P2K: The Top 200 Albums of the 2000s: 20-1

i mean, its basically the only spot for long-form music criticism read by a wide audience ... they get like 2m readers a month, which i imagine blows any other niche non-gossip music review site out of the water ....

at this point I would guess Rolling Stone is the only music-related publication with a larger audience than ours in the world. We also have 1.2 Twitter followers, #101 in the world last time I looked, between the NFL and Amazon.com.

I only point this out for context and because I know it pisses off the Lex.

MDC: I have no way to quantify our influence on other crits or whatever in the UK, but to give two examples, the biggest crit bands over there last year-- Fleet Foxes and Bon Iver-- I would guess were introduced to the UK music press via us. (BI we ran as a headline review of the self-released LP in early autumn 2007; Fleet Foxes we began to cover in late Jan or early Feb after hearing a song on their MySpace, then booked for our fest and our SXSW party) (same with Bon Iver on both counts.) I don't care about the credit, it's an empty claim anyway esp since FF wound up on Sub Pop and BI on Jag and would have reached an audience anyway, but I find it hard to believe that major UK music pubs aren't looking at our site and there isn't some ripple effect. (We obviously look at the Guardian/NME/Uncut/Mojo/DiS/etc as well.)

straight white male indie rockers with guitars were a serious minority in, say, the top 50 of our tracks list, but of course that hardly fits Lex's arguments so let's ignore that

but...but....you're only sincere if you rate their albums!!

one & the same

― xhuxk mangione (deej), Wednesday, October 7, 2009 3:43 PM (21 seconds ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

Yeah, but you can expand your coverage without it implying that you were wrong not to have done so earlier.

re: straight white male etc, I guess I should go w/o saying I'm being flippant and reactive to everyone's else demo complaints and the way they can be bent around a POV you want to advance rather than actively reducing the artists we cover to types and demographics and thinking in those terms, but just in case...

So would the ideal Pitchfork be totally universalist, equally aware of and interested in every genre and style of music? Would it democratically cover blues and classical and hip-hop and Bulgarian folk and punk and metal and dance pop and electroacoustic experiments (and everything under the sun) without any distinct POV or editorial identity?

I think that Pitchfork is valuable (and popular and influential) precisely because it DOES have a distinct point of view. And that in having a distinct point of view it is necessarily narrow, even myopic. These qualities are GOOD things in that they help make Pitchfork what it is: at least somewhat individual and distinct. Even to the extent that it's not equally interested in all things. Even to the extent that certain stuff gets slighted.

Then again, it's hard to reconcile that argument with my earlier complaints about its gender imbalance. Hmmm... I guess I just don't see "maleness" as a essential component of its individual (collective) identity. Maybe I'm wrong about that...

That last in response to deej saying that correcting deficiencies and expanding coverage are "one & the same."

Also, deej, I really don't see how Mariah Carey is obviously more in keeping with Pitchfork's aesthetic than Bob Dylan is. This is a site that devoted an entire week to the Beatles remasters.

bob dylan remasters =/= of-little-note records bob dylan makes in his 60s

We also have 1.2 Twitter followers

they're that bad?

contenderizer keeps spilling out little crazy readings into what i said that doesnt actually link to what ive said at all -- might keep letting him do this?

Gaaah! It was a friggin'

question

You say that correcting deficiencies and expanding coverage are "one & the same." What do you mean by that? Do you mean that Pitchfork should be truly universalist? Or only that it needs to cover some things more than it currently does? And if the latter, why only those things?

Huh, I just checked to see if Pitchfork reviewed Emancipation of Mimi and look what I found: a 2008 column from Scott about albums Pitchfork never reviewed and why they didn't review them:

Mariah Carey: The Emancipation of Mimi [Island]
Miranda Lambert: Crazy Ex-Girlfriend [Columbia]
My Chemical Romance: Three Cheers for Sweet Revenge [Reprise]

Over the course of this decade, Pitchfork has slowly expanded its coverage, taking an increasingly more wide-scale view of the pop landscape. Our more cynical readers tend to think that we do so in order to attract readers. Well, really, the opposite is true. Frankly, we're gambling: We approach Justin Timberlake, Beyoncé, Lil Wayne, or Kylie Minogue as artists rather than personalities, when most of our readers don't want to consider them as either.

When it comes to pop-minded performers, those who spring from the underground (Annie) or strike out on their own (Robyn), or mainstream artists who get oddly dicked-around by their record labels (Clipse, Amerie), seem more palatable to many of our readers, suggesting that the mechanics behind creating or selling music, whether listeners are assaulted with marketing, or whether listeners feel they are making different choices than the "masses" are, in some ways, still important to many of our readers.

The only two pop groups we've really criminally overlooked are UK chart-toppers Girls Aloud and the Sugababes, but since we've examined their greatest hits collections, I'm setting them aside to highlight an even more objectional-to-many trio of records, each a success in a genre many of our readers likely despise: Melismatic, superstar r&b, mainstream modern country, and mall rock. You know the names already, you've likely formed an opinion, but keep the records at least in the back of your mind and someday, somewhere give them a chance.

So would the ideal Pitchfork be totally universalist, equally aware of and interested in every genre and style of music? Would it democratically cover blues and classical and hip-hop and Bulgarian folk and punk and metal and dance pop and electroacoustic experiments (and everything under the sun) without any distinct POV or editorial identity?

Sorry of this is a bit obvious but the complaints about Pitchfork are usually damned-if-they-do-damned-if-they-don't. When they are very open about their limitations and admit that they come from a specific culture/music background people complain about the ethnocentrism and oppressive indie-ness of their tastes (Lex's argument, sort of), but when pitchfork tries to overreach and be a "music-loving citizen of the world" and tackle all comers then the accusation is pretension, that the site doesn't know their place and should stick to Indie Land.

x-post

i think it depends who is writing about these records, Cunga

So would the ideal Pitchfork be totally universalist, equally aware of and interested in every genre and style of music?

how could it? discernment is part of the deal. we're talking about what codes 'they' are using to discern.

Would it democratically cover blues and classical and hip-hop and Bulgarian folk and punk and metal and dance pop and electroacoustic experiments (and everything under the sun) without any distinct POV or editorial identity?

no, but it would discuss/argue/debate which of these deserve more/less coverage. which is what we're doing here.

i put 'they' in quotes bcuz we get to borderline tinfoil hat territory the more we talk about this like its a conspiracy instead of inadvertent bias

xpost to Cunga

Def there is damned if we do, but in part that's because people assume Pitchfork is one brand with 50 similar voices, as if I'm handing a Pole record to some dude who spends most of his time listening to skinny jeans indie and asking him to give it a chance instead of assigning it to, in that case, Philip Sherburne. We have a staff that's mostly eclectic, curious generalist listeners, and some specialists (and even they are less specialist than they are perhaps typecast by their assignments for the site). It's not like a bunch of indie kids groping around in the dark though, sorry (not these days at least).

That you all are complaining that Pitchfork isn't covering enough R&B LPs or modern country, as if it's something Pitchfork obviously should be doing, is surely some sign of how much the publication has changed in the past half-decade or so.

i think its a sign of how much yr audience has changed, too

you music critics sure like to drastically exaggerate the importance and impact of music criticism huh. kinda cute.

i mean, with the 'mainstreaming of indie' & the increasing readership, at some point u end up with readers who have different backgrounds & perspectives, but are drawn to the site / indie as a whole .... one person i know who reads the site is an af-am woman who listens to a lot of the kinds of music pitchfork's pushing (esp. the beach-y stuff) & she grew up w/ her dad throwing parties with house music & disco, & her mom listening to R&B albums ... its not like shes super-anti-mariah-carey or something

her mom listening to mainstream 'melismatic' modern R&B albums, i should say ...

Deej, now that you write for the site, maybe it'd be more fruitful to bring these concerns to the editor-in-chief? (Not that he's not reading this thread already.)

I dunno. I don't wanna fite...

I see Pitchfork as a basically good thing, as it has been and as it is. I think its success and influence are probably direct products of its "personality", and that therefore its personality has real value. Maybe not to me, personally (though I do use it as a resource), but certainly to lots of people out there and to American pop/rock culture as a whole. Its distinct collective identity is what has allowed it to find and bond with its audience.

Therefore, I'm not inclined to fault it too much for its basic POV. If it were a different entity, then it likely wouldn't be as successful -- and if it were successful, it would be differently successful. I don't think anything really "deserves" pitchfork coverage. Or Fader coverage, or Rolling Stone coverage or whatever.

That's an abstract and maybe a careless argument. I also understand that as cultural entities become influential, their biases can start to have significant effects. You can't sweep away ALL complaints of exclusion by simply claiming that this is what you and your audience wanna hear about. But I think that PFork generally does a damn good job of reaching out from where they stand.

With the exception of the boy/girl thing, but I guess we've all got our axes to grind...

xp im not sure that i have any real 'concerns' here that i dont fix by writing reviews of, like, maxwell records? im not sure what else there is to do, other than convincing other writers that these records are worthwhile

But wouldn't you like the site to hire more writers who are as into R&B as you are and make it a priority to review albums like New Amerykah closer to their date of release?

i mean frankly my 'concerns' are more about how the centrality of pfork's place in music discourse makes indie front & center ... its less a complaint about pitchfork & more a complaint about how pitchfork is treated ... but i think as it becomes more popular, it will have to respond to an expanding audience & expanding idea of what indie 'is' -- im not sure i ever framed these concerns as problems w/ editorial, i just wish mariah carey was taken more seriously in polling

xp yeah but who do they hire? i dont really have an answer so

won't anyone think of mariah

why wont critics give bob dylan the respect he deserves

"Def there is damned if we do, but in part that's because people assume Pitchfork is one brand with 50 similar voices, as if I'm handing a Pole record to some dude who spends most of his time listening to skinny jeans indie and asking him to give it a chance instead of assigning it to, in that case, Philip Sherburne."

Heh. The problem for me is too many dudes listening to skinny jeans bands and schmindie folk (I hate Bon Iver and Fleet Foxes), and not enough reviews from people whose taste and writing really click for me (Leone would be one huge example). But even they listen to schmindie every now and then. And what seems to be the house style, of choosing a formal conceit for nearly every review, only really works with strong writers.

I guess basically what I'm saying is that you should be something you're not, and then I'd like you better.

Also, I have a slow-ass computer, and your site can take forever to load. It's almost as bad as AMG.

So, grow your site bigger, but make it simpler; hire more women and minorities, but not just because they're women and minorities; hype up bands that I like so they can make more money, but don't hype up bands that won't hold up (Black Kids) or who already have enough money (Vampire Weekend); run more essays and interviews from writers I like, but fewer from ones I think are tedious.

Then I'll vote in this ILX poll and have it mean something, man.

also create a monthly mariah carey column

Ask the staff to chip in for a new computer, I eat cannibals.

The staff, that's a good one. I got laid off about eight months ago, my laptop died about six months ago, and I've been trying to keep my ol' G3 running since then.

Unless you meant Pitchfork staff, in which case I think it's only fair that they buy me a new computer. You know, for the page views or something.

also create a monthly mariah carey column

― pariah carey (Mr. Que), Wednesday, October 7, 2009 4:57 PM (1 hour ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

month in dubstep was only slightly more absurd

'imo'

month in terius

day in gucci <--- cuz i know yall were waiting for this

I think the Mariah album is great but it didn't make my top 200. There were heaps of albums I like better that didn't make it either.

I took my songs list more seriously than my albums list because it felt more rather than less important. Someone making a perfect song/track (perfect for me obv.) seems more worthy of singling out than someone making an album that happens to be pretty good throughout.

I partly agree about the whole songs vs albums "importance" issue (as espoused by Lex above) but I think it's as much a case of indie rock producing less "anthems" as a proportion of its music overall than R&B or pop.

i.e. I'm much more likely to have a quandary like my one this year where I want to put The-Dream and Electrik Red on my albums and songs lists (because stuff like "Rockin' That Thing" and "So Good" and "Friend Lover" hit me as isolated experiences with attendant video clips etc.) with R&B/pop stuff than I am with music that I tend to get into on an album-as-a-whole level - not much rock music actually, since I don't listen to a huge amount of it, but, say, new albums from artists I already like, or lots of electronic music.

I think this feeds into why greatest songs lists mostly feel "fresher", more contemporary and more diverse than greatest albums lists - we're more likely to be hit by the excitement of new things on a song-by-song basis than an album-by-album basis.

i joined too late for the traxx list ;_;

also i DO think there's something LESS fun about the traxx list, and thats that its a lot harder to find that tension between consensus & personal choice ... like, a personal fav song of mine could easily end up with one vote where albums are just larger cultural objects if that makes sense

i.e. it feels even more useless to bitch about my favourite song not making the grade??

(I think I can say the below without disclosing any significant trade secrets)

The song poll process was actually much more convoluted than the album process for this reason maybe. There was kind of a two-tiered selection process, so you would have had to lobby to ensure your personal fave was a final voting option. Rather like the ILM polls. The albums poll was just a list of your favourite albums.

The idea presumably being to prevent as much as possible vote-splitting across multiple songs by the same artist (or even sub-genre for stuff like dance music).

Interestingly, the songs list ended up more "representative" and less indiecentric, which suggests that when (p4k) critics are thinking more self-consciously about what "should" end up on a list they possibly adopt the approach deej advocates w/r/t amy winehouse. Whereas when people are making a private list of their 200 favourite albums they might fall back on "comfort" music more easily (hence dominance of early 00s indie?).

On a more prosaic level, the structure of the songs poll provided an opportunity for people to hear things they hadn't heard previously and then adjust their vote accordingly.

I can't remember now but I think I vagued out during the songs nomination process and hence was privately miffed that e.g. I couldn't vote for most of my personal favourite 2-step anthems.

to be clear w/r/t amy winehouse its not as cut & dry as "this belongs here" -- thats just one element that went into it (i mean, i did enjoy the album too!) & i think it goes into every album you choose to greater or lesser degrees (along with, like, how often did i play this, how well do i identify this w/ this time in my life, how likely is this to actually be voted, how unlikely is this to actually be voted, etc etc)

Yeah I get you, I'd be surprised if someone listed an album or song that they don't like but think is important, but there are all sorts of strategic cultural considerations that might give one album an edge over another equally enjoyable album... and these differ for each person.

In a more structured nomination process I think you're more likely to think "woah, this list has no (insert x style of music), I think something should be on there even though it might not make the cut in a purely private top 100."

e.g. I can well imagine someone bumping up "Gasolina" on their top 100 songs list because they want to make some sort of acknowledgment of how much they enjoyed reggaeton generally during 2005-2006.

GOD DAMN IT'S HAPPENING EVEN IN THIS THREAD.

Basically, it's been me pointing out, over and again, the gender imbalance in this and every Canonical List, and yet all the answers and the discussion and rebuttal is directed to The Lex like I'm not even here or something.

And I'm the person whose criticism (apart from one snide dig at Animal Collective) has NOT been phrasing it as "hey, why isn't *my* particular taste represented here" but phrasing it in terms of a wider and more systematic issue.

But, you know, I'm not gonna make the list of canonical ILX posters because, you know, girls don't get to be on canons.
:-P ha ha ha.

And I'm the person whose criticism (apart from one snide dig at Animal Collective) has NOT been phrasing it as "hey, why isn't *my* particular taste represented here" but phrasing it in terms of a wider and more systematic issue.

lol are you sure bout that.

Unless you consider "female" to be a genre, yes, I am sure about that.

Surely there has been extensive discussion about the subject you adressed though, no?

wild idea - a big part of the reason why your top 20 has more female artists on it than say, mine, comes from your taste in music vs. my taste in music.

it may not be a genre issue - that doesn't mean taste doesn't play a role.

and yes, this ridiculous discussion has gone on and on and on and on. do you expect some sort of resolution from this kate? or do you just want more credit for successful trolling?