A Review of Pitchfork.com: Reviewed by: Alyssa Schulte
Pitchfork, a website solely dedicated to music, primarily little-known artists on independent labels, has come to be a respected and reliable source for online album and song reviews. The site is separated by areas of interest, one of them being a link to reviews, a link that takes the user to a page so intricate it could stand alone as its own website.
“The Pitchfork Effect”: A Brief History of the Site
For a site that began with a tiny staff and little to no exposure, Pitchfork has now established itself as one of the most popular music review sites. Ryan Schreiber, Pitchfork’s editor-in-chief, began the site, hiring talented writers to pen “defiantly passionate and frustratingly capricious reviews” (Itzkoff). Although some of the reviews may be hard to follow at times, there is no denying the fact that all of Pitchfork’s writers, many of whom take staff positions to simply express themselves, are passionate and excited about what they are writing. This, coupled with the fact that Pitchfork’s competitors became more concerned with celebrity gossip and reality television, put Pitchfork on the track to success. Soon, many stores were stocking albums based on positive Pitchfork reviews, and music junkies began flocking to the site for the newest reviews on their favorite bands.
Just for Music Snobs?: Pitchfork’s Purpose & Audience
Pitchfork has its share of critics. One writer went so far as to call the site a “bastion of indie snobbery” (Dvorkin). This comes from Pitchfork reviewers’ tendencies to come right out with it. If they think a well-respected band’s new album sucks, they say it. However snobbish or pretentious the writers may come across as, however, you have to admit…they know their stuff. The purpose of the site is to provide a kind of filter, something that listeners can rely on to sift through “millions of tracks to help them choose what they do (and don’t) want to hear” (Itzkoff). The old filters, the old technology—magazines, radio, television—have “diminished in influence enough to give a player like Pitchfork room to operate” (Itzkoff). Although there are other music review sites on the Web, Pitchfork is of its own breed. A similar site, Spin.com, an online version of the popular magazine, shares many aspects, but is ultimately very different. The differences lie primarily in the content of the reviews, primarily the tone of the 
writing and how the music is discussed.
The music Pitchfork reviews varies drastically, from a mainstream pop artist to an obscure folk group from Sweden. There is something for everyone. Although they tend to review rather obscure artists, these undiscovered bands often go on to achieve success based on positive Pitchfork reviews. A perfect example of this is the power-band, Broken Social Scene. After receiving a 9.2 out of 10 rating, thanks to Schreiber’s glowing review, “an indie star was born” (Itzkoff). Kevin Drew, the front-man for the band, said, “[Pitchfork] opened the door for us. It gave us an audience” (Itzkoff). This success story is a shining example of Pitchfork’s tremendous influence in the music world and why such a diverse audience turns to their reviews for musical guidance.
Key Features & Functionality 
The easy-to-maneuver review page is, at first glance, organized very simply. However, when you look closer, there is actually a lot going on. Organization is essential to any successful website, and this site has a clear and thoughtful layout. Reviews, for both individual tracks and full albums, are separated by date, for readers who check the site daily and want to read the newest additions. There is also a handy sidebar with options to sort reviews by “Most Read” or “Most Recent.” On the opposite side of the page is a sidebar for “Best New Music”, where you c
an click on an album title and go directly to the review. What makes this site more unique than other music sites is its interactivity; users can hear new songs and watch full-length music videos, as well as sign up for lala.com, a site Pitchfork teamed up with so that users can listen to songs and make their own playlists.
As with any site, however, Pitchfork has its weaknesses, weaknesses that affect the content on the review page. As Dvorkin rightfully asserts in his less-than-favorable critique of Pitchfork’s site redesign, crucial sections of the site, such as reviews and news, are lost in an “information overload, which causes the site’s many sections to fight for the user’s attention” (1).
Give Pitchfork a Try, Music Lovers
If you like music and want to learn more about the artists behind your favorite albums and songs, give Pitchfork a try. It’s not for everyone, but for those who use it daily, it rarely disappoints. This reviewer, who, by the way, happens to be one of those aforementioned users, recognizes Pitchfork’s flaws, but ultimately, respects the site for its unique way of treating music reviews and for the passion and brutal honesty of its talented writers.
Sources
Dvorkin, Eli. “Pitchfork Site Redesign: Mixed Reviews.” Flavorwire. 9 March 2009.
Itzkoff, Dave. “The Pitchfork Effect.” Wired. Sept. 2006.
Screenshots courtesy of Pitchfork.com.
No comments:
Post a Comment