Fun Stuff > BAND

"Top 100 Albums Of When Now?"

<< < (5/7) > >>

lazarus18:
Eh, Pitchfork's OK, but I pretty much stopped going there when they redesigned the site because I can never find what I want easily.

I like these lists for the already mentioned reason that I get to see some things I missed. But I think that it's stupid to attach rank numbers to them. Especially when you can't be consistent. Look how many albums FROM 2004 are higher than Funeral. So, in the last 3 months you guys changed your minds and decided all these things were actually better than the album you said was the best of the year?

The other funny thing to me is how mainstream their rap/hip-hop choices are. All this indie rock music, but you don't know anything about indie rap? Not that I do either, but I'm sure there's more interesting, less well-known rap records than those produced by Eminem, Jay-Z, and Missy Elliot.

-Rob

rynne:

--- Quote from: lazarus18 ---The other funny thing to me is how mainstream their rap/hip-hop choices are. All this indie rock music, but you don't know anything about indie rap? Not that I do either, but I'm sure there's more interesting, less well-known rap records than those produced by Eminem, Jay-Z, and Missy Elliot.
--- End quote ---

I think part of that is that a lot of bedroom techno guys give respect to mainstream hip-hop artists, creating an indie-by-proxy vibe.  I'll agree it's somewhat amusing to see stuff like Sigur Rós and Jay-Z on the same page.  Though Pitchfork does cover a bit of indie-rap; they've given good reviews to Cannibal Ox, Dälek, MF Doom, etc.

I think it's futile to argue with their selection of Outkast's "B.O.B." as the best single  of 2000–'04.  They got that dead on the money.

mAlice aforeThought:

--- Quote from: rynne ---I think it's futile to argue with their selection of Outkast's "B.O.B." as the best single  of 2000–'04.  They got that dead on the money.
--- End quote ---

amen.  that is pretty much the most fun song EVAR[/i].

I Am Not Amused:

--- Quote from: rynne ---
--- Quote from: I Am Not Amused ---Wait, if the decade started in 01, then that means the 70s were 1971-1980. Or the 80s were 1981-1990. That makes no sense whatsoever.

In other words, you are wrong.

--- End quote ---

The first decade was the first ten years, right?

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10

The second decade is then 11–20, the third 21–30, etc.  So, 1961–1970 was the 197th decade, and the 201st decade (the one in which we're living) is 2001–2010.

If the first decade started on the year 0, then 2000–2009 would be a decade, but there is no year 0.
--- End quote ---


If you are defining a decade as sets of ten years starting from A.D. 1, and are naming them first decade, second decade, etc., THEN you are right. But we don't name decades that way. We say the 70s, the 80s, the 90s, etc. And while there is no year 0, there IS a year 2000, and the 00s are the years 00-09. If we went by your theory, then people should have waited to post their best of the 90s lists with year 2000 releases.

Johnny C:
But by your logic, the teen years would start at age 10. Hell if I am going to call a twelve-year-old a teenager.

And, so what? Pitchfork is just operating as if it was a year zero, i.e. they wanted to crown Kid A as winnar so they bent the rules a little.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page