There has been a lot said, both positive and negative, about the influence of PitchforkMedia.com on music. Pitchfork proponents hail it as a one-stop-shop for trustworthy opinions on music that don’t pander to the masses. A brain-trust of witty, insightful writers combine to make a whole lot of music available to the masses. A favorable review from the King of Hipster Media can vault an unknown band into the spotlight (see: Broken Social Scene, Arcade Fire, Titus Andronicus), giving opportunities to bands without huge advertising budgets, savvy managers, or more than a few great tracks. Pitchfork wades through the crap so you don’t have to, finding the diamonds in the roughest of the rough. Through good writing and exhaustive coverage, Pitchfork has metamorphosed from a twinkle in Ryan Schreiber’s eye into the biggest website in indie music, getting almost a quarter of a million hits per day.

The detractors are eager to contest, however, and they have some good ground to stand on. Pitchfork relies on individual reviewers, they argue, whose opinion often carries a gargantuan weight. A dismissal from the ‘fork means months of writing and recording practically down the drain, hindering careers just as often (or more) than it helps those small-time artists. Equally, Pitchfork lives to create buzz, latching onto the newest trend in indie music to bring it to the forefront. When Justin Timberlake came out with FutureSex/Lovesounds in 2006, Pitchfork hyped it up and it was all of a sudden cool to like pop again. In 2007, Feist and Regina Spektor got good reviews and it was suddenly the Year of the Female Vocalist. Fleet Foxes and Beach House hit in 2008, and lo-fi choral groups were back in style. And Pitchfork was there through it all. Critics are quick to point out that being in Pitchfork’s buzz-genre of the moment is a definite point (literally, 1 point out of ten sometimes) in your favor.

In perhaps the best overall summary of Pitchfork, the band The Airborne Toxic Event took umbrage with the site’s review in the form of a public letter. Citing their own respect – nay, love – for Pitchfork, they also say, “We love indie rock and we know full well that Pitchfork doesn’t so much critique bands as critique a band’s ability to match a certain indie rock aesthetic.” While that is certainly a simplification, it’s a viewpoint that isn’t rare.

But I’m getting side-tracked. I didn’t come here to discuss whether Pitchfork is Good, Bad, or Indifferent – the answer to all of those is a resounding “Maybe”. Instead, I wanted to share a realization I had.

Pitchfork Media is the Google of music.

Continue reading →