quote:

---

Originally posted by Hophead:
My thoughts:
Ryan Adams' Heartbreaker deserved to be in the top 100. I guess since everything he's released since has been mediocre to crap, its hurt his indie cred. However, when you look at Heartbreaker by itself, its an incredible album. I still haven't given up hope that he'll release a similarly great album one day.

---

I both agree and disagree with you, Hophead. I think Heartbreaker DOES deserve more credit, although I think his other albums, while they've been less good, are better than "mediocre to crap." Gold and Love is Hell are both solid records, if overlong. The latter is actually pretty good...and I think the former is mostly great.Rock and Roll and Demolition have more weak moments than strong ones, to be sure.

I think where Ryan loses credibility is not from making bad records, but from being a horse's ass most of the time, and fostering that sort of media image.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Vykromond:
No.

---

Dude, Arcade Fire went from #1 of 2004 to #45 of 00-04. Arcade Fire got beaten by Mclusky. They got beaten by a Jay-Z album. Because Pitchfork have realized that their going sillies over Arcade Fire was hurting their hipstereputation for being the "harsh voice of reality".

Not that I like Arcade Fire or anything. I'm just saying

it is a simple matter of arithmetic

unless you were joking

I made the same comment about the Rapture and I got called out for it.

I find it heard to believe that the #1 record of 2004 is only the 45th best record of the 2000-2004 range. Moreover, at least 6 records that I saw (Brian Wilson, Devendra Banhart, Streets, Madvillain, Fiery Furnaces, and Animal Collective) that were LOWER in the 2004 poll make it in higher for this poll.

I puzzled by the lack of continuity between the lists. The writers haven't turned over THAT much in four years, have they?

Well...look at some of the original scores of these albums.I checked a select few and noticed some of them were rated below 7.0??

That could mean many different things...but i along with many others know that alot of times i will listen to an album once and have an opinion of it that would greatly differ from the 100th time i listened to it.Some albums just grow on you with time.Or on the other hand...wear on your nerves.Like an arcade fire...or a rapture could easily do.

Or maybe they just threw some oddball choices in there...to make sure their list is unique.

I don't think they consciously chose the albums that made the list. I tried to work out the formula when I was really bored once. It's probably some form of [ARBITRARY NUMBER]-[RANKING] for every person's inclusion in his personal list.

I tried it with 101 as the arbitrary number, since a #1 vote from one person would give it 100 points and #100 would give it 1 point. While it put Kid A (#1) above Jay-Z (#2), it put Interpol (#3} behind Outkast* (#4), so that's not the exact formula. At this point, I realized that, although I was bored, I wasn't THAT bored.

One thing I found was that no single writer could rig the list by putting an album that nobody else nominated at #1 on his own list. DFA Comp 2 (#100) appeared on at least a few different individual lists. By my flawed formula from above, it would take at least three enthusiastic people to get an album into the top 100.

*Ryan Schreiber put Interpol on his list but not Outkast. I'm thinking his nominations were weighed heavier than all the other writers.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Buck "Sweetie" McGuck:
I don't think they consciously chose the albums that made the list. I tried to work out the formula when I was really bored once. It's probably some form of [ARBITRARY NUMBER]-[RANKING] for every person's inclusion in his personal list.

I tried it with 101 as the arbitrary number, since a #1 vote from one person would give it 100 points and #100 would give it 1 point. While it put Kid A (#1) above Jay-Z (#2), it put Interpol (#3} behind Outkast* (#4), so that's not the exact formula. At this point, I realized that, although I was bored, I wasn't THAT bored.

One thing I found was that no single writer could rig the list by putting an album that nobody else nominated at #1 on his own list. DFA Comp 2 (#100) appeared on at least a few different individual lists. By my flawed formula from above, it would take at least three enthusiastic people to get an album into the top 100.

*Ryan Schreiber put Interpol on his list but not Outkast. I'm thinking his nominations were weighed heavier than all the other writers.

---

Nice points, all, Sweetie. I think that having one persons list more heavily weighted (even if he is the founder and editor) is a little cheesy...can't he just lean on his writers like most other editors do?

I think there's probably a way to show the list to be methodologically sound. I just find it puzzling that the same group of writers can rate nothing higher than the Arcade Fire in 2004, but 6 other records from the same year get a higher ranking for 2000-2004. It just seems inconsistent, even if the methodology is sound. The same writers SHOULD still like the Arcade Fire better than SMiLE, right?

Well, that's an interesting list, funny that i've never bothered to consult pitchfork yet and have managed to get most of those cds. I own 23.

It isn't startling to see missy elliot show up mainly due to the lip-service that music magazines pay any half decent mainstream hiphop album (witness "the game"), however I think including bpth her albums is an exageration. I also seriously dispute Eminem being on it, maybe in the top two hundred.
However I have no problem with Jayz and am glad that he's being regarded as the true artist that he is and not a money making machine (which is ironically the bulk of his artistry), the black album is pretty danm good and the blueprints better, but number 2 seems high.

Other problems are stankonia at #4 (too high by probably 30 spots) and spoons kill the moonlight at 14 (wouldn't even be on my list, one good song doesn't constitute an album). Also i've listened to sung tongs and am confused as to the appeal.

Good nods are Unwound (at even making it), notwists neon golden at 23 and seeing Modest mouse in the top ten. However I truly believe that good news for people who love bad news is slightly better although both shoould be on it, I felt the same way with Iron & Wine: Creek drank the cradle, where is our endless numbered days or for that matter sufjan stevens seven swans (definately in the top ten of 04).

As for Radiohead at number one, sure it's like they've fallen into this alternate dimension of reviews where they continuously make amazing challenging albums (read indie) but are accepted and sell to the mainstream, i know there's better bands but will they be remembered by enough people in the future... in many cases doubtful. I think Kid A is our generations dark side of the moon.

Overall interesting if not (personally speaking) accurate list.

ouch, what's with this public stoning of the arcade fire? I hate over-hyping, but the arcade fire are magnificent, one of the best bands I've heard...full stop. I couldn't understand the placing of Funeral, but I don't think Pitchfork have suddenly ditched them, they were the big thing in indie last year in the Us, but they weren't just a flash in the pan...at least explain why you don't like them.

apologies for double posting, it won't happen again...

just had to add, maybe certain poster's dislike of animal collective is down to not understanding....god, sorry, that sounds incredibly patronising...that's what I think though...

I don't understand the love of mainstream hip-hop on Pitchfork, I love the likes of Madlib, Bus Driver, even the more mainstream such as Wu Tang Clan...but certain rappers are dire beyond anything...it's good to see Pitchfork being enthusiastic about grime though, I hate to generalise, but in general it's far better than crunk, etc...

quote:

Originally posted by headinsand
just had to add, maybe certain poster's dislike of animal collective is down to not understanding....god, sorry, that sounds incredibly patronising...that's what I think though...

I admit that's my problem with Animal Collective and Devendra Banhart. I just don't get them. I've honestly tried, but I just don't like either of them vey much.

As for Arcade Fire, I LIKE the most recent record but I certainly don't find them to be nearly as fantabulous as most of the people who have been championing them here and elsewhere. I'm told you need to see them live to get the full thrust of the record, but thus far I'm just not overly excited by them. But, again, I'm not hating on them. But I don't find myself wanting to play Funeral repeatedly. But, admittedly, my tastes tend to steer farther from the kinds of things that indie fans and Pitchfork types really get into...

Curious that White Blood Cells is in their top ten but Elephant isn't even in their top hundred. They're both good albums, but I find WBC to be rather inconsistant. I think they only did it this way because White Blood Cells was cool when it came out, but by the time Elephant came out it was hyped.

Also, a little typical to see Sigur Ros up there...if you want to make minimalist music sound good you have to give more core substance than Sigur Ros. Of course, I've only heard (), and that's not listed.

I think Kid A is the best album of 2000..but then again, the only other good album I know of from that year was XTRMNTR. (Not that I've heard all the indie ones)

Pitchfork is obviously doing some hype readjusting. Ask Rolling Stone what they thought of Zeppelin in 1970, and what they think of them now. Arcade Fire...I once ranked it #1 in 2004, now I put it #2 behind Van Lear Rose, and I'm pretty close to putting Franz Ferdinand in front of it too. Funeral simply...sounds really good the first few listens, then a little less good when your senses have adjusted to it.

Here's my top 10 of 2000-2004, in no particular order.
White Stripes - Elephant
White Stripes - White Blood Cells
Beck - Sea Change
Primal Scream - XTRMNTR
Wilco - Yankee Hotel Foxtrot
Radiohead - Kid A
Franz Ferdinand - Franz Ferdinand
Loretta Lynn - Van Lear Rose
Yeah Yeah Yeahs - Fever To Tell
Arcade Fire - Funeral

Animal Collective - Here Comes The Indian was really great. Unlike almost any other music I've heard.

Sung Tongs, on the other hand, is meandering accoustic guitar pop with incoherent vocals. It just really really bored me.

I'm seeing Animal Collective and Wolf Eyes in April. If Animal Collective pull some folk-improv bullshit, I'm gonna yell "HEY LIGHT!" at the top of my lungs throughout the entire set. It pisses me off that a band that is capable of music as great as the highlights of "Here Comes The Indian" would ignore their strengths and make something like "Sung Tongs".

I think that the vicious post-hype backlash against the Arcade Fire is a bit unfair. Some people need to come to terms with the idea that not everything Pitchfork likes is bad.

Even though Funeral isn't as unsurmountably, fantastically brilliant as critics may have initially had you believe, it's still a respectable record that is worthy of some of the attention it has received. I'm with headinsand here.

I'm ashamed to say Sung tongs was the first I'd heard of Animal Collective...were they previously more like, say, Black Dice? I'm not sure...but I'll investigate. I still thing Sung Tongs is great though.

And although when listening to Funeral now it isn't quite as breathtaking, I don't think there are that many akbums who can sound as utterly brilliant after repeated listens. But I formed an emotional attatchment to Funeral, so it won't lose as much to me. Especially the lyrics, which in particular are excellent.

Okay..I picked out Turn Out The Bright Lights today.

Now...it's fine music. Good, enjoyable, interesting. But..one of the few best albums in the past five years? Not at all. I like the echoey, leery, anxious feel the music has, but all that being the case, it's a little vocally boring. Second of all, I can't quite pinpoint where I heard this sound before, but...it's not *that* fresh and new a sound. It does a unique thing within the boundaries of a genre -- it doesn't expand the genre in any way. It is a good album, but it's not quite so 'fresh, new, and amazing' as Pitchfork might lead you to believe. Probably worthy of the top 100 -- but not the top 5.

quote:

Originally posted by Bobthespirit:
Okay..I picked out Turn Out The Bright Lights today.

Now...it's fine music. Good, enjoyable, interesting. But..one of the few best albums in the past five years? Not at all. I like the echoey, leery, anxious feel the music has, but all that being the case, it's a little vocally boring. Second of all, I can't quite pinpoint where I heard this sound before, but...it's not *that* fresh and new a sound. It does a unique thing within the boundaries of a genre -- it doesn't expand the genre in any way. It is a good album, but it's not quite so 'fresh, new, and amazing' as Pitchfork might lead you to believe. Probably worthy of the top 100 -- but not the top 5.

I like that record alot, but I agree with you on most fronts. I always found it suspiciously like my favorite Joy Division records, and I always found it a little funny when critics were acting like it was something new and different. Same thing with Franz Ferdinand and Bloc Party and on and on. That doesn't mean I couldn't put it in my top 5 or top 10 (I probably WOULDN'T but that's a different point): my criteria for inclusion in a top 10 don't center around originality but enjoyment. There's plenty of really ORIGINAL stuff out there that I don't get (ex: Animal Collective!)...and plenty of derivative stuff I really enjoy.

I liked Sung Tongs. I thought "Winter's Love" would have made a brilliant closing track (and I used it as such on a mix). I might even help someone make the case for "Leaf House" as "Song of the Year." But the twelve minutes and thirty-six seconds of "Visiting Friends" — which never goes anywhere — is pretentious, annoying, unnecessary and ultimately unforgivable; it nearly collapses my argument on what's considered filler. Leave the drone stuff to Plotkin or Spybey, please.

quote:

I always found [Interpol's Turn on the Bright Lights] suspiciously like my favorite Joy Division records, and I always found it a little funny when critics were acting like it was something new and different.

Paul Banks says he's "never heard of Joy Division." It's certainly plausible to assume Joy Division's influence is so far-reaching and pervasive that another, lesser band found itself… Riiiiiight. And The Arcade Fire have no idea who the Talking Heads are. David who?

Actually, whenever I do a ranking I listen to albums next to each other just to judge which one I really enjoy more...sort of to check myself. So I do rank albums by enjoyment, not just by originality.

But, I can still think of at least 5 or 6 2002 albums I like a lot more than Turn Out The Bright Lights (YHF, Yoshime, Southern Rock Opera, Sea Change, Melody A.M for starters). I certainly enjoy it, but it doesn't really 'resonate' with me the way albums I would consider 9's or 10's do. This one's more of a 7, or an 8 tops.

uh...i can't remember having read a piece on interpol without reading about joy division. and same goes for the influences and styles of bloc party, franz ferdinand, and the arcade fire.

in fact, the arcade fire even do a cover of a talking heads song live, and david burne has actually seen them play before. any decent critic has mentioned that the arcade fire are standard indie rock fare, with a noticable talking heads influence. the comparisons made are even greater in number with interpol and joy division. bloc party and franz ferdinand have been stylistically pegged in every review and interview.

so with that, i have to say, what the hell are you guys talking about?

From now on I'll note all sarcasm in pink.