Brandon B.'s Profile

I think the site is plenty useful and fine, and I'm only giving it a bad rating 'cuz I wanna make a BIG complaint:

If you search for someone on there now (I don't think it used to be this way), it gives you all kinds of information about them: their age, and every place they've lived in. What the $#*!?!?! What about privacy? I guess it just doesn't exist anymore. You can't hide on the internet. That being said, the site would be fine if this feature could just be taken off, or give you the option of sharing that information.

PitchforkMedia.com: its influences on the modern music scene - Where would our taste be without outside influences? Do we like things more when they are universally praised and accepted, or at least praised by those who we look up to? Unfortunately, the answer is most often &ldquo;yes,&rdquo; and whether we like it or not, entities such as the internet music magazine <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pitchfork_Media" target="_blank">Pitchfork Media</a> play an enormous role in determining what is worthy in the landscape of modern music.

People Magazine called Ryan Schreiber, Pitchfork&rsquo;s founder, &ldquo;one of the top 25 most powerful people in the music industry.&rdquo; The Washington Post described Pitchfork in a <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/04/28/AR2006042800457.html" target="_blank">2006 article</a> as &ldquo;capable of propelling an independent artist's career with a single rave.&rdquo; A notable example of this was <a href="http://www.pitchforkmedia.com/article/record_review/15201-arcade-fire-funeral" target="_blank">Arcade Fire&rsquo;s 2005 release</a>, &ldquo;Funeral.&rdquo; At the time, Arcade Fire was an obscure indie band with a small following, but after receiving a 9.7 (on a scale of 10) review, they became an overnight sensation, becoming the fastest selling artist in Merge Records's history. The review told the world that Arcade Fire was a band that deserved attention, and in the words of a Merge executive, &ldquo;the floodgates opened.&rdquo;

Its influence seems to grow daily, as <a href="http://www.pitchforkmedia.com/" target="_blank">Pitchfork</a> now boasts an average of 240,000 daily readers and 1.5 million unique visitors per month, which includes influential demographics such as record store owners, record company execs, and trend-setting college kids (Malcolm Gladwell's "<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maven" target="_blank">market mavens</a>"). Some argue that Pitchfork has become the new <a href="http://www.rollingstone.com/" target="_blank">Rolling Stone</a>, although its angle is focused much more on underground music. In a discussion with the Seattle band <a href="http://www.myspace.com/fleetfoxes" target="_blank">Fleet Foxes</a>, who have recently risen from obscurity to selling out every venue on their current tour on the heels of a 9.0 rating from Pitchfork, drummer J. Tillman told me with the modesty of someone who has just won the lottery (and still doesn&rsquo;t quite believe it or understand how it&rsquo;s going to transform his life): &ldquo;Yeah, Pitchfork&rsquo;s been kind to us...very kind,&rdquo; as he packed up his kit and headed off to Chicago to perform in the annual Pitchfork Music Festival.

Pitchfork's influence can also be used to completely decimate a band&rsquo;s sales and reputation after a negative review. Travis Morrison of the D.C. band the Dismemberment Plan received a 0.0 rating for his <a href="http://www.pitchforkmedia.com/article/record_review/20207-travistan" target="_blank">solo project</a>, which immediately led to college radio programmers choosing not to play it, record stores refusing to stock it, and his fans going from perpetually enthusiastic to wondering if they should still like him or not &ldquo;literally overnight.&rdquo;

So, what does it take to be blessed by the gods of indie music at Pitchfork? They seem to favor lo-fi, risk taking, obscure music, while paying less attention to other genres, and completely ignoring many mainstream acts. They clearly favor the punk aesthetic. But, I suppose that was the original point, as early on Schreiber would take shots at those he felt deserved it (such as the Stone Temple Pilots and their album "<a href="http://www.pitchforkmedia.com/article/record_review/22068-tiny-music" target="_blank">Tiny Music: Songs From the Vatican Gift Shop</a>," which received an 0.8 rating) and praise the underdogs. But that&rsquo;s about all I can see as a pattern in their reviews...if one can actually understand the reviews, which are often self-indulgent and more about the author then the material being reviewed, and are at times bordering on incomprehensible.

Is it fair for so much power to lie in the hands of writers who critics call &ldquo;snobbish,&rdquo; &ldquo;elitist,&rdquo; and &ldquo;hipster-like,&rdquo; and are arguably overly subject to musical trends? Who are they to say what good music is? Should art even be judged in the context of current trends? My personal opinion is &ldquo;no,&rdquo; even if I share the same admiration for risk-taking and creativity as many of the Pitchfork writers do. I find the ratings to be often arbitrary and completely subjective, since there are no clear rules to judge by and it&rsquo;s a mystery as to what makes certain things resonate with individuals. I don&rsquo;t see anything wrong with the site, its writers or their style...in fact, I admire and am amused by their razor-blade honesty, and appreciate the fact that there is a means for underground acts to gain notoriety. However, I do think that it&rsquo;s ludicrous to put so much stock into their opinions, and we as its readers need to try to keep an open mind when listening to the music for ourselves. Otherwise, music becomes like mainstream fashion - subject to the whims of tastemakers and fashion-gurus. We end up wearing what everyone else is wearing and lose our sense of individuality.