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

I'm not any sort of Radiohead fan but that is otm

But this is where I say, there are fans of Radiohead, and then there are Radiohead fans. That the RH fanatics I know (you Mel, Turangalila, a couple of other people I talk to on twitter) who have really rich, varied tastes - that in some cases, RH themselves have led them towards - and then there are people who just go to them because they are the default listening material for the middle class straight white male. And one of these groups is a subset of the other, but the larger group has shouted down the smaller.

I also wanna just repost this thing that Alfred found and posted above, because I want to re-read it and digest it.

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

I feel like I agree with this, but I need to read it a few more times to make sure that it's not just chiming with mine own truthiness.

I feel like I'm having the same conversation with you, with Owen, with a couple of other people, and want to say "YES, people are using these artists symbolically, we are not actually saying that Radiohead or Arcade Fire are ~terrible people~."

I'm not denying that those people exist, though. I just don't think it's particularly cool to imply that to love them, you must inherently lack a sense of musical adventurousness (I also have an issue with the fact that a lot of people do tend to imply that if a big Radiohead fan's taste goes beyond standard indie rock, then it must be because they're aping the band's taste. Not accusing you of that, but it's something I've been accused of before and it bothers me a lot, especially because the vast majority of the time I get that accusation over music that as far as I know, RH have literally never mentioned [and I don't rate a lot of the stuff that they do recommend or mention]. But it's just assumed that because I am a Girl and I am a Fan that my taste cannot be valid or my own, especially when it is Adventurous). x-post

so basically the moral of the story is that people have pretty fucking awful taste

I just don't think it's particularly productive to use individual musicians/bands as symbols? It doesn't really get to the heart of the problem, which is the homogeneity of the list. And it's always just going to be a distraction to anyone who likes whatever musician/band was selected to symbolize the entire list. I mean, I don't think the answer to what's wrong with the list is to get listeners to focus on who to exclude, but who to include. It just shifts the focus in a way that I am uncomfortable with, even when it comes to bands that I don't myself like. x-post

Ha ha, yeah, I *totally* know that accusation, I have heard it many times before, and resist it with all my might.

What can you say to that, except "haha, I was into ArtistX *way* before Thom was..." but at the same time, I can't deny that they have turned me onto some great stuff. Not because I am a girl who is incapable of thinking for myself and want to be him or impress him, but because he's another person on the shortlist of people who have a good ear for stuff I might like. But, y'know, "DJP, Mel W, Matt DC, The Lex, Thom Yorke" <- which one of these is not like the other ones?

x-post to the thing about taste. And OK, yeah, I agree with you about not using bands as symbols. I try not to do it, but I understand why people do.

It's a pyramid scheme.

People (musicians or listeners) start at a fulcrum point, then cascade down into different directions.

e.g. "Velvet Underground" begat Nurse With Wound and TG as well as every chugachuga indie band...

(Actually, one step up: The Christopher Isherwood "berlin" scene begat the Velvets and manhatTransfer)

Whereas I remember an interview with "The Enemy" where the singer was saying the only band that all the members liked was Oasis, which actually did the opposite of what he intended, that suggested a certain uniformity of outlook as opposed to a sprawl in all directions musical..

From playing in a band of three people with only vaguely overlapping tastes I can confirm you will end up with a certain homogeneity or "happy medium" in the style you play and that something that maybe one member is absolutely enthralled with will get vetoed by the others. I'm reminded of an article about the kind of music people start listening to when co-habiting as a couple and how middle-of-the-road it can become simply through trying to find that middle ground.

can't find the article, sadly

"Well, Prince, so Genoa and Lucca are now just family estates of the Buonapartes. But I warn you, if you don't tell me that this means war, if you still try to defend the infamies and horrors perpetrated by that Antichrist—I really believe he is Antichrist—I will have nothing more to do with you and you are no longer my friend, no longer my 'faithful slave,' as you call yourself! But how do you do? I see I have frightened you—sit down and tell me all the news."

OTM

But, y'know, "DJP, Mel W, Matt DC, The Lex, Thom Yorke" <- which one of these is not like the other ones?

The Lex, because he hates Radiohead?

Lex doesn't actually hate Radiohead. He hates ~~~RADIOHEAD ZOMG THE BEST BAND IN THE WORLD ZOMG WHITEMANANGSTZOMG!!!!!11~~~~

The correct answer is Mel W, and my list is illegitimate because only has 20% female content.

Lex doesn't actually hate Radiohead. He hates ~~~RADIOHEAD ZOMG THE BEST BAND IN THE WORLD ZOMG WHITEMANANGSTZOMG!!!!!11~~~~

From what I can tell, in 2003 he didn't hate Radiohead; he thought they were somewhat tolerable/listenable, even as he disliked the cult surrounding them.

But that soon curdled:

god i hate radiohead so much

― lex pretend, Wednesday, October 22, 2008 4:19 PM (3 years ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

fuck radiohead and their entire dreadful career for real

so much hate

― لوووووووووووووووووووول (lex pretend), Tuesday, July 13, 2010 2:11 PM (2 years ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

fuck radiohead fuck radiohead fuck radiohead forever

― lex pretend, Saturday, May 14, 2011 3:18 AM (1 year ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

Well I'm going on a rather drunken admission in a pub within the last 6 months rather than how people perform their music fandom on the interweb. ;-)

hey that admission in the pub was about one (1) song! maybe even just a particular moment in that song. i pretty much hate the works of radiohead other than that

No, we were specifically talking about Thom Yorke's voice!

In which case, I guess not hating Thom Yorke's voice is not the same as not hating Radiohead. My apologies.

(But it will forever be my "Lex doesn't hate Radiohead" moment, in my head. ha ha ha hahahaha)

no I definitely hate what he does with his voice 99% of the time, it's just that one time he actually sang DEEP

If it's the song I'm thinking of, Yorke's vocal performance is kind of different to anything else he's attempted (and he should totally do it more). But that goes for most 00s male indie singers - you have a lower register, USE IT, stop trying to strain for notes you were never intended to reach.

Yorke is far from the worst offender in this regard.

He sings DEEP at least 33% of the time! Granted, not on most of the songs that people think of when they think of him.

(Now we should probably stop this or I will be forced to make you a "Thom Yorke's most sultry deep moments" mixtape which we both know would be a bad idea.)

Which song?

i was hoping people would guess

oh my actual favourite radiohead moment = the opening bar of "everything in its right place", those descending electric piano chords. but then the rest of it happens and it is just abysmal

I have to assume not "Creep".

more artists should sing DEEP so I could do their songs at karaoke

also I'm assuming the song Lex liked was "Myxomatosis"

It was The Amazing Sound of Orgy actually.

you have a lower register, USE IT, stop trying to strain for notes you were never intended to reach.

I always think that Thom sounds kind of unnatural and strained when he tries to sing too low, like when he was trying to imitate Bryan Ferry on the Velvet Goldmine soundtrack. It sounds painful. His falsetto still sounds fairly effortless, on the other hand.

(I actually really like a lot of that stuff. But then again, I've oft stated that I like when his voice warps or breaks because it makes him sound vulnerable and rowr.)

((Let us now stop letting discourse on actual Radiohead stop cluttering up the discourse on hating on Radiohead loving Pitchfork readers.))

Interesting that it's The Amazing Sounds of Orgy, because that's double-tracked with every line sung in his lower register and falsetto simultaneously.

lexyomatosis

That was a joke. It was not actually that song. It was just I was hoping that the idea of Lex listening to anything involving Thom and orgies would provoke outraged "ew, gross" from him. ;-)

I want the real reveal, then.

I was guessing 'Lucky'.

you have a lower register, USE IT, stop trying to strain for notes you were never intended to reach.

― Matt DC, Thursday, 23 August 2012 14:31 (25 minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

This is actually crazy.

well no, it's not crazy if you can't actually reach them

i was guessing "Exit Music For A Film" - def the lowest register I can think of?

I'm referring to people like Wayne Coyne really, Yorke can hit high notes, it's the squealy mid-range he's not great at.

Ugh Wayne Coyne. Yeah, I'll agree on that.

Haha I'm not going to tell unless Lex reveals. It was on OK Computer though. Let's have a poll! What OKC track does Lex not hate?

Also, ugh Wayne Coyne cosign.

"No Surprises", duh

xxposts DJP - yeah, but everyone has a natural register, right? Mine is naturally quite high and I'm pretty crap at doing low registers unless it's first thing in the morning. Asking singers to use their lower register if they're more comfortable with tenor or falsetto makes no sense.

Wayne Coyne just sounds a bit like Neil Young to me.

Neil Young can actually sing though, he just has a weird voice. Coyne is a bad Neil Young imitator who can't hit notes at all, in a way that's actually painful.

perhaps it doesn't make sense because you are misreading Matt's post, which said that people with a lower register who don't have high notes should stop straining to hit high notes all the time and sing in the register where they sound good?

Oh man, I cannot stand Neil Young. Which means Thom and I can never ~be together~ because that's his voice idol, I know.

;_;