Page 1 of 2

Pitchfork's Top Albums of the 2000's

Posted: Mon Oct 05, 2009 12:09 am
by etrips888
Saw this today and thought it was pretty interesting. With the decade coming to an end, Pitchfork began to name their top 200 albums of the past 10 years, and I found it pretty interesting. You can never make everyone happy with these kind of lists, but I always enjoyed reading what their writers have to say and thought they had a pretty nice list and wanted to hear what other people thought.

**Pitchfork's Top 200 Albums**

Re: Pitchfork's Top Albums of the 2000's

Posted: Mon Oct 05, 2009 12:29 am
by Lost_my_hope
Can you believe it's been nine years since 2000. I always think of 1990 as ten years ago lol

Re: Pitchfork's Top Albums of the 2000's

Posted: Mon Oct 05, 2009 12:48 am
by Soccerman771
^^ agreed lost. I do too.

I think your list there etrips shows how bad the music industry and music entertainment has gotten. Jay-z and Radiohead are the only one's I recognize in the top-10. And Radiohead is a '90's band...

Wonder why foo fighters is not in the top-ten.

Re: Pitchfork's Top Albums of the 2000's

Posted: Mon Oct 05, 2009 1:07 am
by ckei
[quote=""Soccerman771""]^^ agreed lost. I do too.

I think your list there etrips shows how bad the music industry and music entertainment has gotten. Jay-z and Radiohead are the only one's I recognize in the top-10. And Radiohead is a '90's band...

Wonder why foo fighters is not in the top-ten.[/quote]

I feel the same way. Jay-z,radiohead and daftpunk where the only names I recognized too

Panda Bear!?!
never heard of that one,

Re: Pitchfork's Top Albums of the 2000's

Posted: Mon Oct 05, 2009 1:43 am
by etrips888
[quote=""Soccerman771""]^^ agreed lost. I do too.

I think your list there etrips shows how bad the music industry and music entertainment has gotten. Jay-z and Radiohead are the only one's I recognize in the top-10. And Radiohead is a '90's band...

Wonder why foo fighters is not in the top-ten.[/quote]

I'm a big radiohead fan, so I have to disagree ;) I think that they are much more than just a 90's band..at least half of their albums, with some of their best work have come after the 90's (imo). I could go on..but I don't mean to rant about them ::/

Anyway, I agree that some of the bands and albums are obscure, but I don't think that translates into bad music necessarily, I actually kinda like that the list has some lesser known artists included. I still don't recognize every single album listed myself, but the ones I do know, I agree with the site and I think are really good..such as Arcade Fire's Funeral is a great album all the way through and would highly recommend people taking a listen

**Rebellion(Lies) - Arcade Fire**

Re: Pitchfork's Top Albums of the 2000's

Posted: Mon Oct 05, 2009 2:49 am
by Lost_my_hope
Nice explanation Scott :)

(knowledge of a particular South Park episode is required to fully understand this.)

Re: Pitchfork's Top Albums of the 2000's

Posted: Sat Oct 10, 2009 9:31 pm
by KingKaramazov
[quote=""Soccerman771""]^^ agreed lost. I do too.

I think your list there etrips shows how bad the music industry and music entertainment has gotten. Jay-z and Radiohead are the only one's I recognize in the top-10. And Radiohead is a '90's band...

Wonder why foo fighters is not in the top-ten.[/quote]

Foo Fighters is not in the top ten because they are just a solid above average band, they do not release great albums. Their sound has remained relatively unchanged since they started out. Which is to say, again, that they are consistently above average.

If you don't know why Radiohead is in the top ten for the 2000s, you haven't listened to their music enough. OK Computer is not their only album.

I'm not familiar with Panda Bear, but Arcade Fire, Modest Mouse, Daft Punk, Wilco, and Sigur Ros definitely belong on there. Animal Collective, Interpol, and Sufjan Stevens definitely belong as well. I'm pretty dubious about The Strokes being in the top 5, and I'm not so sure about LCD Soundsystem in the top 10, but I guess the list won't make complete sense to everyone.

And also...why is it a bad thing if the top 10 isn't full of musicians that everybody has heard of? I'm sure I'm not the first one to tell you this, but generally speaking the best music out there doesn't really get played on the radio.

Re: Pitchfork's Top Albums of the 2000's

Posted: Sat Oct 10, 2009 10:18 pm
by Soccerman771
I especially agree with your last sentence. My point is that music talent and originality in general has declined in the past 10-15 years. A completely subjective stance and I understand that people will disagree with my statement.

It's probably also a part of getting older....

Re: Pitchfork's Top Albums of the 2000's

Posted: Sat Oct 10, 2009 10:24 pm
by Aaryn_GenD
[quote=""Soccerman771""]I especially agree with your last sentence. My point is that music talent and originality in general has declined in the past 10-15 years. A completely subjective stance and I understand that people will disagree with my statement.

It's probably also a part of getting older....[/quote]

hehe soccerman how old are you?
how i hate these top lists of anything, as you said it is subjectiv and individual form person to person, i can't identify myself with anything in that "list" though i know like 3 names of that list, and only that because a friend of mine begs to let him show me his kind of "alternative" music...

people tend to love what is being produced in their time, i mean i could never listen to some 70's crap or sth :-P

Re: Pitchfork's Top Albums of the 2000's

Posted: Sat Oct 10, 2009 10:29 pm
by Soccerman771
70's music rocks. Aaryn - I'm 32.

Re: Pitchfork's Top Albums of the 2000's

Posted: Sat Oct 10, 2009 11:10 pm
by KingKaramazov
[quote=""Soccerman771""]I especially agree with your last sentence. My point is that music talent and originality in general has declined in the past 10-15 years. A completely subjective stance and I understand that people will disagree with my statement.

It's probably also a part of getting older....[/quote]

Yeah, I definitely disagree with that sentiment, although you're entitled to it.

As a fan of 70s rock I understand that you probably really enjoy bands that highlight the use of the guitar and go for a more epic sound, which really isn't around that much anymore. These days most of the good (re: non-commercialized) music is more about experimentation and is heavily influenced by the new wave, post-punk, and progressive movements. There are very few interesting bands that play more traditional rock.

Re: Pitchfork's Top Albums of the 2000's

Posted: Sat Oct 10, 2009 11:27 pm
by Soccerman771
That, and music that feeds off real emotion is what I enjoy.

Re: Pitchfork's Top Albums of the 2000's

Posted: Sun Oct 11, 2009 10:20 am
by KingKaramazov
[quote=""Soccerman771""]That, and music that feeds off real emotion is what I enjoy.[/quote]

Haha, okay. I think most music which isn't made in a formulaic fashion (again, commercialized music) feeds off of some kind of emotion. Feeding off of and evoking emotion is essential to what music is.

Re: Pitchfork's Top Albums of the 2000's

Posted: Sun Oct 11, 2009 11:36 am
by deadhanddan
mainstream music nowadays is pathetic ( to me )


70s , 90s is the timeframe of music that is most enjoyable to me. music as of today in mainstream is just godawful. example : pop , psuedo punk , rap


70s and 90s rock , 90s alternative rock = great ( 80s had some good music , but as for rock/metal , im not one for the power ballads )

at least in late 80s and in the 90s there was a bit of rap that had creativity and art attached to it , even tho i dislike the majority of all rap i wont deny that . as of today it is pretty much dead just like punk rock



go anywhere and watch and listen to these kids nowadays listening to soldier boy tell'em or lady gaga and you will knowwhere im coming from

Re: Pitchfork's Top Albums of the 2000's

Posted: Mon Oct 12, 2009 11:07 am
by KingKaramazov
[quote=""deadhanddan""]mainstream music nowadays is pathetic ( to me )


70s , 90s is the timeframe of music that is most enjoyable to me. music as of today in mainstream is just godawful. example : pop , psuedo punk , rap


70s and 90s rock , 90s alternative rock = great ( 80s had some good music , but as for rock/metal , im not one for the power ballads )

at least in late 80s and in the 90s there was a bit of rap that had creativity and art attached to it , even tho i dislike the majority of all rap i wont deny that . as of today it is pretty much dead just like punk rock



go anywhere and watch and listen to these kids nowadays listening to soldier boy tell'em or lady gaga and you will knowwhere im coming from[/quote]

while I agree that mainstream music today is awful, i'd like to remind you that contrary to your nostalgic memories, mainstream music from any time period is awful.

90's - backstreet boys, nsync, 10 million nirvana-wannabees, pop-punks, spice girls, etc
80's - hair metal and commercialized new wave
70's - disco, commercial rock
etc
etc

Every era also has really good music; the vast majority of it isn't mainstream. there are always great mainstream bands - U2 in the 80s were fantastic. Led Zeppelin in the late 60s and 70s were great. The Beatles - well, nothing need be said. The Beach Boys were great. Many other examples abound.

also, regarding rap - there are plenty of rap artists who have creativity, integrity, and musical talent attached to their music; the problem is that less and less of that kind of rap is actually mainstream. The Roots are a great rap group, for example.