[Comfy]

Quote:

Originally Posted by virometal /img/forum/go_quote.gif But in the spirit of the rant, I liken Kid A to Autechre light with a dash of Tortoise.

That's what always bothered me about Radiohead. A big part of their so-called innovation is just repackaged, less offensive re-readings of earlier, more obscure electronica. But as it's a "real band" in the traditional sense, the general crowd has an easier time relating to it.

Radiohead did to electronica and post rock what Eminem did to hiphop, Elvis did to rock and roll and Coca-Cola did for cocaine. A watered down version of the original product in a tidy new package that even mom and dad can relate to.

 

[VicAjax]

i find Pitchfork screamingly irrelevant, and whatever they pick will be essentially a meaningless choice.

 

[fuseboxx]

^ Why is that, when they're one of the most read internet publications when it comes to music?

 

[reorx]

i check still check pitchfork once in a while...and just like anything in life, as soon as you know how to sort the wheat from the chaff, to not blindly purchase anything they rate an 8.5 above and exercise some critcial thnking, its a very good place to check out new releases.

Granted, they dont review any of the heavier rock and metal genres, or any hiphop album not "indie" enough for them (except jay-z and lil wayne of course), Ive picked up a lot of good music from them. But ive loooong learned not to take the reviews seriously. I just treat it as a place to find out about new releases, thats it.

 

[Stephen_Ri]

On the top records of the decade: I imagine that it'll look like this:
1. Funeral
2. Kid A
3. Yankee Hotel Foxtrot

Silent Shout may be in the top three, and although Sound of Silver has two of the very best songs of the decade, it will probably not make it as an album. The above selections are albums like Loveless was an album, or Pet Sounds or Aeroplane over the Sea.
On Pitchfork bashing: Pitchfork is conprised of neurotic, self-loathing and supercilious triflers. It is nonetheless the best rock music publication available. I encountered Pitchfork maybe around 2006--as it happens, I found their ratings to be spot-on and their reviews interesting and often well written (though sometimes over-wrought, as the joke goes). Now this was before I had any idea what a "hipster" was. I was introduced to that term and lifestyle when I transferred to an elite liberal arts college a year later. Essentially, my tastes and those of the Pitchfork reviewers corresponded remarkably--not because I was in a hip scene or even knew they existed or wanted to be identified with something (I was pretty much poor, alone, and midwestern, and had no audience to perform for anyway), but because I found something in this music (I suppose I'm thinking here of their top albums of the nineties especially). Yes, Pitchfork has become a monster, and has helped create some really hideous people. But they're still my most trusted review site. There's lots of great stuff that they don't review at all, and lots of stuff that they rate 7.x because it's aquired taste-type stuff (japanese underground psychedelic rock, for example, or some sorts of metal), but frankly if they rate something 9.x you can bet it's a fine album worthy of purchase. I don't trust any other publication with my money.

 

[roadtonowhere08]

Quote:

Originally Posted by fuseboxx /img/forum/go_quote.gif ^ Why is that, when they're one of the most read internet publications when it comes to music?

So is Rolling Stone...

Popularity speaks nothing about taste or knowledge. When all Pitchfork cares about is Indie Rock for the most part, they are an Indie review site. When they have a top song/album list, they forget to mention that they are oblivious to 90% of all the other music out there. If that is what you into, great, but they are not even close the the final authority on anything.

 

[chadbang]

I hate to say it, but realistically Eminem should probably be on that list. And I really hate to say that as I sorta hate him. Anyway, as far as GREAT albums in this decade? I don't know. I've heard every one on that list and I'm not crazy about ANY of them. Last GREAT album for me was in 1998 - "In an Aeroplane over the Sea"

 

[Antony6555]

I am a huge indie rock/underground music fan, but I'm not a fan of pitchfork. It always seems like their reviewers are more interested in finding the "new coolest underground band" and then marketing them to a mass audience than just enjoying the music.

 

[fuseboxx]

Quote:

Originally Posted by roadtonowhere08 /img/forum/go_quote.gif So is Rolling Stone... Popularity speaks nothing about taste or knowledge. When all Pitchfork cares about is Indie Rock for the most part, they are an Indie review site. When they have a top song/album list, they forget to mention that they are oblivious to 90% of all the other music out there. If that is what you into, great, but they are not even close the the final authority on anything.

why is pitchfork irrelevant and meaningless then?

 

[zumaro]

Quote:

Originally Posted by fuseboxx /img/forum/go_quote.gif why is pitchfork irrelevant and meaningless then?

Indeed they are an authority on indie rock, and often a very insightful and interesting one. That's just fine with me.

 

[VicAjax]

Quote:

Originally Posted by fuseboxx /img/forum/go_quote.gif ^ Why is that, when they're one of the most read internet publications when it comes to music?

IMHO, it's populated by a bunch of how's-my-hair Lester Bangs wannabes who are better qualified to write reviews of the latest slim-cut jeans.

 

[bakercj93]

Quote:

Originally Posted by VicAjax /img/forum/go_quote.gif IMHO, it's populated by a bunch of how's-my-hair Lester Bangs wannabes who are better qualified to write reviews of the latest slim-cut jeans.

Ha, nice. I agree fully. Pitchfork is like a niche fashion publication that focuses on music as an accessory. After all, no look be complete without a hip taste in music.

Then again, I suppose Pitchfork would be a good site for anyone that considers that important. I'm sure they let everyone know what's fashionable and what's soooo 2008.

 

[Comfy]

I forgot to mention a Mew album in my original post. Their importance will not be recognized yet, so the top ten positions will go to other artists. But some of their records should be represented in the top 50 at least.

My current favorite is their latest effort: No more stories / are told today / I'm sorry / they washed away // No more stories / the world is grey / I'm tired / let's wash away, but Mew and the glass handed kites is also very solid. As is Frengers.

MGMT - Oracular Spectacular is also a very solid collection of masterfully executed melodies and cheeky lyrics, a record that will stand the test of time, maybe even maturing in a good way.

 

[wower]

It's going to be Radiohead.

 

[chud]

I just re-purchased Funeral because of this thread. I had it back in the day but never really sat down and listened to it and had since lost it.

I really don't see why it would be an album of the decade contender. Yes, it's very good, but I walked away from it just kinda "meh."

In the same realm of music, I would put The Fire Theft leaps and bounds above it.

Now I'm trying to find my copy of Kid A.