Random Music CXXVI: The Woy Eet Eez

[iron yuppie]

So MBDTF is still considered a masterpiece?

 

[gump]

I mean, as much as I hate Kanye, it unquestionably is one.

 

[lazarus]

Anything other than MBDTF at #1 is a fucking joke.

 

[iron yuppie]

So these days Pitchfork judges music primarily on the relevance of its socio-political message. Then in the same breath it showers praise on MBDTF, an album whose central thesis is that entitled, unrepentant assholes are the real victims of society. So many of those types of attitudes are being rightly re-evaluated, and yet for some reason people still want to make excuses for Kanye.

 

[DaveC]

lol so if you still think MBDTF is a great album in 2019 you're making excuses for kanye?

 

[LemonMelon]

I am a simple man. If an album has the instrumental of Devil in a New Dress on it, it has to be top 5.

 

[namkcuR]

The albums list is laughable.

AMSP that low when P4K used to jizz at any mention of Radiohead.

They've got Currents much higher than Lonerism, which I couldn't possibly disagree with more. Lonerism is TI's high water mark.

Ariana Grande and any number of other top 40 types above Radiohead and Tame Impala.

Only one Beach House album.

Beyonce somehow better than Bowie.

Janelle's ArchAndroid is there, but no Electric Lady.

Angel Olsen's Burn Your Fire is there, but no My Woman or All Mirrors.

No Sigur Ros, no Nick Cave.

No Bat For Lashes.

No Lykke Li.

On and on.

Kanye at #2. No.

Pitchfork is so exhausting. Their metamorphosis from wannabe taste-makers to shameless pop-culture cheerleaders has been an odd thing to watch.

So these days Pitchfork judges music primarily on the relevance of its socio-political message.

Yeah, P4K was obnoxious when it did everything from an indie-snob POV, but I prefer that to this wide-net let's-be-everything-to-everybody approach.

 

[LemonMelon]

My favorite Pitchfork moment of the decade was when they said The Avalanches' amazing Wildflower album that they gave a Best New Music tag to wasn't worth putting on their 2016 list because it was "out of step with the cultural moment" and "backward looking."

Which is just a different way of saying "the album doesn't fit in with the perceived interests of our readership, so we're going to disregard a lasting work of quality to lift up something ephemeral."

 

[namkcuR]

My favorite Pitchfork moment of the decade was when they said The Avalanches' amazing Wildflower album that they gave a Best New Music tag to wasn't worth putting on their 2016 list because it was "out of step with the cultural moment" and "backward looking."

Which is just a different way of saying "the album doesn't fit in with the perceived interests of our readership, so we're going to disregard a lasting work of quality to lift up something ephemeral."

But what are the "perceived interests" of their readership now? Until 5-7 years ago, those interests were in elevating indie artists and sneering at mainstream artists. But now? It's not even clear to me what their goal is.

 

[LemonMelon]

But what are the "perceived interests" of their readership now? Until 5-7 years ago, those interests were in elevating indie artists and sneering at mainstream artists. But now? It's not even clear to me what their goal is.

Pitchfork is owned by Conde Nast, a media company that also owns Vogue, Wired, and Vanity Fair. They are seeking the attention of the late-2010s millennial. 18-30, sincere to a fault, imbued in meme culture, tenuously connected to various political causes, identifying with a multitude of races and ethnicities.

Hip hop and R&B has been crowned as music's cutting edge and their rankings reflect this consensus because they don't dare stray from collective opinion for fear of falling behind "the zeitgeist." The result is a muddled, diffuse collection of albums that represents the average listener instead of the best that music has to offer.

Pitchfork used to be idiosyncratic and embarrassing. Now it's Rolling Stone for college freshmen.

 

[lazarus]

So these days Pitchfork judges music primarily on the relevance of its socio-political message. Then in the same breath it showers praise on MBDTF, an album whose central thesis is that entitled, unrepentant assholes are the real victims of society. So many of those types of attitudes are being rightly re-evaluated, and yet for some reason people still want to make excuses for Kanye.

lol so if you still think MBDTF is a great album in 2019 you're making excuses for kanye?

What Dave said. I think Kanye’s an dangerous idiot now and refuse to listen to what he’s currently doing (haven’t heard anything since Life of Pablo), but that album is still a masterpiece.

 

[iron yuppie]

Critically they seem to find value almost exclusively in the giant macro statement, no matter how banal (e.g. being impressed that someone named an album "Norman Fucking Rockwell"). Consequently they have disavowed indie rock, which tends to be quirky and idiosyncratic.

 

[gump]

Pitchfork is owned by Conde Nast, a media company that also owns Vogue, Wired, and Vanity Fair. They are seeking the attention of the late-2010s millennial. 18-30, sincere to a fault, imbued in meme culture, tenuously connected to various political causes, identifying with a multitude of races and ethnicities.

Hip hop and R&B has been crowned as music's cutting edge and their rankings reflect this consensus because they don't dare stray from collective opinion for fear of falling behind "the zeitgeist." The result is a muddled, diffuse collection of albums that represents the average listener instead of the best that music has to offer.

Pitchfork used to be idiosyncratic and embarrassing. Now it's Rolling Stone for college freshmen.

This is a good synthesis indeed.

Pitchfork's turn on Arcade Fire is hilarious. Reflektor, remember it?, got a 9.2 and is altogether off this list.

Remember when they loved My Bloody Valentine, Grizzly Bear's Shields, and Beach House's Bloom (all 9.1), or Skeleton Tree (9.0)? They don't make an appearance. This is Happening and its 9.2 score couldn't make it in the top 50!

 

[iron yuppie]

What Dave said. I think Kanye’s an dangerous idiot now and refuse to listen to what he’s currently doing (haven’t heard anything since Life of Pablo), but that album is still a masterpiece.

He was the same guy then as he is now. If you want to make an argument for the beats/music/etc, fine, but the message has always been ugly.

 

[gump]

Consequently they have disavowed indie rock, which tends to be quirky and idiosyncratic.

I generally agree. But it's hard to figure out exactly where they stand, because all of a sudden a small indie-folk outfit like Big Thief gets so much praise from them and it makes me think of the old days.

Overall, while they are gravitating to music I like less, I think there's something to be said about how their tastes, if there's such a thing, are more representative of a wider demographic. Idiosyncratic indie bands seem to be more popular amongst white men than the R&B that they are now gravitating towards.

 

[DaveC]

He was the same guy then as he is now. If you want to make an argument for the beats/music/etc, fine, but the message has always been ugly.

this seems rather strange coming from someone who's got a david bowie avatar. imo bowie's a fairly good representation of a top-level artist who went through drastic changes, long dark periods, battling personal demons etc in kind of a similar way to kanye.

and i'm not sure how you could listen to through the wire, jesus walks, touch the sky, good life, dear mama, etc and legitimately say that his message has always been ugly.

 

[iron yuppie]

I think The National is the best example of their ethos change. What they once considered insightful vignettes are now presented as solipsistic first-world problem music.

 

[LuckyNumber7]

And when Arcade Fire released The Suburbs it was the holy grail of music. Funny how things change.

 

[cobl04]

Interesting reading all the opinions in here. I thank gump for being most in line with my own: insane that a bunch of albums that scored so highly aren't anywhere to be seen in the top 200, that's completely baffling. But ALSO, I praise Pitchfork for being socially conscious, and aware of wider taste. We're all pissed off because we are all white men, and our music is being ignored or placed "too low": Los Campesinos!, LCD, Nick Cave, The National. But none of those artists had anywhere even close to the cultural impact that Beyonce, Frank Ocean, Solange, Kendrick had. I think there's a lack of awareness in here sometimes, that hey, just because we really like indie rock performed by largely straight white men, doesn't mean that cultural websites like Pitchfork need to place as high a value on those records. BUT, at the same time, it's completely ridiculous that some of the above records have missed out, and LM your comment on Wildflower hits the nail on the head. But a lot of the complaints in here are missing the point that Pitchfork's (and other sites) lists HAVE to be half based in what was culturally important.

Does anyone still believe that Thinkin Bout You is the best Frank Ocean song?

No, but it was the song that took him from being just another cool R&B dude to the most adored figure in R&B. No, it's not his best (although I'd definitely put it in the top five), but of all his songs this decade, it's probably the most significant.

Pitchfork is so exhausting. Their metamorphosis from wannabe taste-makers to shameless pop-culture cheerleaders has been an odd thing to watch.

Shameless pop-culture cheerleaders is harsh. You're a cranky dude who's getting older. However...

I think The National is the best example of their ethos change. What they once considered insightful vignettes are now presented as solipsistic first-world problem music.

This is on point, and it is a shame to see them shitting on music they once held up. But, I do see the other side of it. Does The National's music have power and significance in 2019? It does for me personally, but I can see the argument that it doesn't.

So these days Pitchfork judges music primarily on the relevance of its socio-political message. Then in the same breath it showers praise on MBDTF, an album whose central thesis is that entitled, unrepentant assholes are the real victims of society. So many of those types of attitudes are being rightly re-evaluated, and yet for some reason people still want to make excuses for Kanye.

He was the same guy then as he is now. If you want to make an argument for the beats/music/etc, fine, but the message has always been ugly.

This is silly. Kanye in 2010 is completely different to Kanye in 2019. I think he's a fucking full-blown prick now who has been making shit music for three-and-a-half years. In 2010 he was making phenomenal music. MBDTF is an out-and-out masterpiece. And that is not its central thesis at all. On MBDTF he is certainly ugly, but he is self-aware. The self-awareness has completely disappeared now.

Beyonce somehow better than Bowie.

Man, come on. Beyonce's album is way more important and significant than Bowie's. I think Bowie's album is astonishing and I prefer it by miles, but you can't seriously say this.

 

[cobl04]

Well, first impression: this is not good. Most of my album covers are not showing up.

I feel about iTunes the way I felt about Windows before switching to Macs 15 years ago.

Easily solved, file > library > get album artwork. I'm happy with it. It's essentially the same.

 

[iron yuppie]

But ALSO, I praise Pitchfork for being socially conscious, and aware of wider taste. We're all pissed off because we are all white men, and our music is being ignored or placed "too low": Los Campesinos!, LCD, Nick Cave, The National. But none of those artists had anywhere even close to the cultural impact that Beyonce, Frank Ocean, Solange, Kendrick had. I think there's a lack of awareness in here sometimes, that hey, just because we really like indie rock performed by largely straight white men, doesn't mean that cultural websites like Pitchfork need to place as high a value on those records.

And this is reductive. No one in here thinks Arcade Fire or some shit should have the #1 album of the decade. You're giving Pitchfork way too much credit if you think they're fighting the good fight against the heteronormative patriarchy.

 

[cobl04]

I never said that, what I'm saying is the annoyance at Pitchfork for rating some indie rock classics lower is missing the point.

 

[namkcuR]

Interesting reading all the opinions in here. I thank gump for being most in line with my own: insane that a bunch of albums that scored so highly aren't anywhere to be seen in the top 200, that's completely baffling. But ALSO, I praise Pitchfork for being socially conscious, and aware of wider taste. We're all pissed off because we are all white men, and our music is being ignored or placed "too low": Los Campesinos!, LCD, Nick Cave, The National. But none of those artists had anywhere even close to the cultural impact that Beyonce, Frank Ocean, Solange, Kendrick had. I think there's a lack of awareness in here sometimes, that hey, just because we really like indie rock performed by largely straight white men, doesn't mean that cultural websites like Pitchfork need to place as high a value on those records. BUT, at the same time, it's completely ridiculous that some of the above records have missed out, and LM your comment on Wildflower hits the nail on the head. But a lot of the complaints in here are missing the point that Pitchfork's (and other sites) lists HAVE to be half based in what was culturally important.

I'm not sure I'm a fan of the generalization you're making here. If I disagree with this album or that album being so high on a list, it has nothing to do with skin color. I have no problem with A Seat At The Table being #6, because I like that album. If The Electric Lady had been in the top 10, I wouldn't have complained, because I like that album. I judge music based on the music.

If the criteria is about cultural significance, then I can see quite clearly that Kendrick, Beyonce, Kanye, etc, have it over those bands you listed. That's no lack of awareness on my part. But Frank Ocean is #1. If we're measuring cultural significance, I don't see how he goes above Kendrick, Beyonce, and Kanye.

Man, come on. Beyonce's album is way more important and significant than Bowie's. I think Bowie's album is astonishing and I prefer it by miles, but you can't seriously say this.

To your point, if it's about cultural significance, then of course Beyonce was more so than Blackstar.

I guess my issue is that I feel like P4K is trying to have it both ways. They want to have their pulse on the zeitgeist, so-to-speak, and have their list reflect cultural significance, but then they also have a bunch of albums on there that are decidedly not mainstream(I've never even heard of a number of those artists) and that, regardless of their quality, didn't penetrate the pop culture at all.

Meanwhile, for a list of culturally significant albums, there are some glaring omissions on that front: Fame Monster is there, but Born This Way is not; Katy Perry's Teenage Dream album was pretty huge(even if I don't personally care for it), a bunch of singles that just wouldn't go away, but it's nowhere to be seen; Timberlake's 20/20 Experience Pt. 1; etc.

They want to do the 'zeitgeist' thing while still trying to hold on to a semblance of the indie outfit they used to be. I guess I feel like they should pick a lane is all, because when they try to straddle the line, they just end up making a list that isn't really fully accurate to either impulse.

 

[iron yuppie]

This is silly. Kanye in 2010 is completely different to Kanye in 2019. I think he's a fucking full-blown prick now who has been making shit music for three-and-a-half years. In 2010 he was making phenomenal music. MBDTF is an out-and-out masterpiece.

Is he really different now? Or is it more the underlined part - that because his music isn't landing anymore, people are a hell of a lot less forgiving than they once were? Serious question.

 

[cobl04]

I'm not sure I'm a fan of the generalization you're making here. If I disagree with this album or that album being so high on a list, it has nothing to do with skin color. I have no problem with A Seat At The Table being #6, because I like that album. If The Electric Lady had been in the top 10, I wouldn't have complained, because I like that album. I judge music based on the music.

If the criteria is about cultural significance, then I can see quite clearly that Kendrick, Beyonce, Kanye, etc, have it over those bands you listed. That's no lack of awareness on my part. But Frank Ocean is #1. If we're measuring cultural significance, I don't see how he goes above Kendrick, Beyonce, and Kanye.

To your point, if it's about cultural significance, then of course Beyonce was more so than Blackstar.

I guess my issue is that I feel like P4K is trying to have it both ways. They want to have their pulse on the zeitgeist, so-to-speak, and have their list reflect cultural significance, but then they also have a bunch of albums on there that are decidedly not mainstream (I've never even heard of a number of those artists) and that, regardless of their quality, didn't penetrate the pop culture at all.

Meanwhile, for a list of culturally significant albums, there are some glaring omissions on that front: Fame Monster is there, but Born This Way is not; Katy Perry's Teenage Dream album was pretty huge(even if I don't personally care for it), a bunch of singles that just wouldn't go away, but it's nowhere to be seen; Timberlake's 20/20 Experience Pt. 1; etc.

They want to do the 'zeitgeist' thing while still trying to hold on to a semblance of the indie outfit they used to be. I guess I feel like they should pick a lane is all, because when they try to straddle the line, they just end up making a list that isn't really fully accurate to either impulse.

I'm with you on the first part. I think you could have had any of Kendrick, Beyonce, Frank or Kanye at #1. It's splitting hairs.

I think you make a solid point on their second part as well. But no matter what their list looks like, we'd all be complaining. That's the beautiful thing about naming best albums of the whatevers.

Is he really different now? Or is it more the underlined part - that because his music isn't landing anymore, people are a hell of a lot less forgiving than they once were? Serious question.

A good and fair question. I believe he is different now. Significantly. I think in 2010 he was still trying to prove himself, still feeling like he had a point to prove, still felt on the outside, and I think he was justified in that. He certainly did a whole bunch of arsehole shit back then -- any current review of MBDTF or Yeezus should make that clear, and Pitchfork did -- but, I think it was in line with his headspace at the time, and I think you could make an argument he was right -- what business did Taylor Swift have winning that award over Beyonce? Absolutely none.

Fast forward nine years, and he's been hospitalised for burnout, and has documented mental health issues. He's surrounding himself with people who don't say no, or play devil's advocate. After MBDTF, he earned himself the right to do whatever the fuck he wanted, and every release since has reflected that: Yeezus was a huge, ugly fuck-you to all the people who wanted to dictate what sort of music he should make, The Life of Pablo doubled down on this by him wantonly tinkering with the album weeks and months after its release, he launched his records alongside ridiculous Yeezy Season fashion events. I stood by all that stuff because I still liked the music. Ye sucks, and every other of the four or five albums he produced in that period (Nas, Teyana, etc) was significantly better.

His turning point came in his open support of Trump. At the start of the decade, Kanye was still the bloke who said George Bush doesn't care about black people. A decade later and he's openly supporting Trump. He's betrayed who we was, in my view. I will still listen to his music as I believe in separating art and artist, but there's been a noticeable drop in quality from 2017 onwards.

 

[cobl04]

Just scrolled through the album list, I think it's pretty great tbqh. Some glaring omissions but a lot of great picks.

The most embarrassing thing is not including any Gang of Youths. For some reason they missed that boat and haven't gone back to correct it. I am very much looking forward to how they plan to address the fact they've completely ignored them when their third record comes out and it explodes the world over.

Otherwise, the most egregious oversight for mine over the songs and albums lists is not including "The Charade".

 

[gump]

Black Messiah was top 10 so I’m cool with that. I feel it’s one of those albums where it’s impossible to pick a song. Like Carrie & Lowell, which has no songs represented either.

 

[cobl04]

I was surprised to see no Fourth of July or Should Have Known Better in the songs list. The Sufjan FB forum I'm part are fuming there's no Age of Adz lol. (Adz is my favourite but it was never making it.) Also, you must have smiled as much as I did to see Helado Negro's new album in there.

 

[lazarus]

With all this revisionist history, it’s kind of surprising that Vampire Weekend made it to the Top 10 while some of the other indie acts were left behind.

Any theories there?

Of course, it was their #1 of that year so it would have been hard to push it too far down.

 

[LuckyNumber7]

Vampire Weekend is literally the most poppy college girl at a music festival shit out there, and Ezra Koenig is a model. They’re like the indie Jonas Brothers. It jives very well with the other music listed there.