Is it just me, or does publishing a seemingly exhaustive list of the 500 greatest songs of the decade as well as a list of the top 200 albums of the decade [excited about the top 200, though] seem a bit hasty with three months left in the decade? Surely these lists have already been finished, or are damn close to finished, but there are still quite a few albums and songs that might factor into this list.
I mean, what if the new Flaming Lips album is absolutely stellar? Surely that's possible. What if something else amazing comes down the pipeline completely unexpected? Dismemberment Plan released "Emergency & I" right before p4k released their first "Best of the 1990s," list, and I feel that its placement on both lists was a bit unwarranted. I felt that number 50 (or wherever it was on the first list) was a bit too high (numerically), and that it being in the top 20 the next time a list came out was a bit too much praise. Better than Odelay, Post, Fear of a Black Planet, Lonesome Crowded West, both There's Nothing Wrong With Love and Perfect From Now On, 36 Chambers and Illmatic? Somehow I doubt that. Seems like they were trying to make up for the poor-ish placing in the first list, because Emergency & I feels like a #41 on my list, or possibly #39. Same thing happened with the silly "Top 100 albums of 2000-2004." I'll bet Funeral moves into the top 25, possibly higher.
I'm not against revisionism, but at least wait until the decade is over before publishing a list chronicling the greatest songs and albums of the decade.
It just seems like they want to beat people to the punch. Who knows, this could be a really great idea, and maybe there won't be anything really decent coming out in the next several months. But looking at the Fall and early winter expected releases, this seems a bit too early to make, even accounting for the fact that Pitchfork receives promos in advance. This is an entire decade they're going to try and compartmentalize and rank, so why run the risk of forgetting something incredibly important? There were 2 albums from 1999 in the top 10 of the 90s, and what about albums that have only been released for several months? Where will they fall? As great as Merriweather or Veckatimest are, how will they rank against albums we've all loved for nearly a decade?
This message has been edited. Last edited by: CleverName84,
Posts: 551 | Location: California | Registered: 06 March 2008
I'm not against revisionism, but at least wait until the decade is over before publishing a list chronicling the greatest songs and albums of the decade.
Agreed. However, I wouldn't doubt that within the next five years they overhaul the list and re-evaluate. Isn't that what happened with their Best Albums of the 1990s list so that on the first draft they had Loveless in the top slot and by the revision in what was it 2003 they had dethroned it with OK Computer.
I mean honestly all of the online music publicatons are most likely working on lists like these, I know at Tiny Mix Tapes and Delusions of Adequacy we are but we're also waiting until the beginning of next year at least to publish.
I'll be the first to admit that I like to read Pitchfork daily but doesn't it sacrifice at least a little integrity to post a decade list before the damn thing is actually over?
doesn't it sacrifice at least a little integrity to post a decade list before the damn thing is actually over?
Exactly. It just doesn't make sense to me in the least. Sure, it's a kind of "snapshot" of the decade, but it's taken before the decade has even finished. Lists like this take a lot more reflection and, in turn, I feel like this list should already be done if they want to work out any kinks between now and the dates on which they publish this thing. I mean, obviously the top 500 tracks are picked and over with, and I'll bet there are a few tracks that are fairly recent, with a slight possibility that they actually predict a hit song that comes out between the time of their writing the article and the song being released. But that's absurd.
What if a "Bombs Over Baghdad," or "Maps," or "Float On" or some other massive single comes out in the next 3 and a half or 4 months? I'm not saying the best song or album is yet to come for this decade, but it's shortsighted to think that nothing substantially great will be released in 1/3 of a year.
If I'm not mistaken (and I very well could be), I thought Soft Bulletin wasn't even on p4k's first 1990s list, but it ended up at #3 on their second list. That is the best example I can find, because that album truly is amazing and requires reflection time to, well, breath its greatness over and over again. I feel like there are a few more recent albums (MPP, Bitte Orca) that require that very same level of reflection.
Undoubtedly I will read this thing whenever they put it together. Here's hoping they don't decide to revise the damn thing 6 months later though.
Posts: 551 | Location: California | Registered: 06 March 2008
Well, if it's to get it out of the way in order for more attention to be placed on their year-end "Best of 2009", then I'm certainly all for this early publication date. I suppose it's inevitable, but a lot of amazing records from this year are going to get shortshrifted come December when all the other publications drop their own massive year-end bonanzas; Pitchfork's early publication date at least allows for some appreciation of the great, semi-obscure records of the year. It's all well though; I suspect Pitchfork will revisit the decade two or three years after when all albums have accrued at least some time for reflection and growth.
What I'm wondering is whether they are going to proceed with including 2009 albums on the list knowing full well that all potential contenders would not have been released. Seems fair, no? But then, excluding 2009 doesn't really make it a best-of-the-decade list.
I'm actually unreasonably excited for their list; I trust they'll do a bit of unearthing for me. In my excitement, I'm currently going through records from earlier in the decade and I can at least safely say that "You Forgot It In People" and "Echoes" will not be making my list.
I think this will be fun to read, by no means essential, but like I said, fun to read. If anything a way to see what I may have missed.
As for stuff coming out in the next few months. It's certainly possible they'll miss some things. But, like, Pitchfork likely gets 3 months lead time in spite of being a web publication, just because their traffic is so high and readership so large that labels can justify it. So they probably already have the Lips album. That said, maybe not early enough for this list, but they probably have heard most fall releases by now. Just sayin'.
Some of the articles leading up to the list, like Marc Masters on the decade in noise and Eric Harvey on the social history of the mp3 could be interesting reads.
I'm actually more interested in those than the list itself, which I doubt will have much in common with my own list.
And yeah, just personally, I know I want to at least try to get a grip on 2009 in it's totality before polishing off my best of the decade list.
I don't mind that the list is coming out in September.
Quite frankly, I find it very hard to compare a great album that's been out for 3 months to an album that's been out for 9 years. Great albums take time to sink in, and I'm finding it hard to place any of my 2009 releases in my decade list because I haven't given these albums time to sink in and see how the play over time.
Originally posted by CleverName84: Is it just me, or does publishing a seemingly exhaustive list of the 500 greatest songs of the decade as well as a list of the top 200 albums of the decade [excited about the top 200, though] seem a bit hasty with three months left in the decade?
No, it is not just you.
quote:
Originally posted by CleverName84: I'm not against revisionism, but at least wait until the decade is over before publishing a list chronicling the greatest songs and albums of the decade.
Most definitely.
quote:
Originally posted by CleverName84: It just seems like they want to beat people to the punch.
Exactly.
quote:
Originally posted by jonathanbrisby: Isn't that what happened with their Best Albums of the 1990s list so that on the first draft they had Loveless in the top slot and by the revision in what was it 2003 they had dethroned it with OK Computer
Yep, that is exactly what happened.
quote:
Originally posted by cuneyt81: But, like, Pitchfork likely gets 3 months lead time in spite of being a web publication, just because their traffic is so high and readership so large that labels can justify it. So they probably already have the Lips album. That said, maybe not early enough for this list, but they probably have heard most fall releases by now. Just sayin'.
Also agree with this. I know that out of all the reviewing sites (magazines included), P4K is one of the very, very first to get anything. If they are posting a new song from an album, showing the cover art or even announcing an upcoming release, it means they have the album already. And just like cuneyt81 says, since they get SO much traffic, it boosts their respect. They get stuff to review that other sites don't get until a week before release day. I know they already have The Twilight Sad album and probably the new one by The Flaming Lips in their possession.
They don't have the best writers, they don't have the best scoring system and they have a very odd way of ranking stuff but they are the best at news updates. This is due to the fact that for most, it is their job and they get paid. When they state that they 'commissioned essays,' that means these people are getting paid for sharing their opinion (what a cool gig huh?) So even though it is pretty dumb, irrational and unreasonable, it is Pitchfork, they can do whatever they want.
----- Never say you miss her, never say a word. And do everything she'd never do.
Posts: 6627 | Location: Texas | Registered: 27 December 2005
I like this line "Of course, a lot has changed since then. I mean, surely, a better album has come along since Kid A, right? (...Right?)", perhaps they have been reading our forums?
Yeah maybe it is better this way. Surely there will be some albums included in the best of 2009 that aren't in the best of the decade, but what can you do. Perhaps they could do a best of 2005-2009, then sometime during 2010, go all the way with the list.
The head of state has called for me, but I don't have time for him
Posts: 344 | Location: Sydney, Australia | Registered: 07 September 2006
They could also very well make an addendum after 2009, which they might. The thing about this is that 500 is such a big list for songs from the decade that not that much will be left out, really. I'm sure some amazing songs will be cut, just because consensus does that. But not much really. 500 is a pretty long list.
Who gives a flying flip when pitchfork post their decade lists? Seriouzly though, they already got the rest of '09 and they know if anything is worthy. let tehm post what they want early and stfu about how everyone hates pitchfork, no one carez
Posts: 17 | Location: Into the Unknown | Registered: 06 May 2008
I don't think anyone here has said anything about "hating Pitchfork." In fact, as I mentioned earlier I read it daily and like it. I have friends who write for them. If you don't care about this thread then why post in it. Real intelligent.
Are you just trying to pick a fight? I was merely responding to an accusation that we were hating on Pitchfork. And yes you have every right to post in any thread as far as I'm concerned. I just don't see what point you're trying to make. Obviously the people who posted in this thread wanted to discuss this topic.
And in response to your question, I have friends who write for lots of other magazines as well both online and in print. I don't write for those magazines or sites either. Your point being? Making friends in an industry where you work is something that comes with the job, it doesn't make it any more or less cool.
So what if I post in a "mindless" song tag thread. I'm bored with work at my day job. You could at least learn to spell. It's one of the first things they teach you in grade school.
Originally posted by Punky: Who gives a flying flip when pitchfork post their decade lists? Seriouzly though, they already got the rest of '09 and they know if anything is worthy. let tehm post what they want early and stfu about how everyone hates pitchfork, no one carez
Originally posted by jonathanbrisby: Are you just trying to pick a fight? I was merely responding to an accusation that we were hating on Pitchfork. And yes you have every right to post in any thread as far as I'm concerned. I just don't see what point you're trying to make. Obviously the people who posted in this thread wanted to discuss this topic.
And in response to your question, I have friends who write for lots of other magazines as well both online and in print. I don't write for those magazines or sites either. Your point being? Making friends in an industry where you work is something that comes with the job, it doesn't make it any more or less cool.
So what if I post in a "mindless" song tag thread. I'm bored with work at my day job. You could at least learn to spell. It's one of the first things they teach you in grade school.
Beautiful response Mr Brisby - nice pointed delineation between basic musical passion and some arbitrary and limiting understanding of why people choose to express their views on music, in publications or otherwise.
You know, what I love about this forum is the amazingly generous and passionate genuine responses to misguided and mean-spirited posts that might elsewhere be simply dismissed.
Anyone who dismisses the simple pleasures of word play involved in the wonderful song tag game on this forum is simply missing out...and perhaps doesn't love music in enough of its many forms to come up with some great associations.
----------------- Don't Panic!!!
Posts: 406 | Location: Australia | Registered: 09 March 2009
So, we know Pitchfork's No.1 album of 2000-04 was Kid A. 2005 was Sufjan's Illinois. The Knife were No.1 for 06. Panda Bear was No.1 for 07. Fleet Foxes for 08. The 9.7 for Merriwether Post Pavilion and Pitchfork's Animal Collective love should have it at No.1 for 2009. Can you really see Pitchfork unseating Kid A for Sufjan, the Knife, Panda Bear, Fleet Foxes or Animal Collective? I can't, but I think a Kid A/MPP/Panda 1-2-3 is totally possible. I think Ys and Return To Cookie Mountain are likely to reverse their 2006 'defeat' to the Knife and push ahead of the Swedes.
Posts: 384 | Location: Melbourne, Australia | Registered: 27 June 2007
So, we know Pitchfork's No.1 album of 2000-04 was Kid A. 2005 was Sufjan's Illinois. The Knife were No.1 for 06. Panda Bear was No.1 for 07. Fleet Foxes for 08. The 9.7 for Merriwether Post Pavilion and Pitchfork's Animal Collective love should have it at No.1 for 2009. Can you really see Pitchfork unseating Kid A for Sufjan, the Knife, Panda Bear, Fleet Foxes or Animal Collective? I can't, but I think a Kid A/MPP/Panda 1-2-3 is totally possible. I think Ys and Return To Cookie Mountain are likely to reverse their 2006 'defeat' to the Knife and push ahead of the Swedes.
It's hard to imagine anything unseating Kid A but if I was betting on anything it would be Person Pitch. While I think Merriweather Post Pavilion is also good enough to do so I don't think they'll do it because it came out a little too recently but you could be on point with the 1-2-3 thing.
Yeah, it is really hard to imagine something unseating Kid A because it is clearly one of the critical favorites of this decade and p4k has already given it so much praise in the last 9+ years. But I feel like p4k always has a desire to make unsettling choices in order to get discussion going - though choosing Fleet Foxes was a rather safe choice last year for them (I completely expected them to go with No Age or Deerhunter). I think there's a good chance something will dethrone Kid A, and I think the most likely candidate may be either Person Pitch or Funeral.
