pitchfork on high

Referring to the lead news story at Pitchfork today: It's kind of hard to tell if writer Nick Patch (Nic Patch?) is making fun of himself (or his editor?) for suggesting the site has "exclusive" information on the forthcoming Spoon release--that a new album titled Gimme Fiction, "is complete and set to be released May 10 via Merge Records." "We're pretty fucking excited," he ironizes, setting back the cause of progressive, post-irony indie rockers everywhere [rather a Pitchfork-esque turn of phrase, eh?] . "Yeah, like Who's The Boss on DVD excited." But you would think the Pitchfork editors actually are excited, because they made the decision to put "Exclusive" on the heading. But not that excited, because it wouldn't be cool.

Anyway, I digress: What does "Exclusive" mean on the internet, when this story is just sitting around waiting to be scooped and dumped on someone else's web page for immediate publication. Does the fact that Spoon, if questioned, would say they gave the release date of their album to Pitchfork before they gave it to anyone else make any difference to someone who reads the information here first?

And in case anything else in that news story is seemingly important to Spoon fans, I think versions of that tracklist have been floating about since October. Just saying.

Moving from the catty and obviously envious into the merely annoying: My criticism being that the egalitarian strengths of the internet are sort of undermined by Pitchfork politically using its weight to get information before anyone else (yes, I understand it was surely in the best interests of Spoon to cooperate) and then suggesting (although pointlessly) that this information is exclusive to the site.

You can get all that stuff here, anyway, "exclusive" or not. I read Pitchfork every day. I'll tell you about it.


Blogger M said...

oh please, I don't think they're anymore privy to exclusives than anyone else who's on a few mailing lists, including yourself.

12:53 AM  

Post a Comment

<< Home