great popular (and semi-popular) albums of the past 5 years that Pitchfork didn't review

On the P&J thread -- Do we have a PAZZ AND JOP 2009 thread yet? -- scottpl threw down the gauntlet for people to name great popular albums that Pitchfork missed (didn't review, didn't include in a year-end list, etc.). So list records from 2005 onward that you love and that sold at least 200 thousand (or, if that's hard to verify, had a high Billboard peak) that PF didn't cover. This isn't to bully him or shame PF or tell them to change, at least that's not my intention, but just to challenge the notion that the popular music they cover is the only popular music worth writing about.

1. Fall Out Boy - Folie à Deux

2. Demi Lovato - Don’t Forget

3. Young Dro - Best Thang Smokin’

4. Miranda Lambert - Crazy Ex Girlfriend

5. Britney Spears - Blackout

as Scott said in the other thread, Miranda Lambert doesn't count, was in a year-end list.

5. Jeremih - Jeremih

6. bjnilsen - "the short night"

we didn't cover Blackout in part because Tom E wrote an entire column on it, but that's a fair answer obv

young dro is a v good answer!

Caveat: I'm not going to Google to verify whether Pitchfork covered all of these. Don't have time. If I get any wrong (i.e., list any that were actually covered), somebody say so and backstrack numerically accordingly. Thanks.

Starting with 2009 and moving back:

7. Brad Paisley – American Saturday Night (Arista Nashville)
8. Selena Gomez & The Scene – Kiss & Tell (Hollywood)
9. Pat Green – What I’m For (BNA)

"backtrack," I meant

10. Mary J Blige - The Breakthrough
11. Alan Jackson - Like Red on a Rose

12. My Chemical Romance - The Black Parade

13. Paramore - Brand New Eyes

14. Mariah Carey - The Emancipation of Mimi

15. Slayer - Christ Illusion

16. Robin Thicke - Something Else

2008 (a couple of these probably under 200,000, but they all charted fairly well I think)

17. Ashlee Simpson – Bittersweet World (Geffen)
18. Ne-Yo – Year Of The Gentleman (Def Jam)
19. Taylor Swift – Fearless (Big Machine)
20. Sugarland – Love On The Inside (Mercury)
21. Dierks Bentley – Greatest Hits / Every Mile A Memory 2003-2008 (Capitol)
22. Montgomery Gentry – Back When I Knew It All (Columbia)
23. Heidi Newfield – What Am I Waiting For (Curb/Asylum)
24. Trace Adkins – X (EMI) reviewed here
25. Ashton Shepherd – Sounds So Good (MCA Nashville)
26. The Veronicas – Hook Me Up (Sire)
27. Billy Currington – Little Bit Of Everything (Mercury Nashville)
28. Lady Antebellum – Lady Antebellum (EMI)
29. Lil Mama - Voice of the Young People (Jive/Zomba)
30. Jamey Johnson - That Lonesome Song (Mercury)
31. Phil Vassar – Prayer Of A Common Man (Universal)
32. Toby Keith – 35 Biggest Hits (Universal)

Did Alejandro Escovedo or James McMurtry sell enough that year? Guessing not, but I might be wrong. (Heidi Newfield album was Top 10 pop, so I'm figuring it came close enough. Not real sure about Lil Mama, either.)

Also, feel free to deduct the best-ofs above if you want, but I don't know why they shouldn't be reviewed.

33. Pink - Funhouse

34. The-Dream: Love Hate

(I'm getting all the easy ones out of the way here)

(lil mama, the veronicas, and taylor swift made year-end lists)

Ne-Yo is the probably the best answer so far imo

although I seriously doubt the veronicas LP sold more than 200K in the U.S.

35. Porcupine Tree, The Incident (#25 in the Billboard 200, not sure if that implies >200,000 sales or counts as a high peak)

what, albums year-end lists or singles year-end lists?

(lil mama, the veronicas, and taylor swift made year-end lists)

Year-end lists for singles, though, right? Not sure that should count here.

ha, xpost

36. The-Dream - Love vs Money

(honorable mention on year end doesnt count imo)

according to Wikipedia, Hook Me Up sold 128,000 copies in the US

OK, so let's strike that one.

36. John Legend - Once Again

2007 (backtracked to 36 thanks to Veronicas)

37. Jack Ingram – This Is It (Big Machine)
38. Blake Shelton – Pure B.S, (Warner Bros)
39. Toby Keith -- Big Dog Daddy (Show Dog Nashville)
40. Brooks & Dunn – Cowboy Town (Arista Nashville)
41. Gary Allan – Living Hard (MCA Nashville)
42. Sarah Johns – Big Love In A Small Town (BA)
43. Keith Urban – Greatest Hits (Capitol reissue)
44. Gretchen Wilson – One Of The Boys (Epic)
45. Brad Paisley – 5th Gear (Arista Nashville)
46. Carrie Underwood – Carnival Ride (Arista)
47. Faith Hill – The Hits (Warner Bros. reissue)
48. Tim McGraw – Let It Go (Curb)
49. Little Big Town – A Place To Land (Equity Music Group)
50. Aly & AJ – Insomniatic (Hollywood)
51. Kid Rock - Rock N Roll Jesus (Atlantic)
52. Taylor Swift - Taylor Swift (Big Machine) (technically '06)

Guessing Travis Tritt, John Anderson, and Jordan Pruitt wouldn't have come close to 200,000.

Yeah all those artists made year-end singles lists. That's obv fine then if they don't count here, or get asterisks.

The parameters were drawn that way in the other thread bcuz the original context was 'which quality artists are big in the real world yet we aren't engaging with them'. you could argue we engage with some of them the same way the 'real world' does (singles), but you could of course say the same thing about a lot of indie bands too these days, that people are checking out a song or two and that's it.

Yeah, at the end of this we can put asterisks on all the artists w/ singles or other albums covered/listed and see how much smaller the number would be. I don't know if it'd be significantly smaller, though.

53. Lil Boosie - Superbad: The Return of Boosie Bad Azz

but just to challenge the notion that the popular music they cover is the only popular music worth writing about.

is this really a notion that needs to be challenged?

37. Jack Ingram – This Is It (Big Machine)
42. Sarah Johns – Big Love In A Small Town (BA)

I'm sort of doubtful as to whether these sold more than 200,000. Especially Sarah Johns -- that album's Billboard Top 200 peak was #198.

based on these lists i'd say the question is whether p4k would make an editorial decision to cover modern country or not.

Scratch Ingram for sure:

His first album for the label, "Live: Wherever You Are," sold 84,000 copies, according to Nielsen SoundScan, and his second, "This Is It," sold 152,000.
(Reuters, Aug. 14, 2009)

The editor of the publication put forward the notion, and I wouldn't surprised if a lot of the staff felt the same way. But this is really more of a fun exercise to see how fully I can illustrate my point without sidetracking the other thread. (xpost)

OK, let's strike those.

52. Say Anything - In Defense Of The Genre

yeah i totally get that it's just striking how many of these records come outta modern country

2006

53. Montgomery Gentry – Some People Change (Columbia)
54. Toby Keith – White Trash With Money (Show Dog Nashville/Universal)
55. Paris Hilton - Paris (Warner Bros.)
56. Rodney Atkins – If You’re Going Through Hell (Curb)
57. Ne-Yo – In My Own Words (Def Jam)
58. Kellie Pickler – Small Town Girl (BNA/Sony BMG)

Aly & AJ Xmas album at 135,000, according to Wiki; assume Def Leppard covers album and Veronicas debut didn't hit 200,000. Also left off Trent Willmon and Eric Church, for sales reasons, but could be wrong about those.

cad, you gotta take into account that xuxhk is listing more that anybody else at the moment (which I have no problem with). plus country is a bigger blind spot for PF than mainstream rap or R&B, maybe even more than straight up pop.

59. Birdman & Lil Wayne - Like Father, Like Son

right, it's almost certainly their biggest blind spot. so i guess it's like, do they have any interest in changing that? what would the motivation and value be of doing so? and would their readership be more/less/equally receptive to suddenly seeing toby keith and brad paisley reviews?

so yeah i'm just kinda thinking out loud about stuff

oh sorry that more/less/equally should refer to the current occasional pop and mainstream rap reviews they run

would country fans read pitchfork if they had a regular country column and reviews?

2005

60. Little Big Town – The Road To Here (Equity)
61. Gary Allan – Tough All Over (MCA Nashville)
62. Carrie Underwood – Some Hearts (Arista)
63. Toby Keith – Honkytonk University (Dreamworks)
64. Dierks Bentley – Modern Day Drifter (Capitol)
65. Brooks & Dunn – Hillbilly Deluxe (Arista Nashville)
66. Miranda Lambert – Kerosene (Epic)

Assuming Shooter Jennings and Living Things debuts come nowhere near.

Also, missed this from 2006:

66. Dixie Chicks - Taking The Long Way (Sony)

I think this is the closest Pitchfork's come to covering country.

67. Keyshia Cole - Just Like You

(Actually, I take that back -- Deusner and Breihan used to periodically cover mainstream country singles.)

I think well-received mainstream metal is a big blinder too.

68. AC/DC - Black Ice
69. Slipknot - All Hope Is Gone

The 2005 Little Big Town album went platinum, btw.

xp Do you think those albums are great, EZ Snappin?

70. Brooke Valentine - Chain Letter

I feel like there are albums I could mention for this list, but I haven't actually heard them and thus can't personally vouch for whether they are "great." But I know, for instance, that a handful of people on ILM really like the first Cassie album.

71. Iron Maiden - A Matter Of Life And Death

I think the Maiden and AC/DC are solid, if not up with their peaks. They're better than the Metallica albums they did review. But they were well-received, as was the Slipknot (who are not my bag).

And duh, from 2005:

72. Ashlee Simpson - I Am Me (Geffen)

That Cassie album has sold 300K since it was released in 2006 up through April 2008 according to Wikipedia.

73. T-Pain – Epiphany

xp Yes, I know, that's why I mentioned it.

From their google description:
"Jan 15, 2010 ... The World's No. 1-selling country music magazine"

From a cached version of Ad Age's article menu:
"Country Weekly Drops Subscriptions for Newsstand Sales Only
Nat Ives
Published: January 12, 2009
NEW YORK (AdAge.com) -- American Media is amputating about 80% of Country Weekly's paid circulation as part of a bid to keep the title publishing."

Not having a login to ad age I can't read the rest of that, but it doesn't look good. For there to be country music fans who want to read about country music on P4k there would have to first be country music fans who want to read about country music. Like BEP or Nickleback, etc., I don't know if there is any publication, let alone one with any sort of audience, that is doing that, esp in the way you all would like. So If we don't care, our audience doesn't care, and it's arguable that is a measurable audience that does care, is it a blind spot?

(jaymc is right, we do cover the odd country single but that is rare)

looks like this Country Weekly does at least have about 400K circ so I STAND CORRECTED to a degree

tho I would be shocked if it covered country music with longform reviews or the way you all would like someone to cover the stuff

17. Ashlee Simpson – Bittersweet World (Geffen)

150,000, per Wikipedia.

25. Ashton Shepherd – Sounds So Good (MCA Nashville)

Peaked at #90 on the Top 200 and had only sold 84,000 copies nine months after its release. Very doubtful.

it would be hard to argue, though, that Ashlee Simpson isn't "popular" music

The absence of modern country criticism from more or less every outlet that considers itself to be in any way generalist was brought up on one of the many threads where Lex berates the world for not loving Electrik Red as much as he does. But I can't remember which one it was.

Okay, backtracking again:

72. - Big & Rich - Comin' To Your City (Warner Bros, 2005)

Somebody should check the Soundscan on the Selena Gomez album I listed way upthread. Sold 66,000 in its first week, according to Wiki, but probably a good chance it hasn't (and won't) hit 200,000, unless a big single breaks out.

I'm not in the business, but this:

"For there to be country music fans who want to read about country music on P4k there would have to first be country music fans who want to read about country music."

is a bad inference. That's because there might be P4k readers that don't judge themselves country fans who would read about country music. Or you might be able to / want to open your fans up to good music. Unless you think they can't be opened profitably for you.

If I were doing it, though, I'd aim that writing at jam band fans, but maybe P4k doesn't write about jam bands either? I don't really keep track.

it would be hard to argue, though, that Ashlee Simpson isn't "popular" music

Of course. But either we stick with this 200K figure or we don't. Or let's determine how high a Billboard peak needs to be to qualify. (I don't have access to SoundScan; I'm just checking Wikipedia or else googling the artist and album title plus "soundscan" and "copies.") I don't want people to just be throwing out album titles willy-nilly.

Yeah, plus we already have one of the popular Ashlee albums on the list, we don't need the one that flopped.

73. Raheem DeVaughn - Love Behind The Melody

it would be hard to argue, though, that Ashlee Simpson isn't "popular" music

It would have been hard in 2004. In 2010 it's actually very easy. (Looks like she sold about as many copies of her last album in 20 months as Vampire Weekend, e.g., have sold of theirs in the past 10 days. good work )

If nothing else, in the context of this thread, she is certainly not ignorable figure with cultural pull.

she did her SNL thing in 2004

And again, I can't stress how much my intent here is not to say PF needs to cover any of these albums or even ask why they didn't. I just thought Scott's blanket statement that they cover the Beyonces and Kanyes and anything they didn't bother with was pretty obviously total worthless dreck.

Autobiography is the debut studio album by American pop rock singer Ashlee Simpson. Released in the United States by Geffen Records on July 20, 2004, the album debuted at number one on the Billboard 200 and was certified triple platinum in the U.S. Musically, it combines elements of rock and pop. The album's critical reception was mixed.

I messed that last sentence up, shoulda been "I just disagreed with Scott's blanket statement..."

Que, the other album xuxhk listed, I Am Me, was released in 2005 and went platinum.

i was responding to scott's assertion that she wasn't popular in 2004

No, Scott asserted that she WAS popular in 2004 but isn't anymore.

Or rather, to use your own phrase, that it would hard to argue that she wasn't popular in 2004.

whoops my bad--i misread what he wrote

74. Anthony Hamilton - The Point Of It All

"For there to be country music fans who want to read about country music on P4k there would have to first be country music fans who want to read about country music."

is a bad inference.

How so? Is anyone covering country music the way we approach music? Or the way Alfred or Chuck would intelligently approach country music? I honestly don't know. Maybe in pockets of larger publications, but I don't see evidence that a sustainable audience for it exists, so I can only conclude it would therefore need to be created.

I explained what I meant: there could be people who don't identify as country music fans but are P4k readers and who would read about country music.

I don't see evidence that there's a sustainable audience for it, but I'm not in the business. Your business plan seems to be working; I was just questioning that particular inference, not trying to change your business plan.

75. Trey Songz - Ready

I don't see evidence that there's a sustainable audience for it, but I'm not in the business.

For country music crit?

yes, for the crit; I'm not saying there isn't such an audience, but that I don't know the evidence one way or the other.

30. Jamey Johnson - That Lonesome Song (Mercury)

Here's the problem, kinda -- I went to see Jamey Johnson at an unlikely appearance in W'brg. He had a top-10 song in the charts that had won all kinds of awards, he had a Grammy-nominated, critically acclaimed (and excellent) album, and he pulled maybe about 50 whole people into a 1000-person room. Doubt he'll be back there.

Has anyone made the point yet that many of the ways in which people (like me) who started in more comfortable online music crit terrain made a switch over to other genres in the first place was from reading stuff in the Voice and other places and getting really into that music only because it was being written about well somewhere (not giving the time of day to it otherwise, same as most Pfork readers)? This is probably in line with "turn indie fans into R&B fans rather than R&B fans into indie website readers" to some extent. But one reason why the writing about not-otherwise-covered stuff tended to be good was that there was no one else even suggesting that the stuff was worth reviewing.

It's pretty hard for me to separate the wheat from the chaff in reading about critically overpraised (just in volume, not in estimation) albums, and the only way that I do is through recommendations and already knowing a byline (I'll probably read what Mike Powell has to say about Animal Collective in P&J before I do a blanket google search for reviews, say). But to someone coming to this stuff with a fraction of the knowledge I have about people who write about music anyway, which I think I can assume is most P4k readers, all you have to go on is "the fact that it was reviewed [insert publication]."

At best it can be the rockwrite version of the Velvet Underground -- not that many people will be interested in good coverage of [insert neglected genre/scene/whatever] but those who do might be more likely to actually join the critical conversation where it exists, having few alternatives -- some of the best music critics I've discovered in the past couple of years have been given some platform to argue about the kinds of music that aren't usually critically discussed very well. One way to think of this is that the goal isn't getting more readers but encouraging music critics from more perspectives -- your bread and butter indie fan won't give a shit about Taylor Swift, but the Taylor Swift fan (or whatever else fan) who looks for and can actually find a fair intellectual conversation about it might start writing music criticism as a result.

30. Jamey Johnson - That Lonesome Song (Mercury)

Here's the problem, kinda -- I went to see Jamey Johnson at an unlikely appearance in W'brg. He had a top-10 song in the charts that had won all kinds of awards, he had a Grammy-nominated, critically acclaimed (and excellent) album, and he pulled maybe about 50 whole people into a 1000-person room. Doubt he'll be back there.

― Thus Sang Freud, Friday, January 22, 2010 12:33 PM (3 minutes ago) Bookmark

he sold out the 40 watt in Athens, Ga iirc

One way to think of this is that the goal isn't getting more readers but encouraging music critics from more perspectives -- your bread and butter indie fan won't give a shit about Taylor Swift, but the Taylor Swift fan (or whatever else fan) who looks for and can actually find a fair intellectual conversation about it might start writing music criticism as a result.

― a coffee machine in an office (dabug), Friday, January 22, 2010 12:36 PM (1 minute ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

there are few enough paying gigs for music writers, u think they're really going to start trying to encourage MORE of them? only half-joking. okay, mostly joking.

Well, I've long been of the belief that "writing music criticism" is not in the same universe as "getting paid for writing music criticism."

not belief, "understanding." I believe that music writers should be paid like sports celebrities.

I would read a regular pitchfork country (and metal) column, like how I read the grime/associated-genres one. It would make the genre a lot easier for me to get into if I knew what was being championed as the good stuff. (Being a britisher, the closest I get to knowing whats happening in country music is when Dolly Parton is on the Graham Norton show going HAHA LOOK AT MY BOOBS and god knows where to get decent country music writing.)

Or basically what dabug said.

Here's the problem, kinda -- I went to see Jamey Johnson at an unlikely appearance in W'brg. He had a top-10 song in the charts that had won all kinds of awards, he had a Grammy-nominated, critically acclaimed (and excellent) album, and he pulled maybe about 50 whole people into a 1000-person room. Doubt he'll be back there.

Does NYC still lack a country radio station?

Yes it does. You can find hour-long country shows here and there on college stations, but we haven't had a commercial country station in quite some time.

76. Boyz N Da Hood - Boyz N Da Hood

just fyi, Dolly Parton going HAHA LOOK AT MY BOOBS is basically the pinnacle of country music

dabug:

I agree with all of that, and I think we've attempted to do that for an audience that, in 2000-02 certainly, was largely indie-only. And I think we've succeeded to some degree in turning people on to things that they would not otherwise have liked. As I said a few times here before, I think we've in a way done as much longterm for "poptimism" as anyone else (though the real overarching success of poptimism can be credited more accurately to the internet in general dovetailing with a period in which pop music was very good).

Thing is, we just don't like modern country music all that much, so until that changes we won't cover it other than the odd single here and there.

But, yes, getting people who are into music crit into other genres vs. getting people into other genres who aren't into music crit is the way that would happen. Most of the world is ok with ignoring music crit. I'd also say the vast majority of people listening to stuff listed in this thread ignore music crit. Like I said in the other thread, the people really into music crit tend to be into the type of music into the stuff voted for P&J, and bought at indie record stores; the internet, I suspect, and its direct metrics made this all pretty clear.

along those same lines, I don't think it's any coincidence that most people get into crit through more obviously traditionally "crit-friendly" music; the more time they spend and enjoy thinking about music the more likely they seem to be to branch out and try new things, flex creative muscles by challenging themselves to think about and write about the unfamiliar (to them) or the unchampioned. I see it happen on our staff all the time.

no surprise then that a place like ILX would have a large concentration of people who want to think and engage critically with things uncharted or new, artists and songs and movements in which you can lay critical ground instead of plowing into familiar territory over and over like dabug's AnCo example. And a lot of readers, thankfully, like to follow crits around like that. But...most of them don't. And I think the gateway into thinking about crit still tends to be the stuff not in this thread and not the stuff that is.

Somebody should check the Soundscan on the Selena Gomez album I listed way upthread.

It was at 270,829 as of Jan. 2, 2010.

Like I said in the other thread, the people really into music crit tend to be into the type of music into the stuff voted for P&J, and bought at indie record stores;

For all I know this could be true. As for me personally, it couldn't be more wrong. Maybe it's a generational thing? I started reading Creem magazine when there was no indie music per se. And sure, they covered the garage/glam axis more heavily than a mainstream publication might have. But they also covered everything else, from xgau eclecticism to Dave Marsh r&b to yer basic hard rock & blooze. I sort of see that as normal. It's the P&J top ten that looks weird to me.

All these acts killed on the Leno show.

But they also covered everything else

This is not even close to being true.

Well, not polka, you know?

as much as i love p4k, this has always been one of my biggest pet peeves, esp considering that they've (or you've) slammed things like ciara - fantasy ride & rick ross - trilla for no apparent reason while overlooking these ones listed here

i don't have anything to add to the list but i'll just say that this

12. My Chemical Romance - The Black Parade

was the most egregious example in my book because they reviewed two tracks iirc and the album is great

also not reviewing 'love vs. money' this year was inexcusable considering how many people on staff liked it and esp now looking at it's p&j spot -- putting it in that "other records we like" list doesn't really count imo

Artists covered in a randomly-selected xgau consumer guide from 1974:
PAUL ANKA
BOBBY BLAND
JOE COCKER
JOHN COLTRANE
SANDY DENNY
THE EAGLES
LORRAINE ELLISON
THE FLYING BURRITO BROTHERS
THE DAVE HOLLAND QUARTET
HUDSON-FORD
KEITH JARRETT
B.B. KING
NILSSON
MARTHA REEVES
THE EARL SCRUGGS REVUE
SLY & THE FAMILY STONE
THE SOUTHER, HILLMAN, FURAY BAND
10CC
WENDY WALDMAN
THE WILD MAGNOLIAS

I think there's definitely a deliberate distancing from most mainstream rock acts that don't have any significant indie pedigree, especially emo and Warped Tour-type bands, so the lack of MCR reviews (or Fall Out Boy, or Paramore, or Say Anything, to name some other bands listed in this thread) doesn't surprise me me at all, even if I think PF could stand to review them.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SvWBtCXbhLc

it also bears mentioning that the biggest MCR fan on the staff when Black Parade came out was probably Harvell, who hates that record as much as I do

i think the thing that 'works' about pfork is that they cover a constellation of artists in a way that has allowed them to build a really strong & large audience. This involves rejecting certain very popular stylistic decisions. I think this is a smart way to design a site that wants to attract a devoted readership

this is why i do sorta agree with xhuxk to the degree that i think critics are really kissing pfork's ass a lot & not figuring out there own shit -- & i see ALL GENRE critics do this, rap critics are all about 'worthy' indie rock (or 'worthy' hip hop) as much as anyone else.

i think maura was off when she said that genre doesnt matter any more -- our understanding of genre has just shifted into a new understanding, where an aesthetic sensibility that unites old genres & rejects certain aspects of them is considered worthwhile. It incorporates all these ideas of race/socioeconomics/gender, but doesnt entirely deconstruct them. tokenizing.

what would be healthy for pnj & crit at large, imo, is if you had a rival aesthetic constellation that values different things than DWAPDY or whatever its called

& that doesnt mean "we like burial more than pfork, and we like animal collective a little less." a la FACT mag

basically, i think pfork does a fine job for the most part w/ creating a consistent but expanding/shifting aesthetic, but all these critics who dont have the balls to think outside the pfork box are pretty lame imo

that also doesnt mean being like "hey fuck animal collective they are so overrated!!!" but then voting for pheonix / raekwon / dirty projjys

Yeah I think the best of that MCR-ish stuff plus more R&B and regional hip-hop, now that it's all gone regional again, are the things we've most "missed" in the past five years; if missed = things some part of our staff likes and our audience likes.

At any rate, I def admit that the one thing that gets under my skin more than anything about the way we are perceived is that we're an indie rock mag only. If you came to Pitchfork for the first time today, or two years ago today, and didn't know a thing about it, I don't think you'd consider if anything other than a general music mag with an askew approach to the pop landscape.

today we reviewed: monolake, franco, basement jaxx, mount eerie, and bunch of hip-hop/indie/dubstep producers remixing gucci mane; we reviewed a metal record yesterday (which we generally do once/week lately) and hell a comedy LP on wed. (which admittedly happens like four times/year)

the current column is on grime

we've highlighted Tom's (generally) pop column on the homepage this week

Mark's current column is on the homepage; it's half about Christina Aguilera

seven of the 10 current news headlines are about major-label artists: prince, badu, albarn, radiohead, kanye, hold steady, sigur ros (the others are grizzly bear, new pornos, she & him)

other names on our homepage right now include some boomer and beyond things, plus a pop star: gil scott-herron, elvis presley, neil young, usher (and nicki minaj)

and even when you break down the indie stuff there's plenty of things that aren't just rote indie guitar dribble.

which is all to say I think we're more well-rounded that we get credit for. I don't know who is meant to be covering a wider range of music of styles and "sizes" than us; I guess EW or Spin or RS or something covers country and mall rock, and more pop/R&B but obv nowhere close to the range of small things and subgenres we do.

yeah some really good points -- it's definitely a shame that there aren't more people building up their own outlets (or designing outlets that don't shamelessly ape Pitchfork's format) instead of telling PF what to do with theirs. (xpost to deej)

tbh, highlighting how many non-indie acts are on the site on any given day only makes me want to further question why those genres are so much less represented on the year-end lists

also you deserve all the credit in the world for helping to diversify the site, but you really can't fault people that much for associating it with a niche that it worked very hard to fill for 5-10 years before you got there

So, would it be okay with y'all if Pitchfork were to review these albums perfunctorily and harshly, just so long as they review them?

yes, I think that is exactly what people want, a perfunctory quota

I volunteer, then.

pretty sure some dude made a bunch of caveats related to ppl drawing the wrong conclusions from this upthread, M.V.

those artists made year-end singles lists... you could argue we engage with some of them the same way the 'real world' does (singles)

Just want to mention that Taylor Swift (one of the three artists Scott was referring to here) had the biggest selling album in the U.S. in 2009, and two of the six biggest selling albums in the U.S. in 2008.

She's also insufferably awful.

Like, for real, I get that she's pretty but she has less singing ability than Britney does.

This again.

No, I'm done.

oops, he did it again

gimme more!

(I Won't Give You The) Satisfaction

She's also insufferably awful.

fits the p4k aesthetic imo

less singing ability than Britney

even more so!

haha also she writes her own songs

fits the p4k aesthetic imo

(Ice Cold) Lampin'

about bittersweet adolescence

When you demand approbation in lieu of silence, what you usually get instead is disapproval.

and who demanded approbation, exactly?

from which Britney song is that?

ILX to P4K: "Do these pants make my butt look big?"

MRQ to P4K: "Why do Animal Collective suck balls?"

How does Pitchfork work? Are reviews generally assigned by editors or pitched by writers?

Does anyone here have a sense of how a pitch for a review of an album outside their usual fare would fare with the editors?

why isn't there a review of the new watson twins album on pitchfork? i finally like an indie rock album and i'm all alone in the world.

Not released until Feb. 9.

posts very much in character. Congrats to both of you

<iJust want to mention that Taylor Swift (one of the three artists Scott was referring to here) had the biggest selling album in the U.S. in 2009, and two of the six biggest selling albums in the U.S. in 2008.[/i]

ha, touché. that comment deserved that. hell, I took the wind out of that one myself in the next line.

is it possible to see how much time visitors to the site spend on an actual album review page if they click through to it

honestly, i don't have anything bad to say about pitchfork. i think it probably works really well for its readers. as a consumer guide, etc.

the fact that they don't cover/write about the music that i listen to and like is neither here nor there. hardly anyone does. and if they take a "write what you know" approach to crit as opposed to having people write about stuff that they hate/don't listen to/don't usually think about/have little interest in, well, that's in line with most mags/blogs/etc. people find a comfort zone and they stick to it. in life, in writing, wherever...

i blame p-fork for not being Creem. but then i blame every other net-rag of same.

people suck.

xp

Decibel is the closest to Creem that I've seen since maybe 80's Spin. It's not Creem, don't get me wrong, but the spirit of the thing is in the same ballpark.

oh but netzines, i dunno.

i still want to start a zine of some sort. i was gonna go the paper and xerox route, but maybe the web is the way to go. i'll shut up about it until i'm ready to put up though. everyone likes to talk. i do have an actual website that i'm not doing anything with though...

You should do a paper version and then just scan it onto the web.

yeah, Decibel's a blast. did they review that Death cd last year? i don't think so. :(

xps

hell yeah!

zines rule!

AFI - Decemberunderground

ok, that's 77.

77. Kelly Clarkson - My December

oops

78. Kelly Clarkson - My December

is it possible to see how much time visitors to the site spend on an actual album review page if they click through to it

yeah. for example, Contra is our most-read review of the year so far and the average time spent on that page is currently 2:53, which of course suggests people are actually reading the thing

to take a less popular examples:
average time on tom b's gucci is 2:04

the most-popular individual piece of content on our site so far this year that a) isn't either a sort of jumping off page (e.g. the 2009 year in music landing page, which is just links, no content), or b) didn't at least have an average time spent on the page of one minute or more is Matthew Perpetua's review of a Grooms LP, which has an average time spent on page of 0:59 and is around the 240th most popular page on the site so far this year (including all pages - the search page, the homepage, etc. I don't have time to count those up, but there are only so many of these anyway)

I gave up on cherrypicking examples once that grooms thing became a better way to illustrate that people actually are reading the content

one million xposts:

to be fair, i was going to write about the black parade until it was mutually spiked thanks to my own irritation at mcr suddenly sucking so hardcore before i'd even had the chance to sell them to pfork's readers with a pop-emo allergy.

"this one is bloated garbage...but you'll love the last one, i swear!"

haha yeah, it would've been your Tool review all over again

that's part of the problem w/ trying to write about something to a possibly unfamiliar or uninterested audience, the newest album might not be the best entry point or even any good

Yeah, I don't actually care whether Pitchfork reviews AFI, especially if the review were to be as juvenile as this:

http://pitchfork.com/reviews/albums/6586-a-fever-you-cant-sweat-out/

I was just answering the question.

The most annoying thing on Pitchfork is not when they neglect to review something good that's slightly outside their usual ken, but when they do review it, and then dismiss it with a lowball rating and a review that indicates they really never understood what was good about it.

examples pls

Well, I hesitate to supply examples, because they'd tend to be things I liked that were somewhat successful though by no means critical consensus faves or chart-toppers - stuff perhaps too idiosyncratic for this thread (such as Tanya Morgan or Gojira, to name 2 that come to mind).

well "never understand what was good about it" could just as easily = "don't really like it". this shouldn't happen anymore now that the staff is so diversified - if the next the-dream album sucks, i want tim f or deej to tell me why, not the GADPY guys

xp i don't know anything about tanya morgan but i see your point on gojira. easy solution there is to not let cosmo write reviews imo.

well "never understand what was good about it" could just as easily = "don't really like it".

Yes, this gets pretty subjective, I'll readily admit.

i want tim f. to review the next gojira album.

I'd read that!

at least he wouldn't spend 3/4 of the review on paragraphs that read like amg outtakes

That Gojira review is weird because it's like: This band is awesome, they shred, they have a unique sound, the performances are flawless, the lyrics are smart, but... it sounds too digital or something, so give it a 6.

his immortal review from last friday is three paragraphs describing the history of immortal and their relation to the scene followed by one paragraph that is like "oh yeah, new album: great sound, great riffs, 7.1"

I assume there are also Latin (particularly regional Mexican) albums that belong on this list, I realized; maybe even a couple contemporary Christian albums, if any are good enough. But I'm no expert on those.

By the way, just to be clear (and because of something some nincompoop said on the P&J thread), I want to make it clear that I'm in no way complaining about what Pitchfork covers. I honestly don't read the site much; I'm not its target audience, obviously. They should cover what they want to cover. My beef is not with Pitchfork itself (except inasmuch it pretends to be more genre-inclusive than in actually is); it's with Pazz & Joppers who, directly or indirectly, blindly follow Pitchfork's taste agenda. The only reason I even posted on this thread is because someddude specifically asked me to. It's not for me to say whether Pitchfork should cover any of the albums I've listed.

"...except inasmuch as it pretends to be more genre-inclusive than it actually is...." I mean. (By which I mean Scott wondering "What are we missing that is so good that appeals to 'the real world'?," and apparently sincerely believing the list wouldn't be a very long one.)

Yeah, that was my whole intent here too, just to call bullshit on that particular sentiment.

so where's the playlist then?

It's not something I stay up nights worrying about, but good example of late to review/lowball rating was Tegan & Sara's "So Jealous" (Pitchfork didn't deign to review the previous one).

That seemed to mark a watershed moment, and subsequent T&S reviews have been handled by folks w/at least a little bit of a clue. For fun, note the remarks about "Walking With A Ghost" in the "So Jealous" review vs. remarks about same in review of "The Con."

still waiting for a review of the new watson twins album on pitchfork. i must be the only person who loves it. no living sisters review either. maybe they aren't cool enough.

Maybe they just don't like twins...

FACT: ignored by Pitchfork since day one:

http://songbookofkartika.files.wordpress.com/2008/11/nelson-brothers.jpg

These too:

http://images.artistdirect.com/Images/Sources/AMGPORTRAITS/music/portrait200/drp000/p063/p06365evy8d.jpg

Come review our album, Pitchfork...

http://theresalduncan.typepad.com/witostaircase/images/2007/06/29/twins02.gif

The most obvious thing that this thread proves is that, while Pitchfork has commendably expanded its palette in the last 5 years to include a fair deal of pop, metal, jazz, neo-classical, drone, ambient, etc., they're still overwhelmingly ignoring country music. This is not applicable to only pop country. "Country" in Pitchfork's book is now Drive-By Truckers, Ryan Adams, Neko Case, Magnolia Electric Co., and anyone over the age of 50 that's an established 'legend' (although they still ignore Emmylou Harris' new releases).

Whether one looks at what's popular or not, there are swarms of artists worth reviewing. They could (and should) start by reviewing the artists on Bloodshot, a fellow Chicago institution that deserves more attention. Considering they're responsible for Heartbreaker and Blacklisted, two albums that made p4k's best of the decade list, I just can't grasp why they've ignored Justin Townes Earle, who's released two of the finest albums (period) of the last three years (not to mention the fact that they'll review any crap his dad does--as per the aforementioned 50+ rule).

Even at the major-label level there are country artists worth reviewing. Stylus recognized the talent of Miranda Lambert by putting her second album--which is probably only a hair better than her debut--second overall on its final best of the year list. Pitchfork seemed almost to 'respond' by throwing Lambert's leadoff track on their top 100 songs of the year list, despite the fact that they hadn't reviewed the album it came from. They had a chance to make up for missing out on Crazy Ex Girlfriend by reviewing 2009's Revolution, an album that ended up on the P&J list, but again, nothing. Another: I recognize that Taylor Swift may not be everyone's cup of tea, but I see little justification for reviewing The Fame and not Fearless. Both are impressive pop albums from unique and interesting musicians reaching vast numbers of music fans the world over. Again, Pitchfork threw a Taylor Swift song (released in 2008) on this year's best tracks list, but didn't bother reviewing the album. I can't be the only one that finds this bizarre.

Moving forward, Pitchfork would benefit from hiring a full-time country writer, one familiar with the history of the genre, but who can still recognize young talent. SP: Really want to take a risk in achieving #2 ("expose nominally indie/guitar rock kids to non-indie music"), quit reviewing stand-up comedy records and remix EPs from one-note indie bands and take on a genre of music that remains one of America's richest and most rewarding. You might even get a few new readers.

i think theres a pretty obvious reason that lady gaga makes more sense to review than taylor swift & its based around who the audience is for lady gaga i.e. adults

impossible to prove but somehow i doubt the average age of a Gaga fan is more than like a year or two older than the average Taylor fan -- the former has a huge teen following and the latter has lots of middle aged people listening to her on country stations

although target demo ages definitely have a huge amount to do w/ why a lot of the stuff on this thread wasn't covered, whether it was teenpop or Fall Out Boy or whatever

i know the former has a big teenage following but im just speaking w/r/t young adults i know & have met -- they actively feel like they need to have critical (not as in music critical, just 'stances') on lady gaga's music while the same is def not true of taylor swift -- thats seen on a somewhat condescending level as for-kids

im not saying its 'right' or whatever but i can def see lady gaga being an easier sell

20 somethings care abt lady gagas music and persona & the whole package, they dont generally give a shit about taylor swift unless she occasionally hits pop genius in a tokenized way

there's some mainstream country and/or teenpop stuff that i can admire to sorta-like. but, as the greatest band ever said, those genres "say nothing to me about my life."

(not anymore, at least, which yes, is a cue for "you old" jeoks)

i can only speak for myself, but "Bad Romance" was Gaga hitting pop genius in a tokenized way that made me and my friends start talking about her as much as "You Belong With Me" was for Taylor (xpost)

I'd argue--with no empirical evidence to substantiate my claims--that despite her typical subject matter, Taylor Swift is one of the least age-centric pop musicians of recent years. Parents love her for her 'good girl' image, kids love her because they can relate to her lyrics, and I love her because her music (she writes it all herself, which is a legitimate pro both in the pop and traditional country genres, and is on an independent label) is just plain good. You might disagree, but Pitchfork seems to at least think that one of her songs was better than anything The-Dream, Morrissey, and Drake did in 2009. Regardless of one's opinion, it's hard to argue that her album was not 'worth' reviewing.

The only justifiable counter-argument I can imagine is that they believe there's been enough written about her, to which I respond: you reviewed Lady Gaga. It's just a double-standard, and my hunch is that it has most to do with the fact that she is a country artist first, not a pop artist.

she writes it all herself, (she) is a legitimate pro

it is good that she writes her own stuff. i guess this is "ROCKIST," but you've got to give credit where credit is due.

totally cool to be the performer/interpreter-only, but that's a different kind of thing to admire.

I'd argue--with no empirical evidence to substantiate my claims--that despite her typical subject matter, Taylor Swift is one of the least age-centric pop musicians of recent years. Parents love her for her 'good girl' image, kids love her because they can relate to her lyrics, and I love her because her music (she writes it all herself, which is a legitimate pro both in the pop and traditional country genres, and is on an independent label) is just plain good. You might disagree, but Pitchfork seems to at least think that one of her songs was better than anything The-Dream, Morrissey, and Drake did in 2009. Regardless of one's opinion, it's hard to argue that her album was not 'worth' reviewing.

The only justifiable counter-argument I can imagine is that they believe there's been enough written about her, to which I respond: you reviewed Lady Gaga. It's just a double-standard, and my hunch is that it has most to do with the fact that she is a country artist first, not a pop artist.

― Indexed, Saturday, January 30, 2010 4:26 PM (5 minutes ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

what about the audience of older teens -> young adults -> 20 &30 somethings that makes up the base of pfork's readership? ive met tons of 20somethings who love/hate/have opinions about lady gaga. if i know any ppl my age who listen to taylor swift its a very small fraction

im not saying this audience is, like, more right, or that gaga > swift, or that swift shouldnt be reviewed ultimately, but i can absolutely see why gaga is a safer bet for a review than swift is

is the popularity of these acts geographically-based, too? i imagine that someone like lady gaga is more popular on the east and west coast, while taylor swift is perhaps more popular in the heartland and the south? old stereotypes here, i guess.

is p4k's readership concentrated in a particular geographic region or regions?

i'd say one thing about taylor swift is that whatever props you wanna give her as a songwriter and performer, her stuff sounds REALLY m.o.r. esp. when you first hear it. p4k's taste in pop tends to be a little more "forward-looking" (that is not a value judgment btw)

scott's gone over this already though, they built their audience on a particualr aesthetic )or at least worldview), and they think he best way to maintain the monopoly they have over their demo is to be discriminatory about which artists they review, even if they miss some good shit

xp

@Daniel: especially when you consider that even the most well-respected country stars of all time typically spent large portions of their albums covering 30s-50s standards.

@average gangsta rap: This argument makes little sense for two reasons. First, because SP proclaimed one of Pitchfork's missions to expand its readers' perspectives and palettes. Second, because there are one to three articles per day that readers of all demographics care little about. How many people do you think read the Orkustra review yesterday? I'd wager that a 5.4 review of Fearless would get one hundred times the number of viewers that said review got. The goal may not be total hits, and that's fine, but my point is simply: saying the audience doesn't care about Taylor Swift is a hard pill to swallow when they review a dozen albums a week NO ONE cares about.

i dunno i'd imagine a great deal of the site's readership rejects mainstream music out of hand.

i think that (^^^^^^^^) is increasingly an attitude of the past.

some swaths of mainstream music, sure (teenpop/screamo). but not all pop, not all mainstream rock.

(it is true i don't get why hanna montana is popular, except for the push behind her by disney)

I also think that focusing solely on Taylor Swift misses the larger point of my original post. I could name a dozen (alt-)/country acts today that are worth reviewing simply from the perspective that their albums are goddamn good, that p4k does not. Deadstring Bros, Holly Williams, Ryan Bingham, Justin Townes Earle, Ha Ha Tonka, Miranda Lambert, Sarah Borges, Kelly Willis...this just off the top of my head. There's no reason to assume that Pitchfork's readers are uninterested in these artists, yet find MECo/Jason Molina, Neko Case, and Ryan Adams palatable. The simple fact is, Pitchfork's average staff member could probably do with as much country education as their average reader. Why not bring a part time reviewer on board?

it's funny how such a huge percentage of popular songwriters deal with a lot of themes of adolescence and high school and teenage heartbreak, but only some of them get stigmatized on that basis. i mean, would i stop listening to Replacements songs about that stuff after i grew up because they stopped saying as much 'about my life'? if anything those topics should be MORE accessible to people who are a little older and can still recall that time in their lives. i haven't personally found any of TS's songs affecting in that way (although I liked "Belong" just as a big catchy chorus), and part of it might be the cheesy Romeo/fairytale tropes, but I'm not really gonna turn up my nose like i'm too old for teenage love songs.

I definitely know 20-somethings who are into Taylor Swift.

it's funny how such a huge percentage of popular songwriters deal with a lot of themes of adolescence and high school and teenage heartbreak, but only some of them get stigmatized on that basis. i mean, would i stop listening to Replacements songs about that stuff after i grew up because they stopped saying as much 'about my life'?

i was kidding with The Smiths' reference. you're right -- some of those songs mean more now, with age and context (e.g., unsatisfied and skyway).

yeah i think despite the indie-not-indies situ that has happened w/ eg vampire weekend having a number one album p4k there's still feeling that p4k represents "alternative" in much the same way that "alternative" became a style or brand as opposed to actual position and taylors whole steez comes from a canon that is a lot more conservative than gaga's "post-everything exploding plastic inevitable" so even tho it is mainstream it is mainstream in a way that feels inherently different to taylor

good post

I think their review section is very active and their selection is generally good. I also do not think they should make any concessions to this populist logic that every single artist is worth mentioning or appraising. Leave that to people who haven't outgrown their teen/camp sensibilities or who take mass culture studies without the proverbial grain of salt.

With all its shortcomings, what Pitchfork really does imho is a curatorial, therefore selective, job.

That said, I wished they had reviewed the Shrinebuilder album.

fuk u and the grain of salt u rode in on imo

Settle down, Perez Hilton. Just try 2 dfend ur own pov k?

it's funny how such a huge percentage of popular songwriters deal with a lot of themes of adolescence and high school and teenage heartbreak, but only some of them get stigmatized on that basis. i mean, would i stop listening to Replacements songs about that stuff after i grew up because they stopped saying as much 'about my life'? if anything those topics should be MORE accessible to people who are a little older and can still recall that time in their lives. i haven't personally found any of TS's songs affecting in that way (although I liked "Belong" just as a big catchy chorus), and part of it might be the cheesy Romeo/fairytale tropes, but I'm not really gonna turn up my nose like i'm too old for teenage love songs.

― The Happening 2: Our Borad (some dude), Saturday, January 30, 2010 4:50 PM (38 minutes ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

fwiw i totally agree w/ this -- im not saying its fair or justified how taylor swift has been kid-music ghettoized & other similar (often male-gendered -- although maybe that says more about dudes not growing up as much as it does women not getting equitable treatment haa) artists are celebrated afterwards, but i was assuming wed come to the consensus that pfork represents a specific aesthetic & that in order to push its audience further outward it needs to retain some sense of its own identity -- that was scott's point about the state of other more generalized music mags declining so precipitously.

my point was that gaga is already a bit more indie-friendly than taylor swift is, that indexed is playing himself to pretend otherwise.

it's funny how such a huge percentage of popular songwriters deal with a lot of themes of adolescence and high school and teenage heartbreak, but only some of them get stigmatized on that basis. i mean, would i stop listening to Replacements songs about that stuff after i grew up because they stopped saying as much 'about my life'? if anything those topics should be MORE accessible to people who are a little older and can still recall that time in their lives.

otm. Also: I never cared much for "relating" to fictional experiences. What mattered was a certain verisimilitude, or "She writes and sings about that situation really well" vs "I've been through this experience."

yeah not just that, there's also a vague league table of what experiences are worth hearing abt and middleclass teenage girls are way down on it

o rly

@Avg. gangsta rap: Your point would make sense if Pitchfork ignored Taylor Swift all together. But let me point out again, they placed her on their best songs of 2009 list. You think most of her album sounds differently than "You Belong With Me"? I'd agree it's probably the best track (although "Hey Stephen" is a strong contender) but how can one song on an overwhelmingly consistent album be considered excellent and the rest be unworthy of review? Maintaining an identity and aesthetic is perfectly understandable, but you can't have it both ways.

How many of Pitchfork's reviewers do you think have actually heard Fearless?

sorry ladies, your stories are neither relatable nor novel enough for me

yah i think u picked me up rong tho dc

I think their review section is very active and their selection is generally good. I also do not think they should make any concessions to this populist logic that every single artist is worth mentioning or appraising. Leave that to people who haven't outgrown their teen/camp sensibilities or who take mass culture studies without the proverbial grain of salt.

With all its shortcomings, what Pitchfork really does imho is a curatorial, therefore selective, job.

That said, I wished they had reviewed the Shrinebuilder album.

― Now, Saturday, January 30, 2010 6:05 PM (38 minutes ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

It's nice of you to come in and set the world to rights, but it'd be nice if you actually read the thread or comprehended it in the slightest before you posted. Because you missed the part about us discussing great records that Pitchfork didn't cover, which is not really the same thing as saying they should cover every record, as if that was in any way possible. Also Shrinebuilder not really falling under this thread's definition of 'popular.'

also this guys is sort of a douche

were you mocking Now with that table talk, plaxico? if i missed that, sorry.

jus sayin that its easy for ppl to turn their nose up at somethin like taylor swift cos everyone knows that teenage girls have no inner life not like (insert pitchfork band)

heyyyyyy guys lets not be dicks to random new ilm posters

didn't mean to make grizzly bear such a strawman there

sorry cad no offense to Now but i am protective of 'my thread' constantly being misinterpreted

"Leave that to people who haven't outgrown their teen/camp sensibilities or who take mass culture studies without the proverbial grain of salt."

lol some dude i wasn't really referring to you since you were trying to talk to Now and not just saying "fuck u" to him/her

haha ok

id feel bad if i was some pathological noob basher but dude was on a vision-quest

i just mean we can still engage with ppl who aren't familiar with the magical world of poptimism

i aint no poptimist

popism ruled

really the bone i was picking was being so fucking dismissive

It's nice of you to come in and set the world to rights, but it'd be nice if you actually read the thread or comprehended it in the slightest before you posted. Because you missed the part about us discussing great records that Pitchfork didn't cover, which is not really the same thing as saying they should cover every record, as if that was in any way possible. Also Shrinebuilder not really falling under this thread's definition of 'popular.'

― The Happening 2: Our Borad (some dude), Saturday, 30 January 2010 23:52 (Yesterday) Bookmark

some dude, first of all, though I haven't heard all of them, I'm inclined to believe not one of the albums mentioned above is actually "great". There's probably an exception or two up there, but most of them, sorry, no.

I'm also pretty sure there are others out there who are not really interested on having Pitchfork use time and space w/ the likes of Fall Out Boy, Demi Lovato, Mimi et caterva. So get this: I disagree with the very premise that these albums, though "great", have been criminally neglected by Pitchfork.

Second, about Shrinebuilder, you're being disingenuous. It's not popular on the level of Taylor Swift or what have you, but it is successful, somewhat edgy and influential within its specific niche, therefore "semi-popular". Pitchfork being quiet about it is certainly stranger than Pitchfork being quiet about the latest Bon Jovi album.

The problem w/ this kind of thread is not the eternal subjectivity of personal tastes as much as this "anything goes, f. the haters" mindset. It's a kind of populist snobbery that amounts to demanding Big Macs on japanese restaurants.

Pitchfork = I like it raw.

dude p4k is essentially reviewing one metal album a week these days; tbqfh the shrinebuilder record is a lesser version of albums from the bands those guys are in and is not nec. a constructive use of that slot

lmao @ Now

fwiw i believe 'ear candy' is the preferred nomenclature, not 'big mac'

btw deej i just dl'd yr 09 rap mix and am v. excited for it

:D

thnx dude

I don't know why people think p4k should review country albums. that is absurd.

i dont know if anyone is actually calling for that...it's people who are SHOCKED that others might like country albums who mischaracterize the argument as such

heyyyyyy guys lets not be dicks to random new ilm posters

― call all destroyer, Saturday, January 30, 2010 7:03 PM (3 hours ago)

bet u feel dumb Now

lol i still believe we can explain things to ppl lest we be some snake eating itself for the next x years

I don't know why people think p4k should review country albums.

Because how can I enjoy a Dierks Bentley album without knowing how many tenths of a point it ranks above or below a HotRats album?

lol

What about rascal flats?

some dude, first of all, though I haven't heard all of them, I'm inclined to believe not one of the albums mentioned above is actually "great". There's probably an exception or two up there, but most of them, sorry, no.

I'm also pretty sure there are others out there who are not really interested on having Pitchfork use time and space w/ the likes of Fall Out Boy, Demi Lovato, Mimi et caterva. So get this: I disagree with the very premise that these albums, though "great", have been criminally neglected by Pitchfork.

Second, about Shrinebuilder, you're being disingenuous. It's not popular on the level of Taylor Swift or what have you, but it is successful, somewhat edgy and influential within its specific niche, therefore "semi-popular". Pitchfork being quiet about it is certainly stranger than Pitchfork being quiet about the latest Bon Jovi album.

The problem w/ this kind of thread is not the eternal subjectivity of personal tastes as much as this "anything goes, f. the haters" mindset. It's a kind of populist snobbery that amounts to demanding Big Macs on japanese restaurants.

― Now, Saturday, January 30, 2010 9:51 PM (33 minutes ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

a) it must be nice to know exactly how good or bad an album is without hearing it, if only we all had that skill
b) greatness in the eye of the beholder, and the idea was simply that if a person on this thread (who probably more often than not is as much of a professional critic as any PF staffer) says it's great, that's enough
c) read the thread, "criminally neglected" was not the premise
d) read the first post of the thread, the specific sales threshold for "semi-popular" was 200 thousand, pretty sure Shrinebuilder haven't moved that many units
e) again, nobody "demanded" anything and I absolutely want Pitchfork to be Pitchfork, I just don't want them to have any illusions that they're incapable of missing out on anything good and popular (or, worse, illusions that they're the only good restaurant in town and anything they don't serve is fast food)

fwiw although chuck named a lot of country albums that still leaves about 40 other non-country albums named in this thread, maybe we can talk about those instead of pretending to get the vapors about the idea of PF reviewing Keith Urban

would love for people to pick back up on that and maybe get the count up to 100, btw

Jay Reatard-Blood Visions

Didn't they review Slayers Christ Illusion? that seems weird.

no way did that sell 200k

although "great indie albums that Pitchfork didn't review" is I guess the inevitable sequel to this thread that'll fill up with suggestions way quicker

OK, just one thing about a): the first thing I said was "though I haven't heard all of them" etc. You got that part right? Anyway carry on etc. I'll even give you one hint: Pitchfork real blindspot is not the Billboard crowd, but non-US/non-UK releases. That's where they must improve. Start w/ Argentina's LeMicrokosmos 1st album.

No I don't think I will.

I didn't think you would as I was replying to some dude's message, but that's ok. Let me guess: you like a Lady Gaga fan. Some kind of aristocratic camaraderie perhaps.

you ARE a Lady Gaga fan, forget the "like"

alfred is it true your significant other is a lady gaga fan?

xp dammit

http://musicgoss.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/04/now-30.jpg

haha. hard to review those kind of compilations, i think.

i doubt they sold 200K, but rodrigo y gabriela's 11:11 sold 500K+ worldwide, it's a rock disc (and really not the "jam-band"-type disc that i assume p4k wouldn't review), and a very good one, at that, but no p4k review.

haha I was just making a Now/Lady Gaga visual pun

I don't have any opinion of any of these until I see a number and a decimal point. ;)

I don't know why people think p4k should review country albums. that is absurd.
― van smack, Sunday, January 31, 2010 3:03 AM (14 hours ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

It's not in the least bit absurd because they already review country albums.

Again, Ryan Adams' Heartbreaker (122), Band of Horses' Everything All the Time (109), and Neko Case's Blacklisted (141) all made their top 200 albums of the decade list. Those ARE country albums, through and through. On their top 200 songs of the 1960s, there are three Johnny Cash songs, three by Patsy Cline, and two by Loretta Lynn, and Merle Haggard, George Jones, and Tammy Wynette all appear once. Loretta Lynn's Van Lear Rose received a 9.3 from P4k in 2004. Wilco, My Morning Jacket, Magnolia Electric Co., Ryan Adams, Kathleen Edwards, Drive-By Truckers...they review them.

This is not evidence that they review country satisfactorily, but that they value SOME country music. The question is: How do they define the confines of this genre's worth? Am I surprised that they skip Toby Keith, Dierks Bentley, Carrie Underwood, Kellie Pickler, et al.? No. But there are dozens of artists and albums that seem to fit nicely within the niche alt/country model that they've carved, yet remain entirely ignored. Hell, the new Justin Townes Earle album had a brilliant Mats cover on it.

If they don't want to devote the space required for full reviews, why not simply add another (bi)monthly column the way they do for grime, dubstep, etc.? That seems reasonable.

band of horses is country?

those seem like "alt-country" or country that dovetails with indie.

p4k reviews those albums b/c they are indie, not b/c they are country (and they're not really country; they have a small tinge of "country influence). loretta lynn is maybe the one exception, but that's undoubtedly b/c that album has one song with jack white on it (especially since this was 2004). and anyway i'm pretty sure the point of the thread is to say "this is what p4k didn't cover" not "this is what p4k should cover"--they don't have to cover everything

Yeah, I'd rather not read mainstream Country reviews on P4K if they're all going to be No Depression-y rants how how Hank wouldn't have dun it this way. But I agree the lack of Country coverage does mean that P4K has a narrower focus than it thinks it does.

scottpl says p4k is a generalist pub, if it was it would cover country. compare NYT music coverage for instance. also not sure about what he considers obvious to everyone as too shit to cover: would have possibly voted for "i gotta feeling" in trax poll though i know it's hated a lot.

p4k reviews those albums b/c they are indie, not b/c they are country (and they're not really country; they have a small tinge of "country influence). loretta lynn is maybe the one exception

― een, Sunday, January 31, 2010 5:57 PM (21 minutes ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

Uh, what? Heartbreaker's not country? Srsly? Best trad. country album of the last decade.

you guys do realize "generalist" means "not bound to certain genres only" more than it means "scrupulously covering every genre" right?

There's a difference between not "scrupulously covering" a genre and almost totally ignoring it.

lol but the point of all these posters is that the site does NOT totally ignore country!

Heartbreaker's not country? Srsly? Best trad. country album of the last decade.

Not in a decade that had That Lonesome Song, There's More Where That Came From, Heaven, Heartache & the Power of Love, Home, Like Red on a Rose, Rattlin' Bones, & Whiskey or God

@call all destroyer: Absolutely. I still stand by the positions I've held in this thread, which I believe have been more than reasonable in relation to Pitchfork's specific aesthetic and coverage. "Scrupulously" covering country would redefine their aesthetic, so no, I'm not suggesting that. The modest suggestions I made were: cover Bloodshot releases, those albums whose songs end up on their Best Tracks of the Year lists, and--if space is an issue--make a (bi)monthly column instead.

Look, I'm a big Pitchfork proponent. I'll be the first to defend them against their many naysayers because I believe they're still the most reliable opinion on the web since the demise of Stylus. What they've done with their music festival and Pitchfork TV is truly commendable. My gripe has more to do with odd inconsistencies rather than complete ignorance.

@Pres Keyes: Of the ones I know, I'd label nearly all of those contemporary country, not traditional country; but even conceding the point, I'd take Heartbreaker in a blink over all of them. Only country album I liked more this decade was Crazy Ex-Girlfriend. I've never heard Whiskey or God, but will check it out. Thanks.

Is it really possible that they didn't review DJ Sprinkles's Midtown 120 Blues?

they haven't reviewed that disc (at least not yet)

x-post
The thing is that all of those albums I listed, within the Country genre, are regarded as trad, (or at least neo-trad) even retro. Definitely out of step with contemporary trends.

Most of them also sound no less like "traditional" country (from whatever earlier decade) than Ryan Adams does, fwiw.

Is it really possible that they didn't review DJ Sprinkles's Midtown 120 Blues?

― with hidden noise, Sunday, January 31, 2010 6:51 PM (4 hours ago)

this seems more wtf than all yr taylor swifts but maybe thats just cos i reckon it was the best album i heard by a good distance

but how can one song on an overwhelmingly consistent album be considered excellent and the rest be unworthy of review?

The truth is probably more prosaic:

The "specialist" slant of Pitchfork doesn't mean that it will refuse to run certain things (or if it does I've never seen evidence of this), more that the editors won't go out of their way to find reviewers for certain things if they don't voluntarily pitch a review.

I'm possibly the only pitchfork crit who purchased the album at the time that it was released, and I'm so lazy I rarely if ever pitch anything (also why I never pitched DJ Sprinkles...).

Taylor won over a lot of non-country fans with "You Belong With Me" - people who didn't like "Love Story" even. Pitchfork's end of year polls aren't masterminded by the editors or anything so if enough of the writers grew to like the song it would end up on the final poll. But this was well after the album was released.

Lady Gaga also won over people with "Paparazzi", which ended up on the end of year poll too. But it was the release of The Fame Monster which gave Pitchfork the chance to review Gaga without obviously playing catch up.

There's almost a tiered structure with a lot of the take-up of populist stuff - e.g. Taylor and The-Dream both fall into the same camp whereby:

1) Early Adopters - got into the first album from each artist pretty much immediately
2) First Wave Take-up - got into the first albums 12 months or more after their release, were primed for 2nd album from each
3) Second Wave Take-up - got into the second albums 6 months or so after their release
4) Confirmation of Sweep - all of the above groups primed for release of 3rd album

These four categories relate to:

1) one or two people hyping artist on ILM
2) groundswell of support on ILM
3) groundswell of support amongst critics generally
4) Review on Pitchfork

(120 Midtown Blues is) the best album i heard by a good distance

i've come around to feeling this way, too

it was the release of The Fame Monster which gave Pitchfork the chance to review Gaga without obviously playing catch up.

Well, again, I'm not saying what Pitchfork should or shouldn't review, but Swift released an expanded version of Fearless right around the same time that Gaga put out The Fame Monster (and by then, "You Belong With Me" had already hit.)

Yes but it'd be a lot more like "catch-up" given - unlike The Fame Monster - it really is just a repackaged version of the original and none of the new songs were particularly good!

Tim, thanks for the response. "Jump Then Fall" was pretty ok, but I'd agree that the rest of the expanded Fearless edition was more or less superfluous and/or pointless. Your large post makes perfect sense if 'playing catch-up' is considered a negative, but is it?

Is it not fair to assume that the vast majority of your readership has still not heard Fearless but might consider doing so if you dropped a 7.something on it a la The Fame Monster? I'm absolutely sure that I've seen you guys review albums in early new years that came out in the early Fall of the year prior, which I'm assuming was a product of a writer saying: hey, I'm going to review that album because it deserved to be reviewed and we missed it.

Perhaps it would be beneficial to have someone write a column at the end of January or February of the following year called, 2009: What We Missed?

the editors won't go out of their way to find reviewers for certain things if they don't voluntarily pitch a review

yeah i was gonna post something along these lines yesterday, it bothers me far more that people are making philosophical arguments as to why pfork shouldn't cover taylor swift or whoever when the truth is probably more like that combination of finite resources/writers + narrow editorial purview re: what it'll make an effort to cover (as opposed to waiting for a writer to pitch it). more than ever at this point though, i can't work out whether pfork thinks of itself as specialist or generalist, even scott seems somewhat confused on this point.

none of the new songs were particularly good!

ahem "untouchable"! it's beautiful

Actually I agree re "untouchable", I forget about that one.

Also I agree with that entire previous post lex. Really I don't think any publication has its aesthetic (and corresponding editorial policy) totally worked out to the nth degree - most of the time it's about post-facto elaboration on what's really a combination of instinct and institutionalised habit, although scott (and I assume ryan) seem to think about this as much as or more than other publications I have experience of.

Indexed to some extent you're right - I pitched and reviewed Electrik Red on that basis pretty much (and got an 8.something for it). But again a lot of this is actually about individual writers making the effort rather than some hyper micromanaged editorial policy.

How ironic that you did the review of Electrik Red! I couldn't think of a finite example, but that's perfect, because the day I read your review I downloaded and listened to that album. The latter is something I rarely ever do on the first day of owning a new album because my queue is typically quite large. But I had been meaning to grab that forever and then the review dropped and I simply had to hear it...

Fair enough on the whole writers/resources argument--it's absolutely understandable, and I assumed it to be the problem all along. Hence the closing P of my first post in this thread:

"Moving forward, Pitchfork would benefit from hiring a full-time country writer, one familiar with the history of the genre, but who can still recognize young talent. SP: Really want to take a risk in achieving #2 ("expose nominally indie/guitar rock kids to non-indie music"), quit reviewing stand-up comedy records and remix EPs from one-note indie bands and take on a genre of music that remains one of America's richest and most rewarding. You might even get a few new readers."

Re-listening now for the first time in months, I'm going to change my opinion on the Platinum Edition Fearless bonus tracks: I like most of these! Girl's gotta helluva knack for a pop chorus.

a little late, but

79. Shakira - Fijación Oral Vol. 1
80. Shakira - Oral Fixation Vol. 2
81. Shakira - She Wolf
82. Calle 13 - Calle 13
83. Calle 13 - Residente o Visitante
84. Daddy Yankee - Barrio Fino
85. Julieta Venegas - Limon y Sal
86. Pitbull - El Mariel

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lqLSaOvdCAc

rick ross - deeper than rap

^yep

88. Nellie McKay - Get Away From Me