{"word_count": 1212, "character_count": 8221}
[caption id="" align="aligncenter" width="804"] Source: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/23/Pitchfork_Media_Logo.svg[/caption]On 13th October 2015, Pitchfork – the online magazine devoted to independent music – was acquired by Condé Nast, “the media company that owns Vogue, Vanity Fair, The New Yorker, GQ and Wired among many others” according to the official statement[i]. Condé Nast is part of the Advanced Publications – a holding specialized in the media industry. According to Forbes, it is the 44th largest company in the USA with a turnover of 8 billion dollars[ii]. Advanced Publications is owned by Donald and Samuel Irving Jr. Newhouse, both in the top 50 of Forbes’ top 400 billionaires in the USA[iii].So, what’s new about all this? To be honest, not much[iv]. Many other important institutions of the indie rock world have been acquired by big companies, one example being Sub Pop, 49% of which is owned by Warner Music Group (Bell 2011). Others have adopted a more business-oriented model, such as All Tomorrow's Parties in 2012[v]. However, the case of Pitchfork is, in a way, an ideal-type. The webzine founded in 1995 by Ryan Schreiber corresponds to a certain mythology of indie rock: a young man right out of high school starting his own website to provide news on independent music from his bedroom. It can be considered as a typical example of the development of indie rock during the nineties, based on a certain democratization of the diffusion of music that has gone hand in hand with the advent of the Internet[vi]. With time, Pitchfork would become a reference in the indie rock world. Its emergence in the American mediascape coincided with the emergence of a number of now acclaimed bands such as Modest Mouse, Arcade Fire, Bon Iver or Death Cab for Cutie. In fact, Pitchfork became well known for its review system based on a scale from 0 to 10 and the very critical tone it would at times take on[vii]. In recent years, the activities of the webzine were enlarged to include an online TV channel (Pitchfork TV), a paper edition (The Pitchfork Review), a radio (P4K radio) and festivals (in Chicago and Paris as well as a curated stage in Primavera).Of course, we can see the acquisition of Pitchfork as another simple symptom of the institutionalization, mainstreamalization or marketization (you name it!) process of indie rock[viii], which has already happened with many other musical genres or artistic forms. And, indeed, it is the case. But, because it concerns an institution related to the creation of artistic value, I think we need to push our analysis a bit further. First of all, let’s start with a simple statement: talent is not enough to explain artistic reputation[ix]. In the last chapter of his book Art Worlds (1982), Howard Becker emphasizes that the formation of reputation is essentially a process of selection and there are simply too many art pieces for a perfect and equitable evaluation process. Becker points out that “as a result, the process of selection through which art worlds operate and art reputations are made leaves out most of the works which might be, under other procedures of definition and selection, included in the corpus of what is recognized as art, good or competent art, and great art” (1982: 368). Thus, institutions such as Pitchfork have a central role in the diffusion of information and the selection of “good” and “bad” music. Yet, the concentration of these institutions in the hands of a small number of companies tackles questions of how artistic reputations are formed.In a conference held as part of the Swiss Sociological Congress, in June 2015, Luc Boltanski presented the idea of a shift from an economy of production to an economy of enrichment. This shift is characterized by a decline in industry and the emergence of new sources of richness such as tourism, sports and culture. Manufactured products are no longer the driving force of the economy, but ideas, stories and concepts such as brands, authenticity[x] or art pieces. Boltanski underlined how in recent years a number of large holdings have developed their activities in such sectors[xi]. In a recent article, Hesmondhalgh and Meier (2015) pointed out how companies of the digital industry (e.g. Google, Apple, etc.) had invested in the musical industry. Thus, a well-established band such as U2 no longer has a label, since their album is automatically distributed by Apple on the computer of every iTunes user.Such developments bring us back to the question of how artistic reputations are formed. What if the same actors that sell us festival tickets, streaming services or music devices become key actors in the formation process of artistic reputations? What about the “media independence” that Hesmondhalgh and Meier (2015) talk about? Such considerations are not far from Pierre-Joseph Proudhon’s worries about the appropriation of arts by the political and economic order in Les majorats Littéraires (1862: 160). The Pitchfork story is a call to investigate artistic reputation by asking a simple question: who does what that affects artistic value, how and with whom? I believe such studies will tackle questions of (re)democratization of artistic reputation formation processes and, more generally, will contribute to the debate about intellectual property.[i] See http://pitchfork.com/news/61621-pitchfork-acquired-by-conde-nast/ (consulted online the 18/10/15).[ii] See http://www.forbes.com/companies/advance-publications/ (consulted on 18/10/15).[iii] See http://www.forbes.com/profile/donald-newhouse/ and http://www.forbes.com/profile/samuel-newhouse-jr/ (consulted on 18/10/15).[iv] Rachael Maddux already in 2010 addressed the question « Is Indie dead? » in an article published in Paste: http://www.pastemagazine.com/articles/2010/01/is-indie-dead.html (consulted on 18/10/15).[v] See http://www.atpfestival.com/newsview/1207131500 (consulted on 18/10/15).[vi] In his book Ripped: how the wired generation revolutionized music (2009), Greg Kot gives a great description of these changes and the success of Pitchfork among others.[vii] See for instance the review of Sign No More by Mumford and Sons: http://pitchfork.com/reviews/albums/13906-sigh-no-more/ (consulted on 18/10/15).[viii] See, for example, Hesmondhalgh 1997 and 1999, Moore 2006 and Newman 2009.[ix] I will not go further into the sociological analysis of talent, but some worthy reflections on the subject include Menger 2009 and Schotté 2014.[x] Thereupon, Condé Nast statement said: “The acquisition of Pitchfork reflects Condé Nast’s continued belief in the power of authentic editorial voices to engage influential audiences at scale.”: http://www.condenast.com/press/press-releases/2015/10/13/conde-nast-acquires-pitchfork-media-inc (consulted on 18/10/15).[xi] He gave the example of the French group Kering specialized in luxury and owned by François Pinault, who is also known as an important art collector.ReferencesBecker, Howard Saul. Art Worlds. University of California Press, 1982.Bell, Thomas. “Why Seattle? An Examination of an Alternative Rock Culture Hearth.” Journal of Cultural Geography 18, no. 1 (1998): 35–47.Hesmondhalgh, David. “Indie: The Institutional Politics and Aesthetics of a Popular Music Genre.” Cultural Studies 13, no. 1 (1999): 34–61.———. “Post-Punk’s Attempt to Democratise the Music Industry: The Success and Failure of Rough Trade.” Popular Music 16, no. 03 (1997): 255–74.Hesmondhalgh, David, and Leslie M. Meier. “Popular Music, Independence and the Concept of the Alternative in Contemporary Capitalism.” In Media Independence, by James Bennett and Nikki Strange. Abingdon and New York: Routledge, 2015.Menger, Pierre-Michel. Le Travail Créateur. Hautes études. Paris: Gallimard-Seuil, 2009.Moore, Ryan. “Alternative to What? Subcultural Capital and the Commercialization of a Music Scene.” Deviant Behavior 26, no. 3 (2005): 229–52.Newman, Michael Z. “Indie Culture: In Pursuit of the Authentic Autonomous Alternative.” Cinema Journal 48, no. 3 (2009): 16–34.Proudhon, Pierre-Joseph. Les Majorats Littéraires. Office de publicité, 1862.Schotté, Manuel. “Le Don, Le Génie et Le Talent.” Genèses 93, no. 4 (2014): 144–64.