The only reason I go there every now and then is to learn about some lesser known albums.

quote:

---

their two best-of-decade lists are dead-on-accurate. I can't wait for 2010 to roll around!

---

I agree with you. While my personal decade lists would vary, you can't argue that the pitchfork lists are some of the best around. I've discovered so much worthwhile stuff from them it's embarassing: My Bloody Valentine, Pavement, Built to Spill, Tom Waits, DJ Shadow. The list goes on.

How about a 70s list? I, for one, would be way interested.

The problem with Pitchfork is their propensity for "staying on message". They represent the party of indiedom that they alone must preserve. If you cross them (Liz Phair), you will get torn to shreds (not to stick up for Liz or anything, because that last one was something bad).

But they seem to have this groupthink mentality which they in turn coerce hardcore readers into adopting. Hey, guess what? Franz Ferdinand is pretty average, save for a few songs. With the exception of a few standout writers (Rollie Pemperton, for one), they all seem to have the same opinions, the same musical background. Cool, everyone likes mainstream radio, nice. Now, let's see some disagreements between staff writers on Nick Lachay's new album.

quote:

---

Originally posted by MattChesnut:
The problem with Pitchfork is their propensity for "staying on message". They represent the party of indiedom that they alone must preserve.

---

Oh wow. You hit it on the head. Their love for bands like Pavement, Guided By Voices, late-80s Sonic Youth, and today Broken Social Scene and Franz Ferdinand is more fundamentally Indie than I'd ever want to be.

This more closely resembles Ryan and Brent than the site in general. Other writers will praise an album for actually being interesting.

Well, in my opinion, Pitchfork was even way off on the Liz Phair album. While Exile In Guyville is her best, the self-titled album has some Liz gems: "Red Light Fever," "It's Sweet," "Little Digger," and "Rock Me."

quote:

---

Originally posted by Buck "Sweetie" McGuck:
Their love for bands like Pavement, Guided By Voices, late-80s Sonic Youth, and today Broken Social Scene and Franz Ferdinand is more fundamentally Indie than I'd ever want to be.

---

I don't really understand the last two. In both situations, Pitchfork weren't really "following" any sort of indie curve. In the former, it was really Pitchfork who made the band an indie staple in the States, and in the second they were stating their support for a heavily hyped British pop band, and it only became a huge indie thing over on this side of the pond later...

Elsewhere, I commented on what a strange experience it was to read a list of the Top Albums of the 80s as written by a group of critics who spent their formative listening years in the 90s. I said, "Now I know how all of my friends who grew up in the 70s felt when I looked at their favorite albums of that decade with polite condescension while reaching for Big Star or Television."

Now, I see Pitchfork is going to give the 1970s the same treatment. I'd best prepare myself to be generation-gapped all over again.

Now Playing: "Fantasia in c for Piano, Chorus, and Orchestra, Op. 80" Ludwig van Beethoven (perf. Helene Grimaud, p. Esa-Pekka Salonen/Swedish Radio Symphony Orchestra & Choir (Deutsche Grammophon)

Ha ha, LinnTate, you should read my overlong and ranty post in the Pitchfork '70s list thread. I kind of regret posting it now, since after I hit the button, I just realized that in reality I think I'm just kind of bitter having had the revelation that I think I don't like Pitchfork because I am too old for it.

I'm afraid to even look at their '80s list, I didn't know they had one. It's just funny, after looking at that list, I was thinking that if i showed to my parents--who were still young and hip in the '70s, well, they were as old as I am now and I *think* I am still kind of young and hip--they would not know many of these records ever existed and I doubt they've ever listened to most of them. In fact, with the exception of the Rolling Stones (which I bought for my dad after he claimed they were his favorite band, but he couldn't recognize their songs on the radio) and David Bowie (which I played constantly when I lived with my parents) I can't say for certain if my parents have ever heard any of those albums.

Done and done, KT. I had the same reaction to the 80s list. "Where the hell were these folks during the 80s?!! Oh. Grade school."

quote:

---

It's just funny, after looking at that list, I was thinking that if i showed to my parents--who were still young and hip in the '70s, well, they were as old as I am now and I *think* I am still kind of young and hip--they would not know many of these records ever existed and I doubt they've ever listened to most of them.

---

I'm doing my best to keep up with the current scene, but I expect this is only going to get worse. I can't wait until the 20s when that decade's Pitchfork decides to review the top albums of the 00s. They next generation of feisty music critics are still going to find obscure and surprising albums guaranteed to angry up the blood in the fogey I am rapidly becoming!

Now Playing: "Birds" Neil Young After The Gold Rush (Warner Bros.)

Rolling Stone wrote an essay on Puddle of Mudd, but they actually gave their second album 1 star, their lowest rating. I think Pitchfork is for people who already know which bands are horrible and want to distinguish between good bands. Rolling Stone is helpful to people who just really might have no idea about what is awful. Plus, they occasionally write good reviews (i.e. The White Stripes' Elephant) -- although often their reviews are horrendous.

I'll admit I get a lot of music from Pitchfork and they do occasionally write hilarious reviews. I don't however trust any of their reviews, particularly DiCrecenzo's, because they're so disgustingly bias. Most of the time they'd rather review the bands and fans than the actually album and music.

Most publications have a set pattern to their reviewing, even if there are multiple writers. Pitchfork is completely chaotic with its reviews. In one review they'll give an album a 3 because it's lyrics were poorly written, then the next day they'll slap a 10 on something that could have easily been written by M. Doughty.

Everyone disagrees with critics now and then, but it's not a problem as long as we understand what they like and dislike. I visit Pitchfork to hear about new bands then look up reviews elsewhere.

pitchfork has been getting terrible with the best new music list lately. Comets On Fire is awesome, but The Fiery Furnaces?

Ryan Schreiber is cruelly punishing the people who didn't understand the featured/unfeatured idea by loading the list with awful picks. I mean, there are people I don't like, but I wouldn't wish the Fiery Furnaces upon anybody.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Buck "Sweetie" McGuck:
pitchfork has been getting terrible with the best new music list lately. Comets On Fire is awesome, but The Fiery Furnaces?

---

Tastes differ, and Pitchfork certainly aren't the only ones who like Blueberry Boat. Personally, I think it's brilliant and confounding in equal measure. *shrug*

Let me rephrase: I wouldn't wish Eleanor Friedberger on anybody. The rest of the band might be capable of decent music, but I can't stand her singing.

When I step out of myself, I can kinda respect them for picking The Fiery Furnaces for the list. I hate Franz Ferdinand because they're boring. I hate the Fiery Furnaces because they're unbearable. At least they tried to pick something that is so spectacularly bad rather than something that is just a bore.

I post on another message board, and trust me, there's a lot of people who hope Eleanor Friedberger dies a very painful death.

I think the deal with the Furnaces is that they're not going to be a universal favorite. And with the turnout this year, they are not unique in this respect. The new discs from The Streets, Wilco, Kanye West, Scissor Sisters, and Sonic Youth (to name a few) are as much revered as they are ignored or scorned (give or take). We aren't getting those unanimous "aye"s like with Yankee Hotel Foxtrot or last year's critical favorites (Dizzee Rascal, Manitoba, Wrens, Broken Social Scene, etc).

This does seem to be a year of albums that only please half the people. Liars is a perfect example. At work today, I put Liars into the boombox. Another person heard some of it and said in a sincerely confused way "What is that?!" You mean the music?" I asked. "Whatever that is," he replied

I'm used to talking about music with people who don't necessarily like the new Liars, but they at least understand its aims. This dude had no idea what this was supposed to be. This probably challenged everything he thought about music. When I "heard it through his ears", so to speak, I nearly busted out laughing at what a collossal mess the album must sound like to him.

So Sweetie, Matt and Vykromond, do you think this black-and-white situation is being caused by the fact that the U.S. is in an election year? Personally, these kind of reactions have been part of my life much longer than my voting life. Everyone has been disagreeing about music for at least 38 of my years, but I've only been voting for 30 years. I still think it's a possibility for the "young fogeys" to start fighting about everything this year, but I wouldn't expect next year to get any better. The 2000 elections and the Clinton impeachment basically turned life as we know it into a free-for-all, and then 9/11 turned it into a pay-by-all. I feel for you guys and my 13-year-old daughter. Don't take things for granted because if you do, they won't get any better.

By the way, on the temporarily-lighter side, Comets on Fire's new album is pretty cool, but Blue Cheer it ain't, and once again, don't stone me if I like Rogue Wave better than all the New Pornographers/ A.C. Newman.

The Best to you and yours, aka, if you've got 'em, smoke 'em. ( I don't smoke.)

This message has been edited. Last edited by: mark f,

This will be fun. I'm gonna try to predict Pitchfork's top ten of 2004. This isn't what I hope their list will look like. This is what I expect their list to look like. To me, each pick "feels" like it belongs in its ranking given pitchfork's tastes.

01 - Devandra Banhart (not particularly likely, but neither was the Rapture)
02 - Franz Ferdinand
03 - Animal Collective
04 - Loretta Lynn
05 - Fiery Furnaces
06 - Madvillain
07 - Mission of Burma
08 - The Streets
09 - Sonic Youth
10 - AC Newman

I'd put money on Mclusky making the top 50. Yeah, their new album is flawed, but every single writer there realizes that there's a ton of awesome in that disc.

Expect the FF's lower, Buck. Maybe around 12 or so. Remember when the Wrens picked up a 9.5 and only made #18? On the Pitchfork end lists, consistency is more important than individual love, and I'm SURE that not all of the writers love it that much.

Also, it's a bit early to predict Pitchfork's top 10, as a few polarizing releases are still in the bag- I'm curious to see what the staff thinks of Antics (the review for "Slow Hands" seemed to imply that a Best New Music slot was forthcoming, but what do I know?), Showtime (by God this is a good album- give it a listen sometime), and of course Bjork, which I haven't heard yet.

Yeah, I think McLusky has a good shot.

quote:

---

Originally posted by mark f:
don't stone me if I like Rogue Wave better than all the New Pornographers/ A.C. Newman.

---

I'm with you here, mark. I've liked A.C. since Zumpano, but I think he's regressed some since those days. The NP records and the solo record aren't as good as I want them to be. That Rogue Wave record, however, is a left-field hit to my ears. It's what I wanted the Shins to sound like...