A death of music journalism conversation?

Hi everyone. Anthony Fantano here, the Internet's busiest music nerd. Hope you're doing well.

You may have heard the shocking news that has been taking the music discourse world by storm. Internet music journalism pioneers Pitchfork.com have announced a new paywall model for their website, something that has not gotten the most positive of receptions. People have been saying everything from "Pitchfork is shooting itself in the foot here," to "Why would you ever propose this? Pitchfork isn't even worth the pixels it's printed on."

Regardless of your opinion of Pitchfork's music review quality, though, part of me does wonder whether or not this reaction is partially coming from a place of entitlement. "Grr. You're making it harder for us to repost your scores on social media and complain about them." Because I don't know, apparently there still are going to be aspects of the website that will be freely available. And if it is true that everybody bitching and complaining about this change cares about Pitchfork as little as they claim to, then I don't foresee anybody going over what Pitchfork has said is a, you know, an allotted four reviews a month, which you can read and peruse and see the score on before you're limited and put behind a paywall.

Still, this is a pretty massive change from one of the biggest voices in music reviewing, which is why I thought this was a greater conversation that required another voice, that of Toronto-based music journalist and writer Emilie Hanskamp. So, here's our awesome conversation on this topic right now.

Watch on YouTube or on the video above.