This is an exclusive preview of daily consequenceour daily newsletter. Subscribe now to receive your free copy.
It was already a turbulent and depressing time for the media, and that was before the corporate knives came to Pitchfork.
My relationship with the publication has always been external, as a competitor.
But I would be disingenuous to deny Pitchfork's immense impact on music and the media landscape. Consequence including. The first iterations of Consequence of sound emulated much of what Pitchfork did, especially when it came to creating an editorial voice, developing a consistent content strategy, and presenting the love of music in a compelling way. While there were many times when I rolled my eyes at sarcasm, scoffed at a review, or screamed into the void because a publicist handed them a premiere, my agitation was rooted in a simple desire: to be as good as Pitchfork. Achieving that standard drove me for years, and although our publications embarked on different paths (the sale of Pitchfork to Condé Nast, Consequence expanding our scope of coverage beyond music), there's no denying that Pitchfork is an integral reason why Consequence and there are so many others. And for that, I will be eternally grateful.
The demise of Pitchfork has also sparked conversations about the future of music discovery and criticism. The publication's greatest legacy was the attention it gave to so many young artists. Some of the best bands of the last 25 years owe their existence to a Pitchfork review or profile.
To that end, there's no way to replace Pitchfork, and its absence leaves a gaping hole in music discovery.
Covering music that exists outside the mainstream is difficult and expensive, often with little reward. That's probably one of the reasons Conde gutted Pitchfork and why so many other great music publications have come and gone over the years. Reviewing thousands of submissions takes time. Writing takes time. And, tragically, even the best songs swim against an algorithm that prioritizes lewd and vulgar media. The end result is budgets cut, good music that is not heard and bands that deserve to be highlighted are left in the dark. And, hence, the challenge of covering music in the year 2024.
But all is not lost: there are still many great resources, most of which didn't even exist when Pitchfork started two and a half decades ago. There are newsletters, Discords, subreddits, and personal blogs dedicated to each and every niche your musical heart desires.
We would also be remiss not to mention our own commitment to supporting new musicians. That's why we decided to expand our New Year's Eve playlist to 200 entries. It's also why we've made it a priority to highlight more new and up-and-coming artists in our Songs of the Week and Albums of the Month features. And just this week we published an article highlighting 15 rising artists who we think are poised for a big year.
As long as there is music, there will be people writing about music. It may look different and you may have to look a little harder to find it, but it will be there. And so will the influence of Pitchfork.
thanks to our partners at consequence.net
