You need to sign up for Washington Post service (it's free!) to read this, but the Post just ran this huge article on Pitchfork's influence in the music industry.
I was able to read it straight from the link, without signing up.
Interesting story. Several things struck me:
1. The idea that the site started as a way of laying into artists who 'really deserved it.' If that's true, Pitchfork is a very uppity version of Chunklet.
2. I'm staggered to know that a record store refused to stock Travis Morrison's record merely because of the 0.0 review. That's a very poorly run record store.
3. I think Schreiber has begun to take himself too seriously. The fact that, at the end, he's "soured" on Clap Your Hands Say Yeah because they aren't giving the Internet (read: Pitchfork) enough credit for their success. We get it, Ryan: you're so important to the indie music world we'd die without you. Get over yourself. If you want credit for breaking bands, get into A&R or work at a radio station, where they give you gold and platinum records to show you how important you are.
Nice piece. Thanks, Yay!
Posts: 3875 | Location: ATL, GA | Registered: 25 May 2004
Yeah, I would also like to say thanks for the article. I was brought right to it as well - no sign up or anything. You would have to say fair play to the guy for creating and maintaining a successful, free website, but all that pompous bullshit about not feeling bad cause the singer who's record got a 0.0 tanked is ridiculous. I don't care how snobby you are, there isn't any piece of music anywhere that deserves such an insulting score. Or maybe I'm missing the whole point, and nothing gets snobby people off more than being insulting. I laughed at Schreiber's catty little Clap Your Hands aren't good live anyway parting miaow. But I will end as I began, saying he does deserve credit for being a successful entrepeneur, which is more than I am...
Posts: 354 | Location: Havana, Cuba | Registered: 14 March 2006
Thanks for the article. I've been trying to explain the whole Pitchfork mentality thing to my mom for a while, and after reading it she finally understands what I mean. I also find it amusing that Ryan Schrieber has a lisp.
Posts: 1115 | Location: new york | Registered: 10 October 2005
The article itself was interesting, but slightly brief. An entire book could be written about the influence of Pitchforkmedia (anyone want to sponsor me). For every 9.0 review that sells a million kids on Clap Your Hands Say Yeah, there are plenty of 9.0 reviews on Pitchfork for tons of other records that haven't really been flying off the shelves at the record store where I work. I think the score needs to accompany an already inviting sound in order to garner the same kind of reception for a release as that record, The Arcade Fire, Sufjan Stevens, or Wolf Parade amongst others. Think about it, Pitchfork gave Keith Fullerton Whitman's Playthroughs the exact same score as Funeral, a 9.7 and you don't see a bunch of kids falling over themselves to buy obtuse electro-acoustic music. On the other hand, Pitchfork and every other online site gave M.I.A. rave reviews last year and we had tons of copies of her album that literally sat there and not a single one sold. Just more random thoughts amongst at least two years of considerable "observation" of Pitchfork and its influence.
Well consider this: Wolf Parade, CHYSY and Sufjan fit the indie-rock mold (whatever that is) to one degree or another. The music of M.I.A. and Keith Fullerton Whitman do not. I don't mean to sound condescending, but that's beyond obvious.
So what does this say? That in the indie-rock/indie-pop world, the people who like and gravitate and throw money at that genre of music, P4K's opinion holds undeniable sway.
I'm with Yay! on this one. No amount of praise from any critical source is going to cause a lot of people to buy abstract, experimental, or unusual music. Pitchfork's influence is undeniable, whether you like it or not.
I'm curious, what did CYHSY say that made Schreiber so indignant?
Posts: 3894 | Location: NE Indiana | Registered: 14 April 2005
Well consider this: Wolf Parade, CHYSY and Sufjan fit the indie-rock mold (whatever that is) to one degree or another. The music of M.I.A. and Keith Fullerton Whitman do not. I don't mean to sound condescending, but that's beyond obvious.
So what does this say? That in the indie-rock/indie-pop world, the people who like and gravitate and throw money at that genre of music, P4K's opinion holds undeniable sway.
quote:
I'm with Yay! on this one. No amount of praise from any critical source is going to cause a lot of people to buy abstract, experimental, or unusual music. Pitchfork's influence is undeniable, whether you like it or not.
WHAT??? Do you seriously think I don't know that. Hence the statement that an entire book could be written on the subject. I'm fully aware that Pitchfork holds UNDENIABLE sway over the indie rock masses. I thought that is what we were discussing in general here. What good is it for me to restate that, it would be rhetorical? I believe I made the CLEAR distinction that artists such as Sufjan and Wolf Parade are typical indie rock as compared to Whitman, etc. There is NO way I could or would try to contest that ever. I was merely making some interesting comments that the both of you should be able to see clearly. I will not be made out to be some moron. I was trying to show that the influence of Pitchforkmedia is a multi-faceted entity, which the article in the Washington Post DOES NOT go into in enough detail. Way to go for stating the obvious dudes. Consider it? That's precisely what I did.
Take it easy, dude. You act like we were trying to ridicule you or something. Seemed like a pretty civil conversation until your last message. Don't be so sensitive, man.
Posts: 3894 | Location: NE Indiana | Registered: 14 April 2005
I was under the impression that you were making the case, or perhaps I saw this point implied, that P4K's influence is truncated outside of straight-up indie rock/pop, despite its glowing reviews and high ratings.
This is actually a true statement, in accordance to figures and the evidence you presented. Apparently, not EVERYTHING P4K loves is gobbled up by indie kids, but I suppose that the majority is. It definitely seemed like you were making the case to remind us that P4K isn't 100% monolithic in underground music opinion. Whether you intended to make that point or not, I think its correct.
If I misunderstood your point, then the mistake is mine. I understand how frustrating being misunderstood can be, so I understand your reaction as well.
I think everyone on this site has their own opinions on pitchfork, and the article does nothing to sway someone from one side to the other, i don't think that was its goal. I'm not nearly as cynical towards pitchfork as other people, and i though Schreiber came off as somewhat humble. Obviously other people took his CYHSY comment as, idunno, pretentious or arrogant? I thought it was honest i guess. Either way, the debates on here over pitchfork are by far the most interesting, so let em fly.
I was thinking about this passage of what Schreiber said:
quote:
"Honesty is such an important journalistic attribute," says Schreiber, who had no journalism training when as a 20-year-old former record store clerk he launched the site as a solo operation. "And you have to be completely honest in a review. 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.
"So I think we maybe have this sort of snobbish reputation. But 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."
a) I highly doubt that many, I'd even go so far to say that ANY, of the P4K contributors have journalism degrees, are currently studying journalism as a major or minor in school or (and this is most important) have practiced journalism professionally via slogging it out on a metro desk in some medium-sized town.
I am a newspaper journalism major at an accredited school and I can tell you that these people do not act, or write, journalistically in the colloquial sense. They write like the music critic intellegentsia that they see themselves to be. Only in the denotative sense of having their work published in a journal or periodical, then yes I suppose P4K writers are "journalists."
The fact that Schreiber would so cling to that word three times over, stressing it so much, in that story is so confusing to me. I'd like to know exactly what he means.
I definitely respect P4K for being honest, unlike Spin's B policy, Rolling Stone's three-and-a-half stars policy and Robert Christgau's Village Voice "A-/B+" ethos of music criticism. I could also criticize Metacritic (boy wouldn't that be METACRITICAL... or METAMETACRITICAL) for assigning an 80 to most reviews they read, even if they're scorelessly published and obviously think ambivalently, little or nothing of the record.
Only publications like Chunklet and P4K will really tell it like they mean it, and be unafraid and unapologizing doling out their brand of truth. Hell, who else does that?
