3 ms·

There was an excellent (paywalled) article on N+1 about pitchfork. It really is separate from other sites (Lack of comments, 100 different possible ratings [0.0

by rrego 11y ago

There was an excellent (paywalled) article on N+1 about pitchfork. It really is separate from other sites (Lack of comments, 100 different possible ratings [0.0 to 10.0)], extreme "hipster" snottiness). The website really has, and continues to shape "alternative/indie" music tastes. It is probably the biggest indicator, and perhaps driver, of an alternative album's commercial success. Sites like these regardless of their merit (which is really low IMO), are indispensable in the saturated music market.

AndrewKemendo 11y ago
I was the Music Director, then General Manager for our college radio station back in 2006/7/8. We relied on pitchfork, along with indie charts, to drive what new music we played as our format was indie rock. Totally spot on how much sway they have in the indie community.
- bufordsharkley 11y ago
  My college radio station (circa 2010-2012) was more in a "don't play Pitchfork" more-hipster-than-hipster bent. That attitude has faded in the last couple years. Here, at least, it has become less relevant.
  - whatok 11y ago
    Pitchfork has also expanded what they review so you might become hard pressed to find anything to play at all after a while.
6stringmerc 11y ago
Sites like these regardless of their merit (which is really low IMO), are indispensable in the saturated music market. This is an extremely contradictory statement to me. Can you elaborate how a "sifting" or "gatekeeper" type publication has low merit when there's so much content to review/digest? I think it's hilarious people look at Pitchfork and see snottiness, when every single genre of music eventually devolves into arguments about merit / influence / purity / micro-genres if given enough time. If Pitchfork integrated something like "-core" genre distinctions, it's because they were picking up on audiences and potential readers already using it.
- rrego 11y ago
  I should have clarified, by saying the individual sites have low merit, despite serving an important function. But, this is just a personal opinion; After reading several of their reviews that were anecdotally driven, influenced by hype, and just logorrheic. It's also difficult to be aware of the bias in a publication with several writers. Pitchfork today, which still wields that same influence, is different from that of even 5 years ago, or when I last read it. Looking at the reviews from today, they are actually pretty restrained and informative.
  - 6stringmerc 11y ago
    Ah, yeah I follow you a bit better now. I'm not going to vouch for their review style, but the existence of them is what has drawn me to the site pretty much every day. Personally I worry a lot less about author bias in something like Pitchfork than I would in Rolling Stone or, without naming names, a music-oriented magazine that is mostly pay-for-print content (they do exist).
- flurie 11y ago
  A great example is referenced in the n+1 article itself: the tale of Travis Morrison after the breakup of The Dismemberment Plan. The band's Pitchfork reviews were always positive, so one would assume that the debut solo album of its principal songwriter and singer would at least be in the ballpark. Instead, it famously received a 0.0[1]. This single review killed Morrison's solo career[2]. He ended retiring from music (though the Plan reunited for an album a couple years ago). [1] http://pitchfork.com/reviews/albums/5607-travistan/ http://pitchfork.com/reviews/albums/5607-travistan/ [2] http://consequenceofsound.net/aux-out/prisoner-of-travistan-a-failed-oral-history/ http://consequenceofsound.net/aux-out/prisoner-of-travistan-...
  - 6stringmerc 11y ago
    Ah, I just took a quick glance at that review. Honestly, I can see why a reviewer would mark something so low if the impression is: I've never heard a record more angry, frustrated, and even defensive about its own weaknesses, or more determined to slug those flaws right down your throat. To place that at the feet of Pitchfork is understandable, but in subjective art, sometimes people fail and get called out for it. I think one of the most noteworthy examples would be "The Life and Times of Chris Gaines."

by rrego 11y ago

AndrewKemendo 11y ago

I was the Music Director, then General Manager for our college radio station back in 2006/7/8. We relied on pitchfork, along with indie charts, to drive what new music we played as our format was indie rock. Totally spot on how much sway they have in the indie community.

bufordsharkley 11y ago
My college radio station (circa 2010-2012) was more in a "don't play Pitchfork" more-hipster-than-hipster bent. That attitude has faded in the last couple years. Here, at least, it has become less relevant.
- whatok 11y ago
  Pitchfork has also expanded what they review so you might become hard pressed to find anything to play at all after a while.

6stringmerc 11y ago

Sites like these regardless of their merit (which is really low IMO), are indispensable in the saturated music market. This is an extremely contradictory statement to me. Can you elaborate how a "sifting" or "gatekeeper" type publication has low merit when there's so much content to review/digest? I think it's hilarious people look at Pitchfork and see snottiness, when every single genre of music eventually devolves into arguments about merit / influence / purity / micro-genres if given enough time. If Pitchfork integrated something like "-core" genre distinctions, it's because they were picking up on audiences and potential readers already using it.

rrego 11y ago
I should have clarified, by saying the individual sites have low merit, despite serving an important function. But, this is just a personal opinion; After reading several of their reviews that were anecdotally driven, influenced by hype, and just logorrheic. It's also difficult to be aware of the bias in a publication with several writers. Pitchfork today, which still wields that same influence, is different from that of even 5 years ago, or when I last read it. Looking at the reviews from today, they are actually pretty restrained and informative.
- 6stringmerc 11y ago
  Ah, yeah I follow you a bit better now. I'm not going to vouch for their review style, but the existence of them is what has drawn me to the site pretty much every day. Personally I worry a lot less about author bias in something like Pitchfork than I would in Rolling Stone or, without naming names, a music-oriented magazine that is mostly pay-for-print content (they do exist).
flurie 11y ago
A great example is referenced in the n+1 article itself: the tale of Travis Morrison after the breakup of The Dismemberment Plan. The band's Pitchfork reviews were always positive, so one would assume that the debut solo album of its principal songwriter and singer would at least be in the ballpark. Instead, it famously received a 0.0[1]. This single review killed Morrison's solo career[2]. He ended retiring from music (though the Plan reunited for an album a couple years ago). [1] http://pitchfork.com/reviews/albums/5607-travistan/ http://pitchfork.com/reviews/albums/5607-travistan/ [2] http://consequenceofsound.net/aux-out/prisoner-of-travistan-a-failed-oral-history/ http://consequenceofsound.net/aux-out/prisoner-of-travistan-...
- 6stringmerc 11y ago
  Ah, I just took a quick glance at that review. Honestly, I can see why a reviewer would mark something so low if the impression is: I've never heard a record more angry, frustrated, and even defensive about its own weaknesses, or more determined to slug those flaws right down your throat. To place that at the feet of Pitchfork is understandable, but in subjective art, sometimes people fail and get called out for it. I think one of the most noteworthy examples would be "The Life and Times of Chris Gaines."