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

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?

has iatee been the most dense and least helpful poster in this thread? i think so.

poll

considering this thread, I would consider that title an honor tbh

i mean...if we don't bother talking about or addressing these issues, if we pretend these aren't issues at all...we'll still be looking at 90% white male indie canons in 10 years, 20 years. i mean, do you really think the current state of affairs is acceptable?

god, iatee, fuck the fuck off then. you're not contributing anything helpful and entertaining, no one gives a shit who you are or what you say. leave the grown-ups to talk.

lex i hope you can fix this global canon crisis alone

it is up to you

save the canon, save the world

http://blogs.suburbanchicagonews.com/sportsbeacon/Scrappy%20Doo.jpg

i mean...if we don't bother talking about or addressing these issues, if we pretend these aren't issues at all...

But how can you say this when in fact, apart from some lame bickering, the issues have been talked about extensively? Have the absence of women in the list and the fact that P4k doesn't cover R 'n B not been talked about?

yes, it's been good! i was referring more to iatee's worthless interjections though.

Alright, got it.

Talking is great. Some action, some change would be better, or we'll just be having this same conversation again in 10 years when the % of female artists has dropped from 3 out of 20 to 1 out of 20 or 0 out of 20?

I'm really sick of the way people talk about their "taste" like this is some ineffable, unaccountable, unchangeable THING that floated down on high on tablets from Mt. Olympus rather than something which is so tied up with culture and status and familiarity about which we must never dispute or challenge or attempt to influence.

The idea that there is nothing more than some ineffable unaccountable "personal taste" going into the canonisation process - the process of deciding, of *privileging* one artist over another - it's almost insulting in its simplicity and reduction of complex issues to shrugs of abnegation.

anyway re: deej's good point about the readership -

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

blaming the readership on a publication's failings or limitations - not just pfork, this applies everywhere - always comes across as a totally craven defence. i don't think music fans are anywhere near as tribalist or predisposed to kneejerk hate vast swathes of popular music as people can assume; i don't think they're as easily categorisable, either. most people's taste is wide-ranging and unexpected regardless of their basic likes and dislikes. and even if they are, surely it is the critic's job to ~open their minds~ by arguing cogently the case for mariah carey or miranda lambert or my chemical romance. because the case should be made and none of those artists deserve to be treated as though they're critically worthless.

as i've said a worse indictment of pfork recently was its failure to review last year's erykah badu album until it had been legitimised by the white indie mainstream press. kinda indicates that they didn't consider badu an artist worth covering initially despite her track record and success and credibility over the past decade - and then suddenly, once she received a certain type of hype, suddenly then it was ok!

nb: i, personally, have no time for my chemical romance or fall out boy or the bands in that vein. just don't like 'em. BUT various smart people i know have written about them in such a way over the past few years that my position has moved to ignoring them to taking them seriously and affording them a certain level of respect, regardless of whether my ears can take the music.

i complained about the lack of Badu review at the time because i kind of expected pfork to be fuelling that hype ("crossover neo-soul LP" or whatever) more than anyone else for some reason (maybe also the relative popularity of 'Voodoo' among pfork writers, different tho it is).

guys, sometimes there are other reasons for people missing reviews. i remember lex, you talked about this in the other thread and nabisco was kind enough to reply

lol remember when they reviewed new amerykah like 4 months after it came out, presumably because they hadn't considered erykah badu worthy of inclusion prior to that, and then were like: shit! critical consensus! better jump on that!

also partly because I was really busy with some personal stuff and took an embarrassingly long time to turn the review around -- but hey, any good LOL-on-P4k theories that help distract from my own flakiness are appreciated and encouraged round here

― nabisco, Wednesday, August 26, 2009 5:41 PM (1 month ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

yeah i did remember that post just couldn't remember where it was

the formattings weird on that, here's the post

Pitchfork's P2k: The Decade in Music

just saying--sometimes the reasons you think a place doesn't review something don't quite add up to a conspiracy

well damn i guess that excuses them everything then

no one's accused anyone of a "conspiracy" lol. institutional bias ≠ conspiracy.