Pitchfork has served as the pre-eminent music taste-maker since its 1995 debut covering artists such as Robert Pollard, Ryan Adams and Broken Social Scene.
It seems everyone tied to the music industry from artists to the label executives themselves visit the site daily to discover the “Next Big Thing.” The site averages more than 160,000 readers per day and more than 1.3 million unique visitors per month (J. Freedom du Lac) coming from these four main groups:
- Music “snobs”
- Record buyers
- College radio stations
- Label music executives
As the site content editor and writer, I will continue to offer content in the form of music reviews, interviews and news briefs all aimed at music buyers in the 18-to-45 year-old age range.
Challenges
The site could be improved in two areas: diversity in music coverage and clearer writing. Pitchfork has catered to indie-guitar rock scene for more than 11 years, but the site lags behind its main rivals, Tiny Mix Tapes and PopMatters in covering folk, hip hop and electronic artists.
Onto another matter. Pitchfork has based its reputation on music reviews, but the editors have endured ridicule and criticism for what its detractors deem as a “narrow view of independent music, favoring lo-fi indie rock over any other genre, and giving undue value to obscurity” (Itzkoff) written in an elitist tone.
An anonymous poster on the online blog, MESH Magazine, said:
“Right on, man. Those pretentious (expletive) are showcasing their liberal arts BA’s more than anything else. The reviews of a lot of the stuff they dump on makes no sense taken in tandem with half the crap on there. One of these replies called you ‘ungrateful’!? What the hell are we supposed to be grateful for? And have you ever seen an independent music site with more (expletive) ad’s than these (expletive)?”
In the East Bay Express, writer Rob Harvilla likened the writing to “a dense, hugely overwritten, utterly incomprehensible brick of critical fruitcake.” (J. Freedom du Lac).
A review of the Metallica album, St. Anger, proves Harvilla’s point:
“A banana spider bit into Ktulu the Mule’s heel. The animal reared. The cart spilled its contents, the CDs and myself, into the dust. A safety cut the electrical field protecting ‘St. Anger.’ As the cart master attempted to rein the bucking animal, I slipped a disc into my overalls.”
Pitchfork does revel in its humor. The staff posted a short video clip of a monkey in response to the Australian band Jet’s latest album, and bloggers and readers approved:
- Oh man, that had me rolling! Finally, a P’Fork review I can understand…
Keith (08:41 PM on 10.05.06) - Finally a Pitchfork review that I can actually follow!
Keith (08:43 PM on 10.05.06) - Ha! Mike – I didn’t read your comment before I posted mine. I’m glad I’m not the only one. I personally can’t stand their usual reviews.
The site’s content can greatly improve with contributors writing simpler sentences and focusing on principles taught in basic journalism and classes. And the site could be retooled to increase the site’s loading time, which the World Wide Web statistic site Alexa.com, labeled as “very slow” with an average load time of 6.4 seconds.
Articles Cited:
- Du Lac, Freedom J. “Giving Indie Acts A Plug, or Pulling It Pitchfork Web Site Rises as Rock Arbiter.” The Washington Post. 30 April 2006.
- Itzkoff, Dave. “The Pitchfork Effect.” Wired. Septemember 2006.
I will create online content using the Associated Press style guide.



