Pitchfork's Chris Ott takes No Prisoners

"The Bible says speak the truth," he says. "It doesn't say anything about you having to like what I say."

Barry Bonds, 2003

I come back after a few hours later and the thread is suddenly awesome. I've read the reviews and I don't really remember them, but I remember this stuff.

1 - way too much copy, way too many page links. This piece cries for sarcasm in one sentence blurbs. This will not only make it more lively and entertaining, but less reliant on actual facts. And that's fine. (and as an aside, I'd say Pitchfork's biggest downfall is that there are too many damn words in every review; it's not the quantity dude, it's the quality.)

2 - keep the "homoerotic" comments to whatever it is you do with your boys when the town pump is being serviced. Then again, it's that kind of comment that makes Pitchfork such an easy target. So, I guess you'll keep that up.

3 - don't pick a fight with Matos. Or iLx. Why?

You.
Will.
Always.
Lose.

P.S. Bragging about having more pageviews than SPIN is not equitable to readership. Because if it is, you'd better start fucking paying your writers.

"we totally move into blender territory!"

(nb editors who may hire me i like certain parts of spin and blender fine, but the gag's too perfect)

http://www.bondscentral.com/images/bonds7.jpg

I decided to mosy on down to pitchforkmedia.com and look at the masthead. Chris Ott isn't listed as, oh, an advertising salesman, an executive of some sort or even an editor.

Did all two-dozen Pitchfork writers take part in the New Line pitch, or are you just bragging (about an ad from New Line - how low is that) about something you had nothing to do with?

Do I have to register now to view the PFMS threads, or do I just have the wrong URL? Because you're right, that's where the most entertaining stuff is, but I haven't been able to check it out for the last week or so.

for example:
when he blunders that jesus jones' "right here, right now" (which was released 1990 or 1991 depending on what side of the pond you were on) was "Another mid-90s one-hit wonder"* it is a forgivable error. it's when he follows with "we're only now running into younger fans that haven't heard", the condescending tone of elevated plurality is self-incriminating; the reader instantly recognizes just how transparent chris' stance is... he IS that "younger fan" he's bemoaning.

*as of 8:05pmPST, 09/23/03

1. The Stems, At First Sight
Ghastly post-INXS ska-funk with a brilliant Big Star cover stuck up front. Talk about hedging your bets.

Not really. It's. Just. Boring.

I have a hard time believing that Pitchfork's target market would have the attention span to read through an article like this.

no less their critics!

Furthermore, if you think your advertising space is more valuable than SPIN's, then you are a total fucking moron. Do not go bragging to me about New Line Cinema or how you guys got that deal--I've experienced more advertising sales and know more about that business than you will ever imagine. I know exactly, to the fucking letter, how that game is played. So if YOU are always getting things right, then start explaining right now how all the studios are lining up to advertise on Pitchfork before they run anything in SPIN. Oh wait, they're not doing that.

WORD!

But I love him for his talent, idiosyncracy and art. Seriously.

i wish brent Diwhatshisface posted on ilm. he's funny!

he'll make Scott's legs shake! Scott makes him go crazy!

And then, convince me that you have shitloads of advertisers lined up because you can deliver more effectively and better than SPIN.

And then, start bragging about how much you charge for ads.

And then start showing me all the auto ads you guys run and how much that industry loves working with you. Same for cigarettes.

Bitch, the last thing on earth I want to do is defend a marginally interesting read like SPIN--hell, I'll give you that your editorial is more compelling than theirs--but you make it easy.

You mean your best retort isn't "HAHA U R FAT"?

Spin and RS have a combined circulation of ~1.75mln.

I'd like to see numbers supporting the contention that Pitchfork "dwarfs" them. What does dwarf mean? 100% more? 200%? Are you going claim, with a straight face, that Pitchfork has 3.5mln readers?

Let's try again:
"Spin and RS have a combined circulation of ~1.75mln.

I'd like to see numbers supporting the contention that Pitchfork "dwarfs" them. What does dwarf mean? 100% more? 200%? Are you going claim, with a straight face, that Pitchfork has 3.5mln readers?"

And maybe we can go back to the advertising thing:

"Did all two-dozen Pitchfork writers take part in the New Line pitch, or are you just bragging (about an ad from New Line - how low is that) about something you had nothing to do with?"

But I can infer from your post that these negotiations will bring Pitchfork annual advertising sales equitable to Rolling Stone and SPIN combined--you know, you indicating that that your readership is that large and therefore, just as or more valuable and all. The syndicate is going to love you for that. My only question is why go with a syndicate if you are so valuable on your own? Oh I know, all that is tied up in the negotiation details as well but either way if you can kill off SPIN and Rolling Stone it will more than makeup for the hubris that has rolled out of that IP address over the past few years.