I think the problem is that when you include "Holland 1945" and "No diggity" in the same list it ceases to be possible for anyone to figure out whether you're trying to actually present a coherent point of view on what the best songs of the 90s were, or if you're just trying to do a retrospective, or what the fuck. Pavement at #1, even though they don't really do anything for me personally, at least it makes sense as a stance for pfork, whereas there's a bunch of other stuff that just seems like it's there because for some reason they thought they had to acknowledge it even though it's completely outside their realm.
But by the time the Wu-Tang Clan debuted, you'd already been blitzed by the new noise of Public Enemy's righteous (if deeply conflicted) Afrocentric party program. Or maybe you'd gotten off to NWA's ultra-violent "realism."
But by the time the Wu-Tang Clan debuted, you'd already been blitzed by the new noise of Public Enemy's righteous (if deeply conflicted) Afrocentric party program. Or maybe you'd gotten off to NWA's ultra-violent "realism."
But by the time the Wu-Tang Clan debuted, you'd already been blitzed by the new noise of Public Enemy's righteous (if deeply conflicted) Afrocentric party program. Or maybe you'd gotten off to NWA's ultra-violent "realism."
I love this. Music history written in the accusatory second person.
also simon says came out in the 90s. thats the no.1 song for me
Also j_brooks if the intent is to convey an editorial bent, it really really helps if you can fucking write. Because otherwise it's pretty difficult to justify your publication as a curator of anything.
There's no way to defend this feature. It's a fucking regression in every sense. The writing is worse, the thrust of the thing is worse, and it's EXACTLY THE SAME FUCKING FORMAT EVERY LIST has been in since 1999. 2010, you know, can you get some kind of fucking data curio element in there? Your audience at this point *expects* to be able to play with your content, it's mashableverse. If nothing else the thing should have been assembled with that more in mind, versus "Email me yr lists guys!!" *SLAM* "If I do the numbers from these lists, um, Weezer is #1 - I don't think we want to be saying that. Everyone ok with Pavement instead?"
Yeah but that's always been a Pitchfork mainstay, the retardedly-huge list. :ryan: That, I think, is a fool's argument and to brooks' point a Pitchforkian quality.
Per the NME having that kid interview Morrissey. If you're going to let The Kids into the library, don't hold their hands and tell them what to write or think. Let 'em scribble. Wrong is better than repeated.
That was a great list! Because who gives a fucking shit! And at least you're getting honest, personal content, the writing spoke of investment, right or wrong.
Totally wrote: if the intent is to convey an editorial bent, it really really helps if you can fucking write. Because otherwise it's pretty difficult to justify your publication as a curator of anything.
you would think so yeah but in practice is this ever actually the case
I PUSH MIRACLE WHIPS wrote:god i loved so much 4 the afterglow. that brings me back. wish brent d wrote every pitchfork article. he's probably a bag boy at whole foods now or somethingg.
yeah it was definitely brent d's best writing
When So Much For The Afterglow opens with a corny, Beach Boys spoof, one can only prepare for the worst. But I'm writing this review to let you know that you don't need to. Those 40 painfully kitschy seconds are the worst you'll endure for the rest of the disc. Right when you least expect it, A.P. Alexakis growls, "This is a song about Susan," and Everclear's trademark So-Cal pop-punk blasts from the speakers in a firey ball of triumph.
Afterglow is overflowing with exactly the same kind of catchy rock and roll these guys cranked out on Sparkle and Fade and their lesser-known debut, World of Noise. Alexakis' lyrics are almost poetic again as he sings about standard rock star stuff like the advantages of being broke and on drugs. The difference between Alexakis and the average rocker, as you probably know, is that he's been through it, so it comes across more like a diary than a fantasy. Yeah, we've heard the sob story a million times, but where modern rock has become infested (and recent associated) with crappy music, Afterglow boasts unfeigned dignity and some damn good songs, too.
j_brooks wrote:there's two ways you can look at a 90's retrospective
if it's about writing and history and criticism and just like, you know, being a proper music critic, then yeah, you gotta cover ricky martin and celine and everything because the feature isn't about listening to the music itself it's about meditating on it and generating insights and all this shit and good writing doesn't have to be about good music
if that's what pitchfork was doing everyone would be well within their rights to snipe at them like GOTCHA YOU FORGOT THIS IMPORTANT THING HOW COULD YOU LEAVE IT OUT OF A COMPREHENSIVE RETROSPECT OF THE 90'S because by leaving out big obvious shit like that they'd be ducking out on a challenge and missing out an opportunity to present some good music writing and present a greater and more interesting overall picture of the decade they're looking at
but it's clearly not about the writing, it doesn't say at the top of the screen PITCHFORK TELLS YOU WHAT THE 90'S WERE LIKE
it says pitchfork staff lists: top 200 songs of the 1990s. what they did was just curate a list of 200 songs that the staff of the website thought were the best songs released during that time
so it's like yeah if you're a good music writer you should be able to squeeze out a great blurb on jimmie's chicken shack if destiny calls on you to do it, but if your stated intent is to present 200 amazing songs, why the fuck would you include jimmie's chicken shack in that conversation when there are almost certainly 2000 songs from the 90s that are better that you could talk about instead?
they're not criticizing, they're curating
If this is a subjectively-derived list of 200 songs the staff members enjoy the most, why rank it? Their write-ups are so interchangeable that Pavement's inclusion could have easily been anywhere within the top 200. What's the significance of Gold Soundz being the consensus-choice for favorite song of the decade amongst Pitchfork staffers? Their write-ups are so nebulous that I'm not quite sure why they're so collectively fond of it. Moreover, why should it matter what their favorite picks are? I understand the utility of the list - it grabs eyes, garners buzz/press, allows for them to redefine their '90s taste in accordance to contemporary music trends/taste/hindsight. Conversely, I don't understand why this should matter. If your interpretation of the objective of the list is true, than I'm simply reading the musings of twelve or so staffers on what they like in retrospect. That kind of list is fun to read because I'm a music-enthusiast, as many of us are, and it's mildly interesting to see what's held in such high-regard by such a notorious site. But if that's the criteria for inclusion (consensus for favorites), than a stratified list is useless. Influence is quantifiable, but what goes into the decision-making process of liking Paranoid Android more than Smells Like Teen Spirit? What structural nuance in Are You That Somebody makes it a numerical position more enjoyable than Loser? That's not explained, and it needs to be in order to merit the numerical ranking.
I guess I don't understand why they didn't collect 200 songs and present them with accompanying paragraphs that lovingly explain why they're so adored by the staffers. Each write-up has contextual elements like influence or mainstream success/appeal/longevity. None of that matters if it's solely the expression of subjective fondness. And if that's the case, it shouldn't matter much, beyond "this is the newly defined standard for assessing the music of the '90s by one of the 'authorities' of music journalism." Cool. Now we know what tracks/artists 18 year old freshmen will be jocking and mid-twentysomethings will claim had an indelible impact on their shitty band's progression.
The more I think about it, the more I wish they would have used their influence to do something different. A tiered list could have been done away with in favor of, say, a tentative, unranked collection of tracks (still starting out with 200) that the writers enjoy, and as new staff members transition in and out of the site, as suggestions and feedback comes pouring in from readers and musicians who frequent the site, and as older contributors/staff find and refind classics of the Clinton years, they could continue to add to the list gradually overtime, until they’ve amassed an unrivaled, near-comprehensive consortium of tracks (with accompanying blurbs) that are accentuating the actual music, unencumbered by the artificial inflation of the tracks by the “cred capitol” that comes from being the #8 selection of a list. This feature would ideally be a perpetually growing aggregate of the millennial generation’s respective tastes, becoming the ultimate '90s recommendation feature - passive but loving. “We just stumbled upon Visit Venus, and if you love Lounge, here’s a song for you.” Instead, it’s aggressively taste-forging. That #8 slot means something. It’s a signifier, and it’s a conscious choice.