Pitchfork Media

El directorio enciclopédico desde la Wikipedia.

Pitchfork Media
Pitchfork Media Logo

A typical example of Pitchfork's main page, as of 12-12-06
URL www.pitchforkmedia.com
Type of site Music webzine
Registration No
Owner Ryan Schreiber
Created by Ryan Schreiber
Launched 1995
Current status Active

Pitchfork Media, usually known simply as Pitchfork, is a Chicago-based daily Internet publication devoted to music criticism and commentary, music news, and artist interviews. Its focus is on independent music,[1] especially indie rock. However, the range of musical genres covered extends to electronic, pop, hip hop, dance, folk, jazz, metal and experimental music.

The site, which was established in 1995, concentrates on new music, but Pitchfork journalists also review reissued albums and box sets. The site has also published "best-of" lists – such as the best albums of the 1970s, 1980s and 1990s, and the best songs of the 1960s – as well as annual features detailing the best singles and albums of each year between 1999 and 2007.

Contents

[edit] History

An old Pitchfork logo
An old Pitchfork logo

Pitchfork was created in Minneapolis, Minnesota in late 1995 by Ryan Schreiber, then just out of high school. Influenced by local fanzines and college radio station KUOM, Schreiber, who had no previous writing experience, aimed to provide the Internet with a regularly updated resource for independent music. At first bearing the name Turntable, the site was originally updated monthly with interviews and reviews. In May 1996, the site began publishing daily, and was renamed "Pitchfork", a reference to Tony Montana's tattoo in the 1983 film Scarface.[2]

In early 1999, Schreiber uprooted Pitchfork from its Minneapolis base and relocated to Chicago, Illinois. By then, the site had expanded to four full-length album reviews daily, as well as sporadic interviews, features, and columns. It had also begun garnering a following for both its extensive coverage of underground music and its writing style, which was often unhindered by the conventions of print journalism. In October of that year, the site added a daily music news section.

[edit] Size, readership and site traffic

 This section may contain inappropriate or misinterpreted citations that do not verify the text.
Please help improve this article by checking for inaccuracies. (June 2008) (help, talk, get involved!)

Pitchfork now receives an audience of more than 240,000 readers per day, and more than 1.5 million unique visitors per month, making it the most popular independent-focused music publication online.[3][4]

On October 24, 2003, the author of Pitchformula.com reported that Pitchfork had published 5,575 reviews from 158 different authors, with an average length of just over 520 words. Together, the reviews featured a total of 2,901,650 words.[5] However, this data was recorded in 2003; since that point the site has continued to release reviews on an almost daily basis (excluding weekends and public holidays).

[edit] Influence

Pitchfork's opinions have gained increased cultural currency in recent years; some in the mainstream media view the site as a barometer of the independent music scene, and positive quotes from its reviews are increasingly used in press releases and affixed to the front of CDs.

Since the popular resurgence of "indie" music in 2004,[citation needed] some publications[6] have cited Pitchfork in having played a part in "breaking" artists such as Arcade Fire, Sufjan Stevens, Clap Your Hands Say Yeah, Interpol, The Go! Team, Junior Boys, The Books, Broken Social Scene, Cold War Kids, Wolf Parade, Tapes 'n Tapes, and Titus Andronicus although the site's true impact on their popularity remains a source of frequent debate.

Conversely, Pitchfork has also been seen as being a negative influence on some indie artists. As suggested in a Washington Post article in April 2006, Pitchfork's reviews can have a significant influence on an album's popularity, especially if it had previously only been available to a limited audience or had been released on an independent record label. A dismissive 0.0 review of former Dismemberment Plan frontman Travis Morrison's Travistan album led to a large sales drop and a virtual college radio blacklist.[2] On the other hand, "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."[2]

[edit] Examples

  • Arcade Fire is among the bands most commonly cited to have benefited from a Pitchfork review. In a 2005 Chicago Tribune article, a Merge Records employee states, "After the Pitchfork review, Funeral went out of print for about a week because we got so many orders for the record."[7]
  • Clap Your Hands Say Yeah member Lee Sargent has discussed the impact of Pitchfork's influence on their album, saying, "The thing about a publication like Pitchfork is that they can decide when that happens. You know what I mean? They can say, 'We're going to speed up the process and this is going to happen...now!' And it was a kick in the pants for us, because we lost control of everything."[8]
  • The manager of Tapes 'n Tapes claims that the band has benefited directly from a positive review in Pitchfork, in addition to the band's live shows and a mention in The New York Times.

[edit] Criticism

Along with its popularity, Pitchfork has attracted criticism.

One common complaint is that the site's journalism suffers from a narrow view of independent music, favoring lo-fi and often obscure indie rock and giving only cursory treatment to other genres.[9] Another is that the site's opinions reflect a "hipster" attitude, overly subject to changing musical trends, often speaking openly about what is considered "cool" and "uncool" to readers, and attempts to create hype around chosen scenes (such as "dance punk" or "freak folk") or acts (such as Sufjan Stevens and Arcade Fire). Some critics have suggested that the site rates albums from particular music scenes or artists more favorably in order to bolster its influence when the music becomes popular.[10]

The majority of criticism, however, is aimed at the site's album reviewing style. Critics argue the site often emphasizes a reviewers' own writing over the actual music being reviewed, sometimes not even reviewing the album and instead criticising the artist's integrity.[9] Pitchfork is also known to give "0.0" ratings, deeming the work as utterly worthless. One critic wrote that Pitchfork's "0.0" rating of a particular album amounts to no more than a "cheap publicity stunt" for a website that "thrives on controversy."[11] The critic also hypothetically asked how a neo-Nazi punk record would be scored in comparison to these "0.0" albums, based on Pitchfork standards[11]

[edit] Parodies

  • When Pitchfork asked comedian David Cross to compile a list of his favorite albums, he instead provided them with a list of "Albums to Listen to While Reading Overwrought Pitchfork Reviews". In it, he satirically piled over-the-top praise on fictional indie rock records, mocking Pitchfork Media's reviewing style.[12]
  • In 2004, comedy website Something Awful created a parody of Pitchfork's front page. Entitled "RichDork Media", the page makes reference to nonexistent, obscure-sounding indie-rock bands in its reviews, news headlines and advertisements. The rating system measures music on its proximity to the band Radiohead.[13] A similar, more light-hearted parody was created by Sub Pop, a record label whose musical artists Pitchfork has reviewed (often favorably).[citation needed]
  • On September 10, 2007, the satirical newspaper The Onion published a story in which Pitchfork Media editor Ryan Schreiber reviews music as a whole, giving it a 6.8 out of 10.[14]

[edit] Leaked music

In August 2006, a directory on Pitchfork's servers containing over 300 albums was compromised. A web surfer managed to discover and download the collection, which included The Decemberists' The Crane Wife and TV on the Radio's Return to Cookie Mountain, both of which had previously leaked to peer-to-peer networks. Allegedly, one of the albums on the server, Joanna Newsom's Ys, had not been available previously on file-sharing networks.[15]

[edit] Music festivals

Pitchfork Music Festival logo.
Pitchfork Music Festival logo.

[edit] Intonation Music Festival

Main article: Intonation Music Festival

In 2005, Pitchfork curated the Intonation Music Festival, attracting approximately 15,000 attendees to Chicago's Union Park for a two-day bill featuring performances by 25 acts, including Broken Social Scene, The Decemberists, The Go! Team, and a rare appearance by Les Savy Fav.

[edit] Pitchfork Music Festival

Main article: Pitchfork Music Festival

On July 29 and 30, 2006, the publication premiered its own Pitchfork Music Festival in the same park. The event attracted over 18,000 attendees per day. More than 40 bands performed at the inaugural festival, including Spoon and Yo La Tengo, as well as a rare headlining set by reunited Tropicália band Os Mutantes.[16]

The Pitchfork Music Festival was held again in 2007. It was expanded to three days (Friday, July 13 - Sunday, July 15), with the first day being a collaboration between Pitchfork and the British music festival All Tomorrow's Parties as part of the latter's "Don't Look Back" series, in which seminal artists perform their most legendary albums in their entirety. Performers that evening included Sonic Youth playing Daydream Nation, Slint playing Spiderland, and GZA/Genius playing Liquid Swords. Some of the other artists who performed over the weekend included Yoko Ono, De La Soul, Cat Power, The New Pornographers, Stephen Malkmus, Clipse, Iron & Wine, Girl Talk, Of Montreal, Deerhunter, Dan Deacon, The Ponys, and The Sea and Cake.

[edit] All Tomorrow's Parties

In 2008 Pitchfork will again collaborate with All Tomorrow's Parties to curate half of the bill for one of their May festival weekends. This is the first event that Pitchfork has been involved in outside of the United States.

[edit] Rating system

Pitchfork's music reviews use two different rating systems:

  • Individual track reviews were formerly ranked from 1 to 5 stars, but on January 15, 2007, the site introduced a new system called "Forkcast". In it, instead of assigning tracks a particular rating, reviewers simply label them one of the self-explanatory categories "New Music", "Old Music", "Video", "Advanced Music", "Rising", "WTF", the category of their most favorably regarded songs, "On Repeat" and, for the least favored songs, "Delete".
  • Album reviews are given a rating out of 10.0, specific to one decimal point.

On October 24, 2003, Pitchformula.com[17] made a survey of the 5,575 reviews available on Pitchfork at that time, showing that:

  • 6.7 was the average rating
  • 2,339 reviews had been awarded a rating of 7.4 or higher
  • 2,362 reviews had been awarded a rating of between 5.0 and 7.3
  • 873 reviews had been awarded a rating of less than 5.0[5]

The review for Radiohead's album In Rainbows seems to have taken a satirical approach towards the method of pay that Radiohead utilized for the album. It allows a user to type in their own rating, and when a question mark is clicked, says, "It's up to you" (similar to Radiohead's website). If clicked again, it says, "No really, it's 9.3".[18] British Sea Power's 2008 album Do You Like Rock Music? was awarded a rating of "U.2".[19]

[edit] Albums awarded a 10.0 rating

[edit] Initial release

The following albums received a 10.0 rating upon initial release:

1 While these albums did receive a rating 10.0, the reviews no longer exist on Pitchfork's website. [20]
2 In the review, this album theoretically received both a 10.0 and 0.0 rating. The rating humorously appeared as "(1)0.0" [21]

[edit] Re-release

The following albums received a 10.0 rating upon re-release:

1The article has since been removed from Pitchfork's site.

Note: Occasionally, a Pitchfork reviewer awards a 10.0 rating to an album's reissue despite its initial release being awarded a lesser rating,

- Music has the Right to Children by Boards of Canada[22] (initially awarded 8.3[23])
- Endtroducing by DJ Shadow[24] (initially awarded 9.1[25])
- In the Aeroplane Over the Sea by Neutral Milk Hotel[26] (initially awarded 8.7[27])

[edit] Select Albums awarded a 9.9 rating

Some albums have been awarded a 9.9 upon original release or reissue:

[edit] Select Albums awarded a 9.8 rating

Some albums have been awarded a 9.8 upon original release or reissue:

[edit] Select Albums awarded a 9.7 rating

Some albums have been awarded a 9.7 upon original release or reissue:

[edit] Select Albums awarded a 9.6 rating

Some albums have been awarded a 9.6 upon original release or reissue:

[edit] Select Albums awarded a 9.5 rating

Some albums have been awarded a 9.5 upon original release or reissue:

[edit] Select Albums awarded a 9.4 rating

Some albums have been awarded a 9.4 upon original release or reissue:

[edit] Select Albums awarded a 9.3 rating

Some albums have been awarded a 9.3 upon original release or reissue:

[edit] Select Albums awarded a 9.2 rating

Some albums have been awarded a 9.2 upon original release or reissue:

[edit] Select Albums awarded a 9.1 rating

Some albums have been awarded a 9.1 upon original release or reissue:

[edit] Select Albums awarded a 9.0 rating

Some albums have been awarded a 9.0 upon original release or reissue:

[edit] Albums awarded a 0.0 rating

The following albums received a 0.0 rating either upon initial release or re-release:

1 This album had a 0.0 rating for only a few hours, after which the rating was changed to 3.3.
2 A feature defending the album and criticizing the review was later also published on the website.[28]
3 In this review, the critic writes "I'm giving it a 0.0 because you'll have to call this one on your own, sorry."[29]
4 This album was not given a rating—the review consisted only of a video of a chimpanzee urinating into its own mouth.[30]
5 The review of Phair's subsequent album expressed regret that the 0.0 was "wasted" on Liz Phair, because "it's much better than Somebody's Miracle."[31]
6 In the review, this album was given a "(1)0.0" theoretically giving it both a 10.0 and 0.0 rating.

[edit] Albums awarded a 0.1 rating

Some albums have been given a 0.1 upon original release or reissue:

[edit] Discussion relating to the 10.0 rating

The awarding of the 10.0 rating is the subject of discussion by figures both external and internal to Pitchfork Media. Examples of such discussion include:

In a review of the reissue of Forever Changes by Love, the reviewer writes at the beginning:
“ If I were reviewing only the original material that forms the basis of this Collector's Edition of Love's Forever Changes, I'd certainly give it a 10.0... ”
In a review of the album "The Eminem Show" by Eminem,[32] there is a passing reference to another of that artist's releases (The Marshall Mathers LP) hypothetically being awarded a 10.0 rating.
In the review of Bee Thousand: The Director's Cut[33] (the expanded version of Guided by Voices' 1994 release Bee Thousand) the reviewer, Eric Carr, states how the original version is worthy of the 10.0 rating:
“ On Bee Thousand, GBV mastered all those fragments of greatness and assembled an entire album from them. Sure, it stumbles occasionally, and falters as only four spare-time, blue-collar bandmates from Dayton, Ohio can— that is, humanly and forgivably— but the original Bee Thousand simply stands alongside the greatest of the modern era. The original warrants a 10. ”
In Nick Sylvester's review of the album Worlds Apart by the same artist,[34] the reviewer questions whether "Source Tags & Codes" merited its 10.0 rating:
“ Did Source Tags & Codes deserve a 10.0? That's not for me to say, but Matt LeMay rightfully counted it as one of indie rock's truly epic albums. ”
In Eric Carr's review[35] this album was in theory given both a 0.0 and a 10.0 rating:
“ And by now you've surely seen the rating. On the scale of artist indulgence, and by any other measure for that matter, this is a solid 10.0 if ever there was one, friends. This— this— is a 10 as surely as Metal Machine Music is a 10, as surely as Having Fucking Fun on Stage With Elvis is a 10, as surely as any exercise so bafflingly, inexplicably, unintentionally and intentionally hilarious even in concept is a 10; good god— what the hell else can this album receive? The rating is inconsequential. It's either a 10 or a zero, and considering Bob is the reigning king of intoxicated concert rambling it's sure as hell not a zero, m'man. A single listen will verify this. ”
Reviewer Brent DiCrescenzo:
“ So then, Imagine, the music, gets a 10.0. However, this glossed up version only deserves a 9.9. That's how much power you have, Capitol Records! ”

[edit] Pitchfork.tv

On April 7, 2008 Pitchfork Media launched Pitchfork.tv, a website displaying videos related to many independent music acts. It features bands that are typically found on pitchforkmedia.com.

[edit] See also

[edit] Internet music journalism

[edit] References

  1. ^ Burns, Anna. "Pitchfork Media". ABC.net. Retrieved on 2006-10-29.
  2. ^ a b c du Lac, Josh Freedom (April 30, 2006). "Giving Indie Acts A Plug, or Pulling It", The Washington Post. Retrieved on 2006-10-29. 
  3. ^ "Site Traffic Information for www.pitchforkmedia.com". Alexa Internet. Retrieved on