What are everyone's favorite albums of 2014?

[GirlsAloudFan]

I mean, that's gotta be a first. An album they didn't even review when it first came out has two songs on their top songs list and is in their top albums list. What, were they scared at first to give a Taylor Swift album an 8.5 and then, in two months time, decided it was ok to admit it and name it one of the 30 best albums of the year even though they'd never given it or her the time of day before? So strange.

Also strange cuz her previous three albums are all legitimately better than this one.

Don't get me wrong, though. Still ecstatic that she's cracked her way into stuff like this. It's funny, and awesome, and weirdly both surprising and not so surprising at the same time.

 

[GirlsAloudFan]

But Fearless, SN, and Red all shit on 1989. Still really proud of her. Fuck you guys. Let's go.

 

[LemonMelon]

Pitchfork doesn't review white pop stars. No Taylor, no Katy Perry, no Kesha, no Adele.

Meanwhile, they just gave a Nicki Minaj album with Anaconda on it a 7.5.

 

[cobl04]

I do find that strange and really lame, GAF.

I'm a bit annoyed with myself this year. I haven't listened to as much music and my end of year list is gonna suck, because there's a ton of albums I haven't heard that I know I'd love.

 

[bono_212]

P4K always does this. It's somehow "edgy" pop, so it's cool.

 

[iron yuppie]

Yeah Taylor Swift doesn't get enough press. A damn shame Pitchfork didn't make some time for her.

 

[bono_212]

It's a really stupid blind spot they have, though. And then they give these singles all this praise at the end of the year.

 

[GirlsAloudFan]

Pitchfork doesn't review white pop stars. No Taylor, no Katy Perry, no Kesha, no Adele.

No, I know that. (Although they have reviewed Gaga). I wasn't surprised at all that they didn't review it originally and I'm not mad about it. What I am surprised at is how high it ranked considering they'd never even mentioned her before. It's just kind of an out of nowhere love fest. It's cool. Just weird.

I mean, they review, what, 1000 albums every year? Making the top 50 is a big deal, and they give one of those spots to an artist they've never mentioned or reviewed before. That's all I was trying to say last night, probably didn't explain it very well, and it's also not really a big deal at all.

I'm watching Home Alone.

 

[bono_212]

Nothing they do makes sense. Look at True Romance getting a BNM and then not making the top 100 at the end of the year. It's just weird.

We watched Home Alone 2 the other night.

 

[LMP]

Yeah Taylor Swift doesn't get enough press. A damn shame Pitchfork didn't make some time for her.

A cultural crime if you ask me.

 

[BigMacPhisto]

Pitchfork rated Benji as the 9th best album of 2010-2014
Pitchfork rated Benji as the 7th best album of 2014

There's a mathematical reasoning for that, beyond the fact that some writers may have participated in only one of the two lists.

1) The decade list was published well before 2014 was nearing its end. Releases from artists such as Run The Jewels were still being waited on.

2) The people that really liked Benji could have really, really liked it and therefore ranked it high among the other releases from this decade whereas someone that liked other albums from 2014 more might consider 2014 to be generally weaker than years past, so they might rank, say War on Drugs much lower in their half-decade lists than the people that really liked Benji ranked theirs.

Similar situation happened last time around when Funeral finished first for 2004 and then ended up like 35th a few months later in the half-decade list (finishing behind Smile which it beat in the other list).

 

[BigMacPhisto]

I'm not seeing the Cymbals Eat Guitars album on any lists.

One of my favorites, but I won't be doing a list...partially because it's hard to compile and partially because I have no ratings system online for most of the cassette releases I purchased (which makes up a hefty chunk of new music that I like).

 

[cobl04]

There's a mathematical reasoning for that, beyond the fact that some writers may have participated in only one of the two lists.

1) The decade list was published well before 2014 was nearing its end. Releases from artists such as Run The Jewels were still being waited on.

2) The people that really liked Benji could have really, really liked it and therefore ranked it high among the other releases from this decade whereas someone that liked other albums from 2014 more might consider 2014 to be generally weaker than years past, so they might rank, say War on Drugs much lower in their half-decade lists than the people that really liked Benji ranked theirs.

Similar situation happened last time around when Funeral finished first for 2004 and then ended up like 35th a few months later in the half-decade list (finishing behind Smile which it beat in the other list).

Both of those points obviously make sense and I'm well aware of them, but how in the fuck that's "mathematical reasoning" is beyond me. It's a subjective list.

 

[LemonMelon]

and partially because I have no ratings system online for most of the cassette releases I purchased (which makes up a hefty chunk of new music that I like).

Guhhh

 

[bono_212]

One of my favorites, but I won't be doing a list...partially because it's hard to compile and partially because I have no ratings system online for most of the cassette releases I purchased (which makes up a hefty chunk of new music that I like).

Oh my God.

You're trolling, right? It's gotta be trolling.

 

[lazarus]

One of my favorites, but I won't be doing a list...partially because it's hard to compile and partially because I have no ratings system online for most of the cassette releases I purchased (which makes up a hefty chunk of new music that I like).

 

[BigMacPhisto]

I collect tapes from tape labels. It's a thing. So is Cassette Store Day.

And if it's about the "ratings system"...I use the site AlbumoftheYear for that, but mostly to keep track of what I listen to...they don't cover most of the cassette-type stuff, so I don't have any __/100 rating for any of those, nor would I care enough to do something like that on my own.

 

[cobl04]

what the fuck could possibly possess you to buy cassettes?

 

[BigMacPhisto]

The fact that they're very DIY and honestly have the coolest look of any of these physical media is one point. The other is that most of these releases only come out on cassette (aside from digitally, but many don't even end up there). Cheap price as well to support an artist and cassettes are fun to listen to as long as you have a player that works fine (I have a new twin-deck).

I know all about the format's problems and such, but for the most part I get a nice warm analog sound out of them with a certain kind of punch. I have cassettes from REM and The Replacements that honestly sound far better than the MP3s I have of that material in my library (or even some of the CDs given loudness wars issues on some of those remasters).

It's also a format I never really experienced until now. My first CD player that I got in the mid-90s had a twin deck, but I only really ever used them for recording over some Bible tapes with CDs for friends.

Mostly, I just liked building up a physical collection of albums I like and try to get everything that isn't insanely priced that I've loved from 2013-onward. And there's a lot of great music coming out on the hundreds of tape labels that are out there. Pitchfork themselves gave Honorable Mentions to at least two releases this year that first came out on cassette for tape labels and other music sites have even listed tape label albums in their year-end tallies. There's definitely a wealth of great music on them.

 

[Axver]

I thought the revival of vinyl was daft enough, but this new cassette niche is simply absurd.

 

[lazarus]

Cassettes are garbage. The sound quality is considerably worse than both CDs and vinyl.

The most idiotic media revival to be sure.

 

[cobl04]

The fact that they're very DIY and honestly have the coolest look of any of these physical media is one point. The other is that most of these releases only come out on cassette (aside from digitally, but many don't even end up there). Cheap price as well to support an artist and cassettes are fun to listen to as long as you have a player that works fine (I have a new twin-deck).

I know all about the format's problems and such, but for the most part I get a nice warm analog sound out of them with a certain kind of punch. I have cassettes from REM and The Replacements that honestly sound far better than the MP3s I have of that material in my library (or even some of the CDs given loudness wars issues on some of those remasters).

It's also a format I never really experienced until now. My first CD player that I got in the mid-90s had a twin deck, but I only really ever used them for recording over some Bible tapes with CDs for friends.

Mostly, I just liked building up a physical collection of albums I like and try to get everything that isn't insanely priced that I've loved from 2013-onward. And there's a lot of great music coming out on the hundreds of tape labels that are out there. Pitchfork themselves gave Honorable Mentions to at least two releases this year that first came out on cassette for tape labels and other music sites have even listed tape label albums in their year-end tallies. There's definitely a wealth of great music on them.

This is one of the stupidest things I have ever read.

 

[RaisedByWolves]

I thought the revival of vinyl was daft enough, but this new cassette niche is simply absurd.

Slow down there cowboy......vinyl is not daft, it is still the greatest sounding medium for music.

Why Vinyl Is the Only Worthwhile Way to Own Music

 

[nielsgov]

Has anyone mentioned Ben Howard's latest album? I think it's absolutely phenomenal. My number one as of now.

 

[Hewson]

Cassettes are garbage. The sound quality is considerably worse than both CDs and vinyl.

The most idiotic media revival to be sure.

The only true benefit of cassettes 30 years ago when they eliminated 8 tracks from our world was their size, being able to play them in these new things called Walkmen, and you could keep a bunch in your car and play them in a cassette deck that didn't take up too much space on the dashboard. That benefit was wiped out when digital music came into our lives, there's no reason for a revival.

 

[bono_212]

I loved cassettes when I was a kid, and I always thought they were better than CDs, simply because they were much harder to break (though of course they deteriorate in quality over time). IF they don't have too much on them and you only listen to it once, they are of better quality than CDs, but I mean, we're literally talking about diminishing returns, here.

I get the idea that Vinyl is great to collect because you get such a large image along with them. There is nothing about a cassette that I look at and thing, "Ah, yes, this is visually appealing", save for the nostalgia factor.

Up until two years ago, I still had a car with a tape deck, so I have a huge box of cassette tapes and I'm loathe to ever get rid of them, but besides a novelty Wampire single I purchased, and Awesome Mix Vol. 1, I can't begin to even imagine that I'd ever buy another cassette tape.

 

[Axver]

Slow down there cowboy......vinyl is not daft, it is still the greatest sounding medium for music.

Why Vinyl Is the Only Worthwhile Way to Own Music

Hey, I'm old enough (or just from a poor enough background that couldn't afford a new stereo system) to have grown up on vinyl. I know what it's like and it's a pain in the arse. It never should've been revived. Most of the claimed benefits are audiophiles talking through their hat, and I couldn't give a toss about large album artwork.

 

[BigMacPhisto]

For what it's worth, there isn't really a "cassette revival" so to speak. For this vinyl resurgence it basically required affordable players to become available, something that had been lacking for most of the 90's/early 00's...there's been no new cassette players coming out (you literally can't even buy a working portable one that's new), so I don't expect the format to really rebound.

What has been going on is the existence of tape labels for decades on end and it leads to a lot of unique under-the-radar music releases. That's why I like it.

 

[LemonMelon]

Vinyl is by far and away the most collectible format. It looks great. At this point, the collectible nature of vinyl is the only legitimate reason I have for buying music. Now that streaming services and 4G LTE exist (not to mention bluetooth and aux holes), I don't see the point in buying music unless it's in a format I collect.

Plus, vinyl gives you a more unique sound profile to differentiate it from MP3s. CDs are still coldly digital, so it's a lateral move.

 

[martha]

Hey, I'm old enough (or just from a poor enough background that couldn't afford a new stereo system) to have grown up on vinyl. I know what it's like and it's a pain in the arse. It never should've been revived. Most of the claimed benefits are audiophiles talking through their hat, and I couldn't give a toss about large album artwork.

This. So much.

And cassettes were something you recorded songs on to take in your car in a convenient format. Like cds are now. Which is why I still love cds because I drive all over creation every summer.