February 12, 2002

6:27 PM

Village Voice Pazz & Jop Poolis out. Albums and Singles.
posted by rex (34 comments total)

Did I say "pool"? I meant poll. I really did.
posted by rex at 6:29 PM on February 12, 2002

#153 Ozomatli - Embrace the Chaos...

Why I oughta.....

Dropping oZo below Tool(40) and Jimmy Eat World's(67) worst efforts ever. Shame.

Actually, the list really goes to show what a mediocre year it was for music. There's really nothing earth shattering on that list (the fact that Bob Dylan... and this isn't meant to be an insult... is first on the list is proof).
posted by eyeballkid at 6:39 PM on February 12, 2002

Outkast's Stankonia is at WHAT?!?! 152?!?!??!?!
posted by lbergstr at 6:42 PM on February 12, 2002

Jill Scott's record should've been much higher than 140, she's definitely the best of the neo-soul crop. Oysterhead deserves better than 234 as well, simply due to the prescence of Les Claypool(he walks among us as a man.)
On the plus side, It's nice to see Dolly Parton's marvelous Little Sparrow get some recognition. Her bluegrass stylings do the nigh impossible by making Collective Soul's "Shine" sound absolutely stunning. Nice to see true Metal's torchbearer's Neurosis make it in at 548.
I'm also stunned to see old Long Island Death Metal warhorses at 387. Who the hell knew they were still out there? I can just picture the scene:

"Hello, Sheboygan! We're Virgin Steele Are You Ready to Rock!!!"
posted by jonmc at 6:58 PM on February 12, 2002

i'm disappointed that (warning, self link) jeff kelly's indiscretion is way down in the 200s, in a year when jeff probably outsold michael jackson.
posted by pxe2000 at 6:59 PM on February 12, 2002

lbegstr, I believe Stankonia topped last year's list. Most critics seem to have considered it 2000 fare.

Man, I find the P&J list to blow, but then, I felt the same way last year. I feel so out of touch with conventional critical wisdom, even though I write a music column myself.

For instance, Alejandro Escovedo's album sucks, man.
posted by Marquis at 7:11 PM on February 12, 2002

Great, another hipster rag succumbs to the Mellencampy stylings of Ryan Adams. Yeesh.

"Poses" by Rufus Wainwright is bloody brilliant, though.
posted by Ty Webb at 7:13 PM on February 12, 2002

Actually, the list really goes to show what a mediocre year it was for music.

Actually, statements like this are for those who haven't tried to dig past the piles of mediocre music. It's not that hard, though. This year was probably one of the best in terms of new music that I heard in a long time. I won't subject everyone to a "your music sucks, my music rocks" rant, but I'll just say that 2001 was chock-full of good stuff. If you don't think so, it's your own damn fault.
posted by almostcool at 7:18 PM on February 12, 2002

Glad to see The Faint there (even though I'm not hip enough to know about them until this year -- Danse Macabre is a truly amazing album). Ladytron too -- [retro/synth]pop is back in vogue, it seems.

But N'Sync??? WTF?
posted by sigma7 at 7:26 PM on February 12, 2002

there's just a few things about these year end lists that I don't get.

first of all...why all the hoopla over The Strokes? they sound like a brainless Television. get Marquee Moon instead! (yes I know it came out in '77, but trust me on this one.)

second of all...why all the hoopla over Ryan Adams? it just sounds like adult contemporary pop rock to me. I think perhaps the reason why Ryan Adams and The Strokes are so popular are because of their image. as any gullible sap wearing pre-worn jeans will tell you, retro-meets-thrift-store is in, and a bunch of classically-inspired indie pretty boys is just what the world of fashion needs right now.

third of all...why all the hoopla over the new Weezer album? it's as though rivers thought "hmm...pinkerton was full of moving and cereberal rock masterpieces but it didn't sell too great...therefore my next album will be soul-less pop punk!" maybe it's the image thing at work again.

otherwise, not a bad best of list. there are fewer misses here than on most lists.
posted by mcsweetie at 7:36 PM on February 12, 2002

OK, I was gonna rant on the Strokes and (B)Ryan Adams, but mcsweetie beat me to it.... oh well.
posted by spilon at 7:48 PM on February 12, 2002

Did anyone listen to The Hives album...it's brilliant. It is everything The Strokes would even hope to be. Listen to it twice and you're hooked. The White Stripes deserve it, but I think that The Silver Jews should be in there too.

I agree on the fewer misses, but I think there were a few bands that were overlooked.
posted by Benway at 7:50 PM on February 12, 2002

Oops The Hives link is dead...try this.
posted by Benway at 7:52 PM on February 12, 2002

YES! I saw The Hives open up for The (International) Noise Conspiracy a couple months back. their energy was just amazing! without a doubt, that was one of the best shows I'd seen last year.
posted by mcsweetie at 7:57 PM on February 12, 2002

Mellencampy heh

Should I waste time commenting about freeloader critics and their pet bands?...must...fight ...urge...

I don't get the Ryan Adams lovefest.WTBFD?I got the cd and listened to it and it's...Ok, I guess.

If the friggin' Strokes were from anywhere but New York, would anyone care?

Guided by Voices are the Eric Clapton of the Village Voice.All they have to do is show up and they get a trophy.

Merle Haggard doesn't belong at 127 on any damn list just 'cause it's The Hag, man.

Sticking Radiohead at #187 is textbook backlash by the same type people that blew that band up.

'N Sync, Linkin Park?They let 12 year old girls vote on this thing?
posted by BarneyFifesBullet at 7:58 PM on February 12, 2002

The Hives are the best band going right now.
posted by dong_resin at 8:16 PM on February 12, 2002

The best thing about the Pazz and Jop poll is the democracy of the thing. Individual critics often latch onto a semi-obscure pet band, and it comes out of left field when it shows up on their yearly "best" lists. P & J holds more weight for me because of its broad base of critics. Heck, 3005 Dylan fan can't be completely wrong, can they?

We're all guilty of occasional band favoritism, anyway. Jeez - I was convinced that PM Dawn's Jesus Wept was the best album of 1995 and told anyone that cared to listen.

posted by pjhagop at 8:24 PM on February 12, 2002

Does anyone look at the singles? It's hysterical sometimes, a funhouse mirror image of the often-predictable, rockcrit darlings-heavy album list. "MMMBop" took first place a few years ago.
posted by raysmj at 8:45 PM on February 12, 2002

Thanks, Marquis. I honestly feel better about the world now.
posted by lbergstr at 8:59 PM on February 12, 2002

The Hives? People spew forth endlessly about The Strokes, how they are nothng but throwback rehash artists in pretty clothes, and then tout the (still underground cred-worthy) Hives, complete hacks, Iggy meets N'Sync. But because they are European and not on a major label, they are much 'cooler' to like. They are a constructed band fer crissakes, assembled by some Svengali. The same kind of people who come down on The Strokes for making (gasp) accessible pop songs demonized The Cars for the same thing twenty years ago, and only in the last few years has it become 'acceptable' for people to openly recognize the songwriting genuis of Okasek and Co. It blows my mind. Tortoise can make a hipster career out of soundng like Atsrud Gilberto's backing band and get called "visionaries," but The Strokes and BRMC are lambasted for wearing their (less muso-trendy) influences on their sleeves. Lest we all forget, kiddies, The Rolling Stones started off as a blues cover band ...

bah. I'll be glad when we're far enough away from the obscurist fetishism of the nineties to engage in public discussions about music above and beyond an indie name drop pissing contest ...
posted by hipstertrash at 10:15 PM on February 12, 2002

complete hacks, Iggy meets N'Sync.

um, I don't see it. I was thinkin' maybe real early The Who meets The Ramones?
posted by mcsweetie at 10:39 PM on February 12, 2002

I won't subject everyone to a "your music sucks, my music rocks" rant

You just did.
posted by eyeballkid at 10:40 PM on February 12, 2002

eyeballkid - no he didn't. What he said was This year was probably one of the best in terms of new music that I heard in a long time. Which is by no means a "your music/my music" rant. It seems that many people take a glass-half-empty approach when it comes to best of lists. almostcool used a refreshing glass-half-full approach.

Too bad he had to throw in flame bait like If you don't think so, it's your own damn fault. Kudos to all for not taking him up on the challenge.
posted by ashbury at 10:53 PM on February 12, 2002

thanks for making my point.
posted by eyeballkid at 11:34 PM on February 12, 2002

hipstertrtash: The Hives were 'assembled' by some svengali who makes himself known only as 'Randy Fitszimons'. That's not a name, that's an 18th century nutritional deficiency. I suspect they made that up.

And the real reason they're different to the strokes is becasue they're fun. I like the strokes and the BRMC, I just happen to like the Hives better. I went to see Pulp earleir this year and Jarvis Cocker had a star power that made you want to watch him. The Hives have that power, all of them (except maybe the bassist, but that's fun too). When you see them, you have to watch them. I saw them at the Astoria a couple of weeks ago and it was the best gig I've ever seen.

And Radiohead have been cruelly done out by a backlash when they're making the best music of their career. At least they don't really need the sales, unlike some of the more obscure bands.

[Oh and good things you should have seen in 2001 and will in 2002: The Fat Truckers (also starpower), Wilco (although YHF was released on the net last year) the Sahara Hotnights (they have great hair), The French Kicks (who are fun!) and Weezer (who's new album is much better)
posted by nedrichards at 3:22 AM on February 13, 2002

ashbury and eyeballkid - In all honesty, I wasn't trying to stir up some flame bait by saying my above statement. It just irks me sometimes when people say, "It wasn't a good year for music." The problem isn't that there's hardly any good music out there, it's just that it takes a little more work to find it sometimes. I get the same way when someone says, "I'm bored." I want to tell them about how many amazing books and films and music releases are out there and just generally point them in the right direction so I never have to hear anyone say, "it was a boring year for music." Granted, I realize I came across wrong above by dropping the D-bomb, but I really had good intentions. For real.
posted by almostcool at 6:30 AM on February 13, 2002

furthermore, I wanna know why Sound Dust ain't on more people's list.
posted by mcsweetie at 7:40 AM on February 13, 2002

We're all guilty of occasional band favoritism, anyway. Jeez - I was convinced that PM Dawn's Jesus Wept was the best album of 1995 and told anyone that cared to listen.

pjhagop- I LOVED Jesus Wept. I spent entire days listening to that album, and I'm a kneejerk athiest. This year, though, I can't get the White Stripes out of my rotation. But then again, I list George Michael's Listen Without Prejudice as one of my all time faves.
posted by thebigpoop at 7:58 AM on February 13, 2002

S'okay
posted by ashbury at 7:58 AM on February 13, 2002

almost cool: I do try to find music, but nothing this year really stood out for me. I just resented the "lazy" comment a bit. I think saying that the year was lackluster in music is different from saying "I'm bored." If I had said that there hasn't been good music since the 60s, then you could jump all over that. The truth is that, for me, their have been and will be better years in music for me than 2001.

I took a look at your site and browsed through your best of 2001 and it occured to me that I'd have to look pretty damned hard to find some of the things you found this year. Not that this is a bad thing, it's just that I'm not really deep into any scenes these days and if a release is out of my periphery, I'll never get to hear it.

All I'm saying is that by the standard barometer of widely released (and I'm not talking like Destiny's Child but, more like Modest Mouse or Stephen Merrit distribution) and critically heralded projects (Oh, look, another Radiohead record and Bob Dylan's back again. yay.), it has been a mediocre year.
posted by eyeballkid at 8:27 AM on February 13, 2002

nedrichards - well said. You are one of the few people who has lauded the Hives and not taken a cheap shot at the strokes. For you, it seems to boil down to taste. I saw BRMC before the album came out, when they were on tour with The Dandy Warhols (another outrageously underrated band that gets knocked just because they have style/attitude). BRMC was equally mesmerizing, but not in a Cocker/Stooges way, something more understated and sinister, kind of how I imagine early VU gigs were like (very still, not much banter between songs, a quiet, burning intensity). The Hives, on the other hand, seem like a band that would be great to see live, but I can't sit back and listen to their album on the headphones like I can The Strokes.

Re: Radiohead ... I never liked them much until OK Computer, and I'm really not impressed with the recent slew of releases. "Computer" was experimental, a marginalized band freeing themselves from the constraints of premature hype. Thom Yorke started buying his own image, and to me, the results sound narcissistic and self-indulgent. Morrisey Syndrome. Pink Floyd-itis. I still think that Radiohead are capable of genius, but they need to crawl out of their hole and step back out into the world for awhile.

I was glad to see some recognition for the best efforts yet from Sparklehorse and Spiritualized, but I would have liked to see them rank a bit higher. Miranda Lee Richards, the BJM, The Tyde, and Beachwood Sparks all got buried far down in the list, continuing the critics' snub of the vibrant southern california country/psych/garage/folk/space mutant breeding ground. Yeah, Wilco got shafted, but hopefully they'll show up on this year's polls when the album gets a proper release. Jay Farrar got an even worse shaft, though, as he usually does. Give the fucking guy some credit for once, please world. I was very glad to see Gillian Welch rank as high as she did, but I hope that it was a real recognition of her talent, and not post-"O Brother" hype.
posted by hipstertrash at 3:09 PM on February 13, 2002

thebigpoop has good taste in music.

Outkast's Stankonia is at WHAT?!?! 152?!?!??!?!

We were debating pulling all the votes because the album was from last year (as evidenced by its #1 ranking in 2000) but tradition is that votes for an album carry over even past its year or release or the year in which it is most popular.

FWIW, Dylan was already running away with first place in the albums after only 10% of the ballots were in. Same with Missy's singles win.
posted by anildash at 4:47 PM on February 13, 2002

Ok, Ryan Adams' new album wasn't all that great. I agree completely. Add to that the fact that he's a complete dickhead. Even worse. However, if you want to know "why all the hoopla over Ryan Adams," check out "Heartbreaker" or (even better) Whiskeytown's "Faithless Street." That's why.

almostcool's post should be placed in every "music is beginning to suck" thread. There are plenty of places to look for good music. The AV Club at The Onion has led me into a number of new and interesting directions-- once you find a few new groups, just go to Amazon and travel along the "people who liked this . . . " tracks and check out the posted lists. There's good stuff out there.

and I liked Alejandro Escovedo's album.
posted by yerfatma at 7:57 AM on February 14, 2002

Actyually, eyeballkid, the fact that Bob Dylan's on their list is fairly earth shattering. After regaling my friends with my impression of his croak on Time Out Of Mind--Ah'm sick of love...--an album which seemed to prove to me that the muse had long abandoned him despite the critical applause that it got (look, he still has a pulse on the life support monitor!!), Love And Theft was suprisingly subtle and well written. It may mean nothing to you but the fact that, croak aside, he can come up with something beyond self-parody at his age is worthy of shouting from the house tops for some of us.

The only thing off putting for me on that record was the quality of the sound--far too slick and up-to-the minute for the material. In Robert Mugge 's The Gospel According To All Green,--it's well worth watching--there's a scene with his Hi Records Svengali, Willie Mitchell, where Mitchell is patting some old tube amps from the 50s and explaining that he recorded Green on them in the 70s, which had a lot to do with the warm and timeless feel Green's pop hits had. I only wish Dylan or his handlers had the sense to match his materail with some vintage technology like that.
posted by y2karl at 3:57 AM on February 16, 2002