I don't understand how this is not merely accepted but in a sense applauded. Dirty Projectors "Hi Custodian" short movie is co-produced by Pitchfork and will be streamed on Pitchforks website. Talk about improper.
I am trying to understand how this works.
How can Pitchfork produce and presumably share in amy profits or at least get advertising value from Longstreth and yet still maintain a professional distance so that PF can review this very very big indie band with no conflict between the reviewers opinions and the ownerships business collussion. Frankly, it seems to be impossible, I can't believe there is any State And Churcj at work here.
If you reverse it you might look t the relationship between rock mag and artist like this:
1. The artists label pays the magazine money to run advertising for the artist
2. The magazine reviews the artist.
So, the magazine (or website) has a vested interest in giving good reviews to the artist and we assume that the rock mag has integrity and is unduly influenced by the bread. That's why you have editorial and advertising as separate entities.
Now look at Pitchfork:
1. They fund a rock bands vanity project.
2. And in return they are part owners of the vaniy project.
IN THIS CASE, the success of Pitchfork hinges upon the success of the Dirty Projectors movie, the more successful it is the better it is for Pitchfork. Put it this way: in theory, it doesn't matter to Pitchfork whether DP's new album sells or doesn't, so there opinion is untainted. BUT it does matter whether "Hi Custodian" does well. They have money and their good name invested in the project.
The relationship between PF and DP is wide and longstanding. Go and search DP on the music giants website, the list of entries is endless, reviews, interviews, exclusive videos, and, needless to add, appearances at Ptchfork's music festivals.
SO, say PF give the movie a rave. Do you believe them? Their opinion is deeply tainted. Now say they give the movie a pan: well, why the pan? Why have they involved themselves in a dog movie to start with and anyway what if the pan is through some false sense of objectivity. Indeed, if PF were to review the movie, the only way you could assess its accuracy would be by reading somebody else. OK, let's say they decide not to review it at all. Then what? Well, then the King Kong of indie music reviews have got themselves in a position where they are unable to review a huge act. Because they are greedy and stupid.