Topics in Digital Media – Fall 09

The way we intake and find out about new music has changed drastically through the emergence of music blogs, message boards, recommendation services, iTunes, Twitter, and mp3 sites. With so much information available, trusted filters have developed to sift through and essentially assist in curating reader listening habits. Over the last few years, Pitchfork has become one of these filters – many agree that it’s become one of the most influential sources, (if not the most influential source) for new music. Here I illustrate what has been said about Pitchfork’s power, and reactions against its authority.   

The Pitchfork Effect

“[Pitchfork] has become the most powerful voice among the music media’s exploding new breed of digital tastemakers. Viewed daily by music zealots, record store buyers, college radio programmers, label executives, magazine editors and their ilk, the free site is capable of propelling an independent artist’s career with a single rave… An endorsement from Pitchfork — which dispenses its approval one-tenth of a point at a time, up to a maximum of 10 points — is very valuable, indeed.” (du Lac, Washington Post)

It’s said that an album rated 8.6 by Pitchfork (out of their 10-point scale) or above will drive sales. The strongest, and probably most infamous example of Pitchfork’s influence on music sales is the site’s review of the then-relatively unknown Arcade Fire, in 2004. Their debut album, Funeral, received a rating of 9.7. 

Funeral became the fastest-selling title in the history of the band’s label, Merge Records, and was the label’s first artist to break into Billboard’s Top 200 chart. It eventually went on to sell over a half-million copies, and Arcade Fire went on to have a highly successful career. 

In 2003, another relatively unknown band, Broken Social Scene, was reviewed by site founder, Ryan Schreiber. He awarded the album with a score of 9.2, writing, “it explodes with song after song of endlessly replayable, perfect pop.” 

“That’s when the phone calls started coming in,” Broken Social Scene singer Kevin Drew says. “The next tour we went on, we suddenly found ourselves selling out venues. Everyone was coming up to us, saying, ‘We heard about you from Pitchfork.’ It basically opened the door for us. It gave us an audience.” (Itzkoff, Wired)

Unfortunately for some, Pitchfork’s power can also have the opposite effect. 

Another notorious example of Pitchfork’s influence was shown in the case of Travis Morrison, the frontman for the art-rock band Dismemberment Plan. Esteemed by Pitchfork’s staff, the group’s album, Emergency & I, was named Pitchfork’s 1999 album of the year. Five years later, Morrison released a solo project, Travistan. The album was branded with the lowest of the low, 0.0 rating.

Morrison claims the rating had a disastrous effect. College radio programmers cooled to his new project, a record store in Texas initially refused to stock the CD because of the review, and fans seemed to doubt Morrison as an artist.

“I just got the sense [Pitchfork] thought I was a rock star and they wanted to take me down a peg. Up until the day of the review, I’d play a solo show, and people would be like, ‘That’s our boy, our eccentric boy.’ Literally, the view changed overnight… I could tell people were trying to figure out if they were supposed to be there or not. It was pretty severe, how the mood changed. The review isn’t the story. The reaction to it is. The seriousness with which everyone takes Pitchfork is kind of mind-boggling.” (du Lac, Washington Post)

For this reason, many in the music industry agree that it would be better to not get a Pitchfork review at all than get a review less than 5.0. 

Complaints and Conspiracies

While Pitchfork does have remarkable brand recognition and influence on musical trends, the site receives a considerable amount of volatile, reactionary criticism. Common complaints include their brutal rants (accompanied by 0.0 ratings), the pretentious, elitist tone of the writing, verbose reviews that have nothing to do with the album itself, and the power the site has to dismiss or glorify an artist. 

Serving as an establishment of the site’s influence as well as the problems some have with it, parodies include: Tuning Fork Media, PredictFork, Popsense’s Pitchfork Review in a Day of Pitchfork, The Onion’s story, “Pitchfork Gives Music 6.8,” and my personal favorite, David Cross’ “Albums to Listen to While Reading Overwrought Pitchfork Reviews.” 

Besides critiquing the general content of the site, some believe that Pitchfork has an agenda in securing its status as a dominating tastemaker. There have also been a few “conspiracy theories” on the site’s trustworthiness and agenda-pushing actions.

Two examples:

In 2008, Georgia band Black Kids were hailed as “Best New Music” kings, with an 8.4 review of their Wizard of Ahhhs EP. Less than a year later, their newest album, Partie Traumatic, was released. At 6 am the morning the review was posted, the album was given the lowest-possible score of 0.0, with only the words “Everybody makes mistakes” accompanying. At some time between 7:00 and 8:00 am, the review got a facelift to look like this, and the rating was changed from 0.0 to 3.3.

Later, editor-in-chief Scott Plagenhoef stated that the first score was “simply a regrettable computer error,” and that the review “was accidentally up when we awoke, and was changed ASAP.” While some saw this as a blatant publicity stunt, (countless blogs linked to the post, undoubtedly upping the site’s hits), Ann Powers of the LA Times believed it was something larger:

“By pushing the Black Kids to the top — Hogan’s review gave the demo a super-high 8.4 score — Pitchfork not only “made” the band, it remade its own credibility.Then why retract? That’s part of kingmaking too. Ripping down the Black Kids is the critical equivalent of the Queen of Hearts in “Alice in Wonderland” shouting “Off with her head!” It reasserts power over loyal subjects by dint of seemingly random violence. There’s a world of assumptions in that “sorry,” the most basic of which — that a publication’s influence can shape artists’ careers — is sweetly old-fashioned. That “sorry” assumes that Pitchfork made the Black Kids and is now responsible for the band’s disappointing, in their view, major-label debut. It’s an assertion of self-importance that comes at a time when critics at print-based publications are publicly doubting their right to exist. 

Another example of the suspicion readers have about Pitchfork’s domination agenda is a review of the album Robbers and Cowards by Cold War Kids. Endorsed by the blogosphere in a major way when the album was released, Pitchfork was completely silent. A month after the buzz began, Pitchfork gave the album a 5.0 rating, and called it “derivative and superficial.” 

“Hogan’s review was seen by many in the blogosphere as evidence of Pitchfork’s agenda not only to dominate the critical consensus over a record but to control the fate of the band itself. As an editor at the blog  The Music Slut wrote to me in an e-mail, “[Pitchfork] purposely wait[s] to review an album to see how the bloggers respond before they form their opinion.” In the case of the Cold War Kids, the editor explained, Pitchfork avoided competing with the blog buzz and managed to chime in just as the inevitable backlash had begun.” (Shaer, Slate)

 A recent post on the arts blog Crooked Timber stated:

“Pitchfork’s writers want to preserve their own role as … arbiters of taste.” Therefore, Schreiber must continually “inject certain amounts of aesthetic uncertainty into the marketplace, by deliberately writing reviews which suggest that bad artists are good, or that good artists are bad.”

Site Founder Ryan Schrieber responds to these criticisms by insisting, “we’re just really honest, opinionated music fans. We might be completely over the top in our praise, or we might be cruel. But to anybody who reads the site, it’s clear that we’re not pulling any punches…If it gets sacrificed or tempered at all for the sake of not offending somebody, then what we do sort of loses its value… That’s so the opposite of what criticism is supposed to be.” (du Lac, Washington Post)

While I understand where these “conspiracy theorists” are coming from, and can side with their suspicion, without actually being a member of Pitchfork’s staff, it’s impossible to know what’s really going on as far as how the albums are rated. Media outlets with this much power will always be under scrutiny. Pitchfork has a huge amount of influence on the music industry, and when the public and competing media outlets feel threatened in their right to opinion, they’re going to question its power.

For my next post, I’m going to return to looking at how content from Pitchfork is shared throughout the internet, this time focusing on music blogs.

Further Reading: 

“Indie Music’s Hipster Heaven,” Business Week – Damian Joseph

“Giving Indie Acts A Plug, or Pulling It” Washington Post – J. Freedom du Lac 

“As Music Mags Fall, Pitchfork Is Booming” Forbes – Dirk Smillie 

“Die, Pitchfork, Die!” Slate – Matthew Shaer

“Stick A Fork In It,” Coolfer (blog)

“The Art Mafia,” Crooked Timber (blog) 

“The Pitchfork Effect,” Wired – Dave Itzkoff

Possibly Relevant Posts:

• The Pitchfork Effect (2) | Alison
• What Are the Major Issues Surrounding Pitchfork Media’s Power? (3) | Alison
• In Era of Web 2.0, Is Pitchfork Stuck in Web 1.5? (2) | Alison