Alternative Mainstream Media

Why Pitchfork Isn’t So Bad…

originally published September 24, 2008

These days it’s becoming more and more difficult to speak of the world of "indie music" (if you can even call it that anymore, which you probably can’t) without mentioning that leviathan of music journalism for the information age, Pitchforkmedia.com. Since its inception in 1996, Pitchfork has grown to include more than just record reviews. The site now boasts an extensive news feed and weekly columns and interviews with a wide array of artists, not to mention its own annual music festival. What’s more, the newly launched Pitchfork.tv offers an even greater selection of media, from music videos to rare concert footage - it even screens music documentaries in their entirety.

Still, Pitchfork’s growing influence seems to have prompted some backlash. Inclusion in the site’s Best New Music section can mean a breakthrough for bands still struggling in the background of the national scene. Recent examples include Fleet Foxes, Titus Andronicus, Vampire Weekend and, of course, the infamous Black Kids, who turned a shining review of their four-song MySpace-only EP and their Athens PopFest appearance into a huge international tour and a deal with Columbia Records. (Their full-length album, released July 22, was subsequently panned by the site.) Pitchfork certainly has the ability to hype a band - in addition to Best New Music, the ‘Fork also has at its disposal its news feed (hint: buzz bands get more news stories than other bands - remember the story about how Dan Deacon lost the green skull he uses as a prop onstage?) and ‘Forkcast section where new songs and videos are posted to download or stream for free. In short, if its writers are excited about a band, they’ll make sure you hear about it.

The power that Pitchfork yields has not gone unnoticed - even the bands benefiting from the site’s prominence seem to be uncomfortable. Titus Andronicus’s Liam Betson describes his band's rise to popularity as “unnatural." Fleet Foxes expressed similar sentiments during their set at the Pitchfork Festival (which you can view on the site, conveniently enough). Questions arise when bands previously unheard of rocket to stardom based on one site’s accolades: Is this really the best new music out there? Is there any reason to privilege these bands over any number of other acts?

The answer is pretty clear: of course not. But before we denounce the site completely we should consider the primary implication of its existence: that there is something that we, as listeners of "indie music," however devoid of meaning that phrase is, might possibly have something in common with one another, and that Pitchfork expresses, to an extent, this common quality. Perhaps this isn’t the case, and music has become so varied and fragmented a body of art that no one entity could hope to encapsulate the feeling of even a small group of people towards it. The good news is it doesn’t matter.

It doesn’t matter because we are not slaves to media outlets. We are free to have tastes that do not align with the precedent set by any institution, and in the case of music, the Internet has made this a great deal easier. Local music scenes also give us a chance to form our own opinions, and just as we might compare our own thoughts to those expressed by established local sources of criticism (i.e., Flagpole), we can do so on a greater scale with Pitchforkmedia.com.

So, there you go: Pitchfork exists not to dictate taste but rather as a frame of reference for those who might use it, even if it’s simply to disagree with its point of view. Given the scope of the site and the wide variety of genres it attempts to analyze, it follows that its writers will get a great deal wrong - the site has its limitations. Moreover, like most publications, it has its biases - I imagine Pitchfork leans pretty hard towards white, upper-middle-class dudes. So full of change is this world of ours that in a couple of years the site will probably cease to have its finger on the pulse of whatever could be said to be happening and, as is the way of capitalism. Pitchfork will probably go the way of Rolling Stone, catering to as broad an audience as possible in order to please advertisers. I don’t think this has happened yet, nor do I think that, as it stands now, Pitchfork can be charged with insincerity.

In time, maybe another entity will rise to replace Pitchfork, maybe several. At any rate, it’s best to keep it all in perspective: “The world of winners and losers in indie rock is a pretty low-stakes sweepstakes,” says Jeff Tobias of We Versus the Shark, Dark Meat, et al. Easy as it is to imagine that American Apparel is somehow responsible for every music purchase made in the past two years, and as much as I’d like to punch Vampire Weekend in the face, perhaps Pitchfork Media's backlash is not justified after all.

Marshall Yarbrough

Liner Notes is Flagpole's music opinion column.