Pitchfork Media has been making and breaking bands for the past 10+ years. Some bands that don’t deserve all the credit they’re receiving - Arcade Fire, Clap Your Hands Say Yeah, Vampire Weekend, Destroyer, Colin Meloy Whatever from Whatever hyped Montreal Portland Oakland Brooklyn Austin Boston band. Pitchfork fully understands that they have wayyyy more control over the “indie” music world than is recognized. They have so much power, are able to realize it, and yet still review and rate horrible music as being good music. And then the trickle effect begins - Pitchfork rates the album with rave reviews, followed by the LA Times NY Times SF Weekly OC Weekly, then the little mp3 based music blogs and soon to be extinct printed music magazines - next thing you know, horrible bands are touring the world as the “best new band” of recent times.
Brooklyn - Crap Your Hands Say Yeah…
Montreal - Barcade Fire…
I’m not in a band or even closely tied to the music industry, so why should I even care? Because there are millions of bands out there that don’t get enough press, and few bands that get too much press. I’m sure that I’ve never heard my favorite band in the world yet and probably will never hear my favorite band in the world, which I guess I’m fine with that. But Pitchfork shouldn’t have as much influence on the independent music industry as they currently do. Pitchfork Media is to music is what Urban Outfitters is to fashion & clothing. Both are powerful, bland, and both need to go away.
SUBSCRIBE TO RSS
April 8th, 2008 at 1:16 am
you were music coordinator for On Video!
April 8th, 2008 at 1:47 am
Is Pitchfork still *that* powerful? Perhaps I’m more out of touch, or have simply decided to focus on other music sites, but I didn’t think Pitchfork held the attention of the entire indie-world anymore…
I fully agree that Pitchforkmedia blows in general. Lame hype, bad reviews, focus on bands no one cares about… that said, I think Arcade Fire is pretty good. But “Grizzly Caribou Yeah Yeah Choir & the Shout out Loud! Band”? I’ll pass….
April 8th, 2008 at 10:56 am
“were” as the important word, John. “were” was from 1998-2002. My influence on kids’ ears were fractions of fractions of what Pitchfork’s influence is and has held. And Chase, Pitchfork’s loyal readers have climbed and climbed as the years have gone on. Same with their unique visitors per month is almost at 2 million (per freakin month). I’d say their influence is still strong. Some of those little mp3 blogs have crept up in population, but nowhere near holding the tight grip that Pitchfork has.
April 9th, 2008 at 9:20 am
I don’t know if he still works there, but Pitchfork’s Nick Sylvester lives upstairs from some of my friends in BK. We shld go jump him…and fuck internet indie! why is it always the safest, blandest, cutest bands that get big? oh, because honky pop tastes are bland.
May 4th, 2008 at 12:24 pm
Yes, I agree. Sometimes Pitchfork goes way too far and gives unbelievable high rates on such mediocre records and low rates to such wonderful albums. I don’t know why should Tool’s “Lateralus” get 1.9 while The Field’s “From Here We Go Sublime” get 9!