The Pitchfork People's List - top albums 1996-2012

Xpost. Contenderizer Yes I am saying that music and culture are interlinked, but what I am also saying is that people's musical preferences go far beyond this monochrome argument of male/female, black/white and it's unfair to make judgement based on whether someone listens to exclusively one or the other.

Thanks for the suggestions!

On another note I was going to mention how much of a wrench 1995 would have thrown into this mix in my case.

Xpost Don't forget I'm also speaking broadly about the presumed tastes of white northern englishers of a particular age. And of course they don't all listen to the Charlatans. Please understand, I'm talking about the demographic of a particular scene or band - not the music tastes of a particular culture. There is a difference.

I would have liked to have done one of these but I guess it's closed now. It probably would have been pretty white-male centric, which might be indicative of something, but these days I think it's just the vagaries.

What's kind of funny to me is that my list happens to be male dominated but that Sleater-Kinney record probably has more muscle than any of the others.

Gukbe I had the same issue, just write one out as well.

Not posting my list as i had browswer issues and couldn't sort my list into any kind of order.

Just type it out here.

On another note I was going to mention how much of a wrench 1995 would have thrown into this mix in my case.

yeah I sort of thought about doing one of these lists but looking up release dates to figure out what was or wasn't before 1996 was too annoying and pointless.

I am saying that music and culture are interlinked, but what I am also saying is that people's musical preferences go far beyond this monochrome argument of male/female, black/white and it's unfair to make judgement based on whether someone listens to exclusively one or the other.

― Julian Asshole (dog latin), Monday, August 20, 2012 11:26 AM (1 minute ago)

yeah, i agree.

that said, to the extent that there's a pronounced critical/cultural bias in favor of music made by members of certain groups over others, there's a real problem. if we think that a problem of this sort exists and have any stake in pop criticism, we have to ask ourselves how we might best address it. one obvious step that anyone can take on a day-to-day basis is to make a conscious point of engaging with and perhaps even publicly "preferring" the products of marginalized groups. taking this step at least causes whatever cultural capital one expends in publicly expressing taste to achieve some potential good. i don't know that anyone on ILM is explicitly advocating for this approach, but it does seem to be implied in the arguments that some have made.

another possible solution is to pin the blame not on individual voices expressing individual taste, but on the tastemaking entities that attach special importance to certain voices (for instance, to demand more equity and inclusion from influential magazines and websites). i'm not sure a clear line can be drawn between the two though, between the opinions of individuals and those of larger aggregate entities, especially not in the voice-enabling digital age. and no matter what, the change pressure probably has to come from individual critics.

I think there's probably an important difference between having no women on a list and having only a few, but I don't know what it is. Most of the music I listen to has male vocals but I do listen to music with female vocals so I must not have any categorical aversion to women singing. But I don't know why I don't listen to more. Then again, 20% of the artists on my list feature women singing so maybe that's ok? 30% including non-singing women in the band.

yeah I sort of thought about doing one of these lists but looking up release dates to figure out what was or wasn't before 1996 was too annoying and pointless.

― dmr, Monday, August 20, 2012 2:49 PM (6 minutes ago)

You know this wasn't as much as an issue as just not leaving anything out in general. To speed things up I just put itunes in the jukebox display mode and scrolled through.

if you were to reach parity that probably means you skew female, since the majority of recording artists are male or male-fronted in genres like rock n' roll or hip hop (fwict the 2 most represented in these lists)

^^ what i'm saying

What if you get a lot of experience of other cultures through other cultural platforms? Cinema, or film, or literature, for instance? For instance I go out of my way to cook and eat a lot of Caribbean, north African, Spanish, and middle eastern food, but I listen to almost zero music from any of those cultures. This is an offshoot of a line of though I've been vaguely interested in for ages, which is the idea of people being culturally sophisticated and broad in one direction, but conservative (for want of a better word) in others, and how that dichotomy works.

Cinema and film are obviously the dame fucking thing. I meant cinema and food. Idiot.

Same not fame.

dame fucking, eh?

that was a series of delightful typos

Contenderizer, i agree as ilxors, critics, music nerds we should challenge as many preconceptions and prejudices as possible.

Pitchfork is a different beast to what it was ten years ago, and should be lauded for branching out into territories other than indie rock, which is how it started out. It would have been easy for them to retain the bias all this time, but while it's got a way to go in covering all branches of music, it's been an important factor in opening up indie kids to other styles away from this genre. So in a way when people complain about a bias towards indie rock, or to put it in other terms 'white boys with guitars', I kind of find myself thinking 'yes, but what do you expect from a site that started out reviewing indie rock almost exclusively?'. Although here perhaps I'm making a big assumption that indie rock is predominantly a white male genre - an accusation which, true or false, often gets levelled at the indie scene and pitchfork by their detractors day in, day out. Are we complaining that the choices here are biased towards white male voices, or that there isn't enough diversity within the groups of people who make the kind of music covered by Pitchfork? And is it fair to use that as a signifier of prejudice/hostility/exclusivity within the indie rock scene, or is it something to do with fewer non-white non-male people being interested in that genre of music?

Many xposts

Fucking fame dame same shame.

Can I talk about an album on my list for a second:

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B000QQTLYY/ref=dm_sp_alb

This is my brother's group and this album is fucking great, a mix of backpackerish hip-hop and spoken word poetry; check specifically "Glasses", "Keloid Suite", "Jay", "Cheatin'", "Fat White Men In Suits", "Blah Blah"

Will check

I don't know. I think there are a lot of strains of thought here, and it's really sort of difficult to gather them all up. But it seems like you could form a sort of argument by saying,

1. There are a lot of commonsense-type assumptions that seem baked into our everyday experience in the world.
2. Our everyday experience in the world is practically all contingent, historically accidental, and mostly just arbitrary.
3. So the cultural choices we make stamp an order onto our everyday experiences.
4. Obviously, there are political ramifications that tend (for me) to background almost every discussion like this one; eg, giving anger to women as a point of course (rather than masculinizing it), since doing otherwise makes being a woman politician almost impossible. Since men are able to express themselves with anger and it's seen as normal, whereas when women do so they're seen as bitches.

And so on. So there seems to be a conclusion you could draw where you try to get a very broad, de-sedimenting, historically conscious way of consuming and organizing culture so as to be a 'good person', though of course (of course!) it's possible to be a good person without doing any of that. It's also, I think, somewhat less likely for a person exposed to mostly just one thing and one way of thinking about things (for instance) to have a broad, 'good' view on things.

As a PS, I think Jonathan Bogart had a really interesting, non-standard list. http://peopleslist.pitchfork.com/list/08f50850/

I think there's a huge difference between straight white male privilege in a systemic sense (which in this case would be reflected in the official lists published by magazines and professional critics) and the personal way that we interact with art, as reflected in these personal "people's lists". It's bullshit to assume that a straight white man isn't searching for some recognizable voice they can relate to just as much as anyone from a less represented demographic. A lot of people feel isolated, confused, and disaffected despite their privilege, and musical tastes seem to be largely formed in adolescence when those feelings are at their peak. Just because there are a glut of straight white male voices in music doesn't mean that it's any easier for a straight white man to find music that relates to his personal experience. Of course not all art has to be something that you personally identify with but I can't fault a man who only listens to male singers any more than I would fault a woman who only reads books with female protagonists.

Good point. Also, mustn't forget that there's a world outside pitchfork where indie rock isn't as prevalent. In my day to day life I rarely meet people who've even heard of Animal Collective, but plenty who love Rhianna and so on... Indie music by definition is supposed to represent independence, alternativeness, otherness and by extension exclusivity and elitism. There's an irony at play when this becomes considered a 'norm'. That said, in my IRL experiences, pitchfork music is miles away from the norm of what people listen to. I'm sure if I lives in an area like Dalston or Williamsburg this might not be the case and nearly everyone I speak to would be a Sleigh Bells fan, but I still see this as 'alternative' music.

I think Jonathan Bogart had a really interesting, non-standard list. http://peopleslist.pitchfork.com/list/08f50850/

I guess this is partly what we're talking about, because maybe this is a 'non-standard list' for straight white indie-rock dudes, but, you know, his number one is the biggest pop star of today. How is that non-standard? Almost all of his picks are massive sellers and/or already have plenty of critical acclaim. How is that non-standard? And he includes the cocking Libertines. It's a terrible terrible boring list.

It's non-standard because most of the albums don't have pictures.

Basically, to sum all this up, my list is good and yours is bad.

http://peopleslist.pitchfork.com/list/139d3ab8/

that "cocking" libertines album is great imo

Life Is Peachy surprisingly absent from that one (xpost)

But isn't 'boring' completely relative? I get bored by my own music collection, hence why I'm always on the look out for new stuff. I know if I were to say '4' was my favourite album of the last 16 years my friends (who know me well enough and know I have a varied palate) would probably think I was kidding. Same as if I said it was the Libertines. Those would be unusual choices by my own standards but not by others.

It's non-standard because most of the albums don't have pictures.

― Evan, Monday, August 20, 2012 8:56 PM (4 minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

A majority of the albums do have pictures. I counted. Because I am anal.

Basically, to sum all this up, my list is good and yours is bad.

Tbh this is pretty much what I'm thinking.

goddammit, i forgot guitar romantic too! really regret doing this in the last few hours of the last day...

i really like j bogart as a writer but that list really disappointed me. the strokes? the libertines? spoon? I THOUGHT HE WAS BETTER THAN THAT

WLTM someone, anyone, without any fucking turn of the century indie on their lists

Basically, to sum all this up, my list is good and yours is bad.
Tbh this is pretty much what I'm thinking.

Yes! I haven't seen your list but I'm sure it's godawful. Do yourself a musical favor and listen to The Glands.

erase the hate lex

Just because there are a glut of straight white male voices in music doesn't mean that it's any easier for a straight white man to find music that relates to his personal experience.

Actually, yes it does. That's exactly what it does mean.

haha ya that is such bs

his number one is the biggest pop star of today. How is that non-standard? Almost all of his picks are massive sellers and/or already have plenty of critical acclaim. How is that non-standard?

dont know why popular & non-standard are mutually exclusive also imo you kind of sound like a teenager rn

It's non-standard because most of the albums don't have pictures.

― Evan, Monday, August 20, 2012 8:56 PM (4 minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

A majority of the albums do have pictures. I counted. Because I am anal.

Basically, to sum all this up, my list is good and yours is bad.

Tbh this is pretty much what I'm thinking.

― emil.y, Monday, August 20, 2012 4:02 PM (4 minutes ago)

Ha I was joking so I didn't bother counting.
I do honestly think that the gut reaction to lists with less pictures is that it is non-standard since many lists are just obvious Best New Music nobility and/or Urban Outfitters top sellers.

And just to make sure we understand no picture means not in the database so I'm clear we're on the same page.

I think Jonathan's list without the context of the post he wrote about it does it a disservice. It's also the culmination, in a way, of his war on the album format.

i'm glad at least someone round here isn't too much of a politically correct hipster to vote for the definitive album of the era, play

WLTM someone, anyone, without any fucking turn of the century indie on their lists

― lex pretend, Monday, August 20, 2012 9:06 PM

none on mine (except i have no list)

Xpost No I don't agree that it's bullshit. I eschew 90% of white guitar music I hear. Finding music that relates to one's personal experiences is really really tough no matter who you are. Whether one wants to listen to music that relates to you personally is another matter.

also, we can talk about these theoretical genres that have no or very little female involvement but what makes me suspicious is when i see lists skewed towards genres where there IS a lot of female involvement - that includes indie and pop and dance and rap and in fact almost every genre that western popular music fans listen to - but SOMEHOW all those female artists are just not considered as good as the male ones.

jumping off tim's earlier point about how taste values are passed down to us, i think a great deal of this is because in the wider discourse very very few of those female artists are accorded the kind of respect that their male equivalents get - even when they establish themselves as a Big Deal they're more often considered "divisive" because they kinda get hated on more. or because the distinctive thing they do doesn't jive with boys' club rules - often because they're not "serious" enough, or don't make the right kind of jokes, or are too "shrill" or "hysterical" or all those other adjectives that are routinely applied to women but not men.

dont know why popular & non-standard are mutually exclusive

Because 'non-standard' means 'deviating from the norm', and 'popular' implies 'the norm'. Hence why I'm discussing the fact that maybe this is a 'non-standard list' for straight white indie-rock dudes but it isn't non-standard outside that very small pool. And in fact, in the 21st century most straight white indie-rock dudes have followed the trend towards pop music as the go-to hip cultural signifier, so it isn't even very non-standard for them.

imo you kind of sound like a teenager rn

In what way?