Jesusetc84 Posted October 3, 2009 Share Posted October 3, 2009 Well that just makes a lot more sense. Also it keeps people like me from whining. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Lodestar Posted October 3, 2009 Share Posted October 3, 2009 Anyone notice any albums on there that Pitchfork originally gave not-great review scores? Only one I can think of is The National's Alligator, which got a 7.9 originally, but placed 40th for the decade. Then again, Pitchfork likes to call the band "grower-rock" because it "grew" on them... Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Jesusetc84 Posted October 3, 2009 Share Posted October 3, 2009 Anyone notice any albums on there that Pitchfork originally gave not-great review scores? Only one I can think of is The National's Alligator, which got a 7.9 originally, but placed 40th for the decade. Then again, Pitchfork likes to call the band "grower-rock" because it "grew" on them... Andrew W.K. Originally a 0.6 ZERO POINT SIX!!! Assuming they'd now give every album in the top 200 at least an 8.0, that's pretty good growth. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
TCP Posted October 3, 2009 Share Posted October 3, 2009 Anyone notice any albums on there that Pitchfork originally gave not-great review scores? Only one I can think of is The National's Alligator, which got a 7.9 originally, but placed 40th for the decade. Then again, Pitchfork likes to call the band "grower-rock" because it "grew" on them...Yeah, Sea Change which they gave a 6.9 to. That always bugged me, even though I know I shouldn't care, it'd be one of my top-5 this decade. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
augurus Posted October 3, 2009 Share Posted October 3, 2009 Listening to an album more often doesn't make it better. Funeral is just overwrought with emotion, and that's not bad at all. But it drowns out the detail to muscular musicianship, and it doesn't make it stronger than Yankee Hotel Foxtrot. The message gets lost in the emotional dwelling, and suddenly, the album it not even communicating to you. There is no connection attempted. This is why Funeral is strictly worse than Yankee Hotel Foxtrot, and deserves the same spot it deserved in 2000-2004 list, or even further down. Furthermore, Pitchfork placed Arcade Fire at number two not because of musical authenticity and brilliance, but for its social impact. Now that's called Affirmative Action. Everything All The Time: see Funeral. Ga Ga Ga Ga Ga doesn't even deserve to be on the list with its mediocre repetitive lyrics: it's an album full of polarizing ends; there's Cherry Bomb and Black Like Me which are just beautiful and excellent, but then there's repetitive shit like Don't Make Me A Target and Don't You Evah. Yes, it deserves to be called shit, except for the nuclear dicks line. For Emma, Forever Ago sounded beautiful, but it didn't strike a chord. It's as if people totally ignored the last 10 years of folk music. Fleet Foxes self-titled: Grizzly Bear got there first, and did it better, but they get credit for veering off the path. Also, see For Emma, Forever Ago. A Ghost Is Born is one of the most overbloated and overrated albums on this board because obviously this is a Wilco forum. So I guess I shouldn't complain about people for not sharing my view. Spiders lacks the awesome bass line that makes kraut rock awesome: in fact, it sounds too homogeneous even for its repetitive theme. The Late Greats sounds so awful, I have to question if Jeff threw the song on the album to see who else would laugh at such a horrible meta-joke. Two albums might not make an album awful, but it's not an awful album. It's an album that isn't consistently good. I'm glad at least some of you could remember it for the good, but I can only hope you're stilling singing about the astonishing discovery of what's in your back. Blueberry Boat and SMiLE,... why have you forsaken such ingenuity and brilliance? They accomplished and challenged music more than what the 150+ other albums on that list wish they could strive. Oh, and they entertained. ..And Then Nothing Turned Itself Inside Out finally got its due, and I'm happy that more than one person out there loves this. And finally, I will undo my entire argument. Limiting 3 albums to a band is an awful rule for creating a list that aims to deliver the best of the century. Furthermore, it's not even the end of the decade yet. Are you going to just deny chances to Flaming Lips, HEALTH, and other artists that plan to release in October and November? Quote Link to post Share on other sites
DrNo Posted October 3, 2009 Share Posted October 3, 2009 I've had problems with this list since they started rolling it out on Monday. First of all, how do you put Chutes Too Narrow 69 spots ahead of Oh, Inverted World? That's just crazy talk. Okkervil River and Califone should at least be in the top 20, as should the Constantines IMO. I'm also shocked at the lack of DBT. Even Pitchfork has reviewed many of their albums fairly well. Funeral at #2, but no Neon Bible? I think Neon Bible is the better record, but even if they don't, it's easily in the top 200. No Gillian Welch. That is astounding. They gave Time (The Revelator) an 8.1 when it came out. And Kid A, while an excellent record, would not even crack my top 100. rabble rabble rabble. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
tongue-tied Posted October 3, 2009 Share Posted October 3, 2009 Where is William Shatner's 'Has Been'? They gave it a 7.5! Quote Link to post Share on other sites
solace Posted October 3, 2009 Share Posted October 3, 2009 No Doves or Elbow? as for now Built To Spill... honestly, even tho BTS are one of my all time favorite bands, their '00's output hasn't been THAT strong... certainly not compared to their late 90's output (Keep It Like A Secret, Perfect From Now On, & There's Nothing Wrong With Love being their best records). Ancient is one of their weakest, You In Reverse was very solid but won't make my top 200 either, and the new one is too new to consider yet, but i doubt it'd be on my list either. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Sir Stewart Posted October 3, 2009 Share Posted October 3, 2009 No Doves Van Damn. I assumed Last Broadcast was on there somewhere. Wow. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Theremin Posted October 3, 2009 Share Posted October 3, 2009 I've had problems with this list since they started rolling it out on Monday. First of all, how do you put Chutes Too Narrow 69 spots ahead of Oh, Inverted World? That's just crazy talk.Chutes is wildly considered the better record, and rightly so. 2 or 3 brilliant songs don't make the album as a whole. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
solace Posted October 3, 2009 Share Posted October 3, 2009 Chutes is wildly considered the better record, and rightly so. 2 or 3 brilliant songs don't make the album as a whole.wildly? uhm. not really. not amongst big Shins fans at least, it's pretty even. that said, the 3rd Shins record is definitely VASTLY inferior to both. Inverted > Chutes, sorry, i'm with Dr. No on this one. Chutes is great, but there's 2-3 songs on Inverted that i like way more than anything on Chutes... ie: Caring Is Creep, Pressed In A Book, etc. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Alan Posted October 3, 2009 Share Posted October 3, 2009 This is like every indie rock album made in the last 10 years....oh yea..plus a few rap albums.... LouieB Inverted > Chutes correct Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Theremin Posted October 3, 2009 Share Posted October 3, 2009 wildly? uhm. not really. not amongst big Shins fans at least, it's pretty even. that said, the 3rd Shins record is definitely VASTLY inferior to both. Inverted > Chutes, sorry, i'm with Dr. No on this one. Chutes is great, but there's 2-3 songs on Inverted that i like way more than anything on Chutes... ie: Caring Is Creepy, Pressed In A Book, etc.Chutes got the better reviews and is more popular amongst casual fans, I don't really care what die-hards are thinking. And thanks for confirming my suspicions, people who prefer inverted usually do that because of 2-3 songs while completely ignoring the many weaker ones. Chutes is the only Shins record that works front to back whitout a single weaker song, it's one of the most consistent albums of this decade (especially the second half is really good) and fully deserves the higher ranking on that list. Whincing on the other hand was indeed a big let down. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Jesusetc84 Posted October 3, 2009 Share Posted October 3, 2009 Chutes got the better reviews and is more popular amongst casual fans, I don't really care what die-hards are thinking. And thanks for confirming my suspicions, people who prefer inverted usually do that because of 2-3 songs while completely ignoring the many weaker ones. Chutes is the only Shins record that works front to back whitout a single weaker song, it's one of the most consistent albums of this decade (especially the second half is really good) and fully deserves the higher ranking on that list. Whincing on the other hand was indeed a big let down. I agree with this. Chutes is a front to back classic. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Alan Posted October 3, 2009 Share Posted October 3, 2009 Fighting In a Sack and Turn a Square are pretty meh. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
solace Posted October 3, 2009 Share Posted October 3, 2009 Chutes got the better reviews and is more popular amongst casual fans, I don't really care what die-hards are thinking. And thanks for confirming my suspicions, people who prefer inverted usually do that because of 2-3 songs while completely ignoring the many weaker ones. Chutes is the only Shins record that works front to back whitout a single weaker song, it's one of the most consistent albums of this decade (especially the second half is really good) and fully deserves the higher ranking on that list. Whincing on the other hand was indeed a big let down. actually there's not a single song on Inverted that i dislike... i just like 2-3 songs on it MORE than anything on Chutes, is all i said. that and i'm not too big on Those To Come on Chutes... it is a consistent and more cohesive record with better production, but i just prefer the more electric sound of Inverted too. both are great records, and i don't really bat an eye when people claim either one is better, but i do have to question anyone who says Chutes is VASTLY better is all. sad that it seems like The Shins will dissolve very soon. that said, Beulah >>>>> The Shins, so there's that. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Jesusetc84 Posted October 3, 2009 Share Posted October 3, 2009 actually there's not a single song on Inverted that i dislike... i just like 2-3 songs on it MORE than anything on Chutes, is all i said. that and i'm not too big on Those To Come on Chutes... it is a consistent and more cohesive record, but i just prefer the more electric sound of Inverted too. both are great records, and i don't really bat an eye when people claim either one is better, but i do have to question anyone who says Chutes is VASTLY better is all. sad that it seems like The Shins will dissolve very soon. Didn't Mercer fire everyone? Quote Link to post Share on other sites
solace Posted October 3, 2009 Share Posted October 3, 2009 Didn't Mercer fire everyone? i THINK just the keyboardist Marty & drummer Jesse, but yeah. and he's putting out a record with Dangermouse soon. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Alan Posted October 3, 2009 Share Posted October 3, 2009 actually there's not a single song on Inverted that i dislike... i just like 2-3 songs on it MORE than anything on Chutes, is all i said. that and i'm not too big on Those To Come on Chutes... it is a consistent and more cohesive record with better production, but i just prefer the more electric sound of Inverted too. both are great records, and i don't really bat an eye when people claim either one is better, but i do have to question anyone who says Chutes is VASTLY better is all. sad that it seems like The Shins will dissolve very soon. that said, Beulah >>>>> The Shins, so there's that. Eh, what's more sad, when bands who put out their best work several years ago break up, or when bands don't know when to break up and start releasing albums that keep getting worse. Sounds like good timing for The Shins to call it quits. I'm a Mercer fan though so I'll pay attention to whatever he's up to. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
solace Posted October 3, 2009 Share Posted October 3, 2009 Eh, what's more sad, when bands who put out their best work several years ago break up, or when bands don't know when to break up and start releasing albums that keep getting worse. Sounds like good timing for The Shins to call it quits. I'm a Mercer fan though so I'll pay attention to whatever he's up to. this is true... good point. also, The Shins have never ever been THAT amazing of a live act, so maybe mixing things up a bit will change that. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Jesusetc84 Posted October 3, 2009 Share Posted October 3, 2009 ...or when bands don't know when to break up and start releasing albums that keep getting worse... You mean The Billy Corgan method? Quote Link to post Share on other sites
bsr8j Posted October 4, 2009 Share Posted October 4, 2009 also, The Shins have never ever been THAT amazing of a live act, so maybe mixing things up a bit will change that. I saw them several months ago and they were mostly meh. Maybe it was the fact I had to work the next day. I don't know, they just weren't that amazing. But then I saw The Hold Steady shortly thereafter...and that was an entirely different story. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
solace Posted October 4, 2009 Share Posted October 4, 2009 I saw them several months ago and they were mostly meh. Maybe it was the fact I had to work the next day. I don't know, they just weren't that amazing. But then I saw The Hold Steady shortly thereafter...and that was an entirely different story. i've probably seen The Shins 5-6x over the years and every time i do i wonder why i keep going back, since i've never come away from one of their shows thinking "wow, that was a REALLY REALLY great show". i suppose 2 of those shows i went to mostly because Calexico & Rogue Wave opened and Calexico blew them to pieces both nights . and the first time i saw them (before i knew their music) i went just to see Preston School of Industry. they're not a BAD live band, just a very average/mediocre one. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Theremin Posted October 4, 2009 Share Posted October 4, 2009 Fighting In a Sack and Turn a Square are pretty meh.Lol, Turn a Square is like the most underrated song in their catalogue. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
DrNo Posted October 4, 2009 Share Posted October 4, 2009 Chutes is wildly considered the better record, and rightly so. 2 or 3 brilliant songs don't make the album as a whole. By whom? It certainly isn't in the circles I run in. Chutes is a good album, don't get me wrong, but "Oh, Inverted World" has much cooler production. They haven't done anything that strange and beautiful since. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.