What will Pitchfork choose as their #1 album of this decade?

[roadtonowhere08]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Uncle Erik /img/forum/go_quote.gif You are right about the lack of industry promotion and interest. However, plenty of terrific music is still being made. The only difference is that today, there aren't music stores with good stuff on display. Instead, you have to poke around the Internets to find music and then have it mailed to you. Keep in mind that there was a lot of crap in the 1960s, too. 40+ years has a way of filtering the junk, but cruise a used record store and deep collection and you'll have plenty of "What were they thinking" moments when running across discs from the 1960s. The difference today is that the crap has yet to be filtered. While I own and love several discs on your 1960s list, others are mostly loved by people who were around at the time. I guess they're "you had to be there" discs that don't always translate well to people not of that time. Also, there's always a lot of sneering from the 1960s set - it seeks that nothing will ever compare to their favorites. But that's not true. There have been absolute classics from every decade. Yes, some stuff from the 1960s is great. But so is much else.

100% agree. Well said.


Quote:

Originally Posted by HipHopScribe /img/forum/go_quote.gif I wouldn't dispute for a second that the list is a nod to their fan base, or that this type of list is futile in terms of reaching goals like a wide-reaching, unbiased look at the decade (I would question if that's really possible from a single collective of opinion). Rather, what I'm saying is that doesn't make them very different from any other reviewing source, and that someone can make use of their work by recognizing it as a filter for a certain small range of stuff, and looking elsewhere for opinions outside of their zone.

This I agree with. Knowing their bias, one can find what they are looking for there, especially if both parties' tastes are in alignment. You are correct that every poll source has its bias, and Pitchfork is no different than any other place in that respect.

The part that gets me is the fact that, for the most part, the top candidates are either from North America or England. That, and the fact that they picked an OutKast song as the top song of the decade. It boggles my mind.

 

[fuseboxx]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Uncle Erik /img/forum/go_quote.gif You are right about the lack of industry promotion and interest. However, plenty of terrific music is still being made. The only difference is that today, there aren't music stores with good stuff on display. Instead, you have to poke around the Internets to find music and then have it mailed to you.

I totally agree with this.

Plenty of terrific music is still being made, and like Oggranak said, it's all a matter of taste. I also prefer music made this decade to the music made 40 years ago.

BTW, the choices on the poll were based on how PF rated, reviewed, listed and ranked the albums on their various articles. Those were the most probable choices I could decide on.

 

[fuseboxx]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Qonmus /img/forum/go_quote.gif I seriously doubt that.

People get more and more critical as the years go by and expectations will continue to rise, but I think a lot of albums from this decade will definitely be more highly regarded as time passes. Probably not as much as we now look back on the music of the 60's, but most of today's music will age well I believe.

The point is that it's too easy to say that today's music sucks compared to music 40 years ago because of the mere reason that we're comparing music that hasn't been given time to age yet to music that has already been tested by time.

To accurately compare today's music to music of the 60's, we're going to need the type of perspective that only time can provide...

 

[roadtonowhere08]

Quote:

Originally Posted by fuseboxx /img/forum/go_quote.gif BTW, the choices on the poll were based on how PF rated, reviewed, listed and rank the albums on their various articles. Those were the most probable choices I could decide on.

What I said before was not aimed at you in any way. Having read some of the lists from that site today, I'd say you were more or less accurate in your choices.

 

[fuseboxx]

Quote:

Originally Posted by roadtonowhere08 /img/forum/go_quote.gif What I said before was not aimed at you in any way. Having read some of the lists from that site today, I'd say you were more or less accurate in your choices.

Oh that wasn't a reply to anything or anyone

I just made it clear in case anyone was wondering how I came up with the choices.

I should place that on the OP... Hehe.

 

[rhythmdevils]

I downloaded samples of their "best albums of 2008" and I didn't barely like any of it. So much of it was just...souless quite honestly. Really, just bland and noisy, with some slightly new hook or twist. I do think there's been some great albums in the past decade though.

I personally would add Midlake's The Trials of Van Occupanther to the list of the best form this decade- I think it ranks with the best albums of the 60's.

 

[reorx]

Knowing those indie hipsters at Pitchfork, Kid A is a shoo-in. But then again, they chose MBV over OK Computer in the best of the 90s List, so a similar curveball might happen here.

If I ran Pitchork, Id pick The Moon and Antartica. That there album is one of my all-time favorite albums, and most definitely my favorite from the 00s decade.

Too Modest Mouse today aint what it used to be

 

[Comfy]

The White Stripes - White Blood Cells has been definitely the most influential rock album of the decade. You could count the retro aesthetic "The -s" bands by the thousands, after this album and The Strokes' Is this it. But as Pitchfork caters mainly to the hipster crowd, and rock is always more or less passé for these folks, they'll prefer some shoe-gazing and/or confusingly unlistenable "work of art" for the top position.

Arcade Fire - Funeral is the best album in the OP's poll, but Kid A is quite ok too. Too bad it's from Radiohead, which is like saying that Apple makes the best iPods. Radiohead makes Pitchfork albums. Pitchfork reviews Radiohead albums. In their respective ideal worlds, that is.

Other great albums that should be somewhere around top ten are:
The Knife - Silent Shout
Burial - Untrue
Bob Dylan - Modern Times
Notwist - Neon Golden
The Microphones - The Glow, Pt. 2

I'd also like to see one of these, but it's probably wishful thinking:
The Libertines - Up the bracket
Babyshambles - Down in Albion

 

[chud]

whats the deal with Pitchfork?

 

[Comfy]

Quote:

Originally Posted by reorx /img/forum/go_quote.gif Knowing those indie hipsters at Pitchfork, Kid A is a shoo-in. But then again, they chose MBV over OK Computer in the best of the 90s List, so a similar curveball might happen here.

No they didn't. They chose OK Computer over MBV in that list.
Pitchfork: Staff Lists: Top 100 Albums of the 1990s

These unpredictable oddball hipsters are actually very predictable.

 

[chud]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Comfy /img/forum/go_quote.gif No they didn't. They chose OK Computer over MBV in that list. Pitchfork: Staff Lists: Top 100 Albums of the 1990s These unpredictable oddball hipsters are actually very predictable.

it's refreshing when ANY publication doesn't pick Nevermind as a number one on a list such as this.

But how was Ten left off of it?

 

[fuseboxx]

Quote:

Originally Posted by chud /img/forum/go_quote.gif it's refreshing when ANY publication doesn't pick Nevermind as a number one on a list such as this. But how was Ten left off of it?

OK Computer > Loveless >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Nevermind >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ten

 

[Comfy]

Quote:

Originally Posted by chud /img/forum/go_quote.gif it's refreshing when ANY publication doesn't pick Nevermind as a number one on a list such as this. But how was Ten left off of it?

They never actually listened to any Pearl Jam album, and picked Vitalogy for the cool golden lettering and Kurt Cobain suicide references. Ten is definitely the most important Seattle album along with Nevermind. Superunknown and Dirt are missing from that list as well, which means that the most important rock genre of the whole decade has been almost completely ignored. Ridiculous.

 

[reorx]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Comfy /img/forum/go_quote.gif No they didn't. They chose OK Computer over MBV in that list. Pitchfork: Staff Lists: Top 100 Albums of the 1990s These unpredictable oddball hipsters are actually very predictable.

Oh yeah, my bad.

Actually theyre predictable only when it comes to the Almighty Radiohead. Any year or decade where no Radiohead is available is pretty much a crapshoot imho.

Oh, and hipsters dont listen to Grunge except for Nirvana. If there was any justice in this world, Superunknown and Dirt would easily be in the top 10.

I used to be a Pitchfork devotee, however when I found out they scored Lateralus a 1.9, I knew these people were too "cool" for their own good.

Lateralus a 1.9??? Thats just effed up.

 

[RedSky0]

Honestly, who cares it will probably some aggravating overrated hipster crap, and tragically it won't be because they're trying to be ironic.

As far as the last decade or so sucking, I disagree. There has been a huge increase in the amount of music content being generated. The variety of musical styles and genre progressions that have surfaced far surpass the choice you had in the 60s. On the surface, yes you could say music has become for the most part dominated by the cultural identity you associate with, how photogenic/hot the singer is and generally how they're promoted rather than the music. Once you step beyond the veil of manufactured bands on the radio and music television though, there's a whole world of very talented, technical and often innovative bands.

Really, I think anyone who says there's no good music out there nowadays, or that 40-50 years ago there was generally more talent, owes it to themselves to actually validate that statement by taking a more in-depth look at the music out there.

Also to completely digress, am I the only one who finds Kid A incredibly overrated? I could name dozens of albums which were released both before and after that record that do atmosphere better and yet are also less clinical, anesthetic and far more emotionally resonating. As far as I'm concerned the only reasons it's so lauded is because being released by a mainstream band allowed it to reach people who genuinely hadn't heard anything like it and were blown away.