Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Johnny C]

So Pitchfork put out their Top 100 Albums of - I shit you not - "The First Half Of The Decade." While I disagree with a lot of the positioning, and a couple of the choices (Jay-Z's Blueprint, Pt. 1 is on the list? And it was where?), as a whole the list is a generally good compendium of records released in the last 5 years.

Or at least, I thought so. Anyone else see this?

[KharBevNor]

Holy crap.

I don't own, and have never heard played through entirely, any of the albums on that list. Judging by the high prominence of things I absolutely hate  with a burning, holy passion (ie The Streets, Missy Elliot, Jay Z, OutKast) and stuff I don't like (Radiohead, Boards of Canada, The Books) I can say that I think it's a shitty list. Obviously, absolutely none of my favourite albums of the past 5 years appear on it, but then they do happen to be (Approximately):

Skyclad-Folkemon
Finntroll-Visor Om Slutet
Edge of Sanity-Crimson II
3 Inches of Blood-Advance and Vanquish
Carpathian Forest-Morbid Fascination of Death
Inkubus Sukkubus-Supernature
Dimmu Borgir-Puritanical Euphoric Misanthropia
My Dying Bride-The Dreadful Hours
Forefather-Ours is the Kingdom
Ministry-Houses of the Mole

So that was probably inevitable.

[nothingwitty]

You, obviously, aren't cool enough for these here boards.   It's best that you just go.

[ASturge]

the decemeberists had better feture on this so  called "list" or i may be forced to pitchfork some of the staff at pitchfork media, haha!

[KharBevNor]

You, obviously, aren't cool enough for these here boards.   It's best that you just go.

On the contrary, I contend that I am blasphemically cooler than thou.*

*And I have a bigger penis. :p*

*and I'm joking. Hah!

[Stefu]

Pitchfork has never been known to like metal in general or black metal in particular, so it's not too surprising that KharBevNor's albums don't make the list.

On the whole, it's not that bad a list, really. (Oh forgive me, AAARGH PITCHFORK HAS OFFENDED MY MUSICAL SENSIBILITIES BY NOT AGREEING WITH ME. Right?) It's kind of ridiculous how Funeral is 47th or something on this list when it was the best album in 2004 list, though. Not to mention Pitchfork's continual fascination with mainstream pop/rap, which always comes off as a case of elitism-via-faux-populism for me.

[jeph]

I'm never sure about lists like this one, because it feels like albums such as Funeral haven't had the time to gestate that, say, Kid A has. Albums that seem important as fuck right now might not seem so in three years.

[KharBevNor]

Pitchfork has never been known to like metal in general or black metal in particular, so it's not too surprising that KharBevNor's albums don't make the list.

There's only 1-4 (depending on definition) black metal on there...

I would personally contend that even the most utterly sold out Black Metal has more artistic integrity, talent, credibility and probably taste than, say, eminem.

If there was anything on my list that I would honestly say deserved to be there from the point of music overall it would be the Ministry. I was suprised that there was absolutley NO metal in there at all though. I was expecting maybe Mastodon or Isis to make it in there somewhere,  someone of that ilk.

Definitely not Jay-Z.

[JP]

I gave it a quick read-through. On the whole, I agree that the selection is pretty good, nevermind the ratings. I like these sorts of things because it gives me a chance to find a band or an album that I might have missed when it came out.

[est]

i have a problem with Pitchfork, and that is that every time i read one of their articles/reviews it seems more to me that they are peering down their noses at me, exercising their vocabulary & trying to impress with fancy turns of phrases.

i mean, i understand that after a while you have to try to make reviews interesting, but do you have to sound like such a know-it-all twat?

[Johnny C]

est: Better not read what they wrote for Turn On The Bright Lights in the top 100.

[KharBevNor]

est: Better not read what they wrote for Turn On The Bright Lights in the top 100.

Damn, that was a stupid review.

I really honestly couldn't read it except as 'it's all recycled trash, but we're trying to vindicate it through pretension'.

[Johnny C]

I read it as "We like this album, and look how pretensiously we can tell you! Also we do not think it is as good as Jay-Z."

[signature]

i'm pretty sure the only reason they made that list was to compete with stylus. who tend to be the better webzine (i think that's the whole reason for the overhaul.)

man, fuck pitchfork. jay-z is ok, but he really shouldn't be that high on the list.

[Rauko]

Ted Leo was on there twice, though Shake The Sheets didn't mkae the list, I'm still most pleased

[rynne]

I like how they refered to Spoon's “1020 AM” like it was a time and not a radio station.  Not hitting the snobbery on all cylinders, eh?

Also, WTF?  A) Who cares about the midway-point through the decade?  This just reeks of “We love to make lists.”  Stick to straight reviews, please.   And 2) The decade started on Jan. 1, 2001, so they should've waited a year to do this.  Loss of pretention points again.

[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.

All in all, I like pitchfork. I think it's a good source of information for burdgeoning indie fans, who are just looking for bands to start out with as they're delving in.

I may be the only person who thinks the choice of Jay-Z at number 2 is a good one on this board, but I'm okay with that. The Blueprint blew my mind when I first listened to it, and continues to do so as I listen to it again and again.

So, yeah. The list was done at the right time, and I thought it was decent. Not great, not excellent, but decent.

[Kai]

I personally don't like Pitchfork, simply because I have Tiny Mix Tapes, which is thousands of times better.


Overall, the list wasn't too bad, save for the fact that I can't stand radiohead and Jay-Z was overrated TO THE  MAX.

[rynne]

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.

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.

[kikanjuuneko]

That singles list was so full of shitty gangsta rap, I couldn't look at it past page 2.

[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]

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.

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]

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.

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

[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.

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.

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.

[I Am Not Amused]

There aren't words for how wrong you are.

A.) Teenage years aren't even ten years long, they're defined the teenage years because the numbers end in the suffix teen hence, thirTEEN through nineTEEN.

B.) There is no bending of rules. You're saying that nothing from 1990 can be included on a best of nineties list, or nothing from 1980 can be included on a best of the eighties list. This is nonsensical.

[Empty Friend]

Well, technically he's not wrong, they just said the decade, not the first half of the 2000's... but either way this is just turning into a cock fight over semantics and a "pitchfork sucks." "no it doesn't" thread.

Quit being retarded.

[I Am Not Amused]

Man, I must have been gone the day it became totally uncool to defend your opinion.

[Johnny C]

You missed the memo and my catbox needed lining.

[I Am Not Amused]

Damn those pesky memos!

*shakes fist*

[ColdSteelRain]

As far as counting a decade goes the tenth year starts a new decade because we don't start counting at year 1.  There are a couple thousand years before year 1.

[Revenge_Therapist]

This is one of my pet peeve's with Music Journalism as a whole. Albums are generated on hype and then fade, and if it does take then it eclipses everything that came before it. A'la Rolling Stone's fucking best guitarist lists. I think that the list obsessions are a bit overdone. Go back to interviews and reviews.

[muffy]

DFA 1979 said it best in an interview:

'I love Led Zepellin, and I don't think I've ever read a single interiew witrh them, or a single record review. They're just a really good band, I don't see the point in interviewing someone in order to ascertain that'.

Makes perfect sense. The fact that I was trying to interview them at the time may have made things a little more awkward, but seriously - they have a point, you don't look to the music press to tell you what you like, it's there as a prop to your own opinions.

[sketchyjoe]

Propagandhi - Today's Empires, Tommorrow's Ashes is my favourite album from the last 5 years.