pitchfork is dumb (#34985859340293849494 in a series.)

like "got good reviews, landed on a few year-end lists, toured slightly bigger venues, and that’s it." That's bang on about most if not all of the successive albums no?

Thousands of bands would kill for Wilco's loyal live followings, they can do midsized amphitheaters from now til the end of time

What if Wilco had been in the WTC that day? Makes you think...

Pitchfork is so embarrasing, including its "indie" phase.

I’m so embarrassing, including my indie phase

(now byline-free)

lol

Huh, I remember Brent Sirota writing a bunch of Pitchfork reviews, and now I can find only one still attributed to him. He's a history professor now, so maybe he wanted to disconnect himself from this early non-academic writing.

Actually, it looks like his byline appears on album review thumbnails on artist pages (like the one I linked, as well as on Wilco's) -- just not on the reviews themselves.

His name is on the YFH review
https://pitchfork.com/reviews/albums/8676-yankee-hotel-foxtrot/amp/

His name is on the YFH review
https://pitchfork.com/reviews/albums/8676-yankee-hotel-foxtrot/amp/

Once more with feeling.

Huh, it does show up when the page is viewed via that AMP link (and yes, the bylines do seem to be on the Reviews page thumbnails)

I tried another example – the byline and publication date don’t show up when I click into the review via searching the website, but they do show up when the exact same URL is retrieved in a Google search (and it’s not an AMP link this time):

https://pitchfork.com/reviews/albums/7429-girls-can-tell/

It must be some specific issue with my phone’s browser?

(FWIW, the version of the page where the byline doesn’t show up has a floating Pitchfork header that scrolls with the page; whereas the version that includes the byline just has a static header)

(sorry, I know this doesn’t matter, it’s just weird)

Oh wait, the second (Googled) url is an AMP:

https://pitchfork.com/reviews/albums/7429-girls-can-tell/amp/

https://m.media-amazon.com/images/I/3171K369FGL.jpg

The Nona Hendryx review is really great, as is the album, but

Black women had played rock’n’roll since its birth by Big Mama Thornton in 1952

BMT inventing r'n'r is a new one on me

Don’t you know? Big Mama Thornton is the most important artist in rock ‘n’ roll history. All others are but mere pretenders to Her throne.

If you make that claim, you might as well credit Leiber and Stoller, too, which complicates that particular narrative

Also the fact that rock and roll already existed

Or at least, if one would argue it hadn't yet (and boy don't these things get argued), what makes Big Mama Thornton the point where it begins and not similar enough records which already existed? etc etc

what if there were a world where WW2 didn't happen AND big mama thornton never learned to play guitar as a result?

i'm just glad that WW2 happened and big mama thornton DID play guitar

Frankly, when it comes to Nona Hendryx I agree with Christgau(!): Every time I listen to one of her solo records I want it to be great, but it's just...not. Black women are as capable of making bland, overdetermined rock as any white dude.

I like her first album and love Nona (1983), to my ears the most successful Material-involved project. The Art of Defense is damn tuneless, and I've tried. The Heat tries hard for a Tina Turner-type crossover.

Art of Defense has one of my favourite Nona jams on it - 'To The Bone':

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

yeah that's one of the good ones

also i really like a lot of the jazz album she did with kahil el'zabar:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T7DvOimaRJk

Well they certainly chose a better song for number one than “Gold Soundz” this time.

https://pitchfork.com/features/lists-and-guides/the-best-songs-of-the-1990s/

They did but I'm still not that keen on this one either

I even like "Ray of Light", but ranked that much higher than "Vogue"?

I haven't read any of the write-ups yet - I see a few familiar faces though! - except for Murder She Wrote, where the song being anti-abortion is strategically tiptoed around. Also a few of the years are wrong (I'm sorry I can't help myself but when no. 7 in the list is two years out I can't help but notice)

I don't even see any tiptoeing there really, which is fine imo. What is weird is not mentioning who produced the thing

Hyperballad would have been a good choice for what is ultimately a silly exercise

really enjoyed making lists for this one

"I don't even see any tiptoeing there really, which is fine imo. What is weird is not mentioning who produced the thing"

Well I was feeling in the space of a capsule review there's inevitably not really any space to mention it, or else it will seem incidental once it quickly moves on

Like many lists of this type it has influenced what I've been listening to all day. Which are songs here that I love but haven't heard in some time.

It's a good/fun list

The number one song is exactly the type of song that Pitchfork of 2022 would place as number one.

Gold Soundz always felt less like an actual number 1, and more of an appropriate choice to close out a 90s retrospective done by a predominately indie leaning publication.

I am curious to see if the tides have changed enough to unseat OK Computer from the top spot of the album list.

I for one am really really sick of most of these songs.

Gold Soundz always felt less like an actual number 1, and more of an appropriate choice to close out a 90s retrospective done by a predominately indie leaning publication.

idk this is a publication whose new generation of writers listens to Mariah Carey and Beth Orton.

selections are pretty good, i think the populist picks in the 250-201 range are better than the populist picks at the actual top of the list, but what can you do.

basically, len and return of the mack are too low!

I was psyched to see "My Boo" show up

Well I was feeling in the space of a capsule review there's inevitably not really any space to mention it, or else it will seem incidental once it quickly moves on

― you can see me from westbury white horse, Tuesday, September 27, 2022 12:06 PM (twenty-seven minutes ago)

oh ok yeah I agree, there's no way to provide enough cultural context in a single paragraph. Reminds me of reading the youtube comments for "Heads High" and it being filled with people talking about how they sang the song all the time as kids without knowing what it was about

idk this is a publication whose new generation of writers listens to Mariah Carey and Beth Orton.

I was referring to the Pitchfork of 2010, who put Gold Soundz on top, not the Pitchfork of 2022.

I know you were.

on that note, maybe Fantasy works like Gold Soundz did, because the 90s feels like a fantasy now, especially to the young people I see in Montreal wearing amusingly anachronistic combinations of the full span of 90s fashion

Oh hey I completely missed What's Up? first time around

man that song sucks

karaoke ruins people's minds

I can vouch for that