“Who else is with me and is “over” Pitchfork? This is Web 2.0. If I say The Modern Lovers is a 9.0, then I should be able to go edit the review and give it the correct rating.”

–  Paul, a user on the Sound Opinions’ messageboard

This statement from Paul is a fitting summation of what I want to look at in my concluding post – Pitchfork’s anti-user participatory approach to content generation – something we don’t find too often anymore in this era of Web 2.0.

Pitchfork’s design is based on a one-way flow of information. Content is categorized between Reviews, News, Features, Pitchfork.tv, Forkcast and Best New Music. While all of the content can be shared using the AddThis Button which we now find on most websites, there is no other area on the site for users to interact either with the reviewers or with each other (though a few email addresses are available for select reviewers through the Staff footer link – still very difficult to find, and obviously a response is not guaranteed). Besides a few features (the AddThisButton, tags, and relevant links), Pitchfork can definitely be described as a site from the “Web-of-information-source” or, Web 1.0.

As Pitchfork’s main feature is their reviews, I checked out a few other mainstream review sites find if and how they implement social media.

• Metacritic – Uses a system in which reviews from traditional media critics are quantified, but also includes a user score determined by user votes. Users also have the option to make comments. There’s also a Metacritic forum for longer discussions.
• Billboard – Features a traditional review from a Billboard writer, as well as an “Up for Discussion” user comment area, and user votes.
• Rolling Stone – Traditional review from a Rolling Stone writer; users can comment in the “Your Turn” section, as well as rate the album from 1-5 stars and share with the AddThis Button. There’s also a Rolling Stone forum/message board.
• Spin – Traditional review from a Spin writer; users can comment, retweet the review, share with the AddThis Button, and connect with Spin on Twitter and Facebook.
• Stereogum – Blogger review; users can comment, share with the AddThis Button, and can connect Stereogum through Facebook and Twitter.
• Rotten tomatoes – Aggregates reviews from traditional media critics, RT Community allows users to comment and rate the movie based on percentages
• New York Times (movie reviews) – Traditional review from a NY Times writer, as well as reader reviews and an average reader rating.
• Zagat – Users must pay to see the actual review from Zagat ($25 yearly or $5 a month); users can read and post Member Reviews for no cost; discussion boards.
• CNET – Reviews from CNET editors; users review through comments and 1-5 star rating.

All of these sites include both reviews from a traditional editor or reviewer, as well as an area for user comments or their user reviews.

Besides traditional review websites such as these, online suggestion websites based on algorithms such as Pandora, Last.fm, Netflix, and Amazon are also services in which users can find out about new music, movies, books and products. On all of these sites (besides Pandora), one can read reviews from other users, and based on past searches, listening, viewing and purchasing habits, new media is suggested. In my opinion, the suggestion service would be a very beneficial feature for Pitchfork to implement (something like “Readers who read this also read…” or, “If you like Radiohead, you might also like…). The content they produce is very static compared to these sites, and a feature such as this would not diminish the authority they seem to wish to hold on to (more on that below).

As every website above implements social media in one form or another, the lingering questions that remain are: Why, in this Web 2.0 era, does Pitchfork remain successful? And why does the site continue to lack these features?

As for the site’s success, here’s my take: readers do appreciate the thoughtful writing, off-beat music selections, and vast coverage. In my opinion, the navigation is pretty user-friendly, and the numerical ratings, as controversial as they are, make it easy to learn whether Pitchfork likes or dislikes an album without having to read the entire review (again, this isn’t necessarily a good thing, but works in our fast paced internet culture). It does serve as an effective filter in the expansive land of new music.

Regarding the lack of social media: While I of course can’t speak for Pitchfork’s editors, from what it looks like on the outside, Pitchfork looks at itself as an authority. Increasing user interaction on the site would question that authority. In defense of Pitchfork though, if there was an area for user comments, by seeing how strongly people react to Pitchfork on other websites, it would be a total mess. Moderating them would be a huge undertaking. However, there are other ways to allow users to have their say – whether it be voting, allowing users to post their own reviews (as opposed to reactions to the Pitchfork review), or sending in their own content (user generated photos, video, etc.)

As I stated in my last post, even if Pitchfork doesn’t allow user participation on its own site, users are going to participate anyway, be it on their own blogs, in comments, on Twitter, Facebook, etc. I am curious to see if, in the next few years (as I’m sure user participation is only going to increase), Pitchfork will stand still, and continue to produce their content based on the traditional one-way flow of information, or if the site will finally evolve, and allow readers to have a voice.Similar Posts:

• The Pitchfork Effect (2) |
• What Are the Major Issues Surrounding Pitchfork Media’s Power? (3) |
• No One Asked For Your Opinion… (0) |

Based on any online discussion surrounding Pitchfork and its reviews, it’s obvious that users want to interact with the site – and they actually do – just on other websites. Popular music blogs Stereogum and Brooklyn Vegan both linked to the list, generating almost 500 reader comments between the two. I couldn’t get an exact number, but through a Google search I found that around 500 smaller blogs, both personal and music related, linked to the list as well. Even without Pitchfork allowing readers to comment directly on their own site, readers will still comment, and in large numbers.

Similar to Twitter users, I found that bloggers shared the content in one of two ways:

1)     By simply informing their readers that Pitchfork published the list of Top 20 Albums, without including any of their own reactions or commentary – for example:

Pitchfork Reveals Top 200 Albums of the Decade

Love them or hate them, Pitchfork has gotten this list thing down pat. After releasing a worthwhile list of the top 500 songs of the decade back in August, Pitchfork staff have now amassed their list of top albums, and it’s really not much of a surprise (especially if you read Pitchfork) what ends up #1.

-       fuzzythoughts.wordpress.com

2) By informing their readers that Pitchfork published the list, and then commenting – unlike Twitter users, because of its space constraints, many of these bloggers shared what they would have chosen differently, made their own lists, or wrote their own criticisms to the Top 20 albums. Examples:

Frequently Asked Questions About Pitchfork’s Top 20 Albums of the 2000s

Person Pitch above Merriweather Post Pavilion???

“At its core, Merriweather Post Pavilion is very ordinary. The lyrics read like stuff you’d talk about around the grill.” – Chris Dahlen

Is This It at number 7??????????????

Don’t you remember the feeling? The feelings? Don’t you remember “the romantic notion of pre-Giuliani New York”? Don’t you remember how sad you were that The Strokes never recovered from this album? That’s why.

Should Discovery really be at number 3?

Something revolutionary was happening here, it just wasn’t immediately clear because every song on the album was rammed into the United Kingdom’s brain via the radio/Topshop’s loudspeakers. No one actually bothers to listen to anything on the radio.* Also, it’s easy to forget that this album was released in this decade.

-       Lizzybille.blogs.com

____________________________________________

Pitchfork ’00s album list reactions

The album list? I’m definitely out of step. It would be insane to comment on ever album, but:

• Amnesiac is more enjoyable for me than Kid A. And rated lower than In Rainbows? Madness.
• Sung Tongs should beat the shit out of Merriweather Post Pavilion, which i find bloodless in comparison.
• Never came around on Broken Social Scene. They still bore me.
• Arcade Fire. I’m still studiously avoiding them, although i’ve heard the albums dozens of times by now. The po-faced sincerity was too much back then. My friend Damien has excoriated me several times for not embracing them, saying that i’m in an anti-hype reactionary fit. They are my Neutral Milk Hotel of this decade, but without my ridiculous petty grudge.

-       Orbis-Quintus.net

____________________________________________

Pitchfork’s Top 20 albums of the millenium

Over the last month pitchfork has released many features about the best music of the millenium. Today they finally got around to finalising their list of the top 200 albums of the millenium, and I was very interested to see how many of the top 20 albums I own or like.

20. Interpol – Turn on the Bright Lights – I like Interpol, but don’t own any.

19. Spoon – Kill the Bright Light – I like this album, but it’s not memorable to me

18. Kanye West – Late Registration – rap, I don’t know it

17. LCD Sound System – Sound of Silver – Fantastic album, I listen to it often

16. Sufjian Stevens – Illionise – bleh, boring to me

15. The Knife – Silent Shout – I remember downloading this and promptly deleting it.

14. Animal Collective – Merriwhether Post Pavillion – Fun album. I can respect this choice although it wouldn’t be top 50 for me.

-       Jamesdemastus.com

Through this canonization of music, naming the list “The” Top 20 Albums of the 2000s, as opposed to “Our” or “’Pitchfork’s’ Top 20 Albums of the 2000s,” and the lack of encouragement of user participation, it’s implied that what Pitchfork says, goes. There’s no room for argument, interpretation, questions, or comments. However, users are no longer passive sponges soaking up content – whether they agree or disagree with the list, by looking at the hundreds of blogs posts, reader comments, and tweets, they’re going to react and give their own input – whether Pitchfork likes it or not.

I have one more post coming, where I ask – is Pitchfork stuck in Web 1.0?Similar Posts:

• A Day in the Life of a Link: Twitter Edition (8) |
• What Are the Major Issues Surrounding Pitchfork Media’s Power? (3) |
• In Era of Web 2.0, Is Pitchfork Stuck in Web 1.5? (2) |

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 ItzkoffSimilar Posts:

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

Who is “Pitchfork?”

Ryan Schreiber, publisher and editor-in-chief, started the site in 1995 from his parent’s basement. More than anyone else associate with the site, Schreiber serves as the face of Pitchfork in the media. 

Pitchfork has a full-time staff of 15-20 employees, and more than 50 paid freelancers. Unfortunately not uncommon in music journalism, the content is primarily authored by males. By looking at the staff roster, one can see that out of these 50-55 freelancers, a mere 7 are women. This is not reflective of their readership, as according to their media kit, 36% of Pitchfork’s readers are women. Through what I could find on Google, a majority of the writers are based in large cities such as New York, San Francisco and Chicago, and (thank you Google Images), out of the 28 (male) writers I was able to find images of online, 24 were Caucasian. 

While each album is reviewed by an individual writer (and some writers do have better name recognition than others – Managing Editor Mark Richardson, Domonique Leon and Philip Sherburne who are well known critics in the electronic music community, Village Voice writer Zach Baron, Bjork biographer Mark Pytlik, and author Douglas Polk for example), the reviews and opinions are commonly seen as that of the Pitchfork brand (Mark Pytlik didn’t give the album a 7.8 – Pitchfork gave the album a 7.8).

And It’s Audience? 

It’s averaged that Pitchfork has 1.9 million visitors a month, who generate some 23 million page views – with a nearly 30% increase in visits each year. According to Pitchfork themselves, “our audience of 18–34 year old tastemakers are the most influential among their peers, helping shape the music, movie, clothing, and brand tastes of their friends.”

In April 2008, Business Week reported that “advertising pulls in at least $5 million a year, and that revenue has grown by an explosive 70% each of the past four years.” Ad space is frequently bought by major corporations such as Apple, Universal, Toyota, Microsoft, VW, Nike, and Converse, as well as more “fringe” brands such as American Apparel, Belvedere Vodka, Dr. Martens, Simple, and various record labels.

While these large corporations are obviously utilizing Pitchfork to reach cultural “influencers,” I wonder how successful their efforts are. Pitchfork’s audience and Apple’s audience obviously overlap, but what about Microsoft or Toyota? If Pitchfork readers caught on pre-iPod, would Microsoft Zune have become the default MP3 player? 

Although the site began in 1995, it had a profound growth over the last ten years – accompanied by MP3’s, iTunes, iPods, filesharing, the development of new sounds of “indie rock,” and the demise in power of mainstream music media. Rolling Stone stopped producing lengthy reviews, instead focusing on movie stars and mainstream acts, MTV shifted to reality television, and many believe Spin lost its voice, not sure where to place itself. Whether you’re a fan of the site or not, Pitchfork has shaped a path for itself as a comprehensive filter of new music. The site posts 25 new album reviews a week, plus an average of 15 news items and 15 track reviews a day. 

After learning about what goes on behind Pitchfork, and how it operates as a business, it made me realize that though much of the site’s content is based on independent and “indie” music, it is a multi-million dollar, profit earning company. Pitchfork doesn’t sell information to readers — information is free. Because of this free access to content, I think the fact that it is such a profit-earning media business often gets overlooked (similar to what we have learned about Google). With free (and often very unique) content, subtle advertisements, and simple, non-flashy design, I’d say it’s easier for a website to build an “authentic feel,” as readers only need to see what’s on the screen in front of them.  

Next… 

It’s said that an album rated 8.6 or above by Pitchfork (out of their 10-point scale) will drive sales. In my upcoming post, I’ll look at this effect to see how Pitchfork influences artist success.Similar Posts:

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

I raised a few questions in my last post regarding the issues I want to address surrounding Pitchfork Media, and I’ve decided to begin my journey by looking at how readers take content originating on the site into their own hands and disseminate it through Twitter.

I’ve been monitoring all of Pitchfork’s content for the last week, and wanted to choose one item that I thought would serve as an appropriate example of how information travels. Last week, Pitchfork posted their list of the Top 200 Albums of the 2000s – on Friday, albums 20-1 were announced.

Using TweetMeme, I found that an estimated 500-600 users reposted Pitchfork’s original link announcing the top 20 albums. There were a variety of ways users passed on the link over the weekend, and I was curious to see how the conversation developed around the list among Twitter users. (All of these tweets were followed with tinyurl or bit.ly link linking back to Pitchfork).

At the most basic level, users linked from Pitchfork directly, with no added commentary:

heckfu says: Pitchfork’s top 20 albums of the 2000’s.

Users linked from Pitchfork directly, with added commentary:

bMunch says: Pitchfork’s top 20 albums of the noughts reminds me how young we once were. 10 years goes by fast.

Some strongly agreed with the list:

rustu says: Really, really, really good list. Pitchfork’s top 20 albums of the decade.

Lindybomb says: KID A- Best album of 2000s No other record captured the complex feeling of the era in such an elegant and beautiful way

And some strongly disagreed:

DearieMeGollyG says: The top 200 albums of 2000 is crap. Pitchfork creams its panties for Radiohead.           

PierluigiC says: “Kid A” is not the record of the 00s. Stop with this nonsense. When was the last time anyone put it on their stereo?

rickbosch says: @DamianBurke you see this? – pitchfork blows.

damonjablons says: @PITCHFORKMEDIA hates black people.

The tweets I found most interesting were the ones where users tastes and music-listening habits were influenced by the list:

rubies says: How to clean up 200 GB of music and streamline your mp3 library. Pitchfork’s top 200 of 2000’s.

jamessingh says: wow Funeral is p4ks 2nd top album of the 00’s – never rated it that highly personally, maybe it deserves another listen?

tweetmcg says: Revisiting Radiohead’s Kid A.

memeliseo says: office playlist for the week (or month): the top 200 albums of the 2000s @pitchfrokmedia

zachpollakoff says: Starting this Friday by making my co-workers listen to the #3 record of this decade: Daft Punk “Discovery”

And tweets that used the list as a jumping-off point for conversation:

beetlebungdg says: Pitchfork ranks Radiohead’s “Kid A” as the #1 album of the last 10 years. What do you think? (via @pitchforkmedia)

theeyemag says: Pitchfork lists the twenty best albums of the ’00s. Talk amongst yourselves.

HurrcaneGustavo says: else surprised by their number one pick? @juanmayer?

mavaru says: pitchfork top 200 of 2000’s – a lot to debate on there… and a lot of great stuff 

It’s interesting that as disliked as Pitchfork can be among a lot of internet users and music fans, it seems like their “Best Of” lists are of value to many. (I actually attempted to look for some research on how people read and often enjoy criticism in the form of accessible Best Of/Top etc. lists, but wasn’t able to find with anything). Instead of reading a verbose essay on an album or musician, scanning through a quick “Best Of” list seems to fit in more appropriately with our attention-deficit-internet-culture.

While Pitchfork’s website has no arena for readers to comment or interact with one another, it seems fitting that many readers move over to Twitter to voice their opinions and create their own dialogue. A list of the Top 200 albums of the decade (especially when the decade hasn’t ended yet) can be an argumentative topic among music fans, and I find Twitter to be a strong outlet where conversation can take place (without the petty bickering which often exist between commenters on music blogs – which I will most likely examine in my next post).Similar Posts:

• No One Asked For Your Opinion… (0) |
• What Are the Major Issues Surrounding Pitchfork Media’s Power? (3) |
• Behind the Music (Criticism) (4) |

How does Pitchfork’s content spread across the internet? I plan on researching how the website’s content is disseminated through both smaller blogs and twitter posts, and how much of an effect a positive review can have on the number Youtube views, Myspace views, and bittorrent downloads (through waffles.fm).

Why is Pitchfork so controversial? To many, the mention of the site immediately elicits a gag reflex, yet it is difficult to argue that it’s become one of the definitive sources for music. What about the site makes readers so reactionary?

Does Pitchfork have an agenda in securing its status as a dominating taste-maker? Like any brand, there are a few instances in the website’s history where it may have been aware that confrontation and controversy is good for business.

In this Web 2.0 era, why is there no space for a dialogue among the readers? Or do readers simply want to be told what the Best New Music is (even better, in the format of clickable lists and quick 1-10 scale ratings) without having to seek it out for themselves?

Pitchfork serves as a concise guide and filter among the thousands upon thousands of music blogs out there. Is there harm in having a single go-to publication as an information source for all things music related?

And who are these writers who, under the Pitchfork brand, have the power to steer the direction of musical trends?

Similar Posts:

• The Pitchfork Effect (2) |
• Behind the Music (Criticism) (4) |
• No One Asked For Your Opinion… (0) |

Started in 1995 by editor Ryan Schreiber, Pitchfork began as a small music review website, updated monthly. As of this year, the site averages 245,000 visitors a day, has delved into book publishing, curates an annual music festival, has an online tv channel, partners with ABC WorldNews, and has created a “canon” of staff lists. This year, Schreiber was a TIME100 Most Influential People in the World finalist, and the site is often credited with breaking artists such as The Arcade Fire, Clap Your Hands Say Yeah, and Grizzly Bear.

While Pitchfork is my go-to source for all things new-music related, it’s also a highly controversial site to music fans everywhere, including myself. The writing is often described as pretentious and self-indulgent. The reviews and rating system is often described as arbitrary (why does one album receive a 7.2, and another receive a 7.1), or on the flip-side, biased (some say that this year Pitchfork favors lo-fi aesthetics – in 2007 electro acts were receiving the high reviews). Nevertheless, there’s no denying the power Pitchfork has over trends in music and lifestyle.

For the purpose of this travelogue, I want to find out how information originating on Pitchfork spreads throughout the internet as a whole. I want to see how smaller blogs pickup Pitchfork reviews, thus increasing word of mouth, and will also take note of readers reactions to the reviews on other blogs (as Pitchfork does not have an outlet for reader feedback – and given the emphasis on reader interaction in the Web 2.0 era, I am curious as to why this is and will include in my research as well).

I also want to research how Pitchfork has affected traditional music journalism (publications like Rolling Stone and Spin), how the site covers mainstream music (favorable reviews helped give “indie cred” to artists such as Kanye West, Justin Timberlake, and Lil Wayne), and how a  mention (other than a review) on Pitchfork can effect the rising stardom of small artists.

Finally, I also want to find out who the writers for Pitchfork are. While the reviews are written by individuals (and their bylines are listed on the site), the writers don’t seem to have much stand alone power – it’s Pitchfork’s brand that carries the influence. As far as I know (I haven’t researched this yet at all), most of the writers for the site are white educated males. I understand this is typical in music journalism, and I’m interested to find out Pitchfork holds up to this stereotype.

All of these are rough ideas, and I would definitely appreciate any feedback or comments, especially if you are a Pitchfork reader as well!Similar Posts:

• What Are the Major Issues Surrounding Pitchfork Media’s Power? (3) |
• Behind the Music (Criticism) (4) |
• In Era of Web 2.0, Is Pitchfork Stuck in Web 1.5? (2) |