Judging by how often our favorite music-review site (and my former stomping grounds), Pitchfork touts Brooklyn music, you’d never know the website’s offices sit right in Wicker Park: Of the 70 records Pitchfork tagged “Best New Music” over the last two years, not one came from Chicago, and nearly 30 percent hailed from New York. It’s hard to swallow that suburban New Jersey is destroying us. Would it kill the guys to serve up some hometown hype? Sure, the site and its festival are a key instrument in turning music geeks like ourselves on to new acts. Yet some of our local favorites such as Tight Phantomz, Serengeti and Scotland Yard Gospel Choir can’t get so much as a review. “We don’t involve ourselves or make friends within the local scene,” explains editor Scott Plagenhoef. “We prefer to remain objective, and we are by nature an international publication.”
In the meantime Try Evanston’s popmatters.com.
Is anyone else talking about Tight Phantomz, Serengeti, or Scotland Yard Gospel Choir? According to Google, not many. I agree, it wouldn't hurt to review a record or two from these guys. However if your argument is Chicago v. Brooklyn on the Best New Music front, have you considered the possibility that Brooklyn bands might actually be releasing better music than Chicago bands?
NJ rules
that's straight bullshit. the more people start data mining. the more people will see only certain bands and labels get reviewed. pitchfork jumped the shark with the arcade fire and are hoping they still have clout. music reviews in the vein of pitchfork are the exact opposite of objective. there is nothing objective about it. it's not even worth sending in a record for review unless you are friends with a reviewer. oh and where does the pitchfork founder live? objective my ass.