Weingarten.jpg
I just read another interview with Christopher R. Weingarten, the outspoken New York-based music critic who's reviewing 1,000 new albums on Twitter @1000TimesYes. In the interview, which appeared in Toronto's Eye Weekly, Weingarten continued his ongoing rant about milquetoast blogs and the death of real music criticism. And while he sometimes comes off as the whiny and bitter old journalist (as he did at the 140 Characters Conference last June), I can't help but agree with most of what he has to say. I found this excerpt form the Eye Weekly interview especially interesting:

"Music criticism is no longer about who’s shouting the loudest—it’s about who everyone is talking about the most, at the most medium volume. I’ve been doing this for fucking years, and I can’t even type. Pitchfork has the ability to cover almost every fucking thing—and still have tons of holes in their coverage—until their Web site became a database."

I know the whole "Pitchfork bad" argument has been discussed a million times. But, frankly, I think it's depressing that Pitchfork still has the power to make or break a band. And Stereogum? I'd say only about 10 percent of its content is useful or the slightest bit interesting. So. Thoughts on the Big Two? Where do you go to read well-written criticism/features on music?