Pitchfork's Top 100 Albums of the 1990s

[blessingx]

I think Achtung Baby and Zooropa were pretty bad albums even in their day (judged on their own or against U2's previous work), but like the Rolling Stone's list blinders, Pitchfork has them on too, and as mentioned it's the "rise of indie". Like the previous decades "alternative" work, it seems likely what the 90's will be thought off (at least in critical circles). Pavement's, My Blood Valentive's and Radiohead's past works are rising in general critical status now like REM's, Sonic Youth's and U2's did before. Then there's the opposite and great bands like Nirvana and Dinosaur Jr. that seem to be fading slightly in the historians eye.

I do think there's something to the comment- "The end of the 90s will be seen as the end of the album. The rise of MP3 technology and file downloading returned pop music consumption to collective pre-Beatles mindset, where songs are judged as singles." We'll see what shatters that.

EDIT: Just noticed Daydream Nation was released in '93. I thought it was '88-89. So my Sonic Youth/80's connection doesn't work as well. Sister, Confusion Is Sex, and EVOL were there, but the larger audiences didn't happen yet. You decide.

 

[silentperfection]

I was pleasantly surprised by the huge jump of Neutral Milk Hotel. That's just an amazing album on so many levels and should be a testament to the type of quality that should be expected of the top albums of the nineties. Definitely deserving of its spot.

Yeah, Pitchfork is definitely in the vein of the elitist. They suffer that syndrome so when reading their opinions that must be taken into account. Especially lately I've found it fun to see how they are going to rate albums. For example before I even heard it I knew they were gonna give the new Death Cab below a seven just because well...its Pitchfork. Good place to learn about music...not so good place in terms of musical opinion. They brainwash you just as much as the execs from the major labels.

 

[raif]

Any list that includes two albums in the top ten from the same band looses alot of credibility in my eyes.

I find it hard to believe that in ten years, one band could dominate all genres like that. That is the problem with pitchfork, they tote their tastes like they are objective judgments of quality.

Don't get me wrong, I like Pavement a lot.

Oh and also lines like this.
My beleaguered "generation" and I may attempt to protect ourselves from emotional harm (and our grim inheritance) by stockpiling absurdities, but we will probably still go prostrate during a moment of disarming simplicity, pathetic mortality, or genuine romance.

The combination of SAT words and simplistic faux-poetry grammar construction is as flexuous and asinine as this sentence.

 

[blessingx]

Quote:

Originally posted by raif Any list that includes two albums in the top ten from the same band looses alot of credibility in my eyes. I find it hard to believe that in ten years, one band could dominate all genres like that. That is the problem with pitchfork, they tote their tastes like they are objective judgments of quality.

Not to pick, but to play devils advocate...

It's only ten years. That's a really short time, and a lot of decades have been "ruled" by a single artist or group. Plus if any ranking is tainted by the badge of "influence" (as it almost has to be), certain artists would be emphasized, right? Also as you probably guessed, Pitchfork isn't interested in all genres. I'm not sure they should be (anything happen in the '90's with contemporary Balinese Gamelan?).

And finally I got ask (since it's a common criticism I'm often confused by), how should Pitchfork clarify their list is subjective/non-objective. End every review with "IMHO"?

I certainly agree about the writing though.

 

[stuartr]

Well, there are a ton of good albums on there. I don't agree at all with the order, (read AT ALL), but I really like almost everything I have heard on there, which I suppose is a good sign. There are a ton that I have not heard, which I would like to remedy. Too bad I don't download MP3's...

 

[Riordan]

having grown up in the 80's i'm pleasantly surprised that some of my favorite indie veterans made it into a 90's charts. nirvana was obvious, and so were the pixies, björk and some others - but the brilliant my bloody valentine were deemed rather obscure back then.

 

[GuineaMcPig]

I think those reading the list should remember that the pitchfork writing staff didn't sit down together and collectively decide what albums they deemed to be "the best of the 90s." Rather, each staff member sent in a list of his/her favorites, and those individual lists were statistically compiled into one "super list." So, the list isn't a bunch of quality judgements, but rather a selection of albums that the pitchfork writers like listening to the most.

In that light it makes a bit more sense that bands like Neutral Milk Hotel and Built to Spill were included (and metal bands were omitted). Pitchfork writers like listening to indie music! I imagine that if a group of metal fans got together and started writing reviews, Pavement probably wouldn't be too high on their "top 100 of the 90s."

I also don't think that the Pitchfork writers would put lesser-known albums on their list just to be elitist/pretentious/etc. These are the albums that people enjoy listening to the most, and while having some obscure albums displayed on your CD rack may make you feel cool, it's the sound that matters.

As for the claim that pitchfork writers are trying to "brainwash" their readership, give me a freakin' break. If you don't like the music that they do, don't go to the site! Pitchforkmedia.com is a useful (and free) resource for those of us who enjoy music that is a little bit off the beaten path. If people kept this in mind, maybe they wouldn't be so insulted when "their" music gets neglected.

~Jordan

 

[daniel808]

is Bob Dylan's Time out of Mind really as good as pitchfork claims? I can't believe that. Any opinions? I havn't heard it, but I've heard others from the 80/90 that just about killed me. I assumed that Time out of Mind was more-of-the-same.

 

[raif]

My comment about them toting their personal tastes refers to more to them giving a new rock album, to someone who is obviously locked in to the softer side of indie. Then, the reviewer bashes the band, when his comments are all obviously based completely on his personal dislike of "hard" music, not the merits of the band themselves. I don't read their reviews anymore because I don't like my music being defined by either whats obscure and hip enough, or by the luck that the review was written by a person that actually enjoys the sub-genre of indie that their band is from.

 

[markl]

Time Out of Mind is good but over-rated, IMO. Love & Theft, his latest is better, IMO. Sometimes when a new Dylan album isn't a total let-down, it gets some "extra credit".

 

[silentperfection]

When I stated that they 'brainwash' their readers I feel its a valid opinion. I love a lot of the music they review and had it not been for them I would be left out of a lot of good music. There really is not many other means to learn about the type of bands they cover.

What I meant by them 'brainwashing' is that its even happened to me. You read one of their reviews and then listen to the album and you're done for. They're opinion, which I understand is their own opinion, kinda ruins the experience. I don't know if that makes sense. Also, I don't understand how you can read their reviews, or even their news for that matter, and not think they're elitist. I mean c'mon...at some points they're almost as bad as buddyhead.

But ya, anyways. I regularly read pitchfork and have somehow become addicted to it despite the fact that I don't necessarily agree with their opinions. All I'm trying to say is that it is probably the best place to learn about independent rock but even people who like the kind of music they review, can be heavily affected by the seemingly 'know it all' reviewing of the mag.

So to contradict myself...just go read pitchfork and listen to the music.

 

[chillysalsa]

I agree with much of that list. In fact, it reminded me of the fact that I've got way too much in my collection, I'm scrolling down the list, and I'm all "Have it, want it, have it, need it, " etc etc..

 

[strohmie]

There are a number of albums that I have or enjoy from that list, but their decision process still is a bit odd to me. For instance, a number of albums they gave 10's as "essential" in their reviews didn't actually make it onto this list. Amon Tobin's Bricolage, for instance.

But it is still a decent list of some pretty bgood music. But obviously YMMV.

 

[rapoon]

I was happy to see modest mouse on the list . However, IMO, "This is a long drive....." should have been on the list before "lonesome crowded west"