Author Topic: Musicological banter  (Read 1151154 times)

kosmo vinyl

  • Administrator
  • Member
  • Posts: 15208
    • Hi-Fi Pop
Re: Musicological banter
« Reply #1350 on: October 08, 2015, 07:31:39 pm »
T.Rex

azaghal1981

  • Member
  • Posts: 12034
Re: Musicological banter
« Reply #1351 on: October 08, 2015, 07:41:53 pm »
TBH I showed up right before LCDSS went on.
احمد

Justin Tonation

  • Member
  • Posts: 5379
  • Did you ever wonder?
Re: Musicological banter
« Reply #1352 on: October 13, 2015, 11:50:46 am »
😐 🎶

azaghal1981

  • Member
  • Posts: 12034
Re: Musicological banter
« Reply #1353 on: October 13, 2015, 02:22:18 pm »
The line in Condé Nast's press release about "passionate millennial males" can't be making Pitchfork's female writers (who have been responsible for its better content over the last few years) too happy.
احمد

Julian, Bespoke SEXPERT

  • Member
  • Posts: 28932
  • 11x MVP, 1st Posts, HoF, Certified Weblebrity
Re: Musicological banter
« Reply #1354 on: October 13, 2015, 02:32:48 pm »
TBH I showed up right before LCDSS went on.

Yacht (it was just the main guy solo at that point) was one of the weirdest things I have ever seen.
LVMH

ggw

  • Member
  • Posts: 14237
Re: Musicological banter
« Reply #1355 on: October 13, 2015, 02:54:27 pm »
"millennial males"

I love the paradox in their use of that phrase.  It's an acknowledgment that this business deal was driven by a desire to gain advertiser dollars looking to tap into a high spending demographic (and cross sell them into other CN publications).  While the average pitchfork reader understands that he is part of a massive demographic herd, he tries to bury that knowledge under his belief in his own indie-ness.  That CN would so ham-fistedly remind the readers that they are simply part of this large demographic mass shows that Conde Nast really doesn't know much about pitchfork.  But they do know how to listen to their consultants at McKinsey and this will likely turn out to be a very good acquisition (8.5).

Re: Musicological banter
« Reply #1356 on: October 13, 2015, 03:06:17 pm »
The line in Condé Nast's press release about "passionate millennial males" can't be making Pitchfork's female writers (who have been responsible for its better content over the last few years) too happy.
they were referring to the audience, not the staff
slack

Relaxer

  • Member
  • Posts: 5409
Re: Musicological banter
« Reply #1357 on: October 13, 2015, 03:11:36 pm »
Plus I wonder to what extent "millennial males" even care about Pitchfork anymore. My impression is that most present-day readers of Pitchfork are 30-40, which is more Gen Y than millennial. Every generation has its "lol u old" media. My Gen X generation felt that way about Rolling Stone. Gen Y probably felt that way about Spin. And millennials look at Pitchfork and associate it with Radiohead and Animal Collective, which aren't exactly modern bands anymore.

I'm pulling all of this outta my ass, by the way.
oword

ggw

  • Member
  • Posts: 14237
Re: Musicological banter
« Reply #1358 on: October 13, 2015, 03:17:29 pm »
Plus I wonder to what extent "millennial males" even care about Pitchfork anymore. My impression is that most present-day readers of Pitchfork are 30-40, which is more Gen Y than millennial. Every generation has its "lol u old" media. My Gen X generation felt that way about Rolling Stone. Gen Y probably felt that way about Spin. And millennials look at Pitchfork and associate it with Radiohead and Animal Collective, which aren't exactly modern bands anymore.

I'm pulling all of this outta my ass, by the way.

Isn't "Millennial" just a re-branding of Gen Y?

Re: Musicological banter
« Reply #1359 on: October 13, 2015, 03:21:02 pm »
I'm pulling all of this outta my ass, by the way.
you're ass is pretty spot on though
although I was always a MMR/trouser press/Village Voice kinda guy
slack

Relaxer

  • Member
  • Posts: 5409
Re: Musicological banter
« Reply #1360 on: October 13, 2015, 03:21:46 pm »
Plus I wonder to what extent "millennial males" even care about Pitchfork anymore. My impression is that most present-day readers of Pitchfork are 30-40, which is more Gen Y than millennial. Every generation has its "lol u old" media. My Gen X generation felt that way about Rolling Stone. Gen Y probably felt that way about Spin. And millennials look at Pitchfork and associate it with Radiohead and Animal Collective, which aren't exactly modern bands anymore.

I'm pulling all of this outta my ass, by the way.

Isn't "Millennial" just a re-branding of Gen Y?
Probably, but I think of generations as coming in 15-20 year chunks.

So your Greatest Generation is ancient times to 1945, Baby Boomers from 45-65, Gen X from 65-80, Gen Y from 80 to 95, and millenials beginning at 95 and onward (which means we're damn well ready for a new shiny generation label)
oword

azaghal1981

  • Member
  • Posts: 12034
Re: Musicological banter
« Reply #1361 on: October 13, 2015, 03:28:15 pm »
I know. But it smacks of an outdated sentiment that women can't be discerning music fans (then again, how much of a discerning music fan is your average Pitchfork reader in 2015, anyway? I almost only ever go there anymore to read something someone I know has written.).
The line in Condé Nast's press release about "passionate millennial males" can't be making Pitchfork's female writers (who have been responsible for its better content over the last few years) too happy.
they were referring to the audience, not the staff
احمد

azaghal1981

  • Member
  • Posts: 12034
Re: Musicological banter
« Reply #1362 on: October 13, 2015, 03:28:46 pm »
This is what I thought.
Plus I wonder to what extent "millennial males" even care about Pitchfork anymore. My impression is that most present-day readers of Pitchfork are 30-40, which is more Gen Y than millennial. Every generation has its "lol u old" media. My Gen X generation felt that way about Rolling Stone. Gen Y probably felt that way about Spin. And millennials look at Pitchfork and associate it with Radiohead and Animal Collective, which aren't exactly modern bands anymore.

I'm pulling all of this outta my ass, by the way.

Isn't "Millennial" just a re-branding of Gen Y?
احمد

killsaly

  • Guest
Re: Musicological banter
« Reply #1363 on: October 13, 2015, 03:37:57 pm »
Isn't "Millennial" just a re-branding of Gen Y?
YES. (also the term has been around since 1987...)

The years are up for debate but it is more like:

Generation Z - 1995 to 2012

Generation Y (aka Millennials) - 1980 to 1995

Generation X - 1965 to 1980

The years can vary a bit depending on what study you look at. 


So your Greatest Generation is ancient times to 1945, Baby Boomers from 45-65, Gen X from 65-80, Gen Y from 80 to 95, and millenials beginning at 95 and onward (which means we're damn well ready for a new shiny generation label)
No.  Millennials and Gen Y are the SAME THING.

http://whatis.techtarget.com/definition/millennials-millennial-generation
http://www.socialmarketing.org/newsletter/features/generation3.htm
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Millennials
http://people.howstuffworks.com/culture-traditions/generation-gaps/millennial-generation.htm
« Last Edit: October 13, 2015, 03:43:05 pm by killsaly »

stevewizzle

  • Guest
Re: Musicological banter
« Reply #1364 on: October 13, 2015, 03:44:16 pm »
Plus I wonder to what extent "millennial males" even care about Pitchfork anymore. My impression is that most present-day readers of Pitchfork are 30-40, which is more Gen Y than millennial. Every generation has its "lol u old" media. My Gen X generation felt that way about Rolling Stone. Gen Y probably felt that way about Spin. And millennials look at Pitchfork and associate it with Radiohead and Animal Collective, which aren't exactly modern bands anymore.

I'm pulling all of this outta my ass, by the way.

i think that's about right. millennial music fans are into festivals, electronic music, and molly. they could care less about rock n roll, punk rock, or any of the garbage being reported about tyler the creator or jack white.