WRT the Pitchfork list, I think some of the albums on there are quite overrated (Turn on the Bright Lights, The Blueprint, Sigur Ros), and the order of Radiohead albums is questionable (Amnesiac better than Hail to the Thief, really?). Overall an intersting list though.

Two albums that were obviously overlooked were Bob Dylan's "Love and Theft" and the White Stripes' "Elephant." Those albums would definitely be in my top ten list. Not including them decreases their credibility substantially in my mind. Whoever said that Pitchfork quit caring about the White Stripes after they became popular was dead-on. You would have to be a fool to listen to Elephant and not think it was better than White Blood Cells. Pitchfork also is probably biased against older artists (Dylan, Springsteen) who release albums in their old age, I guess because Pitchfork sees its responsibility as plugging younger artists.

WRT The Arcade Fire, I got the album in December and four months later "Neighborhoods #1" is still the most-listened-to song on my ipod. I keep thinking I'll get tired of it, but I never do. Placing it at 45 is shameful.

Once again, hard to argue with Kid A at number one, beautiful record.

i'm not confused by the sarcasm. i'm pointing out the same fact for all the bands. maybe i should note all obvious facts that people are over looking in blue.

I'm ok with the blue.

I don't like Hail to the Thief as much as any other Radiohead (they don't count Pablo Honey anymore, so I won't either). The critical acclaim is curious when you consider two recent albums accurately accused of treading water (Prefuse 73, Queens of the Stone Age) are knocked for it.

quote:

Originally posted by m.leland:
From now on I'll note all sarcasm in pink.

I got your joke, m.leland, and I liked it.

It's pretty hard to swallow when a band that sounds eerily similar to another band claims to have never heard the older group. Recently, the singer for Dogs Die In Hot Cars claimed that he never heard XTC until very recently. Then it was just a mere coincidence that they aped a style almost EXACTLY like a band with similar singing styles.

I'm not going to highlight my sarcasm in color, though, because I'm not exactly sure when I'm being sarcastic

What I don't understand about the White Stripes is that they like White Blood Cells and not Elephant. Because I see Elephant as very, very similar to White Blood Cells except better.

I don't know about Love and Theft. Dylan's stuff since Infidels when he returned to his original style has been good, but somehow seems to pale to his way earlier stuff way too much for me to really give them more than a B+. I've always suspected that there are some bands who critics *expect* to be so good (Dylan, Radiohead, Beck..), that as long as the albums are decent in any way they get the 'best album of the year' consideration for free.

I like Infidels, Oh Mercy, Time Out Of Mind, and Love and Theft, but no way I would rank them at the very top of any best of list.

I bet you that whether or not Flaming Lips - At War With The Mystics is a good album, it winds up in the top ten of the pazznjop list.

Go ahead, tell me I'm wrong. That, Dylan would have to release a compliation of different takes from 'God Gave Names To All The Animals' in order not to get unanimous critical praise.

Dylan's stuff since Blood on the Tracks/Desire in my opinion has not been that good, including the much-praised Time out of Mind. Love and Theft though is an exception: just an incredible album. Some of the songs on there (Honest with Me, Charlie Patton, Lonesome Day Blues, Mississippi) can be legitimately compared to his mid-60's stuff.

Sometimes groups can suffer from their reputation of making consistently excellent music. Radiohead has suffered from this for years. Many critics refuse to give adequate kudos to their last three albums simply because they're not as good as OK Computer. These critics constantly lament the lack of traditional guitars/drums/bass and label Radiohead as self-indulgent, whereas if another band released these albums they would call them revolutionary. Pitchfork doesn't do this, which is a big reason they maintain a tad of credibility.

If the Flaming Lips or Bob Dylan or any other traditional critics' darling releases a bad album, I bet writers will be tripping over each other in order to pan it.

quote:

If the Flaming Lips or Bob Dylan or any other traditional critics' darling releases a bad album, I bet writers will be tripping over each other in order to pan it.

As long as the Lips stay on the sauce things should keep getting weirder. Or, at the very least, weird enough to make people think it just MUST be something revolutionary. Now, off the sauce they're a bit of a wreck…

quote:

If the Flaming Lips or Bob Dylan or any other traditional critics' darling releases a bad album, I bet writers will be tripping over each other in order to pan it.

Yeah, and they'd still end up putting it on their year end top ten list.

Love and Theft's a good, solid album, like all his post-gospel stuff, but some of the songs sound a little lethargic and the instrumentation never really reaches any sort of immersivity, so it doesn't always hold my attention all the way through. I *might* put it in my top ten for that year, but if so only barely.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: Bobthespirit,

quote:

Originally posted by philosopherEric:
It's pretty hard to swallow when a band that sounds eerily similar to another band claims to have never heard the older group. Recently, the singer for Dogs Die In Hot Cars claimed that he never heard XTC until very recently. Then it was just a mere coincidence that they aped a style almost EXACTLY like a band with similar singing styles.

yeah i totally understand everything that you're saying. my comment was just noting that every single publication mentions the influences and, in doing so, tip toes the line of calling them copy-cats. several people here mentioned how critics said stuff like interpol was so fresh and new, but critics really didn't say this at all...instead they referenced a bunch of passed on bands as stylistic check points, thus implying that their sound isn't in any way new or original.
that's all i'm saying. why i couldn't communicate it initially is a mystery to me, but i'm working on it!

quote:

Originally posted by philosopherEric:

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.

ps. these are the comments i'm talking about. one needs to merely hop through the metacritic reviews to see the litany of comparisons, which, again, implies the not-fresh/new nature of the music.

Critics did point out similarities, but they also commented (I'm trying to find examples of it but I don't have time to research it right now) about how this was a "new" sound. The supposition was that they were a combination of influences made into something new, but I just hear a whole lot of Joy Division.

Excerpt from Pitchfork's review of Turn on the Bright Lights:

"Speaking of Closer, Interpol can't seem to shake being likened to Factory prodigies Joy Division. The cause, however, isn't necessarily evident. Indeed, Daniel Kessler's sublime, angular downstrokes follow the smooth confidence of Carlos Dengler's basslines, and Paul Banks sings with Ian Curtis' downcast delivery and dramatic flair. The difference, however, lies in the music itself: what Joy Division played was sparse and jagged-- punk with a melancholy, but often minimalist bent. Interpol, meanwhile, are punk in ethic alone; their music bears few of that genre's signatures, with the band instead immersing themselves in a grander, more theatrical atmosphere with lush production that counters their frustrated bombast."

Full Review

Excerpt from Rolling Stone's review:

"In their greatest song, "Obstacle 1," these guys can't even decide which Joy Division tune they're trying to bite…"

Full Review

Thanks, m.

For the record, I like Interpol. And I love Joy Division.

I do think they've steered farther away from the Joy Division-isms on Antics.

I actually heard Antics before Turn Out The Bright Lights, and it reminded me a little of Taking Tiger Mountain by Brian Eno.

That may just be a superficial comparison though, with the melodies and the echoey nature of the guitar.

I just read the list. Wow, slow , eh??

Some comments. I have 28, not bad.(but interested on getting The Go!Team, Deefhoof, Prefuse73 & Interpol).So that will lift me to 32. Agree with the Interpol/Joy Division thing. Everytime I think I'll pick up Interpol, I say to myself, "screw it, I have all the Joy Division Cd's, I don't need Interpol".
Did I miss Wilco-Ghost is Born?????? No Amon Tobin??? And Bjork-Medulla should be way higher....86? TOp 10 for me, at least. Others would be higher on my list.....Kid A(kidding), Flaming lips(my #3), Radiohead - Hail...,Cat Power, M83, and POSTAL SERVICE(my #7).

Right on the mark: Avalanches, Sigor Ros and Modest mouse seem about right.

Buck Mcguck comment: Did you mean Outkast - Aquemeni is their best CD??? If so, right on the mark there. Aquemeni is their best, and Stankonia, on this list is way too high. top 20 maybe.

Paxsoprano comment: Agree with Dylan's - Love & Theft, White Stripes - Elephant. What are they thinking??? Dylan would rate around #50, And Stripes about #12.

My recent acquisitions bring me up to 22...

Some *major* omissions...

Two Sleater Kinney albums and PJ Harvey - Stories From The City, Stories From The Sea.

I had heard Dry, and I thought it was okay...I was absolutely blown away when I heard Stories.

And as I and others have mentioned already, Elephant...White Blood Cells #8 and Elephant not even listed? If they wanted to flaunt their indie cool believeably they should have cut them both.

quote:

Originally posted by Bobthespirit:
And as I and others have mentioned already, Elephant...White Blood Cells #8 and Elephant not even listed? If they wanted to flaunt their indie cool believeably they should have cut them both.

I'm pretty sure it was indie-cool to like WBC but that Elephant was past the cool point. Unless they want to be revisionist, they've got to stick to their guns on WBC. But, as I pointed out in my initial post, they don't seem to mind revisionist history (their best record of 2002, The Rapture, is only #38 overall. Maybe they realized that was a lousy choice...)and that I'm suprised they stuck to their guns on the Strokes after they became a indie critic persona non grata after Is This It's success.

quote:

Originally posted by philosopherEric:


But, as I pointed out in my initial post, they don't seem to mind revisionist history (their best record of 2002, The Rapture, is only #38 overall. Maybe they realized that was a lousy choice...)

I think they wanted to be the firstones to ride DFA's junk out loud.They were swing off of their nuts...and now that everybody knows about them and either likes/hates them, they will move onto the next super cool "team".Or at least what they think will be cool...and evryone without a brain will think is cool.

btw...i like the rapture album...once or twice a year.

See, now the backlash towards Pitchfork is getting ridiculous...now that everyone's on the "I hate Pitchfork!" bandwagon, perfectly good bands are getting trashed.

Well, it's not that bad, but I think the nitpicking over Pitchfork's lists is ridiculous, because it's obviously voted on by all of their writers, so they don't order these things conciously.

Also, Ryan evidently made sure that The Arcade Fire was #1 of 2004, but if it had just been the staff's vote, Animal Collective would have been #1, and The Arcade Fire would be behind the albums that it was behind on the decade list. That explains the sudden turn-around.

By the way, I change my mind about albums a lot, I dunno about you. My best of the decade list is always morphing...it all depends what my musical tastes are skewing towards these days.

I own a lot of albums on the list (I download, so I just get almost every album I hear of so I can check it out), and I was thrilled that Modest Mouse was in the top ten...my favorite album of the decade.

If they overrated anything, it's Interpol. Interpol wouldn't even be in my top 100. talk about a style over substance band...same with The Strokes and Franz Ferdinand's inclusion on the list. Glad to see The Streets make the top ten...and Kill the Moonlight is a masterpiece, so I'm pleased they ranked it where they did.

This was surprisingly similar to the Stylus list.

up to 30. not bad out of one hundred. Picked up Spoon - Kill the Moonlight and The Go! Team.