Trouser Press
 
Back to: HomeReviewsWhat's New
 
 
 New Topic  |  Go to Top  |  Go to Topic  |  Search  |  Log In   Newer Topic  |  Older Topic 
 Hey You Kids Off My Lawn! Pitchfork Top 200 of the 60s
Author: mats84 
Date:   08-22-17 10:22

I have a bunch I'd argue but I would probably do it less eloquently than you guys so have at 'em :

http://pitchfork.com/features/lists-and-guides/the-200-best-albums-of-the-1960s/




Post Edited (08-22-17 10:32)

Reply To This Message
 
 Re: Hey You Kids Off My Lawn! Pitchfork Top 200 of the 60s
Author: zoo 
Date:   08-23-17 09:33

I scrolled through the top 20 and didn't see either of The Band's first two albums. Then I didn't see either in 21-40. Then I stopped because those omissions alone render the list null and void (IMO, of course). I would have taken one or the other, though I'm partial to the self-titled second album.

That said, based on my quick scroll, I did see many others that I can't really quibble with, so maybe it's not entirely crap.

Reply To This Message
 
 Re: Hey You Kids Off My Lawn! Pitchfork Top 200 of the 60s
Author: Michael Toland 
Date:   08-23-17 09:47

I don't like to give Pitchfork my business, so I'm not gonna bother clicking on the link. But I'm curious: what's their number 1? Sgt. Pepper?

Reply To This Message
 
 Re: Hey You Kids Off My Lawn! Pitchfork Top 200 of the 60s
Author: mats84 
Date:   08-23-17 10:21


Velvets and Nico #1, Sgt. Pepper's at 28..........




Reply To This Message
 
 Re: Hey You Kids Off My Lawn! Pitchfork Top 200 of the 60s
Author: Delvin 
Date:   08-23-17 10:49

> Velvets and Nico #1, Sgt. Pepper's at 28..........

Then the list can't be entirely wack, since it corrects an egregious mistake in crtical judgment that's plagued just about every rock-oriented albums list I've ever seen.



Reply To This Message
 
 Re: Hey You Kids Off My Lawn! Pitchfork Top 200 of the 60s
Author: mats84 
Date:   08-23-17 11:11

I actually think the list is too heavy in Jazz records, and a weird though honorable effort to make the list more "representative".

5 of the top 10 are by African Americans, 2 are female, etc, fair enough and they are great records but throughout the list some weirdo thing come up because of it - 1 Stones barely in the top 20, Highway 61 gets pushed down to 14 .....................I mean to me that's almost impossible to say (and I'm not a Blonde on Blonde is a better record believer which is ranked higher here), no Beck, Clapton at all at the expense of Hendrix, a lot of Jazz records no real blues except for Howlin Wolf - no Hoodoo Man Blues or Beano or Paul Butterfield.

I should be thankful that The Kinks Arthur made it at all I guess.......




Post Edited (08-23-17 11:13)

Reply To This Message
 
 Re: Hey You Kids Off My Lawn! Pitchfork Top 200 of the 60s
Author: Post-Punk Monk 
Date:   08-23-17 11:18

Delvin - Echo chamber here. Hell, The Beatles would not even be on such a list I compiled.

Michael Toland - I concur with your sentiments regarding Pitchfork as well.

Former TP subscriber [81, 82, 83, 84]

https://postpunkmonk.com
For further rumination on the Fresh New Sound of Yesterday®

Post Edited (08-23-17 11:21)

Reply To This Message
 
 Re: Hey You Kids Off My Lawn! Pitchfork Top 200 of the 60s
Author: Michael Toland 
Date:   08-23-17 11:56

Well, now I'm curious. The sixties was an enormously important decade for jazz, as much as for rock - assuming they've made some smart choices, I'm all for including the landmark jazz records alongside the rock ones.

The Velvets at #1 - makes perfect sense.

Reply To This Message
 
 Re: Hey You Kids Off My Lawn! Pitchfork Top 200 of the 60s
Author: rebelwithoutaclue 
Date:   08-24-17 22:09

2 ommisions that baffle me. john wesley harding n music from the big pink

Reply To This Message
 
 Re: Hey You Kids Off My Lawn! Pitchfork Top 200 of the 60s
Author: breno 
Date:   08-25-17 09:48

My main issue with this list, and my main issue with Pitchfork in general, is its insistence on adopting the voice of the authority on everything, to the point where its writing staff, most of whom were born after 1980, like to posture that they're relaying first hand accounts of contemporary reactions to albums.

It's off the topic of this list, but the best illustration of my point is this review of McCartney (released 1970) by Joe Tangari (released 1980) which relates how "we" always called Paul "Paul", never "McCartney," before that.

http://pitchfork.com/reviews/albums/15536-mccartney-mccartney-ii/

But anyhow, it's that know-it-all tone that keeps Pitchfork at arm's length for me. I don't enjoy being told how I reacted to things at the time by snot-nosed kids who read about it in books. Especially now that they're regularly posting reviews of decades-old, not being re-issued at the moment classic albums, apparently because they feel like the reputations of those albums are unverified until Pitchfork officially weighs in on them.

In other words, I embody Mats' subject line for this post.



Post Edited (08-25-17 09:58)

Reply To This Message
 
 Re: Hey You Kids Off My Lawn! Pitchfork Top 200 of the 60s
Author: Delvin 
Date:   08-25-17 10:17

The affliction Reno is referring to -- young newbie reviewers trying to pretend they were there from the get-go -- touches nearly all amateur reviewers, to some degree. Looking back at the music reviews I wrote for the weekly campus newspaper at my alma mater, I can see that attitude occasionally creeping into my own early efforts ... and it does make me cringe.

Thanks to the Interglut, it's even easier to adopt that been-there-as-far-as-you-know tone. Gotta write a review of Supercalifragile? Google Scott Miller and Game Theory, listen to some of their earlier stuff on YouTube, and voila! Instant authority. That kind of quickie research won't help the reviewer actually write a better review, of course, but at least he can sound as if he knows what he's talking about while he's writing something mediocre.



Reply To This Message
 
 Re: Hey You Kids Off My Lawn! Pitchfork Top 200 of the 60s
Author: HollowbodyKay 
Date:   08-26-17 21:15

Quote:

My main issue with this list, and my main issue with Pitchfork in general, is its insistence on adopting the voice of the authority on everything, to the point where its writing staff, most of whom were born after 1980, like to posture that they're relaying first hand accounts of contemporary reactions to albums.


I basically feel the same way about any review of classical music that was written after the end of the nineteenth century. Oh yeah. Uh huh.

.
.
.

Does Pitchfork review classical albums? Tell me they do ... just so I can offer a a heartfelt harrumph.

Reply To This Message
 Threaded View   Newer Topic  |  Older Topic 


 Need a Login? Register Here 
 User Login
 User Name:
 Password:
 Remember my login:
   
 Forgot Your Password?
Enter your email address or user name below and a new password will be sent to the email address associated with your profile.

phorum.org