Pitchfork's Chris Ott takes No Prisoners

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.

:-(Ñ

ka-boom! Shame you guys flat out ignored my application. Wankers! I want in on the gravy train!

Let me shave first. I don't want to scratch you up.

(as are guys with beards in certain gay bars...)

thanks for not tanking mercury rev. that makes it hard to complain about anything else.
m.

ps "no sacred cows were sacrificed by the writing of this rock piece."

pss who really wants readership bigger than say... 10 people...? i evidentally don't. a football team would be too many people. the combined members of deerhoof and tful282 would put me over my limit.

psss seriously tho. bad jokes aside. a readership the size of rs+spin is going to require RADICALLY different content than covering the indie beat. you can't lie to yourselves. why be the next lame fucking industry mag? you might as well be the bmg/columbia house catalog.

not sure why Ott seems so angry. i cant quite tell who or what he is angry with. i am wary of saying this, because i fear being attacked by him, which seems a curios way of winning me over. i suspect that, as an occasional poster to a message board he seems to dislike, he has little regard for what i say, perhaps he shouldnt.

equally unsure about others anger towards Ott. there is some kind of history? it seems Ott is very scathing about ILM, i dont know if this is towards every poster, or whether that is conflation (ilm is guilty of this in regard to pitchfork though).

if Ott attacks me with the same vigour as he has some of the others here (whether in name or as 'ilx'), i dont know why i would respond in the same manner, as some here have. i am only responsible for my own words, i dont really need to do that, im not sure why some of you do

Ott is an average writer, he is ok i guess, obviously there are many better, but, you know, he likes what he does, and thats the main thing, and it doesnt really matter if he is bigger and more well known than someone like Reynolds or not, i dont think there is any need to attack Ott, i think he is best judged by his own words on this thread.

I think an ability to take negative criticism without self-aggrandizement or attack or petty retort shows your class, after all, i am curious as to what Ott would think if he got an email from a band he had criticized which outlined how they had sold more records than he had and had reached a wider audience and that that mattered more than the words of a webzine (which is the tack Ott has taken on this thread)

But, on the other hand, Ott has received many answers on this thread, and many people reading his article, so its a successful article, and i think Ott can be pleased that so many people have taken an interest in his writing, and that he has got so many people talking. and, as he says, emails from hundreds of people telling him he has made a difference in their lives.

i think Ott needs to have a little more confidence in his work, regardless of its quality, then perhaps he can avoid the prickly defensiveness and let his work speak for itself. if the views of ilm are irrelevant then there is no need to spend quite so much time defending your work, which should be good enough to stand by itself. if the views of ilm are relevant, then i'm not quite sure what you are getting, or aiming to get, from this thread, other than a critics throwdown, which is offputting to most people i would guess

and i still cant quite understand why people on both sides think there is some huge gulf between ilm and pitchfork, they seem very similar to me, especially now that ilm is predominantly american

Actually you didn't. Re-read your paragraph.

But let's stick to this one, then, as there's no wiggle room:
"We have more readers than SPIN, Mikey. Sit the fuck down."

Spin has a circulation of 500k+ by itself. Where are the numbers that show Pitchfork with equivalent numbers? Since I clicked on all the pages for your article to look at the album names, did I get counted as six "readers" by PFork-math?

And also, wasn't American Music Club's "Everclear" album on the top albums of the 90's list by pitchfork?

I'd like to think that the writers at SPIN at least have something better to do with their time then argue online at some silly message board.

Ah well. Oh hey, the ramones released another live album. weird. thanks pitchfork.

it seems that this kind of topic is mainly enjoyed by males, both on ilx and at large. is there an argument to be put forward that the kind of combative behaviour on this thread is offputting and counter-productive to many people? this kind of thread seems a strange legacy, that i am surprised people would want attached to them. or perhaps it doesnt matter?

or perhaps there isnt a competitive and combative locker room vibe to this thread? what do you all think? i am curious to learn from people about their own posts here, and if that is the kind of effect and impression they were aiming to get across.

wtf is wrong w/"homoeroticism" anyway?

There are whole piles of these records I have absolutely no knowledge of (presumably all linked to US college radio/TV spots) - Dada's 'puzzle', for example, I seriously doubt ever made it to Britain in any kind of quantity - so can't comment on the accuracy there, despite the strong feelings Chris clearly has for them.

Of the stuff I do know... erm... it's not that accurate. Alex points out the CSC one at the outset of this thread, and some other people have picked out other ones, but for me... if someone can show me the musical link between Bleach and Th' Faith Healers I'd be grateful (and surprised). Oh, and Grebo was an odd term that applied to the Fraggle bands that weren't Fraggle (coming as it did from PWEI's major Fraggle single) and was interchangeable with it for a while - but ultimately became music press shorthand for any Black Country outfit (even bands like The Hunters Club).

(Note for trivia fans - the dance that the people on stage with Mud on *that* performance of 'Tiger Feet' is called The Grebo)

My biggest gripe though is with myself. I'd read this thread before I read the column and Mr Ott has managed to build such a negative perception of him that it's hard to be positive about his writing. I'm going to try his linked 'So Much For The Afterglow' and give him another chance.

I think I need to search the site and try and find him saying something positive about anything, just for balance.