SPIN Top 40 Of 2003

Message Bookmarked

Bookmark Removed

Not all messages are displayed: show all messages (298 of them)

View Previous Page...

but the Donnas record was '02 as well! fuck, that's three!

― M Matos (M Matos), Tuesday, 2 December 2003 21:21 (twenty years ago) link

and timberlake

― Yanc3y (ystrickler), Tuesday, 2 December 2003 21:24 (twenty years ago) link

and nas

― Yanc3y (ystrickler), Tuesday, 2 December 2003 21:24 (twenty years ago) link

but "Cry Me a River" was an '03 single from an '02 album--I don't think that's true of the Donnas song.

and, yeah, Nas, duh--I forgot about that. gimme a fucking break!

― M Matos (M Matos), Tuesday, 2 December 2003 21:25 (twenty years ago) link

2002 is the new 2003.

― Matt Helgeson (Matt Helgeson), Tuesday, 2 December 2003 21:25 (twenty years ago) link

actually, "cry me a river" was released as a single in december of last year (it was on my p&j ballot). it's totally fine for spin to list it, but it's another example.

and the missy record only made the list cuz they EXPECTED to like it, which is lame.

on the whole the spin list didn't bother me. even though the blender one is better.

― Yanc3y (ystrickler), Tuesday, 2 December 2003 21:26 (twenty years ago) link

and i like spin, i do, but that whole fred durst article? fucking weak!

― Yanc3y (ystrickler), Tuesday, 2 December 2003 21:27 (twenty years ago) link

and andy greenwald, i love you too, but you know yr allowed to write about non-emo bands, rite?

― Yanc3y (ystrickler), Tuesday, 2 December 2003 21:27 (twenty years ago) link

"That record had terrible reviews, it had no hits, and as far as I can tell, most of Metallica's fans didn't really care about it. "

Oddly enough, it got good to great reviews in all the big mags (RS,Spin, & Blender), which I feel means that once again, rock crit has its oversized head placed up it's much more oversized ass waaaaaayyyyy too far.

― Charles McCain (Charles McCain), Tuesday, 2 December 2003 21:27 (twenty years ago) link

you can put any track, regardless of its single-release status, on your P&J ballot, though.

I'm 3/4 through Andy Greenwald's book; it's terrific.

― M Matos (M Matos), Tuesday, 2 December 2003 21:28 (twenty years ago) link

i'll get around to reading it eventually. it's just funny tho, cuz when i read blender or spin i don't even need to see a classification on the band -- if he's got the byline, i know what it is!

― Yanc3y (ystrickler), Tuesday, 2 December 2003 21:30 (twenty years ago) link

Is that Andy Greenwald book out? I tried to find it but couldn't, and my mother, who works in a bookstore, couldn't find it either.

― latebloomer (latebloomer), Tuesday, 2 December 2003 21:31 (twenty years ago) link

yes, it's out.

― M Matos (M Matos), Tuesday, 2 December 2003 21:31 (twenty years ago) link

(oh man, major x-post)

Matos -- "Lose Yourself" and "Cry Me a River" both at least have the benefit of being released in late 2002. ("Lose Yourself" didn't come down from #1 until February; "Cry Me a River" peaked around the same time.) But they can't even make excuses for the QOTSA song!

― jaymc (jaymc), Tuesday, 2 December 2003 21:31 (twenty years ago) link

or the Nas song

― M Matos (M Matos), Tuesday, 2 December 2003 21:31 (twenty years ago) link

Who wants to bet that Guided By Voices end up on the Magnet best of list?

― Charles McCain (Charles McCain), Tuesday, 2 December 2003 21:32 (twenty years ago) link

("major x-post" because I was trying to track down chart data, dammit! I thought I was safe in throwing out all my Xeroxed Hot 100s from 1991-93 a few years ago, but not if Billboard keeps all of that to themselves!)

― jaymc (jaymc), Tuesday, 2 December 2003 21:34 (twenty years ago) link

Charles, that's a foregone conclusion!

― M Matos (M Matos), Tuesday, 2 December 2003 21:34 (twenty years ago) link

The GBV greatest hits disc deserves to, it's all (or most) of the GBV you'll ever need in one easy-to-swallow dose.

― Matt Helgeson (Matt Helgeson), Tuesday, 2 December 2003 21:35 (twenty years ago) link

easy-to-swallow

Cue Matos retort ... now.

― jaymc (jaymc), Tuesday, 2 December 2003 21:35 (twenty years ago) link

Fischerspooner also was 02. Mid 02.

― Ronan (Ronan), Tuesday, 2 December 2003 21:36 (twenty years ago) link

Cue Matos retort ... now.

I know, I'm pitching underhand right now.

― Matt Helgeson (Matt Helgeson), Tuesday, 2 December 2003 21:37 (twenty years ago) link

oh, I'll let that one slide, but thanks for thinking of me! :-)

― M Matos (M Matos), Tuesday, 2 December 2003 21:37 (twenty years ago) link

I bought the Fischerspooner record in early 2001 after hearing it as part of an installation at PS1. I'm not bragging, though. I'm not really crazy about it aside from two of the songs.

― Matthew Perpetua (Matthew Perpetua), Tuesday, 2 December 2003 21:38 (twenty years ago) link

but Fischerspooner didn't come out in the U.S. till '03, by which time its potential star had sunk pretty frickin' low anyway....

― M Matos (M Matos), Tuesday, 2 December 2003 21:38 (twenty years ago) link

(Jeanne, check yr email)

― M Matos (M Matos), Tuesday, 2 December 2003 21:38 (twenty years ago) link

I think it(Fischerspooner) came out twice. It got launched in the UK first, and flopped. Then it launched in the US, and flopped.

― Charles McCain (Charles McCain), Tuesday, 2 December 2003 21:39 (twenty years ago) link

sounds right to me!

― M Matos (M Matos), Tuesday, 2 December 2003 21:41 (twenty years ago) link

Not to be a party pooper, but why do so many people on here always worry so much about The Exact Year That Records Came Out? Isn't it obvious that lots of records might not hit you until a few months AFTER they come out? Which is why literal release dates don't matter in Pazz and Jop; also, if your deadline was October last year, you'd automatically miss stuff that came out in the two months after that, right? I mean, I have no love for Spin, and couldn't care less about defending them, but this kinda thing always just seems NITPICKY to me.

― chuck, Tuesday, 2 December 2003 21:42 (twenty years ago) link

I never understood why they didn't just make the Fischerspooner guys record a new album and hope for a single rather than push an album which quite obviously had nothing that was going to be a radio/MTV hit.

― Matthew Perpetua (Matthew Perpetua), Tuesday, 2 December 2003 21:42 (twenty years ago) link

I mean, it's really weird to keep trying to release the same set of 10 songs three or four years in a row. Aside from the Kylie remix, have they done anything?

― Matthew Perpetua (Matthew Perpetua), Tuesday, 2 December 2003 21:43 (twenty years ago) link

They mowed my lawn. They got some ribbon candy and twenty-five cents to buy some moon pies.

― latebloomer (latebloomer), Tuesday, 2 December 2003 21:45 (twenty years ago) link

oh, I'll let that one slide, but thanks for thinking of me! :-)

As a gesture of gratitude, I'll let you borrow all my Fading Captain series 7 inches! ; )

― Matt Helgeson (Matt Helgeson), Tuesday, 2 December 2003 21:46 (twenty years ago) link

They've partied...HARD.

― Charles McCain (Charles McCain), Tuesday, 2 December 2003 21:46 (twenty years ago) link

More whining about 2002 albums: Personally, I'm kinda pissed that the Justin Timberlake and Sean Paul albums (the latter of which I still haven't heard, but lots of other people did!) DIDN'T make this list, since 2003 was pretty clearly the year they had impact. (Ditto maybe T.A.T.U., who you'd think would've at least deserved a *single.*)

― chuck, Tuesday, 2 December 2003 21:47 (twenty years ago) link

I don't know, I don't understand the dissing, it seems so obvious, pretentious arty band call act in a way which music press deem pretentious and arty and music press act boorish and hate them for it, so fucking predictable.

And the Kylie remix and Emerge fucking rock!

― Ronan (Ronan), Tuesday, 2 December 2003 21:47 (twenty years ago) link

Not to be a party pooper, but why do so many people on here always worry so much about The Exact Year That Records Came Out?

Well, it's just a logic thing. If it's a Best Of 2003 list, shouldn't everything be from 2003 for it to make sense at all?

I do think that in the interest of fairness, records from the last month or two of the previous year should be allowed, but that sort of thing should be made clear somewhere in the introduction.

― Matthew Perpetua (Matthew Perpetua), Tuesday, 2 December 2003 21:48 (twenty years ago) link

I was pretty surprised that Timberlake didn't make their Top 40 albums list. I was even more surprised that Beyonce got snubbed from that list, and had a very low placing in the singles category. B got robbed!

― Matthew Perpetua (Matthew Perpetua), Tuesday, 2 December 2003 21:50 (twenty years ago) link

There is some kind of implied time window with these type of lists though. It can't just be the totally subjective 'When did the record hit for me?' - because obviously you shouldn't include, say, a record from 20 years ago that you finally got around to hearing this year. (Well maybe you could get away with it if it was reissued, but not otherwise.)

― o. nate (onate), Tuesday, 2 December 2003 21:51 (twenty years ago) link

Chuck, it's one thing for them to have been released last year and made their impact this year--it's another thing for them to have been released AND made their impact last year and then get shoehorned into this year's list.

― M Matos (M Matos), Tuesday, 2 December 2003 21:52 (twenty years ago) link

O Nate is right. If the "when did the record hit for me" thing was a rule, I'd have to put a bunch of Squeeze albums on my hypothetical year end list.

― Matthew Perpetua (Matthew Perpetua), Tuesday, 2 December 2003 21:53 (twenty years ago) link

I wonder if "No One Knows" was a Spin typo for "Go With The Flow".

― Charles McCain (Charles McCain), Tuesday, 2 December 2003 21:54 (twenty years ago) link

I mean, "Lose Yourself" placed SECOND on last year's P&J singles (and "No One Knows" eleventh, and "Made You Look" 21st)--it's not as if those songs were unknown quantities even in, say, October, which is when I think they put those lists together. Either way, it looks fucking lame.

― M Matos (M Matos), Tuesday, 2 December 2003 21:54 (twenty years ago) link

obviously it makes sense when something carries over--cf. Thriller winning P&J in '83, or even Spin naming Coldplay band of the year--they're not MY band of the year, but it's a legitimate choice. but "Lose Yourself" or last year's White Blood Cells as album of the year 18 months after it came out AND MADE ITS IMPACT (and placed fourth in P&J) isn't the same thing AT ALL.

― M Matos (M Matos), Tuesday, 2 December 2003 21:58 (twenty years ago) link

Surprised that Evanescence didn't make the list since I think they did more for the goth revival than AFI. And, as a friend said, "They rocked harder than 10 St. Angers."

― Jeanne Fury (Jeanne Fury), Tuesday, 2 December 2003 22:00 (twenty years ago) link

my left toenail rocks harder than St. Anger

― M Matos (M Matos), Tuesday, 2 December 2003 22:01 (twenty years ago) link

they got pigeonholed in the "women who rock" article instead, jeanne. (unjustly, i might add)

― Yanc3y (ystrickler), Tuesday, 2 December 2003 22:01 (twenty years ago) link

"Lose Yourself" (which didn't hit til November or December, right?) does indeed seem weird, but hey, it's Charles Aaron's list, not mine. I forget what those Nas and QOTSA songs sound like; I'd say, if they were still on the Billboard charts in January (which they were), which means Charles was hardly the only person discovering them in 2003, then they're fair game if he wants them to be. And Bob Xgau voting for "Rock the Casbah" a couple years ago was a lot weirder. Anyway, if anything, rock criticism is way too anal-compulsive in general about release dates these days, so more power to anybody who isn't. It's not like we work for the record companies, after all -- Their release dates shouldn't set our agenda; our tastes should. (Wow, I NEVER use the editorial "we." What the hell got into me?)

― chuck, Tuesday, 2 December 2003 22:01 (twenty years ago) link

(actually, it probably doesn't. but it's fun to think it does!)

the very idea of that "women in rock are back!" article makes me do a whole-body cringe

― M Matos (M Matos), Tuesday, 2 December 2003 22:01 (twenty years ago) link

Unjustly because you don't think she rocks, or because they are a very dude-centric band with a girl singer? Or...?

― Matthew Perpetua (Matthew Perpetua), Tuesday, 2 December 2003 22:02 (twenty years ago) link

Skipping 198 messages at this point... Click here if you want to load them all.

You must be logged in to post. Please either login here, or if you are not registered, you may register here.