Pitchfork's 100 best of 2000-04

[johansen smith]

Hipinion grabbed the list early due to Ryan's consistant inability to realize things on Pitchfork's servers need to be password-protected. for those curious, the top two goes:
2. Jay Z - Blueprint
1. Radiohead - Kid A
amazngly asanine, though the Avalanches did get #5.

[tinobeat]

spelling police say: "asinine"

Anyway, I'm getting totally sick of Pitchfork's lists.

[tinobeat]

to expand:

is it just me or is it terribly self-congratulatory, all these best-of lists that aren't the year-end one. Best of the first half of the decade? come on...

Its like when they review reissues of classic old albums and give them 9.8's. Yeah, no duh, its classic for a reason.

They should just do what they do well, which is deliver my indie rock news in the morning and review new shit.

[johansen smith]

you think you're mad now, wait til you actually see this list.

[tinobeat]

nah, I think the idea of the list annoys me more than whatever garbage they populate the list with will. I already know their taste is different from mine.

do you have a link for the rest of the list?

I'm in a wonderfully salty mood today. It'd go well..

;)

[johansen smith]

http://www.hipinion.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=81018

[tinobeat]

oh well..

it looks about how I expected it to look.

somewhere, some kid will look at the list when it gets published and think "I need to get all of these if I'm gonna be cool!"

somewhere else, someone with very pedestrian music tastes who still likes acting like a snob will feel vindicated.

[Paul]

I don't have a lot of love for Pitchfork as everyone knows, but it's mostly due to specific writers which no longer work there. The site's become infinitely more tolerable over the last year or so.

I hate Hipinion, though. Those guys take Pitchfork bashing to an uncomfortable level.

[the Pawnbroker]

45. The Arcade Fire - Funeral
. . .
40. The Fiery Furnaces - Blueberry Boat
. . .
18. Devendra Banhart - Rejoicing In The Hands


Wasn't Funeral ranked #1 above both Blueberry Boat and Rejoicing in the Hands, on the best of 2004 list about a month and a half ago? That is a hell of change in a month and a half.

[tinobeat]

Originally posted by Paul
I don't have a lot of love for Pitchfork as everyone knows, but it's mostly due to specific writers which no longer work there. The site's become infinitely more tolerable over the last year or so.

I hate Hipinion, though. Those guys take Pitchfork bashing to an uncomfortable level.

See, I read Pitchfork every morning. I'd be lying if I said I hated it. I just wish they'd stick to reviews and news. But the list after list.. please..

that hipinion site looks dreadful..

[earl grey]

yeah i don't mind PFM much. i sometimes disagree with them, but they've turned me onto some interesting stuff and i check em every morning. i don't even mind the lists much, except that their timing here is awful. i was already burned out on lists with all the year-end stuff, and cokemachineglow and stylus already did the top albums of 2000-2004 ... do we need another site telling us 'kid A' is #1?

given my hatred for the unicorns and obsession with DFA, i find it amusing that they took #99 and #100, respectively.

[bitterfruit]

Anyone can write a bunch of nonsense metaphorical bullshit full of non-sequiturs and seem intelligent.

I can't sit through a full PF review without wanting to hang myself from the ceiling by the short ones, but I read the news every morning anyway.

[earl grey]

Originally posted by bitterfruit

I can't sit through a full PF review without wanting to hang myself from the ceiling by the short ones, but I read the news every morning anyway.

true, i rarely actually read the reviews - more just the short blurbs and the ratings.

[ericseguy]

Hipinion try to help PF vis a vis "tough love"

[Paul]

Originally posted by ericseguy
Hipinion try to help PF vis a vis "tough love" More like "abuse." Posting all those financial stats a few months back was brutal, regardless of how stupid Ryan was for not password protecting the directories.

[johansen smith]

Originally posted by Paul
More like "abuse." Posting all those financial stats a few months back was brutal, regardless of how stupid Ryan was for not password protecting the directories.
I think they made their point, it's irresponsible for someone in charge of something as big and lucrative as PF to be so clueless as to how the internet works. I'd certainly think twice before throwing money their way if I was a label, especially since the records revealed that certain labels got cheaper rates than others...

[bitterfruit]

It's a criminal act in fact.

[ericseguy]

There's a whole tug-of-war between PF and Hip. It's probably not helped much by the fact that PF and ex-PF writers post there, the ex usually with hilarious/terrible stories of behind-the-scenes irresponsability, mis-management, and the like. Personally I believe PF to have a more pronounced negative effect on indepenent music fans than positive one, so whenever anything bad happens to them as a result of their own idiocy, it's kind of hard to sympathize.

[ericseguy]

(Ah, the cut-throat world of independent music web journalism.)

[tinobeat]

Originally posted by ericseguy
Personally I believe PF to have a more pronounced negative affect on indepenent music fans than negative ones...

I have a feeling one of those "negative"s was supposed to be a "positive" but can't figure out which...

[the Pawnbroker]

Originally posted by tinobeat
I have a feeling one of those "negative"s was supposed to be a "positive" but can't figure out which...

Dammit, I spent a whole minute trying to make sense of that sentence, and you went and ruined it!

[ericseguy]

Edited.

[vesper]

Originally posted by ericseguy
Personally I believe PF to have a more pronounced negative affect on indepenent music fans than [positive?] ones, so whenever anything bad happens to them as a result of their own idiocy, it's kind of hard to sympathize.

how so? because some kids are stupid enough to swallow pitchfork's taste to the rod? this seems like the go-to response whenever those jackasses at hipinion waste their time digging up dirt on the site that shaped who they are. i have yet to be convinced that pitchfork has a "pronounced negative effect" on anyone who can think for themselves (unless yr talking about 'bad taste', which is bullshit anyway).*

*and after watching various college radio personnel knock each other out of line to fellate ryan schrieber at cmj i can understand some disbelief and bitterness directed at the site, but come the fuck on.

a tug of war between hipinion and pitchfork also seems hard to believe after seeing those people deify anything chris ott shits onto his keyboard.

[vesper]

maybe 'bitterness' isn't the right word; 'wariness' probably works better.

[ericseguy]

Originally posted by vesper
how so? because some kids are stupid enough to swallow pitchfork's taste to the rod? this seems like the go-to response whenever those jackasses at hipinion waste their time digging up dirt on the site that shaped who they are. i have yet to be convinced that pitchfork has a "pronounced negative effect" on anyone who can think for themselves (unless yr talking about 'bad taste', which is bullshit anyway).*

*and after watching various college radio personnel knock each other out of line to fellate ryan schrieber at cmj i can understand some disbelief and bitterness directed at the site, but come the fuck on.

a tug of war between hipinion and pitchfork also seems hard to believe after seeing those people deify anything chris ott shits onto his keyboard.

Some thoughts:

1. My main issue with PF is this: someone starts hyping a band. The buzz builds. PF gives the band a (whatever, high score), and puts that band in their best new music. Suddenly--and, let's be honest here--everyone likes the band. Which is like, there's nothing wrong with that. But there seems to be a lot of wariness, at least among indie types online, to say they like something until it gets the OK from PF. This is to say nothing of the fact that they a lot of the stuff that gets PF approved is almost assuredly mediocre, or just bad. This wouldn't bother me so much if PF didn't take equal care in knocking down the trends they built in the first place (See: Wilco, Magnolia Electric Co., Trail of Dead, etc. etc.). The follow-up to most of PF's hyperbolic ratings almost invariably gets a mediocre score, almost like a slap on the wrist for...becoming too popular? Trying to break from the style that earned them PF acclaim in the first place? There's many more examples of this sort of thing occurring, but I'm too lazy to cite them. Established indie bands--let's say...Mogwai, for example--are almost always greeted with indifference because they're not cool any more. This is to say nothing of the fact that the "new" writers at PF are becoming increasingly erratic in their acknowledgement of band's influences, what bands sound like, etc. Not really important, but the writing quality's been dipping too.

Now, this would mean nothing if people didn't take Pitchfork reviews so seriously (Yeah, I kinda realize this tirade qualifies as thus). But since the proliferation of PF--and I do believe it's at the crest of its popularity, right about now--it seems to me as though the indie "scene" or what have you is more homogenized and faddish than it ever has been before. You see people at the same shows, hear people talking about disliking the same records, and most noticiably see people having all the same records on Soulseek. And all of this is almost invariably in accordance with PF's opinions.

I'll concede that I really used to enjoy reading PF, when the aforementioned Chris Ott, Rob Mitchum, Dominique Leone, Brett Di(However you spell his last name), ruled shop. But since they've left, or scaled back down there production for the site, the trends that get started up are pretty ridiculous. Does anyone remember The Secret Constellations? I didn't think so. Annie's already on her way out, as is The Go! Team. In six months, I doubt it will even be fashionable to like the Arcade Fire (as evidence, I cite the dip to only the 45th best record of the last four years. Let's see how many people delete off their comp because of that).

As for Hipinion, I will say that none of the "private" PF info took a lot effort to get. It was all public domain and kind of magically appeared on the site one night. Whether or not they should have published it is a different kind of matter, but because in the grand scheme of things, PF/Hipinion/indie music in general is kind of frivolous entertainment, the whole thing kind of amused me. These are just my opinions, and you're welcome to your own.

Oh, and RE: Chris Ott? I don't think you've been to Hipinion lately...

[vesper]

first off, and i could be totally wrong about this, who is "totally" if not chris ott? apparently that poster is some former staff member (ott), who was once a senior editor (ott), who moved on to edit perfect sound forever (ott) and write for emusic (ott?). and i know that i've seen totally referred to as ott or chris with some frequency.

This wouldn't bother me so much if PF didn't take equal care in knocking down the trends they built in the first place (See: Wilco, Magnolia Electric Co., Trail of Dead, etc. etc.). The follow-up to most of PF's hyperbolic ratings almost invariably gets a mediocre score, almost like a slap on the wrist for...becoming too popular? Trying to break from the style that earned them PF acclaim in the first place?

but doesn't this probably have more to do with staff changes than some sort of pitchfork ideology? (this is just as repeated as the initial comments i was railing against, but i think it has merit.)

sure i acknowledge that pitchfork's popularity is, at best, disconcerting and, at worst, infuriating, but i can't really fault pitchfork for that.

as for the writing quality, well it has it's ups and downs, but dominique leone, scott plagenhoef, nick sylvester, julianne shepherd (as little as she writes, yes) mark pytlik and tom breihan are consistently good. i can't comment on the others because i haven't taken the time to read their stuff.

[Paul]

Annie's already on her way out

How do you figure that one? The album hasn't even been released in the US (yet?).

I think these days, PF is actually less concerned with being tastemakers than they were in the past. It seems the broad range of music they're currently covering is as exciting to them as it is to people who read daily (be they jaded and snobbish like the Hipinion crowd or curious and earnest like Joe Blow from Smalltown, USA). While it's true some of their best writers have left or are writing less, we can rejoice that some of the most grievous offenders have moved on as well. Most of the staff now is so new that no one's really developed a voice yet (except for Jason Crock, who's proven himself a moron more than once already).

The inclusion of Julianne Shepherd is an obvious grab for credibility, but maybe she can class up the joint. After all, Kurt Loder was the only thing that kept MTV watchable for years.

[bitterfruit]

For the record, I was hyping "Us Kids Know" well before PF made Arcade Fire a household name. There. I win!

[Funk]

Originally posted by ericseguy

1. My main issue with PF is this: someone starts hyping a band. The buzz builds. PF gives the band a (whatever, high score), and puts that band in their best new music. ... This wouldn't bother me so much if PF didn't take equal care in knocking down the trends they built in the first place

I wish PF would do more backlash, then build-up! Example: Tim Sweeney review (http://pitchforkmedia.com/record-reviews/s/sweeney_tim/rvng-prsnts-mx3.shtml) Jan 21 "While other dilettante acts like 2 Many DJs and Optimo sell themselves with abrupt genre jumps and cheeky mash-ups, Sweeney is far more selfless, keeping the tracks in the limelight with thoughtful sequences."; Jan 25, Optimo (http://pitchforkmedia.com/record-reviews/o/optimo/how-to-kill-the-dj-part-two.shtml) 9.0

the writing quality's been dipping too.

!?! I've always found it unreadable, but did you ever see the quality of the writing in the 1990s?

Now, this would mean nothing if people didn't take Pitchfork reviews so seriously (Yeah, I kinda realize this tirade qualifies as thus). But since the proliferation of PF--and I do believe it's at the crest of its popularity, right about now--it seems to me as though the indie "scene" or what have you is more homogenized and faddish than it ever has been before.

Aside from one time at a record shop (and the owner didn't seem to have a clue what the guy was talking aboot), I've never heard anyone mention Pitchfork offline.

[bitterfruit]

[i]

Aside from one time at a record shop (and the owner didn't seem to have a clue what the guy was talking aboot), I've never heard anyone mention Pitchfork offline. [/B]

I heard a guy interviewing Travis Morrisson on WRAS Atlanta talking about the PF review of Travistan.

I thought a saw a CD sticker with a quote attributed to PF too, no?

[vesper]

Originally posted by Funk
[B]I wish PF would do more backlash, then build-up! Example: Tim Sweeney review (http://pitchforkmedia.com/record-reviews/s/sweeney_tim/rvng-prsnts-mx3.shtml) Jan 21 "While other dilettante acts like 2 Many DJs and Optimo sell themselves with abrupt genre jumps and cheeky mash-ups, Sweeney is far more selfless, keeping the tracks in the limelight with thoughtful sequences."; Jan 25, Optimo (http://pitchforkmedia.com/record-reviews/o/optimo/how-to-kill-the-dj-part-two.shtml) 9.0

two different writers. what's yr point?

[TheSadDebaser]

Hipinion is awful for a variety of reasons, hatred for Pitchfork hardly even makes the top ten. I invariably return to posting there because it's so active that I can always find something to do, but it hasn't really been an entertaining site since it still openly recognized it's heritage ("Pitchfork Media Smackdown").

Now it's mostly criticism of everyone and everything, plus a lot of gay/dick/women jokes.

Pitchfork, however bad it may have been at one point, gets progressively worse as time goes on. I used to like their reviews at least a little bit, but now I find them unreadable. But maybe it's just me.

[Funk]

Originally posted by bitterfruit
I heard a guy interviewing Travis Morrisson on WRAS Atlanta talking about the PF review of Travistan.

I thought a saw a CD sticker with a quote attributed to PF too, no?

I guess my point becomes, once you move out of a very narrow genre (somewhat ambitious indie rock), PF really has no sway or pull at all, and their opinion means next to nothing.

If you listen to Wilco, Interpol, Dismemberment Plan, Radiohead, Arcade Fire, etc. and all the people you hang out with listen to those acts, and yr looking for validation on them and for yr listening to them, no kidding PF will probably have meaning to you, as they're the only ones with any profile who cover this stuff to an extent that will make it a stopping point for you. However, I doubt too many people who listen to jazz, blues, hip hop, country, electronic, etc. have the site on their radar, and their opinions probably don't register at all. "But Funk, they're an indie rock site" you may say, but once again the indie rock they cover that draws people to them is pretty narrow in scope. For instance, I doubt labels like In the Red or Get Hip or SFTRI would get any significant boost from the site doling out acts on these labels a high score.

(I would hope the interview with Travis was aboot more than the review, otherwise his album must really have nothing going for it)

[Funk]

Originally posted by vesper
two different writers. what's yr point?

You know how earlier in the thread there was a complaint of how the site operates with a partial list of bands that had reviews that built them up, and then the next time around the reviews would tear the band down? Two different writers in all those cases, too. You either accept that fact or not when dealing with PF's reviewing system.

[vesper]

okay, i see what yr saying. nevermind.