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

Did someone ask for a portrait of Jesus?

http://25.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m89splkWNs1r3dthwo1_1280.jpg

http://ichef.bbci.co.uk/news/445/media/images/62428000/gif/_62428391_frescopic.gif

that Slate piece makes a few statements that are offbase but in general it's pretty spot-on imho

slate really is amazing

Pitchyorke.

last paragraph is solid tho

yassss that slate piece

esp the bit about it being a NICHE PUBLICATION

lead picture is solid too

yeah. my quibbles are with the stuff about co-ed bands and the pop aside already mentioned but still

xp

pitchfork is not a niche publication

(the co-ed thing has always confused me - what percentage of women need to be in a band before they count as women? 51% what if a woman writes most of the material and is the clear leader or co-leader of the band like the Cramps or Stereolab? etc)

xp

You start with:

http://www.slate.com/content/dam/slate/blogs/browbeat/2012/08/22/pitchfork_s_people_s_list_is_almost_exclusively_white_and_male_this_is_a_scandal_/117244894.jpg.CROP.article568-large.jpg

and you end with:

I’m referring to the list’s gender breakdown. If I’m not mistaken, there are just 23 records by women artists in the top 200, and only two in the top 50. And that’s a generous count, making room for co-ed acts like The xx, Beach House, and Portishead. Again, we can look to the self-selecting voting base. According to Pitchfork’s own stats, 88% of the poll respondents were men. “The Dudes’ List” might have been a more accurate title.

And that just gets one giant fist-pump from me.

the people's list putting lame indie dudes on blast is cool tho -- stereogum does this every year (or day) tho

Slate really couldn't have found a less flattering photo of Willie Nelson

pitchfork is not a niche publication

c'mon dude

the audience is pretty niche (as shown here) -- publication is not tho

tbf WCC I find the ubiquity of RH in the list roughly as offensive as the ubiquity of other whiny white indie guy albums (some of which I like/love but come the fuck on broaden your horizons people!)

Still—what the hell is wrong with these dudes? Did it escape their attention that for much of the past decade and a half, female artists have had a stranglehold on the popular music zeitgeist?

I think on the one hand this is dumb as shit. Presumably a lot of people are into indie and pitchfork specifically as a way to escape the popular music zeitgeist. On the other hand I think he left an unexplored question dangling there. To what degree have dudes escaped into indie beacause it's the kind of boys club that WCC discussed upthread?

Man, I am like number one Captain Save-A-Yorke on this board, and even I think that the Radiohead content of that list is ridiculous.

(Thom Yorke is still hott, though, and I still like looking at pictures of him.)

x-post

tbf what music publication isn't a niche publication

^^true

pitchfork is not a niche publication

c'mon dude

i think its a lot less parochial than its audience

The fact that Pitchfork is regarded in certain influential circles as something other than a niche publication—the fact that indie rock gets coverage in the high-middlebrow press way out of proportion to its popularity and cultural impact—says more about the tastes and prejudices of the pundit class than it does about Pitchfork, per se.

shoes just sponsor best of lists, sneakers write them

― Lamp, Wednesday, August 22, 2012 4:20 PM (52 minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

thanking u

i think its a lot less parochial than its audience

absolutely!

I think on the one hand this is dumb as shit. Presumably a lot of people are into indie and pitchfork specifically as a way to escape the popular music zeitgeist.

I've thought about this too but I wonder how much Popular Music most people who care about music actually get exposed to! The days of relying on saturation radio play are over; you have so much competition. The average twentysomething's exposure to popular music is at college football games and "Call Me Maybe" played in student union buildings.

pitchfork attempts a broad view, but remains pretty indie, pretty niche at heart, imo. this only makes sense, allows it to court new readers without alienating its core audience.

I've thought about this too but I wonder how much Popular Music most people who care about music actually get exposed to! The days of relying on saturation radio play are over; you have so much competition. The average twentysomething's exposure to popular music is at college football games and "Call Me Maybe" played in student union buildings.

well they roughly know what it's about and could easily seek it out if they were interested. I mean the obvious answer to "Did it escape their attention that for much of the past decade and a half, female artists have had a stranglehold on the popular music zeitgeist?" is no, of course not. They want to hear dudes with guitars, so the "popular music zeitgeist" has nothing for them anymore.

look, pitchfork isn't the singles jukebox. and it has wide gaps in coverage, sure. but there isn't a publication -- certainly not one on its level -- that covers as wide a breadth of music as in-depth. stylus beat it, back in the day. but it also had like 1/100th the audience. new spin is close-ish.

Some of the reaction of course is reflexive teenage "ew it's popular so it sucks" attitude.

maybe the guardian, idk

but there isn't a publication -- certainly not one on its level -- that covers as wide a breadth of music as in-depth.

this doesn't necessarily make it not niche. it makes it wide-ranging in its coverage. despite the breadth of coverage, its values, style, focus and audience remain pretty closely associated w indie music & culture.

Comparatively, Pitchfork does have a broad view compared to stalwarts like Spin and RS, though they still have pop and country and r&b blind spots (and a couple of those a coming into view slowly, though I don't think we'll ever see Pitchfork cover a country release that No Depression wouldn't have also covered if they still existed). It's the readers, both old and young, who tend to ignore the day-to-day content and just listen to records they recognize or have heard about from friends or from the "hot & new" section of the record shop.

i mean, a core part of indie's identity (or imagined identity) is "the informed sophisticate's" general interest in arts & culture.

they also drink lattes and abort babies

gotta give jody rosen's ballot some credit for walking the walk more than almost anybody talking the talk about the list's makeup

Pfork may have a broad view in terms of their reviews but when it comes time to do their BEST OF lists it's always the same indie shit. plus Kanye.

not actually true but whatever but argh let's talk about pitchfork some more

does anyone have any stories about actual pitchforks they would like to share

If Chris Ott is to be believed, Pitchfork's official lists are highly tailored to reflect the brand.

I dunno, I admire Pitchfork for what they do day to day, but I also hate all the conniving that goes into their listmaking, the stupid festivals, the news section, etc.

do u?

i think u hate ~urself~

older rock crits on my facebook HATED this thing. man. like serious hate. the results of this thing. they are not down with the fork at all. the list looked pretty much exactly like i thought it would. so, no hate from me. i knew what to expect.

lots of xps!

The Top 40 scarcely registers a blip in this world. Hip-hop—and for that matter, Afro-America—is represented mainly by Kanye West. (Kanye contains multitudes, but c’mon.) Country music doesn’t exist. Metal doesn’t exist. Reggaeton, bachata, salsa? ¿Cómo? The world outside the United States—it’s barely there.

Bit harsh, literally no publication anywhere covers all this. Pitchfork fulfills its mission reasonably well in terms of genre coverage, if it's somehow made out to be the dominant player in the ecosystem that's more the ecosystem's fault than Pitchfork's imo.

I dunno, I admire Pitchfork for what they do day to day, but I also hate all the conniving that goes into their listmaking, the stupid festivals, the news section, etc.

yeah this is how I feel too

I mean the obvious answer to "Did it escape their attention that for much of the past decade and a half, female artists have had a stranglehold on the popular music zeitgeist?" is no, of course not. They want to hear dudes with guitars, so the "popular music zeitgeist" has nothing for them anymore.

That's kind of my problem with Can they really prefer The National to M.I.A.’s Kala, to Bjork’s Homogenic, to Joanna Newsom’s Ys? I prefer Homogenic and Kala to the National (I haven't listened to Ys and not in a rush), but like, are you actually going to argue that people who REALLY LIKE THE NATIONAL are going to get what they're looking for from Bjork/MIA/Missy?

Also noteworthy that both the women who bothered to vote and the men are guitar-centric

Can they really prefer The National to M.I.A.’s Kala, to Bjork’s Homogenic, to Joanna Newsom’s Ys

if you wouldn't prefer to not listen to music ...

It's almost as if... women who have learned to function in a SWM-centred world have taken on the SWM aesthetic values that are promoted there! Uncanny!

indie rock fans REALLY like indie rock. like, a lot.