Pitchfork's Best of the '90s - redux

[ggw]

http://www.pitchforkmedia.com/index.shtml

[Bags]

As weâ??ve discussed in countless other threads (and I just posted as a separate, new thread today), these lists are often quite inane.  They tend to be based on what â??shouldâ?? be on a list of bests, rather than what we actually listen to.
 
 That said, Pitchforkâ??s idea to revisit the same list over a period of a couple of years is genius.  It demonstrates how perceptions and significance change over time, in fact derailing the importance of such lists overall.  Iâ??ll be reading this list comparatively to the first, finding the real interest in whatâ??s new and whatâ??s gone.  So far, the list of â??casualtiesâ?? included in the intro has some real hearbreakers.  Sleater-Kinney?  No way!

[Charlie Nakatestes, Japanese Golfer]

Is it the fickle nature of alt-rock fans/writers that would make the list change so much in such a short time or the fact that most alt-rock sounds dated and irrelevant in a hurry?

[Celeste]

Originally posted by Rhett Miller:
  Is it the fickle nature of alt-rock fans/writers that would make the list change so much in such a short time or the fact that most alt-rock sounds dated and irrelevant in a hurry?

Additionally, it could be a.) a tactic for self-perpetuation, or b.) a demonstration of a propensity for jumping on bandwagons only to realize, later, when the buzz has died down, that what they thought was so brilliant was really mediocre

[redsock]

Originally posted by Rhett Miller:
  Is it the fickle nature of alt-rock fans/writers that would make the list change so much in such a short time or the fact that most alt-rock sounds dated and irrelevant in a hurry?

Sigh. Pitchfork is at one end so condascending and purposely hi-brow that I hate it, and at the other everything I want to be and emulate on my own site. I just don't know what to think about them. The list seems to have more hip-hop than the earlier version, which surprises me. Or perhaps in the end it will come out not to. Mostly it consists of plenty of bands i have barely heard of, or not at all. Again, should i be mad at them for being so obscure cause they get off on it, or love it cause these really are the best albums of the 90s?

[godsshoeshine]

cutting bakesale + no sleater-kinney = original list will be better.
 
 although, they might get something better than mbv at #1.  okc? in an aeroplane?  we shall see

[Chip Chanko]

...or the fact that all but three of the staff have turned over since the first list was made and they have different tastes since it's all subjective.
 
 

Originally posted by Celeste:
   

Originally posted by Rhett Miller:
  Is it the fickle nature of alt-rock fans/writers that would make the list change so much in such a short time or the fact that most alt-rock sounds dated and irrelevant in a hurry?

Additionally, it could be a.) a tactic for self-perpetuation, or b.) a demonstration of a propensity for jumping on bandwagons only to realize, later, when the buzz has died down, that what they thought was so brilliant was really mediocre [/b]

[Charlie Nakatestes, Japanese Golfer]

In other words, they got real jobs.  
 
 
 

Originally posted by Chip Chanko:
 [QB] ...or the fact that all but three of the staff have turned over since the first list was made and they have different tastes since it's all subjective.

[Chip Chanko]

yeah...or the volunteer writing was taking up too much of their time.
 
 personally i got burned out writing reviews because of everything you guys are hitting on here. some music takes a while to grow on you. you never have enough time to listen to it all. tastes change. hype can be influential. so you can write a review of something then completely change your mind in time.
 
 like bagster's post from the Times today...my all time favorite list probably varies based on time of year, things that just came out, things i've overplayed, things i've just discovered, etc.
 
 but...lists help at least as starting points for discussions or as reminders of things you haven't listened to yet and need to.

[Bags]

Originally posted by Chip Chanko:
  but...lists help at least as starting points for discussions or as reminders of things you haven't listened to yet and need to.

And that's exactly the role they end up playing here.  So, we can't disparage the grand listmakers all that much.    

[Mobius]

I think they can no longer live with the shame of not putting The Soft Bulletin on the original list.

[walkman]

Originally posted by god's shoeshine:
  they might get something better than mbv at #1.  

yeah, and ESPN will choose someone other than Michael Jordan as the best basketball player of all time.
 
 Although, despite his immense talent, I can't claim that Jordan changed my life.
 
 MBV stays...I hope.

[godsshoeshine]

meh, i can't listen to loveless anymore, like every other "shoegazer" band. still don't see why they get hipster props over curve or catherine wheel.

[Chip Chanko]

probably only because of his/their lack of output. lost in translation soundtrack has some pretty good new stuff, though.
 
 

Originally posted by god's shoeshine:
  meh, i can't listen to loveless anymore, like every other "shoegazer" band. still don't see why they get hipster props over curve or catherine wheel.

[Lazer Guided Melodies]

Personally, I would move Screamadelica and Deserter's Songs way up in the list.  And if Lazer Guided Melodies hasn't made on so far I doubt it will which I obviously disagree with.  Sometimes I enjoy Pitchfork and sometimes they are so damn american indiecentric and too often bow at the altar of Bob Pollard who is nothing but a drunk from Dayton that I find it pointless.  But hey, that is the good things about lists, right?