Pitchfork debacle

Pitchforkmedia.com is the bane or boon of rock journalism, depending on whom you ask. \nSince the Web site’s launch in 1996, the Internet music magazine has provided nibbles and bits of erudite music criticism to feed the hungry hipster masses. It has become an institution among indie fans. \nThe whole Pitchfork debacle begs the question: What role does criticism play in art? \nThe site recently received a flurry of media attention after national newspapers reviewed the third annual Pitchfork Music Festival. The New York Times attempted to define Pitchfork and its young, Urban Outfitted devotees as elitists and lovers of all things obscure. But that’s only part of it.\nSome people see Pitchfork as a mouthpiece for snobbery, defining taste and aesthetics until there is no room for those who like their music criticism without the smug whiff of the academy. To the average Pitchfork journalist, “Uh, I just like the album, dude,” is not adequate criticism, nor is the cursory examination sufficient that is provided by traditional music journalism in magazines such as Spin or Rolling Stone. \nSome people see the magazine as a betrayal of its foundations. Pitchfork celebrates independent music often ignored by other music magazines. In many cases, Pitchfork is a band’s only hope at notoriety. But as the reputation of the site has grown, so too has its crushing power. The Web site’s rating system uses a scale of 0.0-10.0. A 10 can launch a band into fame and material success. But a 3.3 can eliminate an artist from the mind of every Pitchfork reader.\nAt this point in time, Pitchfork has cultural standing and influence other music magazines cannot attain. People don’t read the Web site lightly; they unthinkingly imbibe the site’s views and opinions. Pitchfork readers walk into local record stores like zombies, 8.9 and 9.2 album reviews dancing in their heads, demanding those albums, like, now. \nPeter Stran, the manager of local record store TD’s CD’s and LP’s, told me people come in with lists of Pitchfork’s recommended albums. Lists! He now reluctantly looks at Pitchfork’s latest recommendations in order to anticipate the buying trends of his customer base.\nThe Web site is often lauded for launching the success of bands on independent labels, such as the Arcade Fire or the Go! Team, who would not otherwise surface in a music industry dominated by label giants. But this is actually a testament to Pitchfork’s market-generating power.\nIdeally, criticism should identify strengths and weaknesses, trends and leaders in any art form. But when criticism begins to mold and shape the art form under its scrutiny, it is a big problem for art. In order to forge new ground, art needs momentum outside what other people might have to say about it. But in this case, art is intimately connected to its critic; that is, independent music becomes what Pitchfork has to say about it.\nCritics have their purpose, but art is more important. We have to remember that there’s an artist behind the music, not merely a reviewer.