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

it's not like there's some jaw dropping omission

LOL

oh c'mon Brighten The Corners just didn't place in the top 200

ok, like I said, I don't know how they fit into the pitchfork canon. Pavement just seems like the kind of band that's beloved by the same people who like Neutral Milk Hotel or whoever.

they really easily could've sat down and figured out maybe 50 albums not in their database that were mostly likely to be voted for and added them, though. especially for that pitifully spare and narrow 96-99 set of recommendations.

― some dude, Wednesday, August 22, 2012 6:57 PM (1 minute ago) Bookmark

right. but then that opens the door for "why did you add this but not this, that, that one and the other one?" -- better just to not even start that conversation imo

Pavement's first 3 albums account for like 95% of their legacy

yeah - i mean i guess its possible that its easier for readers of a mainly indie site to reach a broader consensus on indie records than on rap or rnb or metal or dance records and that lots of individual ballots have all sorts of diverse selections even as homogeneous as the final results are...

why? it's a canon they consciously created.

i guess my impression was that the site has put a fair bit of effort in broadening its scope and its cannon and these results seem to suggest its mostly been in vain? like i guess im just stupid or w/e but i expected a couple of jay-z albums, 'life after death', at least one missy album maybe 'love vs. money' too all place higher than a mediocre jens lenkman album. im not sure the list would be all that much better if it had those records on it but itd be more in keeping w/ my idea of what p4k is 'about'

it's not like there's some jaw dropping omission

LOL

― lex pretend, Wednesday, August 22, 2012 6:58 PM (1 minute ago) Bookmark

oh stop it, lex. clearly i mean "there's no jaw dropping omission of a non-database album going by the type of album you would expect to place in this list"

going by the type of album you would expect to place in this list

well if we're going by what we expected, no, there's nothing amiss with this list at all!

Pavement's first 3 albums account for like 95% of their legacy

― some dude, Wednesday, August 22, 2012 6:59 PM (2 minutes ago) Bookmark

or, as this poll indicates, 84%: Best Pavement/Malkmus album

right, that's my point.

xp

Pavement's first 3 albums account for like 95% of their legacy

ah, makes sense. I didn't think about them missing the date cutoff.

ship, I'm impressed: you haven't left this thread for more than few minutes in, like, nine hours.

i'm still frustrated by the distinction index business.

it might indicate the percentage by which it is more likely that a vote for this album came from the group in question, relative to albums as a whole. so if 88% of all votes came from men, then ween's 88% maleness distinction means that roughly 99% of ween votes came from men.

From a comment on Wei$b@rd's FB wall:

I'll say this and bounce, not because I don't want to contribute to the conversation but because I have work to do this afternoon. There is nothing wrong per se with an institution like Pitchfork having an admitted focus on all things indie rock. That's what they do, and they've cornered that market with savvy business practices. The problem begins when "indie rock" is mistakenly conflated, implicitly or explicitly, with the interlocking concepts "white" "male" and "hipster." For one, that conflation denies the rich, promiscuous and porous history of indie rock and the complex racial and gender dynamics that have always informed the makings and reception of the music. (Daphne Brooks among others has done a superb job of disturbing those denials). It also dehistoricizes, decontextualizes and depoliticizes the complex and often insidious race-class-gender-sexuality history of hipsterism itself (well documented by John Leland, among others). It also privileges a discrete strain of straight white male hipsterism as monoculture. It then assumes that music made/produced by people of color and by women (and women of color) and gays etc. is either of little value, or only of value the closer in proximity it gets to that monoculture, i.e. when it serves to affirm or privileged the values and experiences and ideals of that elitist monoculture. Hence Pitchfork's continued reaffirmation of a select authorized number of artists of color/women like Kanye West, Jay-Z, Janelle Monae etc. at the expense of the oceanic expanse of diverse independent music to which it shutters its doors. So, even though it's made slight improvements in recent years, it remains a hermetically sealed culture, constantly keeping difference at bay, even as it pretends to be universal and democratic in its scope (i.e. The People's List). There are many problems with these exclusionary practices, including that Pitchfork's broadcasted elitism tied to their status within the industry has done a lot to (re-)segregate popular music at a time in the late 90s and into the 2000s and 2010s when actual real lived listening practices were likely a lot more cosmopolitan, promiscuous and diverse. As a teacher, I've seen first hand the way those exclusionary practices seem to have played a role in producing a much-less informed audience for popular music, one incapable of realizing you're not going to get far writing about Vampire Weekend if you know zilch about South African music. You get Jeff Buckley papers and zero knowledge on NIna Simone. You get Frank Ocean and no Rahsaan Patterson. Nothing wrong with having an indie rock focused publication, but indie rock doesn't exist in a cultural vaccuum outside R&B, hip-hop, blues, gospel, jazz, outside of issues relating to women and gender politics, gays and sexuality etc. And on and on. If Pitchfork wants to relish in its elitism, it should stop calling itself the rather benign "an essential guide to independent music" and call it explicitly what it is: a guide for "white straight male hipster rockers." Then there'd be no question

have never even heard of Rahsaan Patterson brb

Kids Incorporated, Shakes.

a show I never watched

As a teacher, I've seen first hand the way those exclusionary practices seem to have played a role in producing a much-less informed audience for popular music, one incapable of realizing you're not going to get far writing about Vampire Weekend if you know zilch about South African music. You get Jeff Buckley papers and zero knowledge on NIna Simone. You get Frank Ocean and no Rahsaan Patterson.

Were earlier audiences for popular music more informed?

that criticism is all well and good, but this shipley post sticks to it like glue

yeah i hate pulling the "well, who's doing this better than Pitchfork?" thing, but at a certain point your realize that its main competition in a lot of these arguments is some idealized publication that exists only in the head of the person making the argument (xpost)

― some dude, Wednesday, August 22, 2012 6:21 PM (51 minutes ago) Bookmark

we got that Rahsaan Patterson album in my college newspaper newsroom! It sat around for a while but never got reviewed :(

you're not going to get far writing about Rahsaan Patterson if you know zilch about Kids Incorporated.

actually Matos' remark is my favorite (and most otm):

I voted. All but maybe 10 of my 60-or-so albums were picked off the picture list, because THAT'S HOW THE POLL WAS DESIGNED and I knew I'd be wasting my time by spending a lot of real time on it. The entire final 200 came from that list. It's not surprising at all. In short, Pitchfork won by pretending to democracy while pushing its own agenda. As long as everyone is aware that Pitchfork isn't the world, I don't have a real issue with it, honestly.

kinda weirded out by how closely he resembles a drug dealer I used to live with who burned down our house

xp

this kid won't burn your house

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZfnSqImgAcc

granted I had moved out by then but ... I've said too much

but he WILL set it on fire

lol

that piece was great, alfred. thanks

It's great but tangential to the reality, which is "I'm gonna click on album fotos."

I guess that comment brings up the issue that Pitchfork gives >90% of its coverage to new music; older releases only appear as reissues or in occasional best-of-decade lists. Not sure that this has any effect across race/gender/genre lines but it's another case of Pitchfork portraying the part as the whole.

ship, I'm impressed: you haven't left this thread for more than few minutes in, like, nine hours.

― a regina spektor is haunting europe (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Wednesday, August 22, 2012 7:05 PM (15 minutes ago) Bookmark

of course you say that right after i go off for a bit to give the kid a bath! i'd been home working on some deadlines all day, ilx being my break time habit/procrastination tool

The distinction index list for USA in general is rather interesting, only for the fact that it's probably one of the few times that Third Eye Blind or Sublime will ever be mentioned on the site:

1.94.93% My Morning Jacket Okonokos
2.93.25% Dr. Dog Fate
3.93.21% The Avett Brothers Emotionalism
4.92.9% Ted Leo and the Pharmacists Shake the Sheets
5.92.9% Beulah The Coast is Never Clear
6.91.17% Third Eye Blind Third Eye Blind
7.90.91% Sublime Sublime
8.90.88% Ted Leo and the Pharmacists Hearts of Oak
9.90.81% Dr. Dog Shame, Shame
10.90.78% Matt & Kim Grand
11.90.72% Hum Downward Is Heavenward
12.90.32% Dr. Dog We All Belong
13.90.03% Ted Leo and the Pharmacists The Tyranny of Distance
14.89.64% Ra Ra Riot The Rhumb Line
15.88.96% Fountains of Wayne Welcome Interstate Managers
16.88.56% Enon Believo!
17.88.12% Lucinda Williams Car Wheels On a Gravel Road
18.88.04% Crooked Fingers Crooked Fingers
19.87.85% Minus the Bear Highly Refined Pirates
20.87.54% Minus the Bear Menos el Oso

I've never heard of half these artists. What's a Dr. Dog?

I guess that comment brings up the issue that Pitchfork gives >90% of its coverage to new music; older releases only appear as reissues or in occasional best-of-decade lists. Not sure that this has any effect across race/gender/genre lines but it's another case of Pitchfork portraying the part as the whole.

― Cong rat ululations (seandalai), Wednesday, August 22, 2012 7:22 PM (1 minute ago) Bookmark

well, all every music publication gives >90% of its coverage to new music. pitchfork has just been around for a shorter period of time than all of them, so they're working from a narrower field in something like this

That's probably true for websites but print mags often devote significant space to articles about older artists or genre overviews.

I originally thought they should have restricted the list to their first decade. That way voters would have the benefit of 6 years of distance from the newest albums they would be voting on, and it wouldn't skew too heavily toward recent albums that won't age well. But looking at the results, I think that would have made the list an order of magnitude more boring, if that's even possible.

It's great but tangential to the reality, which is "I'm gonna click on album fotos."

oh yeah, sure. and it supposes that pitchfork has a moral obligation to aggressively challenge the concept of indie that exists its readers' minds, which i don't know about. as others have pointed out, these results are much narrower than pitchfork's coverage, but they pretty clearly define their readership's tastes. i expect that however much pitchfork tries to push at the boundaries, their readers will keep them pulled in pretty close to radiohead/anco/the national/arcade fire/kanye/wilco - and perhaps only really pay attention to that kind of stuff anyway. not that they can't make some difference...

Rahsaan Patterson has released five good-to-great albums.

He also co-wrote Brandy's "Baby"

what does one have to know about rashaan patterson in order to write meaningfully about frank ocean?

Yeah Andy K but you work for the AMG and didn't license the database for Pitchfork, you evil man.

I think Nick Hornby is a Dr. Dog fan, fwiw.

Oh yes:

Voice is as hard to come by in music as it is in writing, and though Dr Dog sound a little like the Band singing the Beatles, they manage to wear their influences with distinction. Actually, that’s not right: they don’t just put them on like that. They unravel them and, like, knit something new with the threads. And anyway, it’s not as if the Band and the Beatles are easy to rip off. This is is one of the loveliest new songs of the year.

They sound like cool guys: In addition, each band member has a nickname, and they have explained that friends of the band also receive nicknames, which are drawn from aspects of their lives and personalities (Former member Andrew "Trial" Jones, for example, is a licensed attorney).

also another pedantic point on this matter, PF could've put all the albums from their decade lists in there too -- i had to write in Smart Went Crazy's Con Art even though there was a review of it when it was new (which was then deleted i guess because it was much shorter than their reviews became later, but wasn't embarrassing like the Pavement one or anything), and it was on their first '90s albums list in '99.

what does one have to know about rashaan patterson in order to write meaningfully about frank ocean?

that he's gay, presumably

I understand being mad at this list because it omits non-white/non-indie music, but even as a list of white indie rock it is hugely boring.

I still think that they could've rigged it so that the first time someone wrote in an album, it would subsequently appear in the database for others to find. The main problem with that, I guess, is typos and misspellings. But I'm curious how that was dealt with for write-in ballots in general. Was there some sort of normalizing system to ensure that votes for "Brihgten the Corners" were counted alongside "Brighten the Corners"?

I would assume they did as little work as possible on that kind of thing; if you don't expect write-ins to place, why bother coding some complicated spelling corrector?

follow-up to the post that alfred posted. from facebook. in response to matos:

‎MM - some of my students may be the perfect Pitchfork demo, indeed. But its reach and scope go far, far beyond hipster Brooklyn. It's easy to recycle a world-weary response to anti-democratic + exclusionary practices ("peo
ple are still talking about sexism?" "of course the tea party is racist" duh etc) but activist work - and we all have to be activists because this is our shared culture - requires a continually renewed sense of purpose in the face of threat. As long as the threat exists, the need to respond exists. Beyond just being a benign bad idea, the malignant threat here is that through devices like its People's List, Pitchfork wants to reproduce an imaginary and elitist world in which indie rock exists in a vacuum and women, blacks, Latinos, gays, etc. - who have just as much or more at stake in the rock game as everyone else- are expected move to the back of the bus if they are deemed to exist at all. And that is something that every journalist, no matter what your particular bag is, should get riled up about. Haven't read XXL in quite some time, but to my knowledge it's very specifically a hip-hop magazine and they don't purport to be the People's anything nor are they billing themselves as anything so wide-ranging as an essential guide to independent music. Independent music is a much bigger ocean with more diverse species in it than the fishbowl Pitchfork is presenting.

posting that cuz the post that alfred put on here and the follow-up at least thoughtful and honest responses and not just pitchfork is lame where is the pop and rap and blah blah same old.

Here's a question: how do Radiohead NOT project "queerness" in its broadest definition -- creating a space, however insular, in which private longings, lost battles, and retreat are as iconoclastic?