 |
|
You are not logged in! F.A.Q Log in Register |
 |
|
 |
 Now online (2)dariusgriffin recycle ...and 402 guests Last 5 registered Oplandisks nothingstar N_loop yipe foxtrotromeo Browse members... |
 |
Members 8025Messages 2614102 Today 15 Topics 127542 |
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
ok computer?? I find that a bit too much |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Talk Talk at #11. Sounds great to me. Did you see the Rolling Stones Top 500? That was a bit too much as well. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
titsworth should get a kick out of the obvious fact that they changed their top 100 to fit the trends. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
they do have a point about revisionism. I'm always discovering old stuff and revising my list of "classics." I'm sure they added more hip hop this time. there's still too much boring indie rock, though. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
actually, I'm surprised at how many of these I own, across genres. maybe they do have decent taste, after all. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
pitchfork kinda sucks. ok computer was/is pretty fucking rad though. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
my bloody valentine at 2, very great. too much hip hop in the top 100, not so great. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
all i have to say is Loveless is way better than OK Computer |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
to much hip hop?!? how many classic hip hop albums must have been released in the '90's? if they're gonna try to make a multi-genre list, they should really commit and replace some of the post-rock shit that everyone will have forgotten about in a couple of years anyway. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
1) i don't like hip hop 2) it's not a multi-genre list. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
how is it not a multi-genre list? it's not called the pitchfork top 100 pretentious indie rock albums of the '90's. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
indie rocks. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
i can call a turd a candy bar but its still a turd |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
are there peanuts in this turd? |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
no corn. i forget about hip hop 30 seconds after i hear it, post rock seems to be the complete opposite. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
thats the only thing that seems great in a rather piss poor list. even the artists i like and respect seem to have their worst albums put on it. beck, for example. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
bah. cannot find server anyways. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
how does this list fit the trends? anyways, like half that list i dont even care for but ahh well. its really hard to do lists like this i mean how can you place something higher than something else for so many different albums. a top 5 or 10 list isnt as bad but even 25 albums is hard for me. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Typically worthless list from a typically worthless publication. And yet, I still read it... more for the descriptions and comparisons in their reviews than the numbers and actual REVIEW... it's got its use for finding good, obscure music. No Pearl Jam on this list? I don't even like them, but you'd think they'd make it. Guess they sold too many albums. And they really suck on Radiohead's dick, don't they? |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
who gives a flying fuck |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
oh, silly pitchfork. the list wasnt as bad as i thought it would be, but it lost its relevance in typical self authoritative pitchfork fasion with the sentence "it should be reiterated, however, just how much better OK Computer is than Loveless, and why people somehow forget this." not because loveless is better or vice versa, but in that they are being compared in such a way. but i guess 'top anything of the such and such decade, century, millenia, etc.' are are all silly for such a reason. i guess magazines need them as perennial fillers for slow periods though. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
if you're in the indie scene, not the dorky idm/post rock one, then you'd know the trends. i know you like some indie, but that doesn't mean you're in the scene. *pretentious* |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
sorry but I dislike that pitchfork list there are things I like and some others simply I just respect, but there are LOTS of pretentious music |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
i somewhat like the pitchfork list. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Such lists are a bit stupid but this is a good resource. I found a few really amazing albums by seeing the Q Top 100 a few years back and that was voted for by mainstream rock fans. I'd have put Endtroducing at number one though. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
not much point arguing with a list like this... obviously everyone has different opinions, those are just the albums pitchfork picked... |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
exactly. all this anti-pitchfork crap is stupid to me. might as well be anti-any publication because they do essentially the same thing pitchfork does. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
can someone put the list here? i cant get into the site for some raisin. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
all reviews, no matter who does them, are all based on opinion... people who are paid to review albums for music hopefully have a good knowledge and background for music, and the different styles and stuff, especially for the albums they're reviewing, so they can give a fairly intelligent review... but it's still just the opinion of the reviewer... |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
they don't have good taste in music, they just know what they're supposed to like. they're good at observing trends and imitating people who know what they're talking about when it comes to music and aren't just trying to be cute and cleverer-than-thou. didn't read the list, don't have to, i know how pitchfork operate. they may give credit to good music but they don't get it like most of us do. they think about music wrong. i know people are going to criticize me for saying that but that's what i think and i've earned my right to have that opinion having read their site for so long. i'm through though, i haven't loaded it in 2 weeks and that's a lot since i like to pilfer their news for my f2k page. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Don't get me wrong, I like OK Computer, but Loveless is like the perfect album, and it has inspired way more decent musicians than OK Computer. Pitchfork are cunts. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
About that Rolling Stone list.. I don't think it's awful, but there are THREE Beatles albums in the TOP FIVE. THREE IN THE TOP FIVE!!!! And eight total in the top HUNDRED!!!! Goddamn, I like the Beatles, but they are by far the most overrated rock band of all time. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
lists are dumb but i like this one. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
the beatles deserve to have 8 albums in the top 100, or 5 in the top 15. But i don't understand why their first album 'please please me' from 1963 is at #39? |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
|
Messageboard index
|
|||||||||
