Very, very cool article, lfr.

I just finished reading the book he mentions a week or so ago, and it was fantastic. The whole subject of how we define ourselves, or don't, by our tastes is one that just fascinates me.

it's even better Beeps if you read it whilst listening to the full-length extended mix of Fascination Street :)

(er the article, that is) - and thanks for the book recce; I'll definitely check that out!

here, see if you agree [divshare]

Oh, SWEET! One of my all-time favorite Cure songs, too. Thanks so much! :)

Thanks for posting this. I don't really peruse Pitchfork all that often, so I probably would've missed this...

The problem with this essay, and a lot of writing for the internet, isn't a lack of ideas or even insight, but rather the lack of a real development of the ideas or premise. I like some of what the author has to say, and how he frames his ideas and creates context, but I don't feel it connects with any strong point or conclusion. Perhaps it was written for an audience that hasn't pondered these questions previously.

I think the exploration of 'taste' post-internet is something that is extremely interesting and worth analysising and discussing. Now more than ever, the media we digest—especially voluntarily as a form of entertainment—is now more fragmented and niche, thanks to and much like the internet itself.

I feel artists—especially musicians, since they can create effectively as a small team, or as a dedicated individual—will serve to benefit from this technological and societal shift, now that they have ability, again especially in the case of musicians, to distribute their work with the same scope of these multinational conglomerates, thanks to the internet.

I think Radiohead—and the others before and after them that have dabbled with new forms of direct artist-to-consumer internet commerce—are on the right track with their experiments. I see a new form of direct patronage; instead of one very wealthy supporter like the days of yore, there will many very dedicated enthusiasts giving multiple, staggered, small donations – think the netroots support of Obama and you'll get the picture.

That's only tangentially related to this essay, but I've been thinking about it quite a bit. As consumers begin to more directly support artists, both the artist and consumer benefit: the artist is the sole monetary benefactor (less bullshit overhead lining corporate pockets) and the consumer's opinion is more directly apparent to the artist (which, depending on the artist's creative process, could be good or bad, or obviously somewhere in between), that is – if they even listen or care to listen to their supporters. I'd assume they would, seeing that their supporters could stop supporting them any time they'd like, cutting of the flow of money – directly and negatively effecting the artist's career.

I feel as this shift occurs, the 'review' critic will continue to serve the function it best serves now: someone who understands that we like or dislike things for reasons beyond our intial inclinations or disinclinations and serves to explore and effectively explain those reasons. I feel that a critic who writes in a non-academic or scholarly fashion, that is for the 'average reader' (which as this article discusses, may become more and more specific, thanks to the internet), would like to create an enviroment where, and tools by which, people can better explain why they like or dislike things, in order to hopefully get other people to understand their inclinations or disinclinations toward something and vice versa.

They want to change people's minds and open them up to something they may not have liked, or at least put the onus on the person to be able to communicate why they don't. Personally, as someone who digs thinking about the things I like and loves discussing it, I'm hoping we don't lose our need for written criticism. I feel confident that we won't; if anything the difficulty of navigating such vast niche networks of media, will make the voice of consistent, clear critics even more valuable.

'analysising'... Nice.

defenestration, I don't disagree that there's not a ton of development there. It's a shortish article, afterall.

You have to consider the audience however. One of the reasons I like the article as much as I do is *because* it is accessible. Meaning, sorry, but if they go off on three or six pages of dry rambling deconstructionism, I probably am not going to manage to remain engaged. Sorry but that's just how it is on the internet these days, hell with most of the media. My attention span simply doesn't work that way, and I'm 40. Consider all the 18-25 YOs out there who were RAISED on thirty second sound bites and CNN's news summary banners. Yeah I'll read a NYT magazine article every so often but only when I'm super into the subject matter.

While I agree that this whole lack-of-attention-span deal is a self-fulfilling issue, I think the authour did a fantastic job of summing up his points in a meaningful way that both caught my attention and drew me in to read the entire article, and then search out additional sources; like BoPo's book up there. Were it not for the accessibility of the article, I'd very likely have skimmed the first few sentences, then hit back.

THAT is imo it's value. It's a nugget that creates interest in me to do more research on the subject. If it were any longer or more in depth I might not have waited it out.