January 19, 2006
Pitchfork vs the New York Indies
In February of 2005, we booked New York band The Cloud Room to play our 2nd Movable Hype show. We had heard their song Hey Now Now and it instantly stuck in our head like peanut butter to the roof of one's mouth. This is how it was for everyone we talked to. We'd even venture to say that a song hasn't stuck in our head like that since.
This week, Pitchfork took a stab at the band (again), this time with a feature on that song titled, The Smash That Wasn't. It appears to be an attempt at taking a look in to the world of indie bands and their labels in a world ruled, mostly, by majors and Top 40 radio. This could be an intersting article, but Pitchfork isn't known for their writing, they're known for placing numbers on new releases. In that vein, they only gave us a glimpse at the tip of the iceburg. What about talking to another indie label? Or someone in radio promotions? Or Sub Pop, who got 500K in sales out of the Postal Service without a hit radio single? In other words: what about some actual insight?
Luckily, in the world wide web, even Pitchfork is open to review - and TuningFork has given it to them. Read their response here. In addition, the Cloud Room has issued a statement on the feature:
"Pitchfork -- such an odd, intriguing multi-headed beast (and I mean multi-headed beast in the best of senses). It's great to be their weekly feature, and to get our story out there, etc. But we come off as quite a bitter bunch, wouldn't you say? We've certainly come up against the complexities of mainstream radio we had no real idea about, and the limitations an indie label has when it comes to money. But, Gigantic has done a wonderful job supporting us, getting us out there, and we've learned and adjusted and are really excited about, well, everything--even dirt. Just kidding, I'm still not that excited about dirt.The success we've been having in Australia--radio, MTV, Rolling Stone, etc.--has proven that we weren't crazy; that a new label and band could in fact achieve success in a country that required less money. So we'll continue pursuing US radio, head down under, expand to the UK and elsewhere, but most importantly we'll concentrate on the music (see new Sunlight Song demo).
Honestly, life is so damn short, it's important to learn from the past, but not to continue living in it."
Last year we asked the Cloud Room and the National to keep diaries of their SXSW experiences. You can read the Cloud Room's here and The National's here. The National touches on what it is like to be just one band amongst so many others:
Anyway, this party is in an office park several miles out of town. It's sparsely attended. But Turing Machine and Thunderbirds Are Now are here. Great performances from both groups mitigate things. Our set is good, too. A tree falls in the forest . . .
What do you think of Pitchfork's article, and the struggle of the New York indie band and label?
Related: If you haven't heard it you can check out the Cloud Room's Hey Now Now (video and mp3) here.
|
the cloud room are definitely fun to listen to. but for what it's worth- the "paaaaaay the bus faaaaaaare" critique in pitchfork is spot on and hilarious.
"This could be an intersting article, but Pitchfork isn't known for their writing, they're known for placing numbers on new releases."
Miaow! Unfortunately this comment just makes it look like you're bitter about the treatment metted out to a band that Gothamist has supported in the past. There is a worthwhile debate to be had about Pitchfork and its merits (or lack of them) but I think you're fishing for "yeah they SUCK"-type responses here.
Yeah, I second squid ink's comment. This post seems more like a promo for The Cloud Room.
Wasn't there just a big commentary argument here recently wherein Jake was trying to argue that you folks at Gothamist are actually reporters or somethin? In other words: what about some actual insight? If there's more to this story then report it on up!
totally agree with all of the above comments. i actually found the article very interesting and also shocking that cloud banged out such an important album for their career in a couple of days, writing songs just before recording them. doesnt really sound like their management team was looking out for their long term career with that decision. sort of explains why i didnt really like much of the album beyond hey now now (amazing song).
Funny how "indie" bands and labels are more concerned with creating "hits" instead of good records that may actually resonate with people beyond todays 15 minutes of blogger fame.
Sad state of affairs kids. As "indie" moves further and further away from its punk roots it basically has become the same damn thing as the majors.
A mistake a lot of readers make is to think of Pitchfork as this monolithic entity with a singular voice. But for most intents and purposes, it's a collective of like-minded independent writers, and it doesn't make sense to say "Pitchfork is...".
Granted, a lot of their writers are in love with their own writing and many reviews can read like "Look at all these obscure references that you're too uncultured to get!", the music world would be worse off without them. Pitchfork covers music with depth and breadth that few mainstream outlets do, and they uncover artists who aren't getting the big label push.
It sucks that their reviews can make or break an up-and-coming band, but at least they can make a band that wouldn't otherwise get the attention.
what makes you so sure that the article was supposed to be taking a look into the indie music industry? what if the article was just simply a story about one band/label's efforts with a song that just didn't make it big? i don't think the writer intended it to be some major feature on the industry, there was some context but i think it was just focussing on this one particular story.
I agree with everyone else's comments. Besides, Pitchfork's review isn't far off. Yeah, Hey Now Now is a damn good song, but the rest of the album is really not very good. I'd say it was actually pretty nice of em to give the Cloud Room that feature. After hearing the debut album, I probably never qould've given em a second chance, but now that I know the circumstances that the album was recorded under, I'll be sure to check out a future release by the cloud room.
Pitchfork bills tens of thousands of dollars every month in advertising, and is directing the independent music scene in America. What has Gothatmist ever done? Presume New York City is inherently valid? What an original conceit.
I don't even know what you're saying wih this article, Jen. Tuning Fork is a blog, and not a particularly well-written or insightful one. Theirs and your jealousy of Pitchfork couldn't be more overt. You share a casual, snide tone that lends the impression you think you're above Pitchfork, but you demonstrate no comparable musical awareness, lobbing massive names like Sub Pop and the Postal Service as if they're appropriate corrollaries to a tiny band like the Cloud Room.
Tuning Fork's cowering, paranoid conspiracy theories are cutely naive, especially "This article is a perfect example of a marketing tool in disguise." Actually, it's a perfect example of someone currently involved in the New York music scene (Michael Idov, of the band Spielerfrau) writing about a local band operating in a post-halo vacuum critics don't examine often enough.
The Cloud Room was earmarked for expiration before Pitchfork's piece ran. Why aren't you happy Pitchfork's extending their shelf life, if you care so much for them ("we booked them in early 2005!"). Why weren't you writing about them all year? You used the Cloud Room for free SXSW coverage and forgot all about them, and now your site wants to pretend it has some stake in their career because a bigger publication is taking note? How embarrassingly juvenile.
Hey, Chris! Speaking of sales, how did your book do? Hmm? Spent some time doing that... um... that research, did you? Sold good, right? Lots of interest? Hmm? Big book tour? Long lines signing at book stores? Hmm? Appearances on TV? People asking for your autograph on the street? Lots of fans? Hmm?
Chris, could it have harmed you to mention that you work for Pitchfork? You know, the company that is "directing the independent music scene in America"? Or would you prefer that readers' not know your affiliation? How embarrassingly juvenile.
Pitchfork isn't known for their writing, they're known for placing numbers on new releases. In that vein, they only gave us a glimpse at the tip of the iceburg.
Much like Gothamist isn't known for hitting fifth-grade spelling bee curveballs like "iceberg." Sorry to be catty, but I would love to know exactly what problems you had with the article's style. Perhaps the spoken-word version of the story that the Bob Roberts show on XM just commissioned would suit you better.
Never knew New Yorkers to be so thin-skinned. Fact is, most NYC indies are overrated and overhyped because of the preponderance of chest-beating blogs in your fair city. And that's from somebody who rated "Alligator" as the top release of '05.
Chris Ott? Oh how the douchbaggery oozes from the core of Queen B-Fork. And, NY IS inherently valid. It is, becuase artists and musicians the worldwide eventually come there (OK here) to stake their claim/make their name. NYC's rawk-n-rill isn't hype, it's a truism.