In October, these words appeared in Pitchfork. My opinions on these matters are well-known, at this point, and they are of course contestable. It’s also the case that this kind of framing has become so ubiquitous that it barely seems to reference the real world at all. And yet I would hope that anyone would be able to understand the confusion I felt when I read this. By which I mean, what are indie records? What is “indie”? Which acts are indie acts? What is being referred to, here? Indie rock no longer exists, in 2024. There is no scene. Williamsburg at this point is like a neighborhood-sized artisan coffee shop where the napkins are ethically sourced and the labor non-union. There are no cool clubs anywhere keeping the flame burning, not sufficiently to produce albums that people actually listen to, anyway. No remotely plugged-in person under the age of 50 who’d like to be perceived as fuckable would openly claim to like “indie records.” In the mid-2020s that’s like saying that you’re a fan of the Confederacy. Someone recently emailed to say that when I write about poptimism, I’m just grinding out culture war the way I accuse others of doing. But as I said to him, “culture war” implies multiple sides. Culture war

“This is the sort of thing that became Pitchfork’s stock in trade, this confused muddle of politics and pop, stuffed with trendy terms from cultural studies and the insistence that liking music was a form of activism.”

  • @[email protected]English
    2•5 months ago

    Eh

    Seems like he’s complaining about how the music is less diverse, and pointing out the irony that their using diversity of staff as an excuse.

    (The implication that demographic diversification must necessarily steer a publication in a particular musical direction is very common and has always seemed straightforwardly a matter of prejudice to me, but you can’t blame Harvey for repeating it.)

    He’s not complaining about diverse staff

    He’s complaining about a lack of diversity in music

    But it’s not a “woke” thing that they only focus on pop music, it’s a capitalist thing.

    Most people like pop music. That’s why it’s pop music.

    And people like reading what agrees with their opinions. So Pitchfork says pop music is best for the clicks, and ignores other genres.

    Pitchfork is for the kids, always has been.

    It’s like complaining TRL from MTV always had pop at the top. Anything else was so rare I still remember the one time Eminem topped it when I was a kid.

    20 years ago this was already happening, we were just all younger and didn’t notice because we were still in demographics MTV and Pitchfork cared about, even if we weren’t who they cared about most.

    Now we (at least me and the writer of the article) aren’t.

    We’re older and the music industry doesn’t cater to us anymore.

    • @FedegenerateEnglish
      3•5 months ago

      “I used to be with ‘it’, but then they changed what ‘it’ was. Now what I’m with isn’t ‘it’ anymore and what’s ‘it’ seems weird and scary. It’ll happen to you!” - Abe Simpson

      Personally, I don’t think the music industry has ever catered to anyone but Capital. The counter culture was never catered to because it was counter. If you want to find new metal you can find it, just takes some looking is all.

      Whenever this topic comes up it feels like the people that liked what they were told to listen to never had to develop the skills to find music they like or the people to share it with. Now those doing the telling have moved on to the new hotness leaving people behind.