Page 1 of 2

New-Look Pitchfork

Posted: Mon Mar 09, 2009 2:59 pm
by Little Timmy
Pitchfork's new look is not working for me. They are aiming for a cleaner look with lots of white space to accentuate the multimedia stuff, but it's a cluttered mess with too many mouse-overs and no flow to it. Maybe it's just going to take some getting used to.

Posted: Mon Mar 09, 2009 3:42 pm
by Tom4
No, I'm with you. They actually managed to make the nav more confusing while making the look cleaner. That takes some real, um, something?

Not only that, but that ridiculously unnecessarily huge iPod ad at the top caused the site to take about 3 minutes to load fully. Really, Pitchfork?

Posted: Mon Mar 09, 2009 4:45 pm
by D. Phillips
What's Pitchfork?

Posted: Mon Mar 09, 2009 8:54 pm
by hebrew hammer
*Wanking motion*

Posted: Tue Mar 10, 2009 2:56 am
by jaimoe0
hebrew hammer wrote:*Wanking motion*


Leave your date night out of this, will ya'?

Posted: Tue Mar 10, 2009 2:29 pm
by Sugarcubes Forever
New pitchfuck web site? WTF?

I checked it out and all I saw was a massive iPod advertisement. Thanks, but no thanks.

I stopped paying attention to pitchfork several years ago. Too much damn crap crammed onto their page. How many contemptuous, irony drenched reviews can anybody tolerate?

What too many internet media sites forget the first rule of retail, which is that less is more.

Posted: Tue Mar 10, 2009 2:48 pm
by Jake
Link: http://pitchfork.com/news/34800-welcome ... -new-home/

Sugarcubes Forever wrote:What too many internet media sites forget the first rule of retail, which is that less is more.

I don't know. As print media continues to shrink and dumb down its music coverage (i.e., Blender with its 100-word reviews, etc.), it's kind of nice that the Fork continues to run long-form album reviews. I mean, it's closer in spirit to Rolling Stone in the 70s than Rolling Stone has been in the past 30 years.

I don't actually read their reviews, but I appreciate what they're doing.

I follow their news, and occasionally check out one of their interviews, or videos, or whatever.

I think the "partnership" with Lala for streaming audio is interesting... I assume they have a deal worked out with the labels for that, but it's interesting...

Posted: Tue Mar 10, 2009 3:28 pm
by Sugarcubes Forever
Jake wrote:I don't know. As print media continues to shrink and dumb down its music coverage (i.e., Blender with its 100-word reviews, etc.), it's kind of nice that the Fork continues to run long-form album reviews. I mean, it's closer in spirit to Rolling Stone in the 70s than Rolling Stone has been in the past 30 years.

I don't actually read their reviews, but I appreciate what they're doing.

I follow their news, and occasionally check out one of their interviews, or videos, or whatever.

I think the "partnership" with Lala for streaming audio is interesting... I assume they have a deal worked out with the labels for that, but it's interesting...


The problem is that pitchfork is a website, not a 1970s indie mag.

I get what you're saying, though. I've thought about this a lot in regards to the NY Times. I love the actual physical newspaper. But I don't/won't bother reading it. The sunday edition is 5 bucks (and I'm too cheap) and I don't have a long contemplative span of time on weekdays to bother with their daily edition, as much as I'd love to.

I like their online edition, but I'm often frustrated by the amount of crap they pack into it. Especially if I access it from my iPhone. Their videos load too slow, and I have a hard time searching for stuff once it falls off their main pages.

I for one don't want to see contemplative, well reasoned music criticism swept away. For my part, half of what turns me off to pitchfork is the tone of their reviews. Perhaps I'm a little out of the know. I've ignored their site for some time now.

The other half of what turns me off might be fixed with a good redesign, starting with an abandonment of the giant billboard across the top of their page. Ugh.

Beyond that, i don't have all the answers. More and more I'm more appreciative of sites like BoingBoing which actually have plenty of content, but keep their presentation simple.

Like everything on the internet, I'll know what I like when I see it.

Posted: Tue Mar 10, 2009 4:44 pm
by D. Phillips
Interesting that there seems to be a lot of sentiment for--but little interest in--longer form journalism. Too bad good memories don't sell ads.

Posted: Tue Mar 10, 2009 4:52 pm
by Jake
D. Phillips wrote:Interesting that there seems to be a lot of sentiment for--but little interest in--longer form journalism. Too bad good memories don't sell ads.

I think the popularity/success of Pitchfork proves that there is plenty of interest in longer form music reviews. I don't have any numbers to support this, but I'm guessing more people read the Fork's reviews than Blender's. I don't personally read either, but I don't think that I'm representative of the wider market -- especially in regards to music fans on the internet...