Jake wrote:I don't know. As print media continues to shrink and dumb down its music coverage (i.e., Blender with its 100-word reviews, etc.), it's kind of nice that the Fork continues to run long-form album reviews. I mean, it's closer in spirit to Rolling Stone in the 70s than Rolling Stone has been in the past 30 years.
I don't actually read their reviews, but I appreciate what they're doing.
I follow their news, and occasionally check out one of their interviews, or videos, or whatever.
I think the "partnership" with Lala for streaming audio is interesting... I assume they have a deal worked out with the labels for that, but it's interesting...
The problem is that pitchfork is a website, not a 1970s indie mag.
I get what you're saying, though. I've thought about this a lot in regards to the NY Times. I love the actual physical newspaper. But I don't/won't bother reading it. The sunday edition is 5 bucks (and I'm too cheap) and I don't have a long contemplative span of time on weekdays to bother with their daily edition, as much as I'd love to.
I like their online edition, but I'm often frustrated by the amount of crap they pack into it. Especially if I access it from my iPhone. Their videos load too slow, and I have a hard time searching for stuff once it falls off their main pages.
I for one don't want to see contemplative, well reasoned music criticism swept away. For my part, half of what turns me off to pitchfork is the tone of their reviews. Perhaps I'm a little out of the know. I've ignored their site for some time now.
The other half of what turns me off might be fixed with a good redesign, starting with an abandonment of the giant billboard across the top of their page. Ugh.
Beyond that, i don't have all the answers. More and more I'm more appreciative of sites like BoingBoing which actually have plenty of content, but keep their presentation simple.
Like everything on the internet, I'll know what I like when I see it.