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

OK this thread has exploded while I was away, and I've missed about a billion posts. BUT.

Maybe "relatable" isn't even the right word or concept.

But what it is about, is whose lived experiences are represented or depicted in the bulk of critically acclaimed and canonised art, and whose aren't.

Like, I kinda wanna issue a challenge to anyone who says that SWM have such a hard time finding stuff that represents or depicts their experiences:

For a whole week, try to listen exclusively to nothing buy music made by women. It doesn't matter what the genre is, just try to listen to stuff made by women, for a week. And in the lack of a Bechdel Test for music, we'll define that as: the music must be written or at least co-written by a woman, and if there are vocals, the lead vocal must be a woman. So that's a huge and generous and wide-open definition there.

(And for comparison, if you want, listen to nothing but SWM for a week, and see whether your range of choices is easier or harder, wider or narrower, or what.)

Go out and do this, and keep a list of the artists and genres that are open to you. And then come back and talk about it, and see whose experiences are more widely represented. Don't just talk theoretical bullshit about what you think is or isn't out there. Go out and try to find it, and see whether it is hard or easy to find, when you are specifically looking.

Maybe "relatable" isn't even the right word or concept.

But what it is about, is whose lived experiences are represented or depicted in the bulk of critically acclaimed and canonised art, and whose aren't.

agree with this

i have absolutely nothing against wk, but i really do suspect that "the glut of straight white male voices" in certain types of music in fact does make it "easier for a straight white man to find music that relates to his personal experience." i meant, it has to be at least a little easier, right? cultural commonalities are a big part of whatever it is that allows us to identify and relate.

"Easier" was the wrong word to put in there.

If a woman listens to nothing but music with women vocalists, I don't think anyone here has a big problem with that do they? It's understandable that she might be turned off by a male dominated point of view in much of popular music. Obviously male voices are privileged in society as a whole and in popular music specifically.

The problem is that men in their teens and twenties don't go through life thinking that they are lucky for their privilege and they're totally secure in their sense of identity, therefore they should make an effort to explore voices outside of their own experience. That would be a great, enlightened point of view and one that should be the standard for people who are writing about music professionally, or working within the music industry. But it seems silly to deny that there's some kind of basic human emotional response to that feeling of "that's just like me." One of us, one of us. I don't personally need that out of art. Or at least not all of the time, or not at this point in my life maybe. But I don't begrudge people who do. And I don't think a lack of representation in the media is the only valid reason for a person to seek out that kind of personal identification with art. So I don't think you can necessarily look at the music collection of a dude who only listens to dude music and assume that it's an indicator of bias. It might be, but it seems a little more complicated to me.

you mean artists new to us? xposts

because if not i could probably do that with just music from this year no problem.

Like, I kinda wanna issue a challenge to anyone who says that SWM have such a hard time finding stuff that represents or depicts their experiences:

I was totally wrong to put easy/hard in there. My point is that access to a broad range of voices that reinforce one's identity doesn't necessarily lessen the desire to lose oneself in that kind of insularity, does it?

sad to see this pitchfork thread devolve into fighting about white guys and indie rock :(

But what it is about, is whose lived experiences are represented or depicted in the bulk of critically acclaimed and canonised art, and whose aren't.

And this is relevant when it comes to music criticism and the creation of that canon through listmaking by professional critics. But I don't think it's as relevant when it comes down to the individual taste of a non-professional. And this is a "people's list". Of course that's complicated by the fact that a lot of ilxors are pro critics so WCC's game is more fairly applied to ilm than it would be to the general public. Plus this list is going to be published by Pitchfork and therefore presumably gain some sense of legitimacy or editorial approval so there is a chance that those personal tastes will get canonized into another list that will reinforce those biases.

Probably a zillion xposts by now...

Easier≠easy. It is obviously easier for a white straight male to find music he might relate to on a number of levels. No matter how much you "eschew", there's still just so much more that is easily accessible and available and promoted to you that you are far more likely to find something that speaks to you. That's the luxury of being considered the default in society.

― Melissa W, Monday, 20 August 2012 20:20 (22 minutes ago) Permalink

Statistically yes, but for the individual, not necessarily. Unless you believe that all white men are the same and have the same life experiences. There are plenty of white-male-dominated musical movements that developed as a reaction against other musical movements that were also dominated by white men. Conversely there is no lack of african american voices in popular music but that doesn't mean that there aren't still systemic biases against african americans.

i have absolutely nothing against wk, but i really do suspect that "the glut of straight white male voices" in certain types of music in fact does make it "easier for a straight white man to find music that relates to his personal experience." i meant, it has to be at least a little easier, right? cultural commonalities are a big part of whatever it is that allows us to identify and relate.

not that there's a crippling absence of gay, nonwhite and female voices in music, generally speaking...

― contenderizer, Monday, 20 August 2012 21:44 (3 minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

Quite a lot of thoughts here

- I'm not even sure there is that much of a bias towards white male orientated rock, other than on things like this list. IRL popular music has many many non-white, gay and female voices. Guitar rock, if we're going to define it this way, is absolutely not a 'norm' like it was even a few years ago. And what counts as "white male" music exactly? Is Autechre white music and Actress not? Am I more inclined to identify with the lyrics of the Libertines than St Vincent? (answer: no, if you hadn't guessed). Would I necessarily hold the same values, as a 31yo SWM from Hitchin, UK, as that of a SWM band of 21yo's from over the pond? Am I more likely to find some sort of lyrical or cultural connect with a female band of similar years who live in my locale?

Despite being one, I don't necessarily identify myself on a day-to-day basis as a "straight white male". You could say that's because I see myself as a cultural 'norm' and therefore don't have to, which I understand, but really I'm just a bloke from Hitchin, Hertfordshire who likes certain things, dislikes others. I don't go around thinking 'Yes, this straight white male music is the music I can really relate to'. Yes there's a lot of stuff out there that is made by and marketed towards 'straight white males' but there's also a lot of music marketed at black teenagers, middle-aged women etc.. There are also a lot of SWM walking around who would rather shit through their mouths than have to endure an indie rock album.

The question is, where does this feeling arise that there is somehow more music available to the SWM than there is to other cultural groups? Is it really valid? If so - why does it happen?

sorry that post ended up mentioning where I lived twice...

(And for comparison, if you want, listen to nothing but SWM for a week, and see whether your range of choices is easier or harder, wider or narrower, or what.)

Go out and do this, and keep a list of the artists and genres that are open to you. And then come back and talk about it, and see whose experiences are more widely represented. Don't just talk theoretical bullshit about what you think is or isn't out there. Go out and try to find it, and see whether it is hard or easy to find, when you are specifically looking.

― my god it's full of straw (White Chocolate Cheesecake), Monday, 20 August 2012 21:59 (17 minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

Okay cool, that is a point there.

But I don't think it's as relevant when it comes down to the individual taste of a non-professional.

i think most music fans who are obsessive enough to make a list like this would consider themselves to listen as uh "seriously" or whatever as any professional critic. there are plenty of such people that i pretty much consider as de facto critics (ie i read what they write about music, i take recommendations from them etc).

anyway i think it's relevant anyway, because i think that "white dudes only want to listen to music made by white dudes" straw argument doesn't actually hold up, it's not a good defence. i think very few people need to hear music made by someone exactly like them in order for it to be resonant. i think more important reasons for the perennial dearth of women in these lists are things like female artists not being presented to music listeners in the properly "credible" ways, and female artists often being seen as less credible choices (and lots more factors that have to do with institutional and societal sexism - not nec active misogyny but a low-level background sexism that people take on board unconsciously). and because of that i think flagging this issue up is relevant to any music fan just because it might enable them to discover new artists they hadn't considered before.

otm

i think more important reasons for the perennial dearth of women in these lists are things like female artists not being presented to music listeners in the properly "credible" ways, and female artists often being seen as less credible choices (and lots more factors that have to do with institutional and societal sexism - not nec active misogyny but a low-level background sexism that people take on board unconsciously). and because of that i think flagging this issue up is relevant to any music fan just because it might enable them to discover new artists they hadn't considered before.

Good post lex.

But what about all the female artists who really are revered, often to the point of living legend - Grace Jones, Kate Bush, Bjork for example? Are they just exceptions/anomalies in a sea of misrepresentation?

I don't think anyone is saying that female artists that fit this criteria exist, they just don't make up as much of a percentage as maybe they should

Yes. As evidenced by there being so few of them, and by the fact that every new female artist has to be framed in reference to them.

Xpost

very few people need to hear music made by someone exactly like them in order for it to be resonant.

OTM. Much of what I listen to is by Austro-German dudes from the 18th century.

Ha, if I were to listen to people like me, I'd need to really spend time with Sum 41 and Billy Talent.

also i think a part of this is Album lists versus Tracks/Singles. Album lists have always skewed more white/male/rockist I think.

I hate Muse.

Despite being one, I don't necessarily identify myself on a day-to-day basis as a "straight white male". You could say that's because I see myself as a cultural 'norm' and therefore don't have to, which I understand, but really I'm just a bloke from Hitchin, Hertfordshire who likes certain things, dislikes others. I don't go around thinking 'Yes, this straight white male music is the music I can really relate to'.

― Julian Asshole (dog latin), Monday, August 20, 2012 2:16 PM

we can't wave away our cultural position simply by saying that we're not generally aware of it, though. that kind of "no really, i'm not a member of group X, i'm just me" attitude is typically the product of relative privilege. straight white males aren't denied anything on the basis of who you they to be (or not much, anyway), so they don't really have to think about it.

i don't mean that as a slam, but it's something i try to keep in mind as a straight white male: the fact that my attitudes, tastes and values are probably reflective products of my privilege in ways i'll never be able to see. that awareness makes "mere personal taste" not so mere, especially to the extent that straight white males still tend to dominate the critical discourse.

very few people need to hear music made by someone exactly like them in order for it to be resonant.

the implication of this being true is of course that the question "where are all the women" is even more necessary to ask because it can't, in actual fact, be batted away with nonsense demographic explanations

also i think a part of this is Album lists versus Tracks/Singles. Album lists have always skewed more white/male/rockist I think.

Yeah, I think this is a big factor. Unravelling why is a big task though.

edit to my last post:

"straight white males aren't denied anything on the basis of who you they seem to be(or not much, anyway)..."

pro tip from someone who is privileged in some ways and not privileged in others, saying "but i'm not that privileged" or "but i don't actively think about my privilege" is about the most wrong response to the subject possible

SWM's make music that fits into the aesthetics and signifiers and understandings of what makes 'good albums' because they're more able to, because of privilege?

very few people need to hear music made by someone exactly like them in order for it to be resonant.

OTM. Much of what I listen to is by Austro-German dudes from the 18th century.

― EveningStar (Sund4r), Monday, August 20, 2012 5:30 PM (6 minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

If "relating to me" means it is similar to aesthetics of music or themes in my life that helped make me who I am and that resonates with me than I come from somewhere similar as the artist.

What makes 'good albums' in the minds of mainly SWM critics, I should say.

Reference points, maybe? For however many decades music critics were essentially creating the canon were men, and as such privileged male music? Also I think the economics of the durability of the album over the single played a role.

SWM's make music that fits into the aesthetics and signifiers and understandings of what makes 'good albums' because they're more able to, because of privilege?

not exactly:

if SWMs share a culture in common (or cultures in common, or w/e), and
if our sense of artistic value is in part dependent on our cultural conditioning...

then yes, it seems likely that SWMs making music will have an advantage when it comes to producing the sort of work that other SWMs will find value in.

to the extent that SWMs dominate the critical discourse, this becomes a real problem.

btw i've known several women who listen almost exclusively to music made by men, and i imagine there are a lot of people like that out there, where do they fall on the finger wagging continuum?

individual exceptions do not disprove the general principle

if they drown, we know they were actually women

No context needed

i feel like someone made a witch-drowning joke already on this thread somewhere but jesus this thing's gotten long

is the general principle that people mostly listen to musicians of the same race/gender? because i'm not sure that's true with respect to female listeners, is what i'm saying. (xpost)

help we're stuck in my mid nineties graduate symposium on gender studies

is the general principle that people mostly listen to musicians of the same race/gender?

no

Yeah I mean, there are black people in Dave Matthews Band

and white people in Animal Collective iirc

I haven't caught AC on BET recently

Maze ft. Avey Tare

Maroon 5 ft. Wiz Khalifa

The process is slow but I feel like all parts of the industry have a "better" ratio of women involved in higher ranking positions every year. Of course they're still subjected to incredible institutionalised sexism but even that is being slowly corroded. I would say that when I started working in the industry (Working in the actual "industry" part of music, not just putting on hardcore shows in basements) it was 90% male aside from assistants and publicists and that's probably closer to 70-75% now. Still far from perfect but an improvement of note in the last 10 years. I'm not sure how long that'll take to be filtered into the world of criticism but taking Pitchfork as an example, they've brought at least 3 female writers closer into the core staff that I've noticed in the past year (Laura Snapes, Jenn Pelly, Lindsay Zoladz). I think that's noticably improved the critical balance there. For instance, I think their take on Grimes is radically different to the average mid 30s swm journalist.
Anyway, not shilling for p4k but just thought I'd bring a little light to the end of the debate tunnel.

I don't think it's necessarily as simple as "music made by gender-race is more relatable or palatable to people in that group". For example, look at the rap-ification that's spread from Village Voice/NYT/Pitchfork/Stereogum/Grantland — very little of the loudest voices (to me) were black men pushing Clipse, Wayne, Kanye, etc. And hey, I'm not a black man and I write mostly about rap music. But what I'm saying is that there are definite cultural-artificial trends perpetuated by people who get to make those trends.

Cf, Sickmouthy's off-hand comment about women not getting free-standing criticism or the much-cited VIDA stats (http://www.vidaweb.org/the-count-2010).

I honestly think from an outside perspective that Pitchfork has made a concerted effort to hire more women and people of color, and that their work has improved as a whole because of it.

I thought, since I came to this thread via Southall's blog post about it, that this is what the conversation here was supposed to be about. And from my perspective, the way virtually everything gets framed in the media is driven by a consistently SWM (as it's put here) perspective. I mean, just to repeat a point from above, white guitar rock isn't even that popular, but it's still hanging onto the catbird seat in some editorial spheres. It seems like these are facts. The sort of angry reaction that reads like "oh I guess straight white guys just don't have a lane" — not the problem itself, which I think is getting worked on — is what's sort of execrable to me.

I was hoping people would rag on my list but it didn't last very long. I only was called racist once :(

As I said above, people are less likely to focus on listening to music "like them" than on listening to stuff they can talk about with people "like them:"

apologies for the late 90s gender symposium thing, but...

i would say that the general principle is that we are all the products of our acculturation, and we express our acculturation in our preferences. while individuals of course vary, the aggregate expression of a society's preferences tends to be reflective of its dominant culture, and this aggregate expression is fed back into all of that society's cultures in a self-perpetuating loop. the mechanics of this are no mystery. if a society's underlying "rules" of artistic quality were written ages ago by a bunch of straight white men in order to canonize another bunch of straight white men, and if straight white men continue to dominate the discourse, then it's likely that the discourse is colored by that. this will be true even if the straight white men in question are "trying to be good about it."

Not sure whether this has much to do with the current discussion, but I thought I'd leave this article here in case it's interesting to y'all.

http://thequietus.com/articles/09465-rainbow-ambiguity

Maybe it's a case that demographics that aren't SWM are marketed towards in a pandering, condescending or simply one-track way? As someone mentioned upthread, female artists are often compared to only a handful of standbys. Afro-American music often struggles to be labelled as anything other than rap or r'n'b. And music by gay artists is yet another very tricky subject - i.e. if an artist is gay, it is more often than not turned into a big deal (and by extension presented in a particular way) even if the lyrical matter does not deal with gay topics.

As I said above, people are less likely to focus on listening to music "like them" than on listening to stuff they can talk about with people "like them:"

― Tim F, Monday, August 20, 2012 5:59 PM (59 seconds ago) Bookmark

that's true-ish but i wonder how much most people (outside of ilx, anyway) place any kind of value on what music they can talk about with the people around them. i sometimes feel like people here get a very skewed idea sometimes of what i listen to because i actively discuss only a relatively small amount of what i'm listening to, while not letting the lack of ilx interest in talking about the other stuff stop me from enjoying it.

ie. I think it's more important for people to expand the range of their conversations about music than the range of stuff they listen to. One reason why ilx is perennially great.