That's here http://pitchforkmedia.com/top/2000-04/
Interesting list, but I have some doubt about putting the first Interpol album on the third position and Franz Ferdinand on 89th and not less than three (3!!!) Radiohead's albums, which means all their albums since 2000, "Kid A" being simply at the very first place.
I know we can discuss no end about the validity of such top thing, but the fact is that kind of list has a strong promotional impact for the albums and the bands listed and I find it slightly exxagerated to put on three Radiohead albums. "Kid A" and "Amnesiac" are close to be twin records and I feel like there are two places which could have been taken by other albums.
No Stina Nordenstam in the list, but not even Supersilent "6", for example, and even if that album was very highly praised, to say the least.
In fact, I thought beforehands that Pitchfork was busy with far more adventurous music, but in many ways they are not too different from Rolling Stone or even Mojo, two rockzines pitchfork is eventually critisizing with much strength.
But I'm quite glad to see "Sung Tongs" by Animal Collective reaching the nineth place, 'cos besides being one of my favourite of last year, that record will simply make history, imho. Now I'm a bit afraid they will suffer as well from some hype in a very near future. If in their case, one can believe the hype for once, nobody needs any hype. Let's see.
The Top 100 Albums: 2000-04
-
Spookrijder
- Kitchen
- Posts: 124
- Joined: Thu Feb 03, 2005 1:00 pm
- Location: Brussels, Belgium
The Top 100 Albums: 2000-04
"We're keeping busy, yeah we're bleeding stones
With our machinations and palindromes
Anything but hear the voice that says we're basically alone"
With our machinations and palindromes
Anything but hear the voice that says we're basically alone"
i read the list a couple of days ago and was quite interested in the results too. you raised a number of peritnent points too.
i guess p-f does cover quite a broad spectrum of music, but this list is a composite of all their writer's choices, so i guess that rounds off the edges so to speak. the inclusion of so much hip-hop i thought was a little bit of 'right-on' liberal race politics, while the bulk of the music is mainly guitar based 'indie' / 'alternative' rock (whatever those terms mean, but that's another story...)
i don't know either whether the choices were made in terms of significance in the view of the writer concerned, or simply the writer's favourites. my list based on these two differing criteria would be wildly different. based on the former, i personally would say stina is for example totally irrelevant, while supersilent might be lurking around the 80's.
certainly putting kid a at the top seems a strange choice. i suppose it did make waves (mainly amongst r'head fans?!
) when it came out, but 'most important album of the last five years'? hmmm... i though amnesiac was stronger than kid a (and christian's right when he says they should have been banded together) and the last r'head album was certainly no great shakes. it does seem to be a bit of a clich?d choice for p-f - they pick the world's largest 'alternative' band for nr.1 and include all three of their releases in their top 100.
i suppose at the end of the day every magazine has to be like a label with a recognisable direction aimed at a specific 'target group'. marketing... like it or loathe it, you can't seem to escape it these days.
i guess p-f does cover quite a broad spectrum of music, but this list is a composite of all their writer's choices, so i guess that rounds off the edges so to speak. the inclusion of so much hip-hop i thought was a little bit of 'right-on' liberal race politics, while the bulk of the music is mainly guitar based 'indie' / 'alternative' rock (whatever those terms mean, but that's another story...)
i don't know either whether the choices were made in terms of significance in the view of the writer concerned, or simply the writer's favourites. my list based on these two differing criteria would be wildly different. based on the former, i personally would say stina is for example totally irrelevant, while supersilent might be lurking around the 80's.
certainly putting kid a at the top seems a strange choice. i suppose it did make waves (mainly amongst r'head fans?!
) when it came out, but 'most important album of the last five years'? hmmm... i though amnesiac was stronger than kid a (and christian's right when he says they should have been banded together) and the last r'head album was certainly no great shakes. it does seem to be a bit of a clich?d choice for p-f - they pick the world's largest 'alternative' band for nr.1 and include all three of their releases in their top 100.i suppose at the end of the day every magazine has to be like a label with a recognisable direction aimed at a specific 'target group'. marketing... like it or loathe it, you can't seem to escape it these days.