Pitchfork has been invaluable for a lot of bands. I think it's possible to draw a line between the success of bands like Death Cab and the Shins (and of course BSS, Arcade Fire and Animal Collective) to Pitchfork. They've done what they do well enough to gain a large following, most of whom, yes, abandon Pitchfork once they've gotten into finding independent music themselves (now, right around the time they graduate from college). For the neophite, however, Pitchfork is probably the best way to gauge what is going on in the independent music world, because of their influence.
As we've seen with Travis Morrison's 0.0 rating and the subsequent cancellation of a tour and horrible sales, Pitchfork can give and it can receive. But at this point, Pitchfork's only going downhill in the same way MTV went downhill and Rollingstone. Once you reach the point where you're a business, decisions start being influenced, however slightly, by revenue and staying in business. Now, Pitchfork HAS to find a "Best new Music" band at least once a month to stay "hot".
Of course I wish they'd give a little more love to Aloha (although Chris Dahlen's given them some nice reviews, I'd like to see a 8.5 or something get them some sales) and I'm sure everyone has their band (PWRFL) they wish they'd give more love to, but whatever. They're running a business, and it's good for their business to find a Barcelona DJ or a New Jersey band like Titus Andronicus no one has heard of, and introduce them to their millions of readers. It makes people feel connected to 'the inside.' And there's nothing wrong with that. It's how a lot of advertising works. Make people feel like they have a stake in what's being written.
How many college undergrads discover their new favorite bands on Pitchfork now? And what's wrong with that? Eventually they'll leave the nest and find bands on their own, once they start hanging out in record stores.
Reviews
Joseph Riippi said on June 30, 2008:
Pitchfork has been invaluable for a lot of bands. I think it's possible to draw a line between the success of bands like Death Cab and the Shins (and of course BSS, Arcade Fire and Animal Collective) to Pitchfork. They've done what they do well enough to gain a large following, most of whom, yes, abandon Pitchfork once they've gotten into finding independent music themselves (now, right around the time they graduate from college). For the neophite, however, Pitchfork is probably the best way to gauge what is going on in the independent music world, because of their influence.
As we've seen with Travis Morrison's 0.0 rating and the subsequent cancellation of a tour and horrible sales, Pitchfork can give and it can receive. But at this point, Pitchfork's only going downhill in the same way MTV went downhill and Rollingstone. Once you reach the point where you're a business, decisions start being influenced, however slightly, by revenue and staying in business. Now, Pitchfork HAS to find a "Best new Music" band at least once a month to stay "hot".
Of course I wish they'd give a little more love to Aloha (although Chris Dahlen's given them some nice reviews, I'd like to see a 8.5 or something get them some sales) and I'm sure everyone has their band (PWRFL) they wish they'd give more love to, but whatever. They're running a business, and it's good for their business to find a Barcelona DJ or a New Jersey band like Titus Andronicus no one has heard of, and introduce them to their millions of readers. It makes people feel connected to 'the inside.' And there's nothing wrong with that. It's how a lot of advertising works. Make people feel like they have a stake in what's being written.
How many college undergrads discover their new favorite bands on Pitchfork now? And what's wrong with that? Eventually they'll leave the nest and find bands on their own, once they start hanging out in record stores.