Over on Line Out, a post about local rapper Shabazz Palaces getting some much-deserved attention from preeminent music publication Pitchfork has spawned a discussion about that site's importance and whether or not music criticism matters at all. It's been a remarkably civil and constructive conversation so far:

How, exactly, is Pitchfork important? What qualifications are you using to say that?

If you define pitchfork as being essential to music today, I would have to disagree with you. If that site disappeared from the internet, would anyone really notice or care? The site has good parts and bad parts but it's not some all-powerful entity that can break an indie band over one mediocre review.

Posted by EricD http://www.bfhoodrich.com on May 6, 2010 at 12:48 PM

@3: Wire.

Self-indulgent, collegiate old man assholes > Self-indulgent, raging hipster assholes

Posted by cosby http://www.myspace.com/cosbyshownights on May 6, 2010 at 4:49 PM

@21: But part of what I would gauge importance by is how many eyeballs the criticism is reaching. Something like, "the best criticism/writing/content reaching the most readers" seems like a fair way to gauge a publication's importance. (Its impact on other publications, as a taste-maker or bellweather, might be another.) Wire may have arguably better writing, although I often find it maddeningly academic and dry, but I'm sure Pitchfork reaches more readers.

Posted by Eric Grandy on May 6, 2010 at 5:13 PM

Eric D is right. Who needs other peoples opinions when you can so easily make your own today.

Posted by Cecil on May 6, 2010 at 11:04 PM

Join the discussion HERE.