It is fair to say that the Funeral's review cemented Pitchfork has a force in the music industry, it probably helped Pitchfork more than Arcade Fire in the end.
― Van Horn Street, Thursday, April 11, 2013 2:32 PM (5 minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink
I think this nails it; they are good at sniffing out something on the verge of taking off and they hitch a ride on it/amplify it, initiating a sort of reciprocal cred cycle positive feedback loop. Doesn't always work, for every Arcade Fire there's a Wilderness/Rapture/Trail of Dead
― anonanon, Thursday, 11 April 2013 18:40 (eleven years ago) link
that wilderness article is an interesting artifact. i wonder if the album would have done better if pitchfork gave it another .5 points, and like, really threw their weight behind it. the rhetoric in the review is effusive but 8.5 seems more mixed.
― severely depressed robots are "twee" (Pat Finn), Thursday, 11 April 2013 18:40 (eleven years ago) link
i guess, going with that, is the sense that pitchfork's number scores sometimes speak louder than the articles themselves, at least to a certain kind of reader.
― severely depressed robots are "twee" (Pat Finn), Thursday, 11 April 2013 18:42 (eleven years ago) link
oh, a discussion about pitchfork
― J0rdan S., Thursday, 11 April 2013 18:42 (eleven years ago) link
anyway, pitchfork has actually emphasized individual writers recently
they moved bylines up to the top of the page, which now link to individual writer pages with a custom url and everything
they even link to tumblrs and twitters so you can get to know your favorite writers even better http://pitchfork.com/staff/jordan-sargent/
also they published individual lists last year
― J0rdan S., Thursday, 11 April 2013 18:44 (eleven years ago) link
well I think they owe a large part of their success/influence to their numbered scoring system
― anonanon, Thursday, 11 April 2013 18:47 (eleven years ago) link
it certainly helped them become a popular 'consumer guide' but when people say that i wonder if they realize that virtually everybody else that reviewed albums before PF also gave numerical ratings, often on a scale of 1 to 10 (or practically the same thing, with a 5 star system measured in half stars)
― some dude, Thursday, 11 April 2013 18:53 (eleven years ago) link
dude, half of ILM wasn't born yet
― the little prince of inane false binary hype (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Thursday, 11 April 2013 18:55 (eleven years ago) link
There's like a ton of mansplainy n+1 and wired articles that already cover this ground, but i'll bite:
The Funeral review was the first to cement people's belief that Pitchfork was "making bands."
There was a New York Magazine article on the band in 2007 that said -- and this is an actual quote -- "It was a symbiotic event: Pitchfork made Arcade Fire, and Arcade Fire made Pitchfork"
Whether that's true or not (there was also a New York Times Music Section front page piece by Kelefah that surely helped, tho P4k was a month out the gate first), it created that narrative for a lot of people.
It was a moment indicative of "HOW WE LEARN ABOUT MUSIC NOW" because it wasA. On the internet, not SPIN or RS or Entertainment Weekly) because it moved faster and spoke directly to a niche audience (especially the white media types who dislike "pop music" and are responsible for the majority of navel-gazing "narratives" like the one you're reading about). B. Was the first internet-driven indie rock "Hype Cycle" that was rewarded with a much-ballyhooed CMJ or SXSW show (ie, see the way we cover Surfer Blood, Savages, et al)C. It was democratized because it took a movement that was already happening ("The Shins will change your life") and democratized it, putting it in the hands of a small website and a small but influential audience of website readers instead of a big "tastemaker"
The rise of music blogs was happening at the same time, and this just crystallized the way people were finding out about bands now.
Whether these things are true or not, that's how things are perceived.
― paas de la huevo (Whiney G. Weingarten), Thursday, 11 April 2013 18:56 (eleven years ago) link
Also, again, didn't hurt that Arcade Fire was actually good and really good live.
― Josh in Chicago, Thursday, 11 April 2013 19:00 (eleven years ago) link
no I mean pitchfork's adoption of absurdly specific decimal point number ratings. I think it taps into the casual reader's desire for structure/hierarchies, but also I think it was a subtle and easy way to signal that they were more thoughtful and in-depth than other reviewers: "we are so thoughtful we have evaluated that it is actually an 8.3 rather than an 8.4 or 8.2"
― anonanon, Thursday, 11 April 2013 19:03 (eleven years ago) link
People didn't think those fine aesthetic calibrations on the difference between 3.0 and a 3.5?
― the little prince of inane false binary hype (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Thursday, 11 April 2013 19:05 (eleven years ago) link
it's not about the actual greater thoughtfulness of the reviewer it's the authoritative impression it gives the casual reader
― anonanon, Thursday, 11 April 2013 19:11 (eleven years ago) link
pitchfork should score to the the thousandth and provide error bars
― Bobby McFerrin, Quantum Physicist (Sufjan Grafton), Thursday, 11 April 2013 19:11 (eleven years ago) link
that wilderness record is great if you have a big PIL jones like i do
― ums (upper mississippi sh@kedown), Thursday, 11 April 2013 19:14 (eleven years ago) link
xpost: honestly that's the idea; subtle pseudo-scientific signaling that their reviews are definitive/capture objective measure of quality
― anonanon, Thursday, 11 April 2013 19:17 (eleven years ago) link
i'm pretty sure i agonized over the difference between 3.0 and 3.5 on several PF reviews, because they sent me the shittiest promos ever
― some dude, Thursday, 11 April 2013 19:18 (eleven years ago) link
I love Wilderness but they are a much tougher sell than Arcade Fire. (You can't honestly think that rock radio in 2013 would be populated by a bunch of bands trying to put a drama-club spin on Wilderness's deconstruct-it-all aesthetic a la Imagine Dragons and all the other ho-heyers are right now?)
― maura, Thursday, 11 April 2013 19:21 (eleven years ago) link
Ugh sorry about my weird mid-sentence edit rendering that a bit incoherent
― maura, Thursday, 11 April 2013 19:22 (eleven years ago) link
But I mean for real, without Arcade Fire's success on the indie level, the rock (and even pop!) radio landscape would be a very different thing at the moment
― maura, Thursday, 11 April 2013 19:23 (eleven years ago) link
there's a rock radio landscape?
― four Marxes plus four Obamas plus four Bin Ladens (Shakey Mo Collier), Thursday, 11 April 2013 19:25 (eleven years ago) link
"comfortability"?"transitiveness"?"substantive"?
― m0stlyClean, Thursday, 11 April 2013 19:25 (eleven years ago) link
I didn't mean to say Wilderness and Arcade Fire had the same ceiling. It came to mind mainly as a contrast because the push on that review seemed oddly strong: a BNM tag with all that big picture narrative written by the boss himself, yet it didn't seem to gain even relative traction.
― anonanon, Thursday, 11 April 2013 19:36 (eleven years ago) link
Cool response, Whiney, thanks.
I'm not denying that this connection hasn't been reported, and repeated, by many sources. Nor am I denying that a positive review from Pitchfork affected that band's trajectory, or at least, gilded it. But this thesis relies on the notion that AF hadn't had any major success until then, when they'd had loads. Massive amounts. Canada and otherwise. They'd already been subject to an (indie) bidding war, sold out Bowery (with huge excess demand), even featured on there non-CAN magazine covers before the pitchfork review-- you could easily argue that Plan B, feature for feature, was the more prescient publication for indie music. As for the crowds and the guarantees, they went up a bit, but not nearly as much as they did, say, as they did when management was hired in 2005, or the Spike trailer, or any number of other events that made them The Thing They Are Today
― I'm a lover, not a partner (flamboyant goon tie included), Thursday, 11 April 2013 19:36 (eleven years ago) link
selling out smallish venues in nyc is not as tough a prospect as it seems given the MASSIVE AMOUNTS OF INDUSTRY here. i am v rarely impressed by nyc sellouts as a barometer of anything save self-sustaining buzz cycles
― maura, Thursday, 11 April 2013 19:38 (eleven years ago) link
Wilderness were kind of a weird non-entity even in Baltimore, although i only heard one of the later albums so maybe i just missed what the excitement was actually about
― some dude, Thursday, 11 April 2013 19:40 (eleven years ago) link
but yeah maura otm, i'm much more impressed when a band can sell out in a smaller market than in nyc
But good point about "who's the author?"
― I'm a lover, not a partner (flamboyant goon tie included), Thursday, 11 April 2013 19:43 (eleven years ago) link
arcade fire/pf feels very 'print the legend' at this point
― some dude, Thursday, 11 April 2013 19:46 (eleven years ago) link
But Maura they went from Bowery pre pitchfork to Irving post pitchfork, it wasn't a big move. It seems ridiculous to consider this stuff ~now~ but they weren't a huge band in 2005 by any means
― I'm a lover, not a partner (flamboyant goon tie included), Thursday, 11 April 2013 19:46 (eleven years ago) link
If anything Wilderness is the purest counterexample I can think of that a big pfork push on its own doesn't bestow success in the absence of other support (did Wilderness get pushed by anyone else?)
― anonanon, Thursday, 11 April 2013 19:50 (eleven years ago) link
I love Wilderness so much. Fav of 2005 for me, and honestly I may have missed them if not for that review.
― Evan, Thursday, 11 April 2013 20:19 (eleven years ago) link
Sometimes the taste-making that happens comes from a collection of BNM selections when the albums aren't as accessible and strong as an Arcade Fire all by themselves.
― Evan, Thursday, 11 April 2013 20:22 (eleven years ago) link
strawman: is metacritic arguably as/more important as a tastemaker than pitchfork?
― Chuck E was a hero to most (s.clover), Thursday, 11 April 2013 20:28 (eleven years ago) link
no
― J0rdan S., Thursday, 11 April 2013 20:31 (eleven years ago) link
do people even read metacritic
― J0rdan S., Thursday, 11 April 2013 20:32 (eleven years ago) link
Hard to say:
http://www.alexa.com/siteinfo/metacritic.com#
http://www.alexa.com/siteinfo/pitchfork.com#
― Evan, Thursday, 11 April 2013 20:33 (eleven years ago) link
I use Metacritic for movies; that's about it.
― the little prince of inane false binary hype (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Thursday, 11 April 2013 20:34 (eleven years ago) link
so basically people go to metacritic to read about video games
― J0rdan S., Thursday, 11 April 2013 20:36 (eleven years ago) link
What's funny to me is I often see the average score on metacritic practically match pitchfork's exact score.
― Evan, Thursday, 11 April 2013 20:42 (eleven years ago) link
I look at Metacritic's music section regularly but mostly as a handy list of recent/upcoming releases.
― jaymc, Thursday, 11 April 2013 20:48 (eleven years ago) link
heaven is a place on earth with you
― http://bit.ly/oIujXP (markers), Thursday, 11 April 2013 20:49 (eleven years ago) link
Wilderness were the shit, I keep checking their Wiki to see of they have new stuff coming
Derivative? Oh yeah they were but SFW
― Raymond Cummings, Thursday, 11 April 2013 21:59 (eleven years ago) link
I've purged my physical music collection tons of times but just don't have the heart to rip/sell the Wilderness CDS
― Raymond Cummings, Thursday, 11 April 2013 22:02 (eleven years ago) link
Though even if you did you could buy them all back second hand for maybe $7.
― Evan, Thursday, 11 April 2013 22:07 (eleven years ago) link
All together.
― Evan, Thursday, 11 April 2013 22:08 (eleven years ago) link
derivative AND safe for work!
― your holiness, we have an official energy drink (Z S), Thursday, 11 April 2013 22:42 (eleven years ago) link
AND pitchfork approved! this is like the holy triumvirate
― your holiness, we have an official energy drink (Z S), Thursday, 11 April 2013 22:44 (eleven years ago) link
http://web.archive.org/web/20011121175939/pitchforkmedia.com/record-reviews/h/handsome-boy-modeling-school/so-hows-your-girl.shtml
Old review of the first Handsome Boy Modelling School album. Do you even underground, bro?
― Popture, Friday, 12 April 2013 01:43 (eleven years ago) link
haha that was one of the first pf reviews i ever read
― some dude, Friday, 12 April 2013 01:50 (eleven years ago) link