Forking over praise to avoid conflict

For several years now, Pitchforkmedia.com has been the most
recognizable, thorough, and respected source of music criticism on
the Internet, and for a good reason: It’s hard for anyone to
compete with a Web site that, each day, runs up-to-date music news,
five lengthy record reviews, track reviews and a variety of
features. For anyone hoping for something more than several
sentences buried at the back of Rolling Stone written solely to
garner indie cred, it’s been the place to go.

In fact, there was little anyone could say against Pitchfork,
other than it can be pretentious at times; even its detractors
check the site several times a week, often claiming it’s only
for the news.

Then, on Aug. 31, Pitchfork got itself into a very sticky
situation. A mischievous hacker somehow found his way onto the
site’s previously secret MP3 directory, presumably
established so Pitchfork’s decentralized staff could access
the promo CDs they were sent, and, upon finding that the directory
wasn’t password-protected, he cleaned house and passed the
word along.

In most cases, this would not have been a very big deal; some
kids get a bunch of free music, something they’re doing
anyway. But on this given date, there was an album in that
directory that had not yet leaked onto the Internet. An album that
is currently a strong contender for album of the year. A highly
anticipated album authored by a lovely young troubadour named
Joanna Newsom.

And so the story goes: Newsom’s new album,
“Ys,” was all over the Internet in a matter of hours,
leaking two and a half months before it was scheduled for official
release. And though the album was generally well-received, having
tens of thousands of fans who would probably not buy the album on
its official release date did not bode well for Drag City Records,
Newsom’s label.

As far as record companies go, Drag City is not very big.
It’s home to some great musicians (Will Oldham, Bert Jansch
and Alasdair Roberts, to name a few), but they’re hardly the
high-grossing sort and, when an album as fine as Newsom’s
comes along, that means the folks at Drag City may finally get a
break, financially speaking.

So when Pitchfork was confidently labeled as the source of the
leak by various message boards, it was strange that Drag City said
nothing. The label obviously sent Pitchfork the Newsom album almost
three months in advance in hopes of garnering a positive, thorough
review and, in that light, its extraordinarily early Internet
release was cause for anger and, furthermore, legal action.

There’s only one evident explanation for their silence.
Pitchfork had put Drag City in debt by losing them future sales and
Pitchfork was well aware of it, despite Editor in Chief Ryan
Schreiber’s shifty “no comment” to Billboard
magazine’s Jaded Insider blog. Drag City seemed to think
legal action was not in their best interest, the logical reason
being that a potential glowing review from a publication as
influential as Pitchfork could more than make up for their lost
sales and help them avoid a sticky lawsuit.

So months of silence ensued. Pitchfork had still not published
their Newsom review. Even as the album’s official release
date approached, there was nothing.

And then finally, on Nov. 13, the day before “Ys”
hit stores, there it was. With a fat “9.4” at the top.
Tied for the highest score of the year with the Hold Steady’s
“Boys and Girls in America.” Instantly placed in the
“Best New Music” section. Loved and lauded.

For the first time, Pitchfork lost some of its credibility. Was
the 9.4 really deserved, or was it simply a way to avoid the legal
consequences of their mistake? Are the workings of Pitchfork really
as clean as we thought? Time will tell, I suppose.

But I can tell you that I’ll never look at Pitchfork quite
the same way.

If you think Duhamel should be writing for Pitchfork instead
of the Daily Bruin, e-mail him at dduhamel@media.ucla.edu.

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *