After 14 years of crushing the musicians’ spirits with ‘meh’ and ‘fail’ reviews Pitchfork has created something THEY care about.
I’m giving away a bucket of Mule t-shirts to whoever can write the most Pitchfork-like review* of Pitchfork’s redesign.
Leave your review in the comments. We’ll know when we have a winner. Might have a few.
Please enjoy yourselves.
Written by Mike Monteiro on March 12, 2009 | 
6 comments so far. Add yours below.
chrominance says:
Pitchfork
Redesign for the Cryptics
Score: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rrPosTPSXxw
March 12, 2009 6:48 PM
Ross McFarlane says:
March 13, 2009 6:45 AM
rob d. says:
my personal fav:
http://pitchfork.com/reviews/albums/4338-get-born/
March 13, 2009 8:35 AM
B. Kelley says:
Pitchfork, the barbed aural art culture showcase has gotten a visual redesign. Sharp thumbnail images crowd the crisp white background shouting all of what's new. The top banner menu is uncluttered and keeps it brief unlike so many other sites that drop down far off the screen. The main page makes up for this lack of overkill with far too much information spread across and down the page. They could still squeeze a weather report in there somewhere. While brightening up things a bit for spring is nice, there will be no recount in the voting for award of 'least likely to get over themselves'.
March 13, 2009 10:43 AM
Blake says:
Redesigned and "innovated", Pitchfork seems to create quite the reputation for circling around the "fail". To start off, at first glance..scratch that, first 6 glances, the vistor of pitchfork.com has not even the slightest fabric sense of what this site is about. In fact, it's simple yet scrambled layout makes you feel dyslexic, schizo, and gives the constant eye twitch as one's brain tries to find sensual text. Scrolling through such a page, one views the names of have-beens and wanna-bees, wedged within the cracks of names no one has ever heard of, squished furthermore between an assortment of unfocused pictures. Alas, after a good 2 minutes you might see the name of someone you know, U2 for instance, only to get news of his signing with a corporation. What's the use, I'd rather wear pants that didn't fit me for a day. All things considered, if you've got an hour to kill, there's a thin line between the choice of watching an hour of QVC and using Pitchfork.com.
March 15, 2009 12:00 PM
Amelia says:
I'm late to this game, but I want to play anyway:
Remember when this URL was Livestock World? Me neither! Pitchfork.com's latest incarnation as a predominately negative-spaced site made me draw the erroneous conclusion that I had stumbled upon an online literary mag for the Amish farm girl tween set. But, no! It's just Pitchfork keeping up with the times. If it was 2001 and they were themorningnews.org....
Speaking of 2001, I haven't even looked at a Pitchfork review since then! Weird, no? It must mean something that the only thing I remember of their previous designs was the over-arching use of tiny fonts that I couldn't even hear.
April 15, 2009 5:56 PM