[AdamWill]

Franz Ferdinand could've stood to be a bit higher, it's a heck of a strong album. The list did poke me to go out and get Funeral, finally, though, it's been recommended to me by so many people. Listened to it the first time this morning, really like it. I agree there were some odd omissions, including several albums they scored highly (someone mentioned Mission of Burma already - they gave 'em a high score, but left them off the list). I'd've put the Delgados on there too. Actually I'd've put Green Day on as well, but this is Pitchfork, and that wouldn't be cool

. I don't get their hype for Blueberry Boat, either. I bought it off the back of Pitchfork's ecstatic review. It's fun, but come on, it's basically a novelty record. Ripping off five hundred different styles on one record doesn't make you a genius if you don't do anything interesting with the idea, IMHO. #50? Sure, but not in the top five.

 

[Davey]

Quote:

Originally Posted by AdamWill I don't get their hype for Blueberry Boat, either. I bought it off the back of Pitchfork's ecstatic review. It's fun, but come on, it's basically a novelty record. Ripping off five hundred different styles on one record doesn't make you a genius if you don't do anything interesting with the idea, IMHO. #50? Sure, but not in the top five.

Yeah, Blueberry Boat was really the wild card this year. For me, I thought they did it a disservice, as did Rob Mitchum, by not naming it album of the year. This majestic journey around the world of music by Matt and Eleanor Friedberger, better known as the Fiery Furnaces, is one amazing album. Maybe not the best for you, but easily the best for me. One of the nicest and most concise expressions of why some of us love this music so much can be glimpsed in the year end writeup at the Stylus ezine site. Their original review by a different writer left a lot to be desired, in my mind, but I think J T. Ramsay really nails it.

Blueberry Boat is a testament to the operatic ambitions of all of the great pop bands of the '60's and '70's. It embodies the best efforts of the megalomaniacal personalities that fueled them, figures like Ray Davies, Pete Townsend, Rick Wakeman, Alan Parsons, and Keith Emerson. Unlike these hirsute predecessors, Fiery Furnaces departed the lo-fi coastal shoals for more treacherous tropical waters, recording an album that seems beyond the depth of even their most accomplished peers, something that approaches side two of Abbey Road in terms of its complexity, scope and sweep. By escaping the three-minute verse/chorus/verse stranglehold that has long hobbled independent rock, Blueberry Boat demonstrates a willingness to limn carefully circumscribed images through intricate and alternately expansive suites, resulting in a dazzling stylistic collage pasted together with vibrant leitmotifs and arcane gestures to melodramatic pop forms.

With melodies that run from convention like fugitives, winding down back-roads, weaving in and out of the dappling daylight and bursting out of briar thickets, Fiery Furnaces' Blueberry Boat surprised many of those who didn't expect Matt and Eleanor Friedberger to record a Gilbert & Sullivanesque sophomore album. Unlike other great records in recent memory, Blueberry Boat imparts personality and warmth via their euphonous tones and tongue-twisting lyrics, avoiding the icy detachment common to the warmed-over esoterica too often conflated with a postmodern idyll, a notion that reeks of epater le bourgeois. Beginning with the undulating scales of the epic "Quay Cur", Blueberry Boat provides convincing evidence that progressive rock can once again capture our imagination, be accessible, entertain and make us dance, a truth that stands in contrast to the stubborn insistence that listeners be rendered mute by passionless techniques, stunned by deafening sophistication, and awed by such impersonal monoliths.
[J T. Ramsay]
http://www.stylusmagazine.com/review.php?ID=2145

 

[AdamWill]

See, I listened to it over and over, and it still just sounded like juvenile tunes and silly joke lyrics to me. Ah well, I agree it's definitely one of those very personal records, since so many people see good things in it I guess it's me missing out and not them making it up

. I'd be interested to hear what you think of it *next* December, though...

 

[Davey]

Quote:

Originally Posted by AdamWill See, I listened to it over and over, and it still just sounded like juvenile tunes and silly joke lyrics to me. Ah well, I agree it's definitely one of those very personal records, since so many people see good things in it I guess it's me missing out and not them making it up . I'd be interested to hear what you think of it *next* December, though...

No, don't take it the wrong way! I only meant to say that music is very subjective. Lots of people feel like you about this album. Reviews are all over the place, both from the critics and the fans. But think how you might react to those early Who or Beatles albums if you heard them for the first time today. I don't understand the "silly joke lyrics" comment because many of the lyrics seem very profound, but I understand about the "next December" jab. That is the real test, whether I'll still be listening to it next year. If choosing between the Arcade Fire and the Fiery Furnaces, I would definitely put my money on the Furnaces because it is much more original to me and more fun. Funeral is already wearing thin, but I've listened to Blueberry Boat way way more than I've listened to Funeral, maybe 50 times. Just doesn't seem like it will go away. For me. Not you. To be honest, I've a pretty good track record of what I like. My favorite album last year was Broken Social Scene and I just listened to it today and still listen to it regularly so I don't doubt Blueberry Boat will still be getting some regualar spins around next Christmas.

What are some of your favorites this year?

 

[AdamWill]

It wasn't a jab so much as a speculation; there's lots of records that are ecstatically reviewed and then rapidly sink without trace (read through some of your old music magazines :>), and I was wondering if this is going to be one of them. I'm certainly not claiming I know it will

. I'm like you, I tend to keep liking the music I like - I've never actually tracked it, but I'm *fairly* sure that in any given year I'll listen to at least 80% of my CDs (and I've got near 700).

To be honest I found this year quite thin, musically, mainly because a lot of my 'big' favourite bands didn't make a release, and some made poor releases (R.E.M. was horrible, Cowboy Junkies were mediocre). That notwithstanding...I'm not going to nominate Funeral on the back of one listen, but it might be in there in future. Franz Ferdinand is probably my number one - I saw them live supporting Interpol right at the start of the year, and loved them, but I thought they might be better live than on record...the album surprised me with how good it is. The Delgados' Universal Audio disappointed me on the first listen but I've liked it more every time I heard it since. Interpol's Antics is excellent, I didn't think they'd pull it off (especially after being a bit disappointed with their live show, never a good sign of longevity, that) but they did. Rilo Kiley's More Adventurous was a tiny bit uneven but had some killer songs, especially Does He Love You? (the ferocity of the guitar / strings finale is amazing). I love The Magnetic Fields, and I'd probably put their new record (called 'I') in my list, though it didn't quite blow me away like 69 Love Songs and I don't think it's even as good overall as some of their older albums. But again it has *some* killer material, and when I saw them live, all the stuff off it sounded fantastic. So it gets in there. Green Day surprised me by making a fantastic record after treading water for four years, and I'm happy that it's been very popular. They were one of the first bands I got into so they're a sentimental favourite, but American Idiot is honestly a really, really good rock record even looked at as dispassionately as I can. The reissue of Jeff Buckley's 'Grace' was nice to have, if only because all the bootlegged copies of Forget Her weren't terribly good quality. PJ Harvey's 'Uh Huh Her' is excellent. Finally, there's a slightly obscure Boston band I got into by a few bizarre circumstances called Dear Leader - their new album All I Ever Wanted Was Tonight is fantastic, and I must be a *fairly* unbiased fan because I left their EP off my top ten list last year

.

As I said, bit of a thin year. 2003 was much better. 2005 looks like it'll be pretty interesting, too.

 

[Head Creep]

Quote:

Originally Posted by roadtonowhere08 In the interest of making myself look like an idiot, who are these people? I have never heard of 99.9999% of them, and these are supposed to be the best of 2004?

Same here. I'll side with the Ozzy avatar and say that 2004 sucked, outside of Damageplan's somewhat-above-average "New Found Power" and the soundtrack for Team America: World Police. But Nu-Metallica, Slayer, Judas Priest (\m/) and Iron Maiden return in 2005, so maybe next year will be better.

 

[AdamWill]

for headcreep and roadtonowhere - pitchfork's very definitely a niche site. It's a bit hard to *describe* their niche, but basically they go for certain brands of hip-hop, they review but slightly patronise 'big' alternative rock bands, and they pretty much define what's hip in the rest of the alternative world. If pitchfork like you, you're hip. You might not necessarily sell many records, but you can eat your canned soup happy in the knowledge that you're hip

. You're certainly not an idiot if you've never heard of most of the people on there. You'd find much more 'conventional' looking top 50s in, for instance, most music magazines this month, or on amazon.com.

 

[Head Creep]

I guess that explains why I've never heard of those bands. I'm about as far from hip as possible (I'm wearing a Dio shirt right now).
Quote:

Originally Posted by AdamWill You'd find much more 'conventional' looking top 50s in, for instance, most music magazines this month, or on amazon.com.

Those just piss me off, because they know absolutely nothing about music. Rolling Stone says Nirvana made the ~10th best song of all time...

 

[AdamWill]

Ah, well, that's never a good statement to make unless you're talking to someone who's listening to the Spice Girls

. I like to make a broader statement, I just don't trust *any* person, website or magazine who tries to list the Top X Songs / Albums / Bands of All Time, because you can't. I firmly believe no single person can possibly have enough musical experience to make even a vague stabbing attempt at it. I think most really, really knowledgeable music people would agree (you would never have caught John Peel trying to name the 'best band ever' or 'best song ever', and he forgot more music than most people ever hear). I'm a young 'un who likes rock music so if I were to be stupid enough to try and list *my personal favourite ten songs of all time*, Nirvana may well get in there (Smells Like Teen Spirit or Where Did You Sleep Last Night?, doesn't really matter). I'm not about to tell anyone else they know nothing about music because their list is different, though, and I'm perfectly well aware that there are entire swathes of great music about which I know nothing. There is just so, so much good music and music is such a personal thing that the idea of making such a list is pretty much nonsensical. I love to read other people's lists of their favourite music and I've discovered many wonderful bands from them, but I don't think any such list can ever be anything but purely subjective and necessarily incomplete, and presenting one as anything else is just hubris.

 

[bln]

Whenever someone criticizes Pitchfork for "name-dropping" earlier or more obscure influences, to me it always seems like a criticism of their writers for being familiar with a huge amount of music. Their reviews are useful to me because they can identify where a record stands in "the musical tradition" if you like. With more mainstream (okay, less pretentious) reviews, all you get are bands being labeled the "saviors of rock and roll" every few years. To someone at Entertainment Weekly, I can understand why Is This It might seem like "the album to save rock and roll," because he's probably never heard (or even heard of) Television or VU, so he doesn't know where the band came from or what to call it. Whereas on Pitchfork the reviewers clearly have more experience and know all the great music that people less obsessed will never have heard of

 

[roadtonowhere08]

AdamWill: thanks for the info. Sounds like Pitchfork is the pied piper for some genres of music.

 

[AdamWill]

It's not like Television or Velvet Underground are particularly obscure, at least not to remotely serious rock listeners (heck, I wasn't born when VU were around, but I own all their albums). I don't know about Entertainment Weekly, but certainly it wasn't only Pitchfork who suggested Television as an influence on the Strokes, they're mentioned in virtually every review of the Strokes done by a music magazine, and many by non-specialist sources (I remember the reviews in most UK newspapers mentioned Television too). My problem with Pitchfork is they're just way, way too pretentious and hipster; they tend to fall into the cardinal trap of either a) liking something because it's obscure or b) disliking something because it's popular way too much. I wouldn't say their reviewers have a _broad_ range of references, exactly, more a _deep_ one. They all know a hell of a lot about their own little group of obscure indie bands and not a big pile about anything else

. I'm not saying it's a useless or uninteresting site, though. It's just not one I'd rely on exclusively very much.

 

[roadtonowhere08]

Quote:

Originally Posted by AdamWill It's not like Television or Velvet Underground are particularly obscure, at least not to remotely serious rock listeners (heck, I wasn't born when VU were around, but I own all their albums). I don't know about Entertainment Weekly, but certainly it wasn't only Pitchfork who suggested Television as an influence on the Strokes, they're mentioned in virtually every review of the Strokes done by a music magazine, and many by non-specialist sources (I remember the reviews in most UK newspapers mentioned Television too). My problem with Pitchfork is they're just way, way too pretentious and hipster; they tend to fall into the cardinal trap of either a) liking something because it's obscure or b) disliking something because it's popular way too much. I wouldn't say their reviewers have a _broad_ range of references, exactly, more a _deep_ one. They all know a hell of a lot about their own little group of obscure indie bands and not a big pile about anything else . I'm not saying it's a useless or uninteresting site, though. It's just not one I'd rely on exclusively very much.

I meant the last sentence to sound a little more tongue in cheek

BTW, I have never heard of Television, but none of that stuff is up my alley anyway

 

[silentperfection]

It's always interesting to hear arguments about Pitchfork. It really does stir up a lot of debate in some music circles as they have an enormous amount of influence in the college music world. For the most part, anything that is praised by Pitchfork will do well in college radio. What I find interesting about their tp 50 is that it is supposed to be a truly democratic affair where all their writers make up their own list then they pool them. Seems very fair to me and of course it turns out that what they think is the best is what is best in their own opinion. I dont know about you but there's a lot of good albums on that list. And a very broad range of genres represented (yes there exists the emphasis on the indie rock). Truthfully I daily read Pitchfork just to know whats going on. Do I trust their reviews? Heck no. Do they influence my taste? Unfortunately yes, unless I just don't read the reviews.

I don't think Arcade Fire is the best album of the year though. It's great. Very good. Maybe top ten but best of the year? I loved the single the very first time I put it on my turntable and the album is solid but IMO fiery furnaces and even sufjan and banhart (yes im a folky sucker) are better albums to me. That's what's great about music. That we each have our own taste, our own list and reading other people's lists are like tasting food from a foreign land. With music we grab and incorporate into our own taste hopefully without it losing the characteristics that made it ours to begin with. (Alright enough about that...doesn't even make sense).

Anyways, music lovers owe it to themselves to listen to many of the albums on the list as it will give you a good idea of what is going on in modern (mostly) non mainstream music.

 

[hop ham]

Ah yes, another Pitchfork debate. I guess my question of "What do you think about the list?" was going to ultimately lead to this. Maybe my question was just a rephrase of "What do you think about Pitchfork?"

If anything, Pitchfork is yet another resource people can use to get new music. I agree that it appeals more to a certain type of listener, but if you don't take it too seriously, it may end up leading you to an albulm/band that you never knew you'd like.

I saw Sufjan mentioned. What do you guys think about "Seven Swans" compared to "Michigan?" I'm probably going to end up buying it anyways but just wanted to see some thoughts.