Pitchfork's Chris Ott takes No Prisoners

Chris Ott: 'True Blue' was a big ass hit for Madonna. I don't even follow this Tops In Pops shit, and I've at least heard of "True Blue".

Kidnapping Bushwicker for non-hip Deniece Williams dancing.

http://ia.media-imdb.com/images/M/MV5BMTUxMDU1Mjk5MV5BMl5BanBnXkFtZTcwMjI1MTkxNA@@._V1._SX640_SY956_.jpg

it's just a matter of time until we have to change this thread title because he's actually begun taking prisoners

drawing attention to the DIY scene-journalism-advertising-venture capital foodchain seems worthwhile to me

at least, I'll take this over slinging homophobic taunts at Grizzlybros

it's not an either/or thing, he can do both! he's a renaissance man!

He's replaced his homophobia with a barely-veiled creepy targeting of female music writers

renaissance. man.

With bennies

Ugh this guy sucks

there ott-a be a law

There oughta be a windscreen on that mic.

drawing attention to the DIY scene-journalism-advertising-venture capital foodchain seems worthwhile to me

otm generally, but he actually spends like 3/4 of the video exhibiting funny ways to call pro journalists stupid rather than drawing out a helpful analysis. also, like sleepingbag said, his proposed alternative seems to be that writers give away the same content for free, easy to say when you've already got long bennies

there's an interesting (sort of) move going on in which he pre-empts the accusation that he's just old and stuck in nostalgia for his own DIY scene glory days by delegitimizing and pooh-pooh-ing his own regional scenester past- I don't mean to be Capt. Save-a-Ott but that shows at least some self-awareness about the problem of the older/wiser platform from which he's castigating millenials for being sheeple / naive about the corporate entanglements of web media (tho it also makes you wonder about whether that's just another form of navel-gazing self-importance too)

(said the 42 year old just before running away)

I prefer this stuff when it's coming from dash snowden

He poo-poos his old scene because it included people who weren't him. It took him awhile to realize that he's the only person who mattered.

Like he became the crabby bullshit uncle at Thanksgiving we've all heard about.

http://www.google.com/url?sa=i&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=images&cd=&cad=rja&docid=1Q-fkC4aRwUigM&tbnid=hVR8S7V843KuEM:&ved=0CAUQjRw&url=http%3A%2F%2Fguyspeed.com%2Fdrunk-uncle-snl%2F&ei=urCbUqnFLI_xoASQr4E4&bvm=bv.57155469,d.cGU&psig=AFQjCNH7-lVg9QOZLARXp1E6iXybeJ0DJw&ust=1386021420457481

http://wac.450f.edgecastcdn.net/80450F/guyspeed.com/files/2013/07/Uncle-4.gif

by delegitimizing and pooh-pooh-ing his own regional scenester past

Is he really delegitimizing and pooh-pooh-ing his scenester past though. Isn't he saying that he was part of a purer and cleaner scene because they weren't playing for viewcounts and retweets but were only "doing it to have fun" or whatever.

Must ...not ... link to that one Onion article again.

His presentation in that video is just hilarious. Like I have no idea exactly what effect he's going for but the tired concerned sad look plus thinly veiled contempt in his voice plus full frame pompadour just makes for near constant giggles on my part.

he doesn't understand how money works

"it's not just that i'm older" omg

i like how he points to "the same thirteen million amount, its spooky."

this is some glen beck level fight the new world order going on

i don't know what he's angry about.

cue josie "they're using.. our music.. to sell stuff!"

if not for this guy the nme might start publishing insignificant journalism regularly way to take a bold stand

I "get" what he's doing, and find it weirdly watchable—then again, I spent most of the afternoon drunk+banging my head on the floor, so being yelled at by an aging punk could be seen as a step up

he seems to me to be presenting himself as earnest-but-uncool relic of a bygone era ("zine culture") lecturing kids today on what that culture was, why that culture died, what replaced it, and why contemporary artists and journalists who have latched on to its ideals and tried to run with them are fucking it all up

I keep thinking of the grad student in Slacker who videos his manifesto before taking his advising committee hostage.

it's just a matter of time until we have to change this thread title because he's actually begun taking prisoners

― some dude, Sunday, December 1, 2013 3:29 PM (3 hours ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

lol

niiiice

actual lol @ that sd quote

i for one was shocked to find out that media company bosses make more than the people writing articles for those companies. capitalism gone mad

until i saw that video i had no idea how much charlie sheen had let himself go

I already nailed it with the Nice Guy Eddie reference upthread. No further celebrity comparisons will be allowed from this point on

That video is so weird. It's got the not-terrible analysis of the big picture economics of the media landscape, paired with the weird attribution of responsibility for this situation to writers and bands. And then the demand that writers publish their work for free so they can remain pure, instead of pushing forth what Ott views as an irredeemably corrupt system.

It seems like an analogue of the "buy ethical" argument, this idea that it's incredibly crucial to make sure you're never purchasing anything that has any dicey production practices. Which I think everyone does in certain doses, but becomes a total dead end when taken to extremes. If you spend all your time making sure you never make "unethical" purchases, you end up spending a ton of time, money, and energy that you could have spent more actively making the earth less terrible.

That's not even getting into the digressions about NME, and how dare they try to draw attention to a scene that's not actually significant, like that's this weird new thing that NME is doing in 2013.

No further celebrity comparisons will be allowed from this point on

His hair and mustache always remind me of GWAR manager Sleazy P. Martini.

http://i17.photobucket.com/albums/b72/karmacorn/sleazy.jpg

i'm actually somewhat confused by the idea that music mags/sites aren't supposed to make money for the vc firms that invest in them.

i really don't think that's how vc works.

also i think he's a smidge off on trader bonuses, in general.

i mean lol "multiples of 6 figures".

i guess when your ladder reaches all the way to $94k base then quantities above that become a bit... fuzzy.

dude really spends a lot of time bitterly subtweeting... someone

oh and he neglects the main reason ppl want to write for big sites -- not necessarily so they can say they're paid, but to get more exposure. like he of all ppl should understand writers and egos.

what a weird thing for him to hone in though... some woman who wrote an article about a little regional scene? shouldnt that be the kind of writing he IS championing?

But you see she did it and got a small fee for it. It would have been better had she not been paid at all

I think he maybe has a point about media/vc, in that sometimes media properties are allowed to be loss leaders in order to give a veneer of prestige or cool to corporations. The Atlantic Monthly, for example, wasn't profitable for decades.

down with the corporate oligarchy! down with reporting on small regional scenes! up with, uh.

The New Yorker is also a huge loss leader for Condé Nast iirc

still think his overall argument is weak, for the record, and I wouldn't be surprised if he gets details wrong re: monetary amounts and other things

I think he maybe has a point about media/vc, in that sometimes media properties are allowed to be loss leaders in order to give a veneer of prestige or cool to corporations. The Atlantic Monthly, for example, wasn't profitable for decades.

― intheblanks, Sunday, December 1, 2013 9:31 PM Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

but the problem here is its usually the individual rich benefactor with a prestige project that sustains publications that don't do well. freefloating investment groups care much less about that stuff and much more about just making a quick buck.

Just had the insight that the term "loss leader" here is just the idea of patronage recontextualized for the 20th and 21st century. Need to monetize this idea quick

xpost Yeah, you're probably right. it would certainly explain the ridiculous turnover at Spin.

Maybe Ott just really wants a ton of on-the-scene reporting from Rich Antoniello. He was pretty mad that guy doesn't have any skin in the game.

the odd thing is that he seems to think he's dropping truth bombs on every other writer, but what does HE imagine that WE imagine the reality is? he thinks the rest of us are walking around thinking that every place that still pays for music writing is faultless and noble and that covering important music is their #1 priority and entire plan for reaping profit?