[6stringmerc]

See, all those make sense! From what the article states though, Pitchfork had no noteworthy problems with their operation - profitable, advertising demand, innovative presentations, "gets" of the biggest names at any given time, and live music events. By my count, they'd solved the puzzle.

What other mountain is there to conquer? A bigger one? I simply don't get the desire, because while all the positives could be true, to me, I worry about the downsides. This is just me, the kind of guy who keeps a fun list of Murphy's Laws within eyesight at work.

[firstworldman]

I wouldn't worry too much. The most notable aspect of the recent incarnation of Pitchfork's brand is its discernment. It doesn't typically follow the hype, it creates the hype. There are always subcultural ripples that surface first in smaller ponds, but the writers and editors at Pitchfork are savvy and tend to catch on pretty quick, covering (co-opting) what's cool before most people have had a chance to catch on. The only ways that Pitchfork's brand could be hurt at this point is if they stopped focusing on 'cool' (which they won't), or if they were somehow usurped by a cooler and better outlet. Those outlets exist, but they don't have the readership, budget, marketing knowhow, or in many cases, desire to be as big as Pitchfork is. Pitchfork owns its niche, and there's virtually no competition. I have a real love-hate relationship with Pitchfork. I really waver on whether it is good or bad for music overall, but its power in the music industry is legitimately scary to many artists/labels/managers/etc.