This should not be the first time you've read about Pitchfork and its indie influence. It has been making bands relevant since it became a daily in the late '90s and coolly bashed the mainstream scene. For every pop music movement there is backlash, resentment and something of a countermovement. Consider Pitchfork the instigator of this decade's musical countermovement to the late '90s.
For decades, Rolling Stone remained the gold standard of music journalism, and while Pitchfork may not be journalistically inspired or driven, it has certainly stolen the well-read of the music scene. With the Internet increasing its hold over the music scene throughout the '00s, individualism and uniqueness took precedence, opposing the assembly line approach developing in the mainstream scene. With this market polarization, a journalistic source of music criticism needed to come from somewhere, and it needed to distinguish itself to be authentic.
First, it needed to see through the bullshit. It needed to be able to tell authentic musicians from posers and players, and it needed to be well-versed in both styles so it could use references to both poke fun at and praise music in a way that made readers feel like they were in the loop.
Second, it needed to avoid mainstream forms of journalism. Everybody already associated Rolling Stone and newspapers with lame, out-of-touch middle agers who are less tapped into the contemporary underground music scene than my Uncle Remus from Fifield, Wis.
Pitchfork capitalized on these notions by reviewing five albums a day—along with individual songs—and reissues, and by making them longer and more thorough (often to a fault). In our world of hyper-exposure to media of all forms, music heads need to be able to sift through many sounds and experiences every day, not just a couple once a month.
The success following these conventions proves their effectiveness in the most unexpected way: record sales. As far as prodding purchases, Pitchfork has been the only ringleader, mostly because the type of people regularly reading the site are the type who respect the trade and want to support the artists by purchasing hard copies. As a result, it has been known for some time that an indie record store better prepare their inventory if a new underground band pops up with a nine rating on the webzine, with success stories resulting from Pitchfork praise being impressive and widespread. No-name bands go from obscurity to sold-out venues and backordered CD's overnight based on a ‘Best New Music' tag.
The most prominent examples of this are impressive to say the least. Indie rock staples such as Broken Social Scene and Arcade Fire both attribute popularity booms to the days after their high Pitchfork rating hit the web. And on the flip side, an artist's integrity can immediately be squashed by a ruinous review.
Ironically, Pitchfork's indispenssability will persist because the medium and circumstances made it possible. The Internet not only provides endless music, but also opinions. You can use Pitchfork as a starting point, but it will be transparent if it is your only reference, as the site is becoming more mainstream indie (so uncool) by the second. At the end of the day, if you're going to one source to look for music, no site is as polished and well-oiled. But even so, if you're letting one source primarily influence your exposure, you're missing the point of Internet exposure and individuality in music that made Pitchfork relevant in the first place.
Think Pitchfork simply lets people follow along with the limp-wristed consensus? Know of a cutting-edge music blog that really knows what's going on in indie music today? E-mail Justin about it at jstephani@wisc.edu.
