I tend to disagree on the hot take re: Pitchfork and Bandcamp.
I think it's toxic to assume that it's not a big deal to just lay off half of the staff without any real consequences in terms of quality (not just quantity).
Sure, it might look like not much has changed at Pitchfork from the outside. Which means yes, you CAN run a music website without an editor-in-chief, with just one or two staff editors and loads of underpaid freelancers, and still get half-decent content out there, at least for a while.
As for Bandcamp – I think in essence the Songtradr acquistion was a good thing, because in comparison to Epic they seem to at least not hinder Bandcamp's success. Still, they should've never sold in the first place!
Yeah that's a fair comment Stephan. I think really my point was that the general narrative around the GQ move was "well, that's that then..." when all evidence suggests that - for now anyway - Pitchfork's output hasn't yet changed all that much. So to be clear, that wasn't me advocating for the fate that befell Pitchfork; more that I just feel the immediate doomerism around it might be premature.
As for Bandcamp - well yeah, I'd agree with the sentiment that it should not have sold up to start with, but here we are... and yes, I'd share the view that Songtradr currently looks like a far better owner than Epic. Right now I get the impression Bandcamp is just continuing as normal, without any evidence of the new owners meddling. I'm sure there's been changes behind the scenes but from the public point of view, it remains a fantastic site with an incredible range of features that all work to empower artists.
Very interesting read Darren. Greatly appreciated!
Thanks Dom! 🙏🏻
As usual, a great read Darren.
I tend to disagree on the hot take re: Pitchfork and Bandcamp.
I think it's toxic to assume that it's not a big deal to just lay off half of the staff without any real consequences in terms of quality (not just quantity).
Sure, it might look like not much has changed at Pitchfork from the outside. Which means yes, you CAN run a music website without an editor-in-chief, with just one or two staff editors and loads of underpaid freelancers, and still get half-decent content out there, at least for a while.
As for Bandcamp – I think in essence the Songtradr acquistion was a good thing, because in comparison to Epic they seem to at least not hinder Bandcamp's success. Still, they should've never sold in the first place!
Yeah that's a fair comment Stephan. I think really my point was that the general narrative around the GQ move was "well, that's that then..." when all evidence suggests that - for now anyway - Pitchfork's output hasn't yet changed all that much. So to be clear, that wasn't me advocating for the fate that befell Pitchfork; more that I just feel the immediate doomerism around it might be premature.
As for Bandcamp - well yeah, I'd agree with the sentiment that it should not have sold up to start with, but here we are... and yes, I'd share the view that Songtradr currently looks like a far better owner than Epic. Right now I get the impression Bandcamp is just continuing as normal, without any evidence of the new owners meddling. I'm sure there's been changes behind the scenes but from the public point of view, it remains a fantastic site with an incredible range of features that all work to empower artists.
I agree wholeheartedly! Huge fan of Bandcamp, buying a huge portion of my monthly dose of music from them.