Comments on: Pitchfork’s Top 200 Albums of the 2000’s, By The Numbers http://matthewwettergreen.com/2009/10/02/pitchforks-top-200-albums-of-the-2000s-by-the-numbers/ Fri, 12 Mar 2010 02:10:54 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.7.1 hourly 1 By: Jn. B. Burke http://matthewwettergreen.com/2009/10/02/pitchforks-top-200-albums-of-the-2000s-by-the-numbers/comment-page-1/#comment-188 Jn. B. Burke Fri, 04 Dec 2009 07:57:34 +0000 http://matthewwettergreen.com/?p=734#comment-188 Couple of points: One, I'm not sure the release date matters so much re whether records were pre- or post-9/11. Recording dates would seem to be more instructive, no? I mean, if the question is whether 9/11 affected the quality of music made slightly after, we'd really want to look hard at the "best" records from 2002, maybe 2003 - not 2000 or 2001. The only effect 9/11 can really be said to have had on any of those 2000 or 2001 records (since even late 2001 releases would have been recorded months before 9/11) was with Is This It. You may recall that it was set for release on September 11, then had to be pulled so New York City Cops could be replaced with something less inflammatory given the tragedy. But the dip in 2003 and 2004, if it means anything at all - that might well suggest that 9/11 had an effect, as musicians struggled to make sense of the new world the same as politicians and children and everyone else did. That's possible, but I'm not sure it's right, because ... Two, let's not forget that there's a huge problem with treating human beings' reviews of music as purely scientific data. What Pitchfork thinks of a given record now is probably not what it will think of the same record in time. ( I wrote about this very briefly here: http://burkeslandedgentry.blogspot.com/2009/10/review-tv-on-radio-new-health-rock.html. ) They redid their best-of-the-'90s list a couple of years after releasing it, and they're pretty much telling you they'll redo this one, too, when they admit they haven't had time to process 2008 and 2009 yet. ( Hell, process 2009 - they didn't even wait for it to end! ) I'm interested to see whether the "dip" in 2003 and 2004 will even exist when they reset the list - but there's one more factor here. Three, remember that taste is by definition personal and therefore subjective, and that this was a decade of tremendous upheaval for Pitchfork itself. The whole site from 2000 to 2009 is transformed; the staff is different; everything's different. When they do reset the list, it may not even be the same people whose taste is reflected. My personal take: 26 albums from one year down to 20 in another probably isn't anything worth worrying about. As to the "dip" years, Pitchfork itself cites Funeral ( 2004 ) as possibly the last album ever to unite virtually everyone in gaining praise, and I'd say A Grand Don't Come For Free ( 2004 ) and Guitar Romantic ( 2003 ) are criminally overlooked and, seeing how they're kinda the same record, it doesn't make much sense to have Is This It at No. 7 and Room On Fire ( 2003 ) nowhere in the Top 200. But that's just me, maybe - again, this is all so terribly subjective. In any event, feel free to check out more of my ramblings at burkeslandedgentry.blogspot.com. Couple of points: One, I’m not sure the release date matters so much re whether records were pre- or post-9/11. Recording dates would seem to be more instructive, no? I mean, if the question is whether 9/11 affected the quality of music made slightly after, we’d really want to look hard at the “best” records from 2002, maybe 2003 - not 2000 or 2001. The only effect 9/11 can really be said to have had on any of those 2000 or 2001 records (since even late 2001 releases would have been recorded months before 9/11) was with Is This It. You may recall that it was set for release on September 11, then had to be pulled so New York City Cops could be replaced with something less inflammatory given the tragedy. But the dip in 2003 and 2004, if it means anything at all - that might well suggest that 9/11 had an effect, as musicians struggled to make sense of the new world the same as politicians and children and everyone else did. That’s possible, but I’m not sure it’s right, because … Two, let’s not forget that there’s a huge problem with treating human beings’ reviews of music as purely scientific data. What Pitchfork thinks of a given record now is probably not what it will think of the same record in time. ( I wrote about this very briefly here: http://burkeslandedgentry.blogspot.com/2009/10/review-tv-on-radio-new-health-rock.html. ) They redid their best-of-the-’90s list a couple of years after releasing it, and they’re pretty much telling you they’ll redo this one, too, when they admit they haven’t had time to process 2008 and 2009 yet. ( Hell, process 2009 - they didn’t even wait for it to end! ) I’m interested to see whether the “dip” in 2003 and 2004 will even exist when they reset the list - but there’s one more factor here. Three, remember that taste is by definition personal and therefore subjective, and that this was a decade of tremendous upheaval for Pitchfork itself. The whole site from 2000 to 2009 is transformed; the staff is different; everything’s different. When they do reset the list, it may not even be the same people whose taste is reflected. My personal take: 26 albums from one year down to 20 in another probably isn’t anything worth worrying about. As to the “dip” years, Pitchfork itself cites Funeral ( 2004 ) as possibly the last album ever to unite virtually everyone in gaining praise, and I’d say A Grand Don’t Come For Free ( 2004 ) and Guitar Romantic ( 2003 ) are criminally overlooked and, seeing how they’re kinda the same record, it doesn’t make much sense to have Is This It at No. 7 and Room On Fire ( 2003 ) nowhere in the Top 200. But that’s just me, maybe - again, this is all so terribly subjective. In any event, feel free to check out more of my ramblings at burkeslandedgentry.blogspot.com.

]]> By: Pitchfork and Me: Top Albums of 2000-10 « Grand Central at Noon http://matthewwettergreen.com/2009/10/02/pitchforks-top-200-albums-of-the-2000s-by-the-numbers/comment-page-1/#comment-186 Pitchfork and Me: Top Albums of 2000-10 « Grand Central at Noon Sat, 21 Nov 2009 05:07:14 +0000 http://matthewwettergreen.com/?p=734#comment-186 [...] would rock their socks and they presented a list of the top 200 albums of the decade. They have graphs and everything. I guess someone finally figured out how to use [...] [...] would rock their socks and they presented a list of the top 200 albums of the decade. They have graphs and everything. I guess someone finally figured out how to use [...]

]]> By: Fayza http://matthewwettergreen.com/2009/10/02/pitchforks-top-200-albums-of-the-2000s-by-the-numbers/comment-page-1/#comment-180 Fayza Thu, 22 Oct 2009 17:28:52 +0000 http://matthewwettergreen.com/?p=734#comment-180 This is a truly fascinating post, man. Right on. This is a truly fascinating post, man. Right on.

]]> By: jeff r http://matthewwettergreen.com/2009/10/02/pitchforks-top-200-albums-of-the-2000s-by-the-numbers/comment-page-1/#comment-176 jeff r Fri, 02 Oct 2009 20:36:10 +0000 http://matthewwettergreen.com/?p=734#comment-176 I think some of this can be attributed to Pitchfork's authorial bias towards records that either (1) had the greatest impact on music that followed, or (2) represented the artistic peak of an artist or genre. Because those attributes become clear over time, it makes sense they'd skew towards old records. It follows, then, that there would be a significant drop off after these peaks. Kid A and YHF, for example, stretched their respective genres as far as anyone could take them. It would be interesting to see what records from 2003-2005 ranked, and whether they build on the 2000-2002 genres, or whether they do something new (like Person Pitch). Based on that logic, Arcade Fire's Funeral, while an excellent record, should not be #2. I think some of this can be attributed to Pitchfork’s authorial bias towards records that either (1) had the greatest impact on music that followed, or (2) represented the artistic peak of an artist or genre. Because those attributes become clear over time, it makes sense they’d skew towards old records.

It follows, then, that there would be a significant drop off after these peaks. Kid A and YHF, for example, stretched their respective genres as far as anyone could take them. It would be interesting to see what records from 2003-2005 ranked, and whether they build on the 2000-2002 genres, or whether they do something new (like Person Pitch). Based on that logic, Arcade Fire’s Funeral, while an excellent record, should not be #2.

]]>