Pitchfork.tv is now live and I’ve been enjoying it on this early moring.? Quality and content is both pretty good.? Plus, you get the added bonus of not having to read their snotty ass writers.
What will be interesting to see how it works when the television version tries to book bands once they’ve been trashed in print, however, the exposure is probably worth dealing with the devil.
“Obviously, people are ready for something crisper and better-looking,” said Schreiber. “[YouTube] is like sub-VHS quality.”
Wired.com got a sneak peek at the Pitchfork.tv site. We watched many videos, and the audio and video quality was fantastic across the board, with an editing style that adapted to the subject matter (faster cuts for faster riffs). The full multitrack recording setup Pitchfork.tv uses makes a real difference, and the benefits of careful editing are manifold. Any fan of a band featured in one of the sessions will be compelled to watch.
Aside from its original basement and rooftop sessions, Pitchfork.tv will feature third-party productions, including more than 300 music videos and a different feature-length documentary each week. Everything is free.
Since its launch in 1995, Pitchfork has become trusted as the final (or at least first) word on the latest sounds, although the site has faced criticism for reviews some call snarky or elitist.
I don’t know why people would call them snotty.? Though that quote by Schreiber is a fairly consistent with the overall tone of Pitchfork as a publication.? Granted, the quality on YouTube isn’t the best, but still.
Just wish more of the videos were embeddable.? That’s not too much to ask.