I provide a simple breakdown analysis of Pitchfork’s album reviews from a 1-month period (February 6 to March 5, 2019). The reviewed artists are evaluated based on connection to a significant PR firm, talent management, label or celebrity connection. The outlet’s indie score is simply the percentage of artists reviewed that have no such special connection. In this case, Pitchfork has an indie rating of 0%.

As part of the process, international acts, electronica and metal adjacent acts, and jazz and classical acts are excluded from the analysis. The rationale for this is that publicity for these entities is different. As a result of this, the analysis can simply be interpreted as relevant for musicians that belong to any other category (i.e., American acts of non-excluded genres, including indie rock, indie pop, pop, country, etc…).

The list and its analysis is provisional, and may be adjusted (with adjustments annotated) with proper evidence provided. However, the current results were not difficult to look up with a basic internet search.

The provisional conclusion of the analysis is as follows: If you do not pay a decent publicity firm, talent management agency, belong to a label of some repute, or have a connection to a notable celebrity, then there is a very very very low chance that you will be reviewed by Pitchfork.

This result may be surprising, based on one’s prior conceptions of the review standards of a music outlet. However a 0% indie rating is not necessarily indicative of a particular policy by the outlet. Though, if the sample size is increased, it may be more and more indicative of the editorial standards of the outlet. Any number of conclusions can be drawn from this analysis, but one possible conclusion is that outlets should publish the name of the publicist for a reviewed artist.

Periodically, additional outlets will be reviewed for a month-long period, and the indie rating of outlets can be compared. Until Pitchfork is re-reviewed for another period, its indie rating remains 0%.