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

[Sordel]

I don't know anything about Pitchfork, but I would be sorry to think that the best anyone could come up with for the decade was the list in this poll. I can think of quite a few albums that deserve a mention as contenders: Ryan Adams (Gold or, if you must, Heartbreaker); Sufjan Stevens (Illinoise); Lambchop (Is A Woman); Ani DiFranco (Evolve); Magnetic Fields (69 Love Songs); Andrew Bird (The Mysterious Production of Eggs); Rufus Wainwright (Want One); Bjork (Medulla). These are off the top of my head, excluding some of my favourite artists and in the full confidence that when I press "Submit Reply" I will think of another ten.

Hasn't been a bad decade really.

 

[adiZero]

My personal vote goes to Wilco and Jay-Z.

Pitchfork might also consider these:
Sufjan Stevens - Illinoise
Magnetic Fields - 69 Love Songs
LCD Soundsysten - Sound Of Silver

I also have other favorites from the last decade, but these are not typical hipster Pitchfork...

 

[Jubei]

Oh dear - I neither own or have heard any of those albums, though the thought of getting In Rainbow and Kid A has been on my mind recently.

Seems like I am really losing touch ...

 

[tru blu]

I like the idea of Funeral, but if I had my druthers it'd be TV On The Radio's Return To Cookie Mountain. Whoever suggested Kanye, though, probably has it right.

 

[virometal]

Pitch will go Kid A, although they might mix it up to screw with the hipsters.

Out of the 'fork 10's, my personal choice would be Bricolage by Amon Tobin.

On my own, Confield by Autechre

 

[tru blu]

Quote:

Originally Posted by virometal /img/forum/go_quote.gif Pitch will go Kid A, although they might mix it up to screw with the hipsters. Out of the 'fork 10's, my personal choice would be Bricolage by Amon Tobin.

Hadn't thought to look at what they'd rated a "10" (duh!). I dunno…even though Kid A is the only Radiohead disc I genuinely like, it doesn't feel right to me as a topper, like Pitchfork would only be placing it there to rib the Radiohead faithful or something.

Know what else seems weird, though? Maybe I don't follow trends enough anymore, but it seems to me that past top selections (I'm talking about in other mags or whatever) had something to do with how influential a record would end up being. Were any of the discs in the poll sort of sonic avatars, i.e., discs that pointed aspiring musicians in a new direction? Maybe it still remains to be seen.

 

[Oggranak]

Quote:

Originally Posted by DavidMahler /img/forum/go_quote.gif P.S...... I in no way mean to insult anyone's taste, cause I think all the albums up there are great with the exception of one or two..... BUT.....you take a look at that very accurate list of great albums from this decade and realize just how much this decade SUCKED for music.....when you compare with say......the 60s where the list would read something like ....... A) Revolver B) Pet Sounds C) Highway 61 D) A Love Supreme E) Sgt Pepper F) Are You Experienced G) Abbey Road H) Led Zeppelin I I) Let It Bleed etc..... just such a shame about music today......of the ones up there I would probably say Kid A or Funeral.....but really neither album would crack my 100 favorite CDs

All a matter of opinion. I personally like the recent works of Modest Mouse and Radiohead a lot more than the great stuff of the 60s.

 

[Qonmus]

Quote:

Originally Posted by fuseboxx /img/forum/go_quote.gif 4 decades from now, people will look back at the music of this decade in the same way we now look back at the music of the 60s

I seriously doubt that.

I agree with you, DavidMahler. I even agree with your selection - Sea Change. (Just to clarify, I have no idea whether this will be their selection or not, but this is probably what I would pick. I'm not really familiar with Pitchfork.)

 

[Adab]

i would almost bet money it will be an album no one has heard of

 

[roadtonowhere08]

Quote:

Originally Posted by DavidMahler /img/forum/go_quote.gif P.S...... I in no way mean to insult anyone's taste, cause I think all the albums up there are great with the exception of one or two..... BUT.....you take a look at that very accurate list of great albums from this decade and realize just how much this decade SUCKED for music.....when you compare with say......the 60s where the list would read something like ....... A) Revolver B) Pet Sounds C) Highway 61 D) A Love Supreme E) Sgt Pepper F) Are You Experienced G) Abbey Road H) Led Zeppelin I I) Let It Bleed etc..... just such a shame about music today......of the ones up there I would probably say Kid A or Funeral.....but really neither album would crack my 100 favorite CDs

I hate to say it, but Pitchfork is a complete joke, and they are mired in their own self-importance. The list they came up with is not even close to a good spread of the great albums that came out this decade. According to that list, there are about three genres in all of music, and it really shows their bias. If those albums are what they think are the best of the decade, then I pity them for their lack of taste and knowledge of what's out there.

When you compare that list to the list you came up with, you are comparing one biased list with another, because yours is all classic rock. I like your list way more, but it is no more comprehensive as the sorry one posted by Pitchfork.

Bottom line, if anyone thinks the golden days of music are long gone, then I pity that person, because there is more quality music to chose from now then ever. It just so happens that the one picked by the pretentious Pitchfork is about bad as it gets at conveying the quality music out there. IMO, different strokes..., YMMV, blah blah...

 

[HipHopScribe]

Quote:

Originally Posted by roadtonowhere08 /img/forum/go_quote.gif I hate to say it, but Pitchfork is a complete joke, and they are mired in their own self-importance. The list they came up with is not even close to a good spread of the great albums that came out this decade. According to that list, there are about three genres in all of music, and it really shows their bias. If those albums are what they think are the best of the decade, then I pity them for their lack of taste and knowledge of what's out there. When you compare that list to the list you came up with, you are comparing one biased list with another, because yours is all classic rock. I like your list way more, but it is no more comprehensive as the sorry one posted by Pitchfork. Bottom line, if anyone thinks the golden days of music are long gone, then I pity that person, because there is more quality music to chose from now then ever. It just so happens that the one picked by the pretentious Pitchfork is about bad as it gets at conveying the quality music out there. IMO, different strokes..., YMMV, blah blah...

Someone could pretty easily say your response here is pretentious and self-important as well, with phrases like "I pity them for their lack of taste and knowledge of what's out there."

Pitchfork's pretty much just like any review site, magazine, or person out there. Actually, with their over the top reviews, arbitrarily specific rating system, and willingness to completely crap on stuff, I find it easier to see through the b.s. with them. As long as you do that, and know what their biases are, they can be useful as a filter.

 

[DavidMahler]

Regardless of whats out there, and talent is always out there......The industry doesn't promote it and therefore it is not what many of the people who are otherwise talented are looking to do these days................at least in the 60s / 70s it seemed that the industry was very highly concerned with artistry.......we'll see how this decade fares in 30 years......I still see other periods as being more highly regarded......for instance, I think the 80s did not fare very well, while meanwhile the 90s fared very well...........

 

[roadtonowhere08]

Quote:

Originally Posted by HipHopScribe /img/forum/go_quote.gif Someone could pretty easily say your response here is pretentious and self-important as well, with phrases like "I pity them for their lack of taste and knowledge of what's out there."

Well, you do not see me running a review site that selects a very narrow slice of what is out there and calling the selected albums candidates for the "#1 album of the decade". That list is nothing more than a nod to their fan base, nothing more, nothing less.

In the OP's list (his best guess as to what will win), besides Radiohead, all other bands are from North America. Not knocking the OP, but if those are the best choices to win, then a lack of taste and knowledge of what is out there most definitely is a proper assertion.

Quote:

Originally Posted by HipHopScribe /img/forum/go_quote.gif Pitchfork's pretty much just like any review site, magazine, or person out there. Actually, with their over the top reviews, arbitrarily specific rating system, and willingness to completely crap on stuff, I find it easier to see through the b.s. with them. As long as you do that, and know what their biases are, they can be useful as a filter.

My tastes in music are not what some people would call wide-reaching or eclectic either, but I am not ballsy (pretentious) enough to call what I listen to the best of what is out there. Polls that try to objectively rank albums by decade are lame and futile. This poll compounds that with the fact that it is so narrow in scope yet claims to be so broad and absolute.

Quote:

Originally Posted by DavidMahler /img/forum/go_quote.gif Regardless of whats out there, and talent is always out there......The industry doesn't promote it and therefore it is not what many of the people who are otherwise talented are looking to do these days................at least in the 60s / 70s it seemed that the industry was very highly concerned with artistry.......we'll see how this decade fares in 30 years......I still see other periods as being more highly regarded......for instance, I think the 80s did not fare very well, while meanwhile the 90s fared very well...........

I completely agree. Almost all mainstream music is formulaic garbage written for the masses. It leaves nothing to the imagination, and it inspires no one. All of the good stuff is written by people who are not on the radio. I think that when more time passes this decade will be known (more than any other) for its awful mainstream acts and awesome underground and less popular acts. The divide is growing each decade.

 

[Uncle Erik]

Quote:

Originally Posted by DavidMahler /img/forum/go_quote.gif Regardless of whats out there, and talent is always out there......The industry doesn't promote it and therefore it is not what many of the people who are otherwise talented are looking to do these days................at least in the 60s / 70s it seemed that the industry was very highly concerned with artistry.......we'll see how this decade fares in 30 years......I still see other periods as being more highly regarded......for instance, I think the 80s did not fare very well, while meanwhile the 90s fared very well...........

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.

 

[HipHopScribe]

Quote:

Originally Posted by roadtonowhere08 /img/forum/go_quote.gif Well, you do not see me running a review site that selects a very narrow slice of what is out there and calling the selected albums candidates for the "#1 album of the decade". That list is nothing more than a nod to their fan base, nothing more, nothing less. In the OP's list (his best guess as to what will win), besides Radiohead, all other bands are from North America. Not knocking the OP, but if those are the best choices to win, then a lack of taste and knowledge of what is out there most definitely is a proper assertion. My tastes in music are not what some people would call wide-reaching or eclectic either, but I am not ballsy (pretentious) enough to call what I listen to the best of what is out there. Polls that try to objectively rank albums by decade are lame and futile. This poll compounds that with the fact that it is so narrow in scope yet claims to be so broad and absolute.

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.