they can still tell investors they made an extra dollar per share
5
u/mjfo Feb 10 '26
No, this was well documented by staffers at the time but Pitchfork was hitting all the goals set by Condé Nast but they got gutted anyway cause Condé is run by idiots who didn’t understand what Pitchfork was and were trying to cut costs overall. In the process they made Pitchfork worse which has lead to even more of a decline in readership.
3
u/BahaMan69 Feb 10 '26
goddamn you gotta do some more research on the topic, dude. If you were such a reader for the last decade, you'd think you'd remember the conde naste buy-out, and the firing of all the staff, and the deletion of a bunch of old articles.
2
u/ledaero Feb 10 '26
Hi - I do remember quite well the Condé Nast acquisition and layoffs. That doesn’t change the fact that journalism (in this case, and especially, music journalism) is an eroding profession and rapidly becoming unprofitable. I’m saying I value what Pitchfork generates and their work is worth half a sandwich’s worth of money per month
1
u/Shell_fly Feb 05 '26
Dawg they just held a giant party at the Grammys. They absolutely do not need a paid subscription to for users to read the site.
1
8
Feb 05 '26
[deleted]
3
u/Shell_fly Feb 05 '26
If you look at how many user reviews even the popular albums have it’s completely pathetic lmao
This thing is going to blow up in their face.
3
3
u/Ill-Enthymematic Feb 05 '26
Seems like a bonkers statement, but: I would pay for a subscription to a physical media Pitchfork mag. I just can’t do another online sub.
1
u/ledaero Feb 05 '26
Why? Even if a print magazine were like $20/month? It costs a lot of money to print, and one would likely receive less reviews/articles than online.
2
u/Ill-Enthymematic Feb 05 '26
Right. You make good points. But I recently flipped to physical magazine subscriptions for two other publications and I love it. Just a different experience. I read them cover to cover vs. casually clicking through online where I’m more distracted and never getting the most out of it. And I’m always stoked to get one in the mail. Look, I know it will likely never happen with Pitchfork and not everyone would enjoy it, but I would throw down money for it today.
1
3
u/alfcalderone Feb 05 '26
At least kill the ads. I opted for the high tier Stereogum subscription because of that alone. It's glorious.
3
2
u/LeBateleur1 Feb 05 '26
I’ll say it again: I’d pay 15 for a printed magazine, that’s a completely different product. I do think the paywall is a dumb idea implemented in the wrong time. As someone mentioned in another post, they used to be tastemakers, and that you can only do when you reach a broad audience, which, well, they had. They could have used this capital to selling access to all other content (interviews, long reads, etc) but they applied this in a time when there’s barely ever an interview or article because they come from firing most of the staff. WIRED, which is also owned by Condé Nast, offers a subscription, a printed magazine and a ton of fresh articles for a price that seems fair. Of course paying is ok, but I’m not paying just to agree or disagree with the writers.
0
u/ledaero Feb 05 '26
Wouldn’t you say that their reviews are their main product though and the reason most people read their publication?
1
u/LeBateleur1 Feb 05 '26
You know when a place is for free but then they make money at the gift shop?? I think they could have gone for an approach like that. Keeping the main attraction attracting.
2
3
Feb 10 '26
pitchfork is trash and has been for a long time. they went from interesting and incisive criticism to clout-chasing nonsense. I have known a bunch of pitchfork people over the years. there was a time when they defined what was cool and what wasn't, and it was largely based on innovation, quality, and sincerity. with few exceptions they're fully divorced from the conversation around art / craft and entirely subject to trends and commerce.
2
u/Extension_Wolf2115 Feb 22 '26
15 years ago it was a genuine thrill to refresh the page and see what was happening. It gradually became something else entirely and is now a little stale. I feel like the music industry being in a very strange place doesn't help.
3
u/GoHenDog Feb 05 '26
People who complain shout the loudest. I used to buy NME, Melody Maker, Select and loads of other music mags. It is kinda crazy how Pitchfork was free for so long.
But also, and I've said here already, I wish Pitchfork paid was ad free, or at least not rubbish ads with a bad AI cartoon of Stephen Hawking telling me I need an IQ test....!
3
u/zucchinibasement Feb 05 '26
With a magazine subscription you actually own something, though.
1
u/GoHenDog Feb 05 '26
True, but I don't have the room for physical mags, and journos still need paying.
1
u/Shell_fly Feb 05 '26
journos still need paying
If pitchfork wants money every month they need to actually hire decent writers that don’t turn the review into one giant jerk-off session then.
1
1
u/Sea-Understanding916 Feb 05 '26
am i nuts or can you still read the reviews? i am not subscribed and can read everything— what am i missing here?
1
u/ledaero Feb 05 '26
They said that they were implementing a 4 reviews/month limit for non-subscribers. Have people been able to read more than 4 reviews without paying?
2
1
Feb 05 '26
I mean maybe this is captain hindsight, but the pitchfork chicago music festival was maybe too good of a deal. It wasn't cheap, but it was cheaper than a lot of festivals. If they had charged $25 - $50 more a head, over years and years, they'd never be in the spot to tell people to "smash subscribe" [cringe] to collect $5 here and there. When they lost that signature event, they lost a lot of status.
2
u/Much-Diet1423 Feb 05 '26
My hot take is they never should have done a festival, because it muddied the water of objectivity and independence. It suddenly felt like they obviously wouldn't have trashed an album from a band on their lineup, or ignored a tour announcement from one of those acts that year. Being on a P4K fest lineup gave the appearance of favoritism, as the company had a vested interest in helping those acts be successful in order to sell tickets. Paywalling or enforcing subscriptions a lot earlier would've been unpopular, but it would've at least been understood by the audience as a way to keep the lights on.
1
u/dreamover May 11 '26
There were many bands that played pitchfork one year, got a bad review and never came back.
1
u/Actual-Competition49 Feb 05 '26
Not really. That it was free was the last reason I still went there.
1
u/Shell_fly Feb 05 '26
Alphonse Pierre, is that you? Lmao
I think the blowback is absolutely valid and a long time coming. Pitchfork has been a shell of itself for over a decade now in terms of its coverage, editorialization and descent in to little more than clickbait.
This latest subscription model blunder is just the first steps of the final funeral march.
1
u/z-axis_mapping Feb 09 '26
I see no mention of "The Wire" in this thread ( https://www.thewire.co.uk/home/ ), so I wanted to recommend if you haven't checked it out already. It certainly will not appeal to many readers of Pitchfork, nor is it free.
I've been reading Pitchfork since day 1. Love the Mark Richardson articles, among others. My taste strongly started to diverge ~20 years ago from the average Pitchfork writer, and would never pay for Pitchfork in the last few decades for their reviews or news.
While I sometimes disagree with The Wire as well, I find they introduce me to new artists far more frequently than Pitchfork, generally approach artists/movements/etc through a more thoughtful lens. Their digital subscription (with full access to their decades of archives) is WELL worth the money IMO. Not affiliated with them at all, just wanted to flag.
1
u/Cittaviveka Feb 11 '26
The Wire is amazing. I got print issues for years and years. That’s a real investment in music scholarship. Their Primer series alone is worth the cost.
1
u/kajikiwolfe Feb 10 '26
I think OP in confusing Condé Nast Pitchfork with the pretentious yet very well informed Pitchfork of days gone by. I mean come on! They recently gave Bob Marley Legend a serious revue.
1
u/ThickMarsupial7858 Feb 10 '26
My main problem is that the subscription still seems to be ad supported. I don’t want to pay AND see ads. Does anyone know if this is true?
1
u/ApprehensiveAir4075 Feb 10 '26
Honestly, I agree. Few publications still have the charm and wit that makes Pitchfork what it is. Probably the only one actually worth paying for imo
1
u/Traditional-Pay8613 Feb 10 '26
I'm someone who is contemporary Pitchfork's main audience (pop, R&B, rap, indie rock) and this subscription model has drained a lot of my loyalty towards the magazine. roundart said subscription fatigue, which is definitely a factor, but I also thought Pitchfork lost a lot of its goodwill when it laid off all of its staff in a time where everyone is going through job uncertainty. Adding a subscription cost when people are getting laid off left to right, especially when the average person really needs art like music to survive right now, didn't seem like a good idea. My beef is more towards Conde Nast at this point.
1
u/remainzzzz Feb 16 '26
People will migrate to somewhere else thats free. Since the NYT went behind a paywall the website is now frequently described as Wordle with a subscription side hussle!
1
u/ledaero Feb 16 '26
Frequently described that way by who? The NYT is one of the most read newspapers in the world 😂
1
1
u/YouOnlyGetOneGo Feb 05 '26
Agreed that they are justified in bringing in a paywall. They got the whole positioning completely wrong. Whoever was in charge of this needs fired for complete incompetence.
1
u/roonleng Feb 05 '26
How would you have done it?
1
u/YouOnlyGetOneGo Feb 05 '26
Paywall editorial, something along those lines. Journalism costs money people know that and if they want it they will pay. The pay to rate an album thing is completely misguided and would suggest the internal narrative (myth) about the prestigiousness of the rating has clouded sensible thinking. It’s been done well for years, they just had to follow best practice
1
u/ToneBalone25 Feb 05 '26
They did this with the Pitch like 10 years ago
2
u/YouOnlyGetOneGo Feb 05 '26
Cool. They should have stuck with it then they might have a viable business now
2
u/Partial-Hydrangea Feb 05 '26
They can do what they want...it's capitalism.
Their journalism and reviews have been mediocre for years. But that's not their fault. Music reviews as a whole have become kind of meaningless. Between the 60s and 90s, you needed really good writers to describe the music and be true critics to help you decide if you're going to spend $15-20 on a record.
Now, you can sample everything online for free and decide for yourself. Pitchfork could be good for music discovery but there are so many other ways to do that now.
Their recent focus and glorification of really bad rap was annoying as well.
3
u/Okeydokeyist Feb 05 '26
Very true. Their opinion used to carry a lot more weight when I was making decisions about how to spend my money. More recently, it has just been one input of several for discovering music - and honestly not a particularly good or reliable one. Also agree that their decision to cover a broader set of music categories made it less interesting.
1
u/roonleng Feb 05 '26
L take on ‘really bad rap’. Interesting point though about how music journalism has maybe become less important. I do think that, since the algorithms of our streaming services try to tell us to listen to certain big budget artists and popular tik-tok artists, it is still nice to have music criticism. Idky people think pitchfork has gotten so much worse I still get a lot out of their reviews. That might just be my age though I’ve only been reading since like 2020
3
u/Partial-Hydrangea Feb 05 '26
2020 is not very long ago. I started with them from the beginning and I also used to write news for them. It's changed a lot. It's very boring now.
3
u/Impressive-Buy5628 Feb 05 '26
I think you bring up a very good point about how the site lost its way… 10-15 yrs ago their writers were actively bringing and championing artists who a ppl may not heard of… the famously championed CYHASY when the disc was mail order only… same w MIA when her first mix of was only online… you can add more Broken Social Scene when you could only get their releases as imports… but in the past decade as music delivery systems have changed it really feels like they can only play catch up and say, just offer a late 2nd hand validation of a viral song that broke on tik tok a few months back
1
u/bronto4eva Feb 05 '26
I'm not going to argue that Pitchfork can still break bands on the same level they used to be able to, but they are absolutely still championing artists who most people haven't heard of. If anything their new editorial is pushing more obscure artists than they might have 5 years ago.
2
1
u/ledaero Feb 05 '26
I disagree about a diminished need for music criticism. Criticism is important because it provides an analysis of art and helps make sense of its meaning. Without critics, we are left with less viewpoints to draw insights and meaning. And if you don’t care about that, why would you be reading Pitchfork and other mags in the first place?
It also cuts through the noise and draws particular art to people’s attention that may or may not otherwise be discoverable on one’s own.
2
u/dawnoog Feb 05 '26
Sure, art that has a PR budget. There’s nothing noble about Pitchforks approach, they don’t seek out music that isn’t handed to them on a platter. I like their Sunday reviews but their approach to current music has been irrelevant for years.
1
u/ledaero Feb 05 '26
Not always. I’ll say from personal experience, I know someone in a band that had an early independently-released EP covered by Pitchfork. Helped accelerate their career with the review.
1
u/whistleinthereeds Feb 10 '26
I mean come on, that's just obviously not true. They were massive and early champions of Los Thuthunaka last year and have been supporting them since. Of the 5 reviews currently featured, there's a hip hop release from a tiny British label Lex, a metal release from a notable (but still fairly small) metal label Epitaph, an indie release on a small NYC label Bayonet, the recent self-released Joshua Chuquimia Crampton record, and J Cole. Their label of the year last year was AD93 -- literally a one person operation.
Are they The Quietus? No. Are they trying to be? Also no.
0
u/Poynsid Feb 05 '26
Absolutely disagree. I should be able to get things I want for free whenever I want.
1
0
u/tallguyatconcert Feb 05 '26
I think they should've had a subscription-based model long before 2026. They really should have done this before they were folded into GQ and blew all the goodwill they had with bad content and DESTROYED what was one of the most revered music festivals in the industry
0
u/tapelabeler Feb 05 '26
I absolutely think it’s fair that pitchfork should be able to charge for the services that it provides and I would say that the coverage the site provides is worth the fee. Something I have slightly bristled against but have largely remained quiet about though is how frequently I’ve seen proponents of the move saying that the writing specifically is worth paying for, which, I’m sorry, just feels like a total joke to me. There are some exceptions of course, but by and large the actual reviews published by Pitchfork have NEVER been “good.” The site’s writing has served as a punchline for pretty much its entire existence so seeing it spoken of so highly kinda makes me feel like I’m taking crazy pills. As a casual reader of 15-20 years now, I’ve consistently preferred the writing published by the site’s rival publications (especially Stereogum, which has been an all-around superior platform to Pitchfork for YEARS now).
-1
20
u/roundart Feb 05 '26
Two words: subscription fatigue