  | |
 ThePitchfork homepage in 2016 | |
Type of site | Online music magazine |
|---|---|
| Available in | English |
| Founded | 1996; 29 years ago (1996) |
| Country of origin | United States |
| Owner | Condé Nast |
| Created by | Ryan Schreiber |
| Editor | Mano Sundaresan |
| URL | pitchfork |
| Commercial | Yes |
| Registration | No |
| Current status | Active |
Pitchfork (formerlyPitchfork Media) is an Americanonline music magazine founded in 1996 by Ryan Schreiber inMinneapolis. It originally covered alternative andindependent music, and expanded to cover genres including pop, hip-hop, jazz and metal.Pitchfork is one of the most influentialmusic publications to have emerged in theinternet age.
In the 2000s,Pitchfork distinguished itself from print media through its unusual editorial style, frequent updates and coverage of emerging acts. It was praised as passionate, authentic and unique, but criticized as pretentious, mean-spirited and elitist, playing into stereotypes of the cynicalhipster. It is credited with popularizing acts such asArcade Fire,Broken Social Scene,Bon Iver andSufjan Stevens.
Pitchfork relocated to Chicago in 1999 andBrooklyn, New York, in 2011. It expanded with projects including the annualPitchfork Music Festival (launched in Chicago in 2006), the video sitePitchfork.tv (launched in 2008), the 2008 bookThe Pitchfork 500, and a print publication,The Pitchfork Review (published between 2013 and 2016). In later years,Pitchfork became less antagonistic and more professional in style, and began covering more mainstream music and issues of gender, race and identity. As of 2014, it was receiving around 6.2 millionunique visitors every month.
The influence ofPitchfork declined in the 2010s with the growth ofstreaming andsocial media. In 2015, it was acquired by the mass media companyCondé Nast and moved toOne World Trade Center. ThePitchfork president, Chris Kaskie, left in 2017, followed by Schreiber in 2019. In 2024, Condé Nast announced plans to mergePitchfork into the men's magazineGQ, resulting in layoffs and the closure of Pitchfork Music Festival. The merge drew criticism and triggered concern about the implications for music journalism.
Pitchfork was created in February 1996 by Ryan Schreiber, a high school graduate living in his parents' home inMinneapolis.[1] Schreiber grew up listening toindie rock acts such asFugazi,Jawbox andGuided by Voices.[2] He was influenced byfanzine culture and had no previous writing experience.[3]
Schreiber initially named the websiteTurntable, but changed it after another website claimed the rights.[4] The namePitchfork was inspired by the tattoo on the assassinTony Montana in the filmScarface. Schreiber chose it as it was concise and had "evilish overtones".[2] The first review was ofPacer (1995) bythe Amps,[5] and the record storeInsound wasPitchfork's first advertiser.[4]
EarlyPitchfork reviews focused on indie rock and were often critical. TheWashington Post described them as "brutal" and "merciless", writing: "The site's stable of critics often seemed capricious, uninvested, sometimes spiteful, assigning low scores on a signature 10-point scale with punitive zeal."[6] Schreiber said the site's early period "was about really laying into people who really deserved it", and defended the importance of honesty in arts criticism.[7] In 1999, Schreiber relocatedPitchfork to Chicago.[8] He estimated thatPitchfork had published 1,000 reviews by this point.[9]
Around the turn of the millennium, the American music press was dominated by monthly print magazines such asRolling Stone, creating a gap in the market for faster-moving publication that emphasized new acts.[10]Pitchfork could publish several articles a day, greatly outpacing print media.[11] New technologies such asMP3, theiPod and the file-sharing serviceNapster created greater access to music, and music blogs became an important resource, creating further opportunity forPitchfork.[11] The contributors Mark Richardson and Eric Harvey said this was an important part ofPitchfork's early popularity, as music fans could share and listen to new music while reading daily updates.[9]
In 2000,Pitchfork's 10.0/10.0 review of the highly anticipatedRadiohead albumKid A, written by Brent DiCrescenzo, generated a surge in readership and was one of the first signs ofPitchfork becoming a major publication.[3][4] One of the firstKid A reviews published, it attracted attention for its unusual style.[12]Billboard described it as "extremely long-winded and brazenly unhinged from the journalistic form and temperament of the time".[12] While it was widely mocked, it boostedPitchfork's profile.[12] Schreiber said he understood the review would makePitchfork subject to ridicule, but "wantedPitchfork to be daring and to surprise people".[12] In 2001,Pitchfork had 30,000 daily readers.[2]
In 2004,Pitchfork hired its first full-time employee, Chris Kaskie, formerly of the satirical websiteThe Onion, to run business operations.[8] Kaskie later became the president and co-owner.[11][13]Pitchfork's first professional editor, Scott Plagenhoef, was hired shortly afterwards.[9][8] Kaskie and Plagenhoef are credited for turningPitchfork into a professional operation. It began to scale quickly, investing in the more money it made, the more resources it had for reviews and articles.[11][9]
As of 2004,Pitchfork had eight full-time employees and about 50 freelance staff members, most of whom worked remotely and co-ordinated through phone and internet.[14] Writers were unpaid for their first six months, after which they could earn $10 or $20 for a review or $40 for a feature. In 2004, following staff tensions about Schreiber's advertising income,Pitchfork started paying writers from their first articles at a slightly improved rate.[14]
That year,Pitchfork published a positive review of the debut album byArcade Fire,Funeral. The album became a bestseller and is cited as the first major example ofPitchfork's influence on independent music, attracting coverage ofPitchfork from outlets such as theLos Angeles Times.[9] The contributor Jess Weiss said the review "changed everything".[9] By 2005,Pitchfork was attracting around one million readers a month, with an annual revenue of around $5 million.[4][15] That year, Schreiber said he was uninterested in sellingPitchfork: "It would change into the antithesis of the reason I started it. This is something I am so in love with—this is my entire adult life's work."[14]
By 2006, traditional music media, such as print magazines, music video channels and radio stations, had declined or changed focus, but music listeners still sought a reliable source of recommendations.[2] Without the limitations of print media,Pitchfork was able to champion emerging independent acts that major print magazines, which had to sell millions of copies every year, could not.[2] Schreiber felt the magazines were "not even trying to discover new music ... Publications used to take more chances on artists, putting bands on the cover that they thought deserved to be there."[1] He saidPitchfork was able to take risks as it was not interested in appeasing bands, record labels or advertisers.[1]
In 2006,Pitchfork had 170,000 daily readers and was publishing five album reviews a day, with six full-time employees.[1][2] Schreiber said thatPitchfork was able to sustain paid freelancers and eight employees, though they were "always cutting it close".[7] He said he had attracted interest from investors, but wanted to retain control and that journalistic integrity was his priority.[2][7] In August 2006, an internalPitchfork server containing promotional copies of hundreds of albums was hacked, including the forthcomingJoanna Newsom albumYs.[16]
In the mid-2000s,Pitchfork expanded its operations. In 2006, it launched the annualPitchfork Music Festival in Chicago.[6] The first Paris Pitchfork Music Festival was held in 2011.[17] Kaskie said it was exciting to see actsPitchfork had championed playing to large crowds: "We start to see these bands playing in front of audiences 10 times the size of their biggest show ever. That's the goal, man. To put fuckingTitus Andronicus in front of 10,000 people."[9] In April 2008, after acquiring the live music showJuan's Basement,Pitchfork launchedPitchfork.tv, a website displaying interviews, music videos and feature-length films.[18] In November, it published a book,The Pitchfork 500, covering the preceding 30 years of music.[19]
By the end of the 2000s,Pitchfork had become influential in the music industry, credited for launching acts such as Arcade Fire andBon Iver.[6] Employees at record labels and record stores would use it to anticipate interest in acts.[7] It was also attracting large sponsors such asAmerican Express andApple.[4]
The influence ofPitchfork on music careers declined around the turn of the decade, asstreaming andsocial media fractured audiences and reduced the need for gatekeepers.[20][21] Streaming services began to fulfillPitchfork's function of helping new artists find audiences, and independent music criticism moved to podcasts andYouTube.[20] Declining music industry revenues reduced advertising spending, andPitchfork faced competition from advertisers such asFacebook.[11] According to theLos Angeles Times, "The internet era that birthedPitchfork's blend of saucy writing, outre tastes and massive popularity [was] by and large over."[20]
Over the following decade,Pitchfork shifted its editorial range and style.[22] It began running news and features alongside reviews, coming to resemble a more conventional music publication.[22] It also diversified from indie rock to cover mainstream music including pop, rap and metal, and began covering issues of gender, race andidentity in music, influenced by movements such asMeToo andBlack Lives Matter.[20][23] Schreiber said that "our tastes broadened with age and experience", and thatPitchfork could make a difference to social causes.[20]
In July 2010,Pitchfork launchedAltered Zones, a blog aggregator devoted to underground andDIY music.[24] In 2011,Pitchfork relocated toBrooklyn, New York.[25] On May 21,Pitchfork announced a partnership with the websiteKill Screen, in whichPitchfork would publish some of their articles.[26]Altered Zones closed on November 30.[24] On December 26, 2012,Pitchfork launchedNothing Major, a website that covered visual arts,[27] which closed in October 2013.[28]Pitchfork launched a film website,The Dissolve, in 2013. It closed in 2015, citing "financial challenges".[29] In 2017, Kaskie said he remained proud ofThe Dissolve and that it was "a huge success from the creative and editorial, design and everything else".[13]
In 2013,Pitchfork won theNational Magazine Award for general excellence in digital media.[4] That year, the rapperChief Keef was arrested for violating a probation sentence by using a rifle in a promotional video byPitchfork. Staff later described the episode as a low point and an example of howPitchfork mishandled hip-hop artists.[9] In December,Pitchfork launchedThe Pitchfork Review, a quarterly print journal focused on long-form music writing and design-focused content.Pitchfork planned a limited-edition quarterly publication of about 10,000 copies of each issue, printed on glossy, high-quality paper.[30] About two thirds of the content would be original, with the remaining reused from thePitchfork website.[30] TheInternational Business Times likened the literary aspirations toThe New Yorker and theParis Review.[31]The Pitchfork Review ended after 11 issues in November 2016.[32]
As of 2014,Pitchfork was receiving around 6.2 millionunique visitors and 40 millionpageviews every month, with an expected annual revenue growth of 25 to 40 percent. Its primary revenue came from advertising.[33] According to the media analytics firmComscore,Pitchfork had 2.47 million unique visitors that August, more than the websites forSpin orVibe but fewer thanRolling Stone's 11 million.[33] By this point,Pitchfork was facing mounting financial problems, and Kaskie spent the year searching for funding.[9]
.jpg)
On October 13, 2015, the American mass media companyCondé Nast announced that it had acquiredPitchfork.[34] At this point,Pitchfork had about 50 employees, with editorial and video production staff in Brooklyn and advertising, sales and development staff in Chicago.[3] The Condé Nast CEO, Bob Sauerberg, describedPitchfork as a "distinguished digital property that brings a strong editorial voice, an enthusiastic and young audience, a growing video platform and a thriving events business".[10] Kaskie said "our needs and wants were converging", and thatPitchfork needed capital and expertise to expand its publication and festivals.[13] The sale boostedPitchfork's value to advertisers.[4]Pitchfork relocated to the Condé Nast offices inOne World Trade Center, Manhattan.[4] Previously,Pitchfork's independence had been a key aspect of its image.[3][23] Schreiber said it would continue to have "creative independence".[3] The acquisition triggered concern; theNew York Observer wrote that was a "death knell for indie rock".[4]
The Condé Nast chief digital officer, Fred Santarpia, was criticized when he said the acquisition would bring "a very passionate audience ofmillennial males into our roster".[23] TheAtlantic connected the comment to a 2014Nielsen report that found that millennial men were heavy music listeners and were more interested in streaming services than other demographics.[23] In 2012, aPitchfork poll asking readers to vote for their favorite music found that 88% of respondents were male, and statistics recorded byQuantcast in 2015 found that 82% ofPitchfork readers were men, most aged 18–34.[23] Schreiber responded onTwitter that women were "a huge part ofPitchfork's staff and readership" and thatPitchfork aimed to reach "all music fans everywhere".[23]
On March 13, 2016,Pitchfork launched its first new design since 2011.[35] That October,Pitchfork had 4.1 million unique visitors, up from 2.7 million the previous October.[4] With Schreiber aiming to make it the world's best repository for music content,Pitchfork began creating videos and retrospective articles, covering classic albums released before its founding.[4]
Kaskie announced his departure fromPitchfork in May 2017.[36] He had been frustrated by his diminished role under Condé Nast andPitchfork's reduced autonomy.[37] On September 18, 2018, Schreiber stepped down as the top editor. He was replaced by Puja Patel, who had worked atSpin andGawker Media, as editor-in-chief on October 15. Schreiber remained as a strategic advisor.[38] He said he later realized that Condé Nast did not understandPitchfork and had unrealistic expectations of its performance.[9]
Patel came under pressure to cut costs amid declining traffic from social media, and competition from streaming platforms, which offered a new means for listeners to discover music.[37]Pitchfork staff conflicted with Condé Nast over its attempts to monetize Pitchfork Music Festival by making it into a "luxury" experience.[37] Santarpia left Condé Nast in 2018, leavingPitchfork under the purview ofAnna Wintour, the chief content officer.[37] Two formerPitchfork staffers toldThe Verge that Wintour did not care about music or understand the internet.[11]
Schreiber announced his departure on January 8, 2019, saying he wanted to "keep pushing boundaries and exploring new things".[20] TheLos Angeles Times said the departure came at a time of "existential change" for the media industries, citing the rise of streaming services and social media and the downsizing of many major music publications.[20] That month, Condé Nast announced it would put all its publications, includingPitchfork, behind apaywall by the end of the year.[39] It abandoned experiments withPitchfork paywalls following criticism from readers.[37] In 2020, Condé Nast laid off the executive editor Matthew Schnipper and the features editor and union chair Stacey Anderson.[8] In 2022 and 2023,Pitchfork had about three million unique visitors a month, down by about 36% from 2021.[11]
On January 17, 2024, Wintour announced thatPitchfork would merge with the men's magazineGQ.[40] Staff including Patel were laid off, leaving around a dozen editorial staff, including some working on multiple Condé Nast publications.[37] Max Tani ofSemafor reported that the remaining staff were "depressed and embarrassed" by the merge.[37] One writer who was laid off, Andy Cush, said "there was this real sense of despair ... about ever having a place to do the kind of work you feel like you're good at and that you're interested in again".[41] As of that month,Pitchfork had the most daily active users of any Condé Nast publication.[42]
Journalists reacted with sadness and concern for the future of music journalism.[43] Tani andThe Washington Post's Chris Richards expressed disgust thatPitchfork, once independent and provocative, would be absorbed into an establishment men's magazine.[6][37] The music criticAnn Powers wrote that the merge felt "like a highly conservative move at a time when music has proven to be one of our culture's most beautifully progressive spaces".[22] InThe Guardian, Laura Snapes wrote thatPitchfork had provided a vital "leading example" and doubted that specialist music journalism could survive without it. She lamented the job losses, saying thatPitchfork had been one of the last stable employers of freelance music writers.[44] Schreiber said that commentators were "premature to eulogizePitchfork", as it retained a skeleton crew continuing its mission, and said he was pleased with the work it had published since the announcement.[9]
On July 2, 2024,Pitchfork named Mano Sundaresan, the founder of the music blogNo Bells, as the new head of editorial content. Sundaresan denied thatPitchfork was "going away", and said he aimed to adapt it to modern media and cater to more specialized audiences.[45] That October, five formerPitchfork writers launched the music siteHearing Things, which aims to "capture the original independent spirit" ofPitchfork.[41] In November,Pitchfork announced that it had canceled Pitchfork Music Festival but would continue to produce events and "create spaces where music, culture, and community intersect".[46]
Pitchfork's unusual, passionate and stylized reviews differentiated it from the more scholarly and formal style of print magazines such asRolling Stone.[4][2] The criticSteven Hyden said it offered an alternative to music magazines at the end of the 20th century, which were publishing content aboutStar Wars,nu metal and pop punk.[12] He characterized thePitchfork voice as that of the outsider mocking the mainstream.[12] InThe Verge, Elizabeth Lopatto wrote that early reviews were brash, unprofessional and often bizarre, but that this distinguishedPitchfork from traditional media and made it fun to read.[11]Pitchfork contributors said it was immediately divisive among music fans.[9]
In theWashington Post, J. Freedom du Lac describedPitchfork as entertaining, "hilariously snarky" and "occasionally even enlightening".[7] TheLos Angeles Times writer August Brown described it as "raucous, passionate, sometimes blinkered but always evolving".[20] InSlate, Matthew Shaer wrote that the bestPitchfork reviews were "cagey, fierce, witty and graceful".[47] The journalistDave Itzkoff describedPitchfork reviews as "defiantly passionate and frustratingly capricious" with an "aura of integrity and authenticity that made such pronouncements credible, even definitive, to fans ... insinuating themselves into the grand tradition of rock criticism, joining the ranks of imperious and opinionated writers".[2] Schreiber described the reviews of one earlyPitchfork writer, Brent DiCrescenzo, as dense with dialogue and pop culture references, "exploring outlandish scenarios".[12]
Pitchfork's style changed in the 2010s as it broadened its scope and audience, shifting topoptimism.[4][44] The contributor Craig Jenkins saidPitchfork had needed to change its "walled-in" perspective, and that it had been "antagonistic toward the stuff that the average person would be appreciating".[9] Plagenhoef felt that the inflammatory "stunt reviews" were limiting, and wantedPitchfork to be seen as trustworthy and thoughtful.[42] Snapes said some had lamented the change, suggesting that it madePitchfork "a less specific proposition". However, she felt it reflected modern music consumption and found it heartening thatPitchfork was reviewing a variety of genres and artists.[44] Under Puja Patel, who became the editor in 2018,Pitchfork covered more female, non-binary, queer and non-white artists.[48]
Pitchfork also switched to a more professional style. The editor Amy Phillips illustrated this by comparing her coverage of the announcement of two Radiohead albums, years apart; the first was excitable, whereas the second was more professional and factual.[9] In 2014, the contributor Nate Patrin saidPitchfork had become "what publications like theVillage Voice used to be in terms of letting writers go deep without feeling pressured to talk down to readers", with long-form articles and documentaries.[33] By 2017, according toBloomberg, its reviews had become "as erudite as those of the music magazines thatPitchfork had all but eclipsed in influence".[4]
In 2024, the criticAnn Powers wrote that "in the past decadePitchfork had nurtured many of the best and most influential writers working today".[22] She felt that "great music writing messes with productivity by creating a space to slow down and really immerse in someone else's creative work ... The best writing atPitchfork or anywhere reflects that process and is as variegated as the human experience itself."[22] In 2015,TheGuardian creditedPitchfork for pioneering design techniques that combined print design and technical innovation to create the impression of a "forward-facing, vibrant title".[10]
By 2021,Pitchfork had published more than 28,000 reviews.[5] Its reviews do not represent an editorial consensus but the opinion of the individual reviewer.[47] Writers who did not want to use their names, or failed to includebylines with their submissions, were credited as Ray Suzuki, similarly to the filmmaker pseudonymAlan Smithee.[42]
Unlike other music publications, which typically assign scores out of five or ten,Pitchfork uses a decimal scale of 0.0 to 10.0.[7][10] The system has drawn mockery as arbitrary and overprecise.[10] DiCrescenzo described it as "knowingly silly",[49] and in 2021Pitchfork wrote that it was an "admittedly absurd and subjective" signature element.[5] Schreiber said he liked its absurdity and how "it felt kind of scientific without any actual science to it".[50] Early reviews used percentages rather than decimals.[50]
InThe Ringer, Rob Harvilla wrote that a 10.0 fromPitchfork "carries all the historical weight of five stars inRolling Stone or five mics inThe Source ... with its maddening and theoretically precise approach to decimal places, such that an ocean of feeling separates an 8.1 from an 8.9".[50]Pitchfork has awarded perfect scores to more than 50 albums, most of them in its "Sunday Reviews" feature, which publishes retrospective reviews of classic albums.[50] Artists who have received perfect scores on release include Radiohead,Fiona Apple,Kanye West,Bonnie "Prince" Billy,And You Will Know Us by the Trail of Dead andWilco.[50] According to Harvilla, a perfect score given to an album on release "qualifies as a seismic event for the rock-critic universe as a whole".[50]
Some reviews experimented with the score system. The 2005Robert Pollard albumRelaxation of the Asshole received a simultaneous 10 and 0; the review for the 2007 Radiohead albumIn Rainbows, which allowed fans topay what they wanted to download, allowed readers to enter their own score.[42] AfterPitchfork changed itscontent management system to require a number, these albums were given fixed scores.[42]
In the 2000s,Pitchfork reviews were criticized as pretentious, verbose and inaccurate.[7][47] Itzkoff wrote thatPitchfork was overwrought and sometimes hard to understand, with an abundance of adjectives, adverbs and misused words.[2] Shaer identified examples of "verbose and unreadable writing ... dense without being insightful, personal without being interesting".[47] InCity Pages, Lindsey Thomas wrote that its prose was florid and sometimes impenetrable, and contained factual errors.[51] Similar criticisms came from Rob Harvilla of theEast Bay Express and Claire Suddath ofTime.[7][19] Responding to criticism in 2006, Schreiber said he trusted his writers' style and opinions.[51]
In its early years,Pitchfork was criticized as mean-spirited andelitist, and for publishing reviews that do not meaningfully discuss the music, playing into stereotypes of the cynicalhipster.[7] In 2018, the music journalistRobert Christgau described the early years ofPitchfork as "a snotty boys' club open to many 'critics' ... Too many amateur wise-asses and self-appointed aesthetes throwing their weight around."[52]
Many scathing early reviews were by Brent DiCrescenzo, who wrote lengthy reviews that rarely addressed the music.[53] For example, his review of the 2001Tool albumLateralus consisted mostly of a list of the equipment used by the drummer.[53] Some reviews consist only of single images or videos, implying the record is beneath critical analysis.[53] Shaer wrote in 2006 thatPitchfork typically triumphed acts it had "discovered" and attacked beloved legacy acts and bands popular on music blogs.[47] Some believed thatPitchfork deliberately waited for excitement to build around an act before dismissing it with a critical review.[47]
Itzkoff argued that the obtuse and confrontational style was part of thePitchfork business model and made their reviews memorable.[2] He suggested that the writers' lack of training or experience, and the fact that they worked for low or no pay, created a sense of authenticity and undermined the authority of traditional media.[2] Schreiber conceded thatPitchfork had a reputation for snobbery, but said its writers were "really just honest, opinionated music fans".[7]
In the 2000s,Pitchfork was criticized for focusing on music made by white men.[20] In its early years, its staff comprised almost entirely white men.[29] In 2007, the rapperM.I.A. criticizedPitchfork for assuming that her albumKala had been produced entirely by the male producerDiplo. AnotherPitchfork writer described the error as "perpetuating the male-ledingenue myth".[54] M.I.A. and the singerBjörk argued that this was part of a wider problem of journalists assuming that female artists do not write or produce their own music.[55][56] In 2024, thePitchfork contributor Andrew Nosnitsky argued that hip-hop, not indie rock, was the "defining music" of his generation, but thatPitchfork was viewed as the defining music publication for "purely mechanical and straight-up white-supremacy reasons".[9]
Pitchfork has attracted multiple parodies.[47] In 2005,Pitchfork invited the comedianDavid Cross to write a list of his favorite albums. Cross wrote that he was surprised by the invitation, citing several insultingPitchfork reviews of his comedy albums, and instead wrote a "withering and absurdist" article titled "Albums to listen to while reading overwroughtPitchfork reviews".[53][57] In 2007, the satirical websiteThe Onion published a story in whichPitchfork reviewed music as a whole and gave it a score of 6.8.[10] The music blogIdolator ran a feature asking readers to guess which lines came fromPitchfork reviews and which were fabricated.[19] In 2010, the writer David Shapiro started aTumblr blog, "Pitchfork Reviews Reviews", which reviewedPitchfork reviews and assessed their arguments. It attracted more than 100,000 followers and a profile in theNew York Times.[58]
Spencer Kornhaber of theAtlantic describedPitchfork as the most influential music publication to emerge in theinternet age.[23] Itzkoff, a former editor forSpin, described theSpin staff checkingPitchfork regularly: "If it was lavishing attention on a new band, we at least had to ask ourselves why we weren't doing the same: by then, our value as a trustworthy and consistent filter had waned."[2] The online magazineConsequence of Sound emulatedPitchfork early on, "especially as it came to creating an editorial voice, developing a consistent content strategy, and packaging a love of music in a compelling way", according to its founder, Alex Young.[59]
The criticCarl Wilson saidPitchfork drove a "feeding frenzy about band discovery" in North American music journalism, with publications vying to discover new acts.[9] In the 2000s,Pitchfork was credited with "making or breaking" musical careers, a phenomenon known as the "Pitchfork effect".[7][2] In 2006, theWashington Post described Schreiber as an "indie-rock kingmaker" and wrote that "an endorsement fromPitchfork ... is very valuable, indeed".[7] Megan Jasper, the CEO of the record labelSub Pop, said favorablePitchfork reviews would boost sales and that it became normal for indie rock bands to sell 100,000 records, exceeding expectations.[9] Poorly reviewed albums made no impact.[9]
AfterPitchfork awarded 9.7 to the debut album byArcade Fire,Funeral (2004), it became the fastest-selling record in the history ofMerge Records.[7] Other acts whose careers were boosted byPitchfork in the 2000s include theDismemberment Plan,Clap Your Hands Say Yeah,Modest Mouse,Broken Social Scene,Bon Iver andSufjan Stevens.[2][20][7] Schreiber said they wanted to create a roster of artists whom people discovered through and associated withPitchfork.[9] Plagenhoef downplayedPitchfork's influence on musical careers, saying it merely "accelerated the process".[2]
AfterPitchfork awarded 0.0 toTravistan (2004), the debut solo album by the Dismemberment Plan singerTravis Morrison, his solo career effectively ended.[21] Years later, Morrison described the experience as "frightening and awful".[21] Schreiber said he felt bad for him, but that it was important forPitchfork writers to be honest.[2] Other albums to receive 0.0 includeZaireeka (1995) by theFlaming Lips,NYC Ghosts & Flowers (2000) bySonic Youth,Liz Phair (2003) byLiz Phair andShine On (2006) byJet.[7][10] The Jet review consisted entirely of a video of a chimp urinating into its own mouth and was widely shared.[42] The authors of the Phair and Sonic Youth reviews later changed their opinions and apologized to the artists.[21][60]
InSlate, Amos Barshad cited the bandBlack Kids as the most infamous example ofPitchfork "at its most deleterious".[21]Pitchfork's review of their debut EP,Wizard of Ahhhs, boosted the Black Kids' career; however, it collapsed whenPitchfork gave their debut album,Partie Traumatic (2008), a score of 3.3, with a review consisting entirely of a photograph of two frowning dogs and a frowningemoticon.[21] Plagenhoef saidPitchfork later became more cautious in publishing negative reviews, as they were no longer "little guys on the internet throwing rocks at big artists".[2]
The influence ofPitchfork on musical careers declined with the onset ofstreaming andsocial media in the 2010s.[20][21] In 2017, a senior editor for independent music at the streaming platformSpotify said thatPitchfork no longer had the same impact on musical careers.[4] However, according to Tani, "Even as itsGen-X and oldmillennial fans aged and tastemaking shifted to platforms and influencers,Pitchfork remained the premier publication for music criticism, its year-end lists synonymous with critical acclaim."[37]
