Jump to content

Pitchfork (website): Difference between revisions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
Line 331: Line 331:
The following albums received a 0.0 rating either upon initial release or re-release:
The following albums received a 0.0 rating either upon initial release or re-release:
* [[Bachman-Turner Overdrive]] – ''[[Remastered Hits: The Best of...]]''
* [[Bachman-Turner Overdrive]] – ''[[Remastered Hits: The Best of...]]''
* [[The Flaming Lips]] – ''[[Zaireeka]]''
* [[The Flaming Lips]] &ndash; ''[[Zaireeka]]''<sup>1</sup>
* [[John Frusciante]] &ndash; ''[[Smile from the Streets You Hold]]''
* [[John Frusciante]] &ndash; ''[[Smile from the Streets You Hold]]''
* [[Jet (band)|Jet]] &ndash; ''[[Shine On (album)|Shine On]]'' <sup>1</sup>
* [[Jet (band)|Jet]] &ndash; ''[[Shine On (album)|Shine On]]'' <sup>2</sup>
* [[Francisco López]] &ndash; ''[[Untitled 104|Untitled #104]]''
* [[Francisco López]] &ndash; ''[[Untitled 104|Untitled #104]]''
* [[Travis Morrison]] &ndash; ''[[Travistan]]''
* [[Travis Morrison]] &ndash; ''[[Travistan]]''
Line 339: Line 339:
* [[KISS (band)|KISS]]/[[Peter Criss]] &ndash; ''[[Peter Criss (album)|Peter Criss]]''
* [[KISS (band)|KISS]]/[[Peter Criss]] &ndash; ''[[Peter Criss (album)|Peter Criss]]''
* [[Liz Phair]] &ndash; ''[[Liz Phair (album)|Liz Phair]]''
* [[Liz Phair]] &ndash; ''[[Liz Phair (album)|Liz Phair]]''
* [[Robert Pollard]] &ndash; ''[[Relaxation of the Asshole]]'' <sup>2</sup>
* [[Robert Pollard]] &ndash; ''[[Relaxation of the Asshole]]'' <sup>3</sup>
* [[Sonic Youth]] &ndash; ''[[NYC Ghosts & Flowers]]''
* [[Sonic Youth]] &ndash; ''[[NYC Ghosts & Flowers]]''


:<div style="font-size: 85%;"><sup>1</sup> This album was not given a rating - the review consisted only of a video of a chimpanzee urinating into its own mouth.<ref>{{cite web
:<div style="font-size: 85%;"><sup>1</sup> A feature defending the album and criticising the review was later also published on the website.<ref>http://web.archive.org/web/20060502004643/http://www.pitchforkmedia.com/watw/02-06/zaireeka.shtml</ref></div>
:<div style="font-size: 85%;"><sup>2</sup> This album was not given a rating - the review consisted only of a video of a chimpanzee urinating into its own mouth.<ref>{{cite web
| last = Suzuki
| last = Suzuki
| first = Ray
| first = Ray
Line 352: Line 353:
| url = http://www.pitchforkmedia.com/article/record_review/38853/Jet_Shine_On
| url = http://www.pitchforkmedia.com/article/record_review/38853/Jet_Shine_On
| accessdate = 2006-12-10}}</ref>
| accessdate = 2006-12-10}}</ref>
:<div style="font-size: 85%;"><sup>2</sup> In the review, this album theoretically received both a 10.0 and 0.0 rating.</div>
:<div style="font-size: 85%;"><sup>3</sup> In the review, this album theoretically received both a 10.0 and 0.0 rating.</div>


=== Albums awarded a 9.9 rating ===
=== Albums awarded a 9.9 rating ===

Revision as of 11:00, 25 February 2007

Pitchfork Media Logo

File:Pitchforkmedia screencap.png

A typical example of Pitchfork's main page, as of 12-12-06

Launched 1995
Based in Chicago, Illinois, US
Created by Ryan Schreiber
Owner Ryan Schreiber
Registration No
Type of website Music webzine
Status Active
URL pitchforkmedia.com

Pitchfork Media, usually known simply as Pitchfork and occasionally shortened to P4K or pfork,[1] is a United States-based daily Internet publication devoted to music criticism and commentary, music news, and artist interviews. Its central focus lies with independent music,[2] including indie rock. However, the range of musical genres reviewed extends to electronic, pop, hip hop, dance, folk, jazz, and experimental music.

The site concentrates on new music, but Pitchfork journalists also review reissued albums and box sets. The site has published "best-of" lists, for example; 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 2001 and 2006. Pitchfork has been in existence since 1995 and has been popular since the early 2000s. The site is currently reputed to have significant influence in the independent music world, despite being criticized by some for a "hipster" attitude and devotion to hype and trends, or a focus on obscure bands and musical styles.

History

File:Pitchfork media logo old.gif
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 once monthly with interviews and reviews. In May 1996, the site began publishing daily, and was renamed Pitchfork, after Tony Montana's tattoo in the 1983 film Scarface.[3]

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 magazine journalism. In October of that year, the site added a daily music news section.

Size, readership and site traffic

Pitchfork now receives an audience of more than 170,000 readers per day, and more than 1.3 million unique visitors per month, making it the most popular independent-focused music publication online.[4][5]

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.[6] 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).

Influence of Pitchfork reviews

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 2004, when "indie" music as represented by the site was seen to experience a popular resurgence, some publications have cited Pitchfork in having played a part in "breaking" Arcade Fire, Sufjan Stevens, Clap Your Hands Say Yeah, Interpol, The Go! Team, The Dismemberment Plan, Junior Boys, The Books, Broken Social Scene, Wolf Parade, and Tapes 'n Tapes. Some of these artists first received attention from other sources, however, and the site's true impact on their popularity remains a source of frequent debate.

Conversely, Pitchfork has also been seen as a negative influence on some indie artists' popularity. As suggested in a Washington Post article of 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.[3] 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."[3]

Examples

  • Arcade Fire is among the bands most commonly cited to have benefited from a Pitchfork review. In a 2005 Chicago Tribune article, writer Greg Kot quotes a Merge Records representative as saying, "After the Pitchfork review, it 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 benefited directly from a positive review in Pitchfork, as well as the band's live shows and a mention in The New York Times. [9]

Criticism

Elitism, hype and "hipster" attitude

Along with its popularity, Pitchfork has attracted the criticism of certain music fans and rock journalists. A common complaint is that the site's journalism suffers from a narrow view of independent music, favoring lo-fi (often obscure) indie rock and giving only cursory treatment to other genres.[10] Another common criticism is that the site's opinions reflect a "hipster" attitude, overly subject to changing musical trends; or indeed that the site itself creates hype around particular scenes, such as dance punk or freak folk, or particular acts such as Sufjan Stevens and Arcade Fire. Some critics of Pitchfork have suggested that it rates albums from particular music scenes or artists higher in order to bolster its own influence when the music attains popularity.[11]

As the site has expanded its coverage into mainstream pop and hip-hop music during the 2000s, often giving good reviews to such music, some fans of indie rock and alternative hip-hop have objected to its coverage, and others have found the shift in writers' tastes to be disingenuous. Other music magazines and web sites have also received such criticisms.

The majority of criticism, however, is aimed at the site's album reviewing style, where there is a commonly-perceived tendency to emphasize the reviewers' own "pretentious" and self-conscious writing over the music being reviewed.[10] Some notable satires of this style include:

  • 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 piled over-the-top praise on fictional indie-rock records. At the start of the article, Cross notes the site's lukewarm reviews of his own albums as motivation for the critique.[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 parody was also created by the official website of Sub Pop Records, a record label whose musical artists Pitchfork has reviewed (often favorably).

Leaked music

In August 2006, Pitchfork left over 300 albums in an unprotected directory on their servers. A web surfer managed to discover and download the collection, which subsequently spread across peer to peer file-sharing networks. Numerous unreleased songs and albums were compromised, among them the Decemberists' The Crane Wife and TV on the Radio's Return to Cookie Mountain.[14]

Involvement in music festivals

File:Pitchfork music festival logo.jpg
Pitchfork Music Festival logo.

Intonation Music Festival

Main article: Intonation Music Festival

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

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, an event which 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.[15]

Rating system

Pitchfork's music reviews use two different rating systems:

  • Individual track reviews are given a rating out of 5 possible stars, using half-star intervals.
  • Album reviews are given a rating out of 10.0 specific to one decimal point.

On October 24, 2003 the author of Pitchformula.com made a survey of the 5,575 reviews available on the website 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 [6]

Albums awarded a 10.0 rating

Initial release

The following albums received a 10.0 rating upon initial release:

Re-release

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

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 [2] (initially awarded 8.3 [3])
- Endtroducing by DJ Shadow [4] (initially awarded 9.1 [5]).
- In the Aeroplane Over the Sea by Neutral Milk Hotel [6] (initially awarded 8.7 [7])

Albums awarded a 0.0 rating

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

1 A feature defending the album and criticising the review was later also published on the website.[16]
2 This album was not given a rating - the review consisted only of a video of a chimpanzee urinating into its own mouth.[17]
3 In the review, this album theoretically received both a 10.0 and 0.0 rating.

Albums awarded a 9.9 rating

The following albums received a 9.9 rating either upon release or reissue:

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 album "The Eminem Show" by Eminem [8], 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 [9] (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 [10], 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 [11] 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!

See also

Internet music journalism

References

  1. ^ P., Ethan (June 4, 2002). "Eminem: The Eminem Show: Pitchfork Record Review". Pitchfork Media. Retrieved 2006-10-29. {{cite web}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)
  2. ^ Burns, Anna. "Pitchfork Media". ABC.net. Retrieved 2006-10-29. {{cite web}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)
  3. ^ a b c du Lac, Josh Freedom (April 30, 2006). "Giving Indie Acts A Plug, or Pulling It". The Washington Post. Retrieved 2006-10-29. {{cite news}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)
  4. ^ "Site Traffic Information for www.pitchforkmedia.com". Alexa Internet. Retrieved 2006-10-29. {{cite web}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)
  5. ^ Itzkoff, Dave (September 2006). "The Pitchfork Effect". Wired. Retrieved 2006-10-29. {{cite web}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help); Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)
  6. ^ a b Wilson, Loren Jan. "Statistics for the reviews database". pitchformula.com. Retrieved 2006-10-29. {{cite web}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)
  7. ^ Kot, Greg (May 8, 2005). "Pitchfork e-zine tells indie fans what's hot and not". The Honolulu Advertiser. Retrieved 2006-10-29. {{cite news}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)
  8. ^ CR (June 2005). "Clap Your Hands Say Yeah Interview". Tiny Mix Tapes. Retrieved 2006-10-29. {{cite web}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)
  9. ^ Condon, Patrick (August 18, 2006). "Blogs 'n buzz help propel Tapes 'N Tapes to music stardom". Associated Press. Retrieved 2006-10-29. {{cite news}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)
  10. ^ a b Thomas, Lindsey (June 14, 2006). "The Pitchfork Effect". City Pages. Retrieved 2006-10-30. {{cite news}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)
  11. ^ Slate. "The Indie Music Site Everyone Loves to Hate". [1]
  12. ^ Cross, David (May 5, 2005). "Albums to Listen to While Reading Overwrought Pitchfork Reviews". Pitchfork Media. Retrieved 2006-10-30. {{cite web}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)
  13. ^ "RichDork Media and Music Reviews and General Pretentiousness". Something Awful. 2004. Retrieved 2006-10-30. {{cite web}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)
  14. ^ http://www.thephoenix.com/article_ektid22637.aspx
  15. ^ "Pitchfork Music Festival 2006". Pitchfork Media. August 2, 2006. Retrieved 2006-10-30. {{cite web}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)
  16. ^ http://web.archive.org/web/20060502004643/http://www.pitchforkmedia.com/watw/02-06/zaireeka.shtml
  17. ^ Suzuki, Ray (October 02, 2006). "Jet: Shine On: Pitchfork Record Review". Pitchfork. p. 1. Retrieved 2006-12-10. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)

Pitchfork sites

Best-of lists

Albums
Other lists