Join 3,512 readers in helping fund MetaFilter (Hide)


the 90's
November 25, 2003 8:24 AM   Subscribe

Pitchfork's 100 Best Albums of the 1990's I'm sure that you'll find plenty to bitch about on this list, but hang on, the last 20 will be posted tomorrow. You can also see where they stood at the turn of the decade.
posted by trbrts (67 comments total) 1 user marked this as a favorite

 
Enough with the damned lists.

Orb's Ultraworld only at #100? Record changed my damn life.
posted by xmutex at 8:34 AM on November 25, 2003


I think that Album X should have been included and Album Z should be removed and Artist M should not have had 2 entries and such and such an album should be higher, and another band had much better albums than that and was that album released in the 90's, and and and .......... I thought we had seen the end of the Top 100 List craze that existed around y2k.............. Seriously this list is number 4 in my Top 100 list of Top 100 Lists of the Best Albums of the 90's....................
Anyway dont mind me!
posted by kenaman at 8:39 AM on November 25, 2003


A little premature on the posting -- the top 20 don't come out till tomorrow.
posted by me3dia at 8:43 AM on November 25, 2003


isn't it a little early to be doing this?
posted by pxe2000 at 8:45 AM on November 25, 2003


Kenaman you're completely wrong. They were right not to include Album X. Album Z rocked and if you can't appreciate Album Z then you certainly could never understand Artist M's approach to pi2 = 10, or 9pi4 - 240pi2 + 1492 = 0!! What kind of music notation lover are you?
posted by ZachsMind at 8:47 AM on November 25, 2003


btw, swiped that algebraic formula. Have no idea what it means really. I wuz goin fer da funny.
posted by ZachsMind at 8:49 AM on November 25, 2003


The kids at pitchfork blow their noses with trust-fun cheques. Who cares what they think? Seriously.

I can barely stand to wade through one of their "articles" or "reviews", as full as they are of inflated smarmy comments, trend-setter-cock-sucking and hipster trash cliches.

"New White Stripes? 9.3! It has to be, or else we wouldn't be part of the hype machine!"
posted by jon_kill at 8:50 AM on November 25, 2003


yes, agreed that these album lists are silly and don't really mean a damn thing. But, I find that I agree with a lot of the Pitchfork reviewers and this is the era of music that my generation is associated with. And it's always fun to get pissed when your favorite isn't there. Now if I don't see Fugazi's Repeater in the Top 20, shit is going ot hit the fan.
posted by trbrts at 8:54 AM on November 25, 2003


For extra fun, compare the two lists.

The degree to which they pander to what "today's young kids" want to hear is just fucking off the charts.
posted by jon_kill at 8:56 AM on November 25, 2003


Loveless!
posted by Satapher at 9:02 AM on November 25, 2003


Amen, jon kill.

90% of what's on that list meant anything to me, or anyone I knew. End to end tuneless college rock tripe.

Where's And Justice For All? 24 Hours A Day? Blood Sugar Sex Magic ? Don't Know How To Party? The Muffs 1st Album? Dirt Track Date? Answer The Phone Dummy? Blue Sky On Mars? Grave Dancers Union?

I'm sure Odelay and Nevermind will make obligatory appearances just so they don't look completely foolish, but the rest of the stuff I mentioned? It embraces such outmoded uncool concepts like melody, decent vocals, and actually attempting to rock. Worse, they're sincere. Heavens. Plus some people actually bought them

No joke, the type of stuff that's on that list is why I listen to almost no new music anymore.
posted by jonmc at 9:04 AM on November 25, 2003


jonmc is old
posted by Satapher at 9:06 AM on November 25, 2003


lol
posted by glenwood at 9:08 AM on November 25, 2003


What's worse, pandering to "today's young kids" like Pitchfork or pandering to Baby Boomers like Rolling Stone? Discuss.
posted by keswick at 9:08 AM on November 25, 2003


What's worse, pandering to "today's young kids" like Pitchfork or pandering to Baby Boomers like Rolling Stone? Discuss.

Actually, keswick, a more honest way of putting that would be "What's worse, pandering to hipster pretension like Pitchfork or pandering to lowest common denominator stupidity like Rolling Stone?"

The Olsen twins and Jessica Simpson are hardly darlings of the baby boomers.

jonmc is old

Actually, I was born in 1970, which rules me out as a baby boomer. But if that makes me old, so be it.

Now get the hell off my lawn.
posted by jonmc at 9:15 AM on November 25, 2003


I know, I know, Band X/Y should/shouldn't be here, blah, blah, blah. But, anyone else notice a high number of Pixies and Pixies-related albums on this list? Also, there are 2 Built to Spill albums within one degree of each other. I love both of these bands, but give me a break. Clear some room for other artists. Lord knows there are plenty more deserving records. Yes, I said records. Damn, I'm getting old.
posted by fletchmuy at 9:15 AM on November 25, 2003


good music crosses all age barriers.

parklife = best album of the 90's
posted by sgt.serenity at 9:15 AM on November 25, 2003


Keswick: Both are worse.
Jonmc: RHCP and Soul Asylum suck.

Maybe this type of centralized opinion distribution is just not worth it. I'm sure they make a tidy salary running banner ads, selling review CDs and being comped coke at industry parties, but if we all stopped reading, maybe they could finally fuck off.

While I'm at it:

What the hell is with half of their articles consisting of one paragraph of filler and then a track listing? I can hear pants filling with jizz from here as Mr Wristband finds out the new Sea and Cake record does indeed include that whispery one about the girl that got away that the singer sang while looking straight into his heterosexual but oddly aroused eyes, but when the hell did that sort of thing start passing as journalism?
posted by jon_kill at 9:16 AM on November 25, 2003


Top 100 of the 90's? Please.

About as bad as David Letterman's top ten of whatever. Very fucking old and washed up.

[Please, mr jonmc, can we have our ball back? Pretty please?]
posted by alicesshoe at 9:24 AM on November 25, 2003


johnmc, by the way:

And Justice For All was released in 1988.

You old bastard.
posted by glenwood at 9:27 AM on November 25, 2003


sorry i spelt your name wrong. sigh.
posted by glenwood at 9:27 AM on November 25, 2003


I don't know. I dig the list.

On a related note, I have been tuning in weekly for Much Music's "So 90's."

Then it struck me. How I looked at adults stuck in the 80's as a kid, kids nowadays will look at me as stuck in the 90's.
posted by Quartermass at 9:31 AM on November 25, 2003


jonmc, i was referring to RS's extremely boomer-heavy Top 500 Albums of All Time.

for the record, i've found myself listening mainly to music recorded between 1920 and 1968 lately, anyway.
posted by keswick at 9:35 AM on November 25, 2003


Let me get this straight: the point of the list is to rate the 100 best albums of the 1990s, even though they undertook the same task four years ago. What's the difference here? Were there more albums released at the end of 1999 that missed the cut? Do they have new reviewers with drastically different opinions? Or are they so far up their own asses that hindsight changes so much over the course of four years that they'd have significant revisions to the list?

Lists like this need a huge timestamp. Because it's not a rating of the "best," it's a rating of what they'd be interested in listening to now (or what's "cool" to listen to now). If a band breaks out with a new album, suddenly their old albums may get popular. If a band keeps releasing albums after they've clearly lost it, then reviewers may lose interest in older work.

Still, this doesn't explain why the hell they're making the same damn list after a mere four years. Give it a decade at least, guys. Or put the previous rating next to the current one, and explain why your sensibilities are so different.
posted by mikeh at 9:37 AM on November 25, 2003 [1 favorite]


1970! Then you, like myself, missed everything.
posted by Satapher at 9:55 AM on November 25, 2003


"New White Stripes? 9.3! It has to be, or else we wouldn't be part of the hype machine!"

They panned Elephant.
posted by donth at 10:03 AM on November 25, 2003


The biggest difference I found between the lists was that there's more rap in the new one.

Also, they didn't stick every damn Frank Black album into it. Yet.
posted by donth at 10:06 AM on November 25, 2003


They panned Elephant.

Oh, I think we all know. Now that the NDA has expired, I can reveal that I created an extensive CMS with some cutting-edge AI to run Pitchfork. Basically, it works like this: the spider component searches the weblogs looking for new bands. Once it finds a band, it compares it to an XML feed of next week's releases and puts together a glowing review (the review works on a sliding scale system where the rating is inversely-proportianal to the number of mentions in the last 7 days) based on an advanced Natural Language processing system. Then when subsequent albums by this band come out, the system pans the new discs, infuriating all the bloggers who just wrote posts about how they knew of the band before they were popular. This keeps all the bloggers who want to be hip coming back and viewing the ads.

"I don't care if I'm cool. And that makes me cool right?"
posted by yerfatma at 10:11 AM on November 25, 2003


Short, shameful confession: I don't like the White Stripes.
posted by bonehead at 10:12 AM on November 25, 2003


I don't quite understand the hostility here. Many of us crazy college kids in the early nineties actually, truly liked this "college rock tripe." I appreciate the effort to catalogue some of the records that some of us overlooked at the time, especially for those who missed the boat the first time. See, let me break it down for some of the the younger folks around here:

The 80's was a lot like now, except instead of crap rap, the distended music-kidney of corporate rock (which had swollen so monstrously during the late 70's) pissed all over the country a combination of stale arena-rawk, whitney houston, and pre-programmed boy bands. It was truly a heinous time if you listened to the radio to get your music, as anyone who was a child in the 80s was forced to do. Songs like "Dancing in the Streets" were HUGE hits. Does anyone remember Lionel Ritchie? Or "We Built This City (on Rock and Roll)"?

While this corporatized, uritic flow drowned out all else on the radio (again, you must remember that the internet was just a gleam in Bill Gate's eye at this point), independent music began to raise its infant head. Unless you were cool and knew how to get zines or lived in a hip urban place like New York or Chicago, the only place to hear this music was on your local college radio station or 120 Minutes on MTV. That was basically it. But how great was that?

So a new genre popped up. It was sort of like punk, but it wasn't a coherent "movement" or "statement". It was just "alternative" music. An alternative to the crushing, numbing safe-rock that was always on our entire lives, even on the bus going to school. Of course that word, "Alternative," is ridiculous now. But at the time, it actually signified something interesting. There was a huge difference between the kinds of bands doing their own thing--and it was coming from all over the country and from England, too--but like pornography, you knew it when you saw it.

Now you have guys like me--early thirties--looking back fondly and arguing quite boringly over what was cooler, who got there first, when did it end, etc. Please, my young readers, understand that this was the whole game of indie rock--to know more than your other music-nerd. Because this music was kept off of the radio, it was a sort of secret knowledge. When it became mainstream, it was good for the world, but bad for the music-nerd.

He felt he needed to go deeper. Suddenly everyone knew who the Smiths were. REM was selling out coliseums. Nirvana, which was also a secret at first, made the perfect record, shocking us all, and it was suddenly number one on Casey Kasem's Top 40. It was over, in a sense. The secret was out, and the nerderati mourned. He spurned the success of his own making and turned inward, reclassifying his B-sides and searching out (or starting his own) ever-smaller labels that published music he was sure no one else would like, and therefore could never sell out, no not ever again, never to bite that serpent-shined apple again!

And now you know . . . the rest of the story.
posted by _sirmissalot_ at 10:14 AM on November 25, 2003 [2 favorites]


wowzers. not one, but two Brainiac albums? I didn't think that anyone outside of southwest michigan even knew who they were. yay for this list, just for that. i'll start booing once they show the rest of the list.
posted by badstone at 10:18 AM on November 25, 2003


:sigh:

We're all just kneedeep in the hoopla....
posted by grabbingsand at 10:26 AM on November 25, 2003


I own two out of eighty: Blur's Parklife, & Weezer's Pinkerton. Where the hell are the rock albums? Like the multi-platinum Keep The Faith or Adrenalize albums? Heck even Metallica's self titled album and anything by GNR during the '90s are missing.
posted by riffola at 10:34 AM on November 25, 2003


what, no melvins?
posted by angry modem at 10:56 AM on November 25, 2003


Good comments, sirmissalot. Though I think the music was called college rock during the 80s--the format really took off after R.E.M's "Murmur" came out. Then, when major labels hipped to the genre, I *think* it was they who adopted the term "alternative rock" and started signing "college rock" bands like the Replacements and the Pixies to contracts. Does anyone remember when they first heard the term "alternative rock" or the true origins of the phrase? Was it dreamed up by a label thinktank or some college rock DJs?
posted by timothompson at 11:11 AM on November 25, 2003


End to end tuneless college rock tripe.

As opposed to your bland, vanilla, mainstream tripe? (Grave Dancers Union?? That's like, Air Supply with slightly louder guitars.) But seriously, I kid only to show that it's all relative, and one person's tripe is another's gold nugget I suppose. I'd also guess that, based on your examples, there's at least a few on this list that you'd enjoy, "end to end" perhaps being a bit unfair.

I tend to get a chuckle out of these Pitchfork screeds (I own 31 of the 80 listed so far, and I'm a year older than jonmc), even if I don't agree with all the picks and do find that pandering hipster pretension grows weary. At least it's generally aware that it's pandering hipster pretension.
posted by jalexei at 11:12 AM on November 25, 2003


Actually, I was born in 1970

what month?

*sincerely hoping to be at least marginally younger than old-man jonmc*

no seriously, the -- admittedly far from perfect -- list is not really as "tuneless"-centric as you say. Massive Attack, Breeders, Wilco, Dylan, Dr.Dre, Raekwon, Mercury Rev, Pulp, DeLaSoul -- I'd say it defintely has more variety than one could expect from Pitchfork.

and anyway it's always cool to disagree with "best-of" lists -- that's why magazines publish them in the first place
posted by matteo at 11:24 AM on November 25, 2003 [1 favorite]


Well, I like the list. It may pander to somebody, but aren't we all, in one way or another, panderous in our likes and dislikes? You know, I also liked the Rolling Stone top 500.

jonmc, I gotta ask as well: Soul Asylum? they had their place in 90's mainstream, but come on...are they really worthy of a place in the top 100? They were bland pop/rock with a really good song. Kind of like Hootie and the Blowfish, but different. Either way, if you like 'em you like 'em and that's what counts the most.
posted by ashbury at 11:32 AM on November 25, 2003


riffola, please, pleeease tell me you were joking. You don't mean Keep The Faith as in Bon Jovi???? I really really really hate to sound like one of these indy kid elitists because I'd be inclined to include Appetite for Destruction II (guilty pleasure), but Keep the Faith?!?! I really believe you were joking and this was a pointless post, but I just had to...
posted by BloodyWallet at 11:59 AM on November 25, 2003


I like a few Soul Asylum songs, and they were much better than Hootie, but if I can get away with never hearing "Runaway Train" again life will be so very good, even if I have to lose appendages.

As long as we're dissecting jonmc...poke prod slice stitch shuffle... I don't think the Muffs or the Bosstones were ever irony-free - that first Muffs record kicks ass, though, and so could the Bosstones, though if you want to rock I'd suggest you don't screw around and listen to Devil's Night Out, which will pick you up and throw you across the room.
posted by furiousthought at 12:16 PM on November 25, 2003


I thought "Alternative Rock" was replaced by "Indie rock" back in 1991 shortly after it was acquired by Rolling Stone and Nirvana. "Alternative" really died for me the night I was (un)fortunate enough to witness Courtney Love "not" play in like 1995. Now I cringe at the word itself, even though I still love a lot of the music in the genre. It amazes me that the word "Alterative" still sells new bands.
I like the term "Indie rock", but, now it's starting to take on a more sinister meaning of "Not on a WB or Sony label".
Hey, have you heard the new "Crap Rock?" That stuff is so cool!
*I just love this thread*
posted by norm111 at 12:17 PM on November 25, 2003


December 3, if you must know.

And while I'll cop to the fact that most of Soul Asylum's output since then has been awful, I stand by my endorsement of Grave Dancer's Union. I have a feeling that many people judge them primarily by "Runaway Train," which was the weakest song on the record. When that record came out, I had just flunked out of college and was working a 2am to 10pm shift ina supermarket bakery. I had alienated most of the freinds I'd made at college, and my life consisted of work and sleeping. One day I week I'd treat myself to lunch out and buy a couple books or baseball cards, then come home. I had heard hang Time in high school and dug it, but hadn't investigated the band since. I saw the video for "somebody to shove" late at night and it perfectly summarized the stae of inertia, I was living in. So regardless of it's cool status, I treasure it's emotional impact.

And I have no problem with independent music. In the 80's I drove my headbanging pals crazy trying to get them to listen to the Pixies and Replacements and E*I*E*I*O and The Brandos and countless others, and I argued the case for my hoary old stadium rock with the punks I met. Some listened but I usually alienated myself from either camp. But after around 1994, something happened to the indie scene. It became more self-indulgent, insular, ironic and narcissistic. It became less about the music and more about "cool." It was like the 60's into 70's progression from say Spirit and Sly & The Family Stone to Yes & Kansas. At least to me. There were exceptions: Wilco, The Bottle Rockets, The Fastbacks, but as a rule it moved in the aforementioned direction.

They were bland pop/rock with a really good song

In a way, that's the point. I've always been more of a "song" guy than a group or genre guy. This maybe is because there's a lot of groups who have exactly one great song in them and there's nothing wrong with that. But also a classic song is basically a good tune, with something extra that sets it apart: sometimes that something is just you hearing it at the right point in your life to moved by it, othertimes it's an inspired solo, a crafty lyric, an unexpected hook whatever. So maybe that's why I find album-oriented lists kinda frustrating.

On preview: As long as we're dissecting jonmc...

Youl wanna be carefull with the liver. It's tender.
posted by jonmc at 12:19 PM on November 25, 2003 [1 favorite]


Add me to the seems-like-a-pretty-good-list camp. Anyone who gives Wilco sufficient respect is at least worth a quick read. (As this list almost does, though they're way off about "Monday," which is neither "overstated" nor "Stones-lite" - it's a wicked-fun rock tune, period.) Rolling Stone's list, meanwhile, ran to 500 titles and still no Wilco, and that just ain't right. I mean, I'm a huge Beatles fan, and I still think putting four of their records in the Top Ten all-time is overkill.

Point being: I'll take Pitchfork's hipster prententions over Rolling Stone's mix of Boomer nostalgia and glossy photos of teenaged navels any day.

Also, mikeh, I gotta take exception to this:

Do they have new reviewers with drastically different opinions? Or are they so far up their own asses that hindsight changes so much over the course of four years that they'd have significant revisions to the list?

I don't know about you, but my sense of which albums in my record collection are truly enduring has changed considerably over the years. In the mid-90s, for example, I probably would've agreed with jonmc that Grave Dancers Union was an excellent album. Now, I'm closer to jalexei's camp - when "Runaway Train" comes on the radio, I cringe and change the station immediately. Also, the intro mentions that they do in fact have new reviewers.

On preview: jonmc, no offence to your personal epiphany, man, but I find "Somebody to Shove" even more embarrassing than "Runaway Train." Me, I've always had a personal thing going on with Oasis' (What's the Story) Morning Glory album - for me, that album is the summer of '96, and I'm just home from my lousy job at Starbucks, and I've got just enough money for two pitchers of beer and a plate of mashed potatoes with mushroom gravy down at Futures Bakery, and that album is somehow the most reassuring thing I've ever heard. That doesn't mean I think it's semi-objectively one of the best 100 albums of the decade, though.
posted by gompa at 12:28 PM on November 25, 2003 [1 favorite]


Ahhh The Rolling Stone top 500. Where the best albums by The Who and Fleetwood Mac are better than anything Zeppelin ever produced.

Boggles the mind...
posted by trharlan at 12:31 PM on November 25, 2003


BloodyWallet: Yes, I did mean Bon Jovi, although it was more tongue in cheek, because that's as mainstream as mainstream rock gets.
posted by riffola at 12:34 PM on November 25, 2003


Where the hell are the rock albums?

Keep in mind that up until a few months ago, Pitchfork reviewed emo/indie bands almost exclusively, and now is a strange mix of emo, indie and rap. The list is skewed accordingly, just as their "Best of the '80s" list was. Get over it.
posted by me3dia at 12:37 PM on November 25, 2003


jonmc is still old.
posted by Satapher at 12:40 PM on November 25, 2003


As long as this thread has been derailed into a piss on Soul Asylum thread, I'll have to weigh in. Man, I must be really old (b. 1967) because I don't think anything SA did after 1990 was worth a damn. They were a great little garage band in the mid 80's, contemporaries to both the Huskers and the Replacements... unknown to almost everyone who didn't go to college in the upper midwest. although they were much better as a live band, than a studio band, their 1986 offering Clam Dip & Other Delights, still holds up pretty well. But Grave Dancer's Union, ugh, what a pile of crap. Sounds like a Gin Blossoms album. /snark.
posted by psmealey at 12:45 PM on November 25, 2003


*hits Satapher with cane*
posted by jonmc at 12:49 PM on November 25, 2003


There was an "Appetite for Destruction II" ?!? WTF?!?
posted by dvdg at 12:57 PM on November 25, 2003


jonmc is older now than he was the last time he posted. With every post he's getting older.

*ducks & runs from Jonmc's inevitable caning*

As is this music. As are lists about music. As are all those radio stations still playing the best of the 70s 80s and 90s. I still say my Band X beats all your Band Ys hands down and should be the only band mentioned on any list. Ever.

I can't wait until the top 100 list of best top 100 lists ever comes out.
posted by ZachsMind at 1:06 PM on November 25, 2003


jonmc is older now than he was the last time he posted. With every post he's getting older.

Is that a sly TMBG reference, Zach?
posted by jonmc at 1:10 PM on November 25, 2003


Two things:

1. Appetite for Destruction is an immortal, classic album. Time will prove this.

2. Pitchforkmedia is by far one of the most pretentious and biased criticism sites I've ever read, but they are very honest about it. Plus, they're often correct. They dis some albums I like, but if an album comes highly recommended by them, chances are pretty good that I'll like it too.
Examples:
Music has the Right to Children
Richard D. James Album
King Geedorah - Take Me To Your Leader
One Word Extinguisher
Moon Safari
It Takes a Nation of Millions to Hold Us Back
You Forgot it in People

I could go on.
posted by rocketman at 1:12 PM on November 25, 2003


Music Has the Right to Children is in fact genius, and should have placed higher on the revised 90s list.

Just to add the perspective of one even older than jonmc -- and likely older than any other poster so far -- Soul Asylum was perceived (in my circles) as a lesser but still very worthy member of the phenomenal Twin Cities movement in the 80s. But post-Nevermind, nobody cared.

To those, like me, on the ground (and working in college radio) at the time, Murmur was indeed immediately recognized as a kind of turning point (or rather, the preceding "Chronic Town" EP was). U2 was also an early "college rock" icon (with Boy), to the extent that "college rock" was distinguished from "New Wave" in those days.
posted by macrone at 1:40 PM on November 25, 2003


Not to turn this thread into a criticism of Pitchforkmedia (isn't it already?) but the reviews are well written and funny as hell, and very insightful whether you agree or not.
posted by iamck at 1:41 PM on November 25, 2003


Jon I wouldn't necessarily call it sly. Obscure would also be a stretch. Perhaps an obtuse TMBG reference. I must admit that there’s only one thing that I know how to do well and I’ve often been told that you only can do what you know how to do well. Everything I needed to know I learned by listening to They Might Be Giants, and yet time keeps marching on.

*looks smug*
*walks away*
*slams into wall*
*falls down*
posted by ZachsMind at 1:45 PM on November 25, 2003


jonmc is old and I don't feel so good myself.

Pitchfork is a daily read for me and it's mostly because they have a sense of humor, which I believe is a vital pre-requisite for being a music critic. A few of the writers have written some laugh out loud funny reviews and I've been turned on to a few good bands because of Pitchfork. I'm glad they're around.

Kinda reminds me of a magazine in Atlanta called Stomp and Stammer, which I read mostly for their ripping to shreds of (most of) the local bands. Funny stuff.
posted by fletchmuy at 1:46 PM on November 25, 2003


dvdg, I just laughed my ass off because, you're right, I was melding Appetite for Destruction and Use Your Illusion II in my head. Total typo, but I meant Use Your Illusion II. Phew, I feel dementia coming already........
posted by BloodyWallet at 2:13 PM on November 25, 2003


The list automatically sucks because you can't print it out.
posted by coolgeek at 2:13 PM on November 25, 2003


Oh yeah - and it's good to see Sonic Youth's "Dirty" move from #91 to the top 20.

At least it better.
posted by coolgeek at 2:27 PM on November 25, 2003


Geez, folks are still making the rock'n roll? What about the 100 best ragtime albums of the 90's?
posted by HTuttle at 2:47 PM on November 25, 2003


Wow... The only list that may have repeated artists more than the Rolling Stone list.
posted by thrakintosh at 5:18 PM on November 25, 2003


shocker: Nirvana didn't make the top 5. and my favorite is #1.
posted by donth at 9:26 PM on November 25, 2003


Radiohead's OK Computer the best album of the 90s?? Damn I hate Radiohead... nasally vocals give me the shits! But nice to see that Nirvana's In Utero made it in at #13, I ended up liking that more than Nevermind. That is all.
posted by Onanist at 10:07 PM on November 25, 2003


Glad to see Slint up there; they were much more influential than most realized at the time. But Neutral Milk Hotel at #4 (when it was #85 in their previous poll, at that)? I'm afraid, in the words of Hall and Oates, I can't go for that.
posted by _sirmissalot_ at 11:23 PM on November 25, 2003


aside from loveless going from #1 to #2 and them ranking trompe le monde over bossanova (which maybe came out in '89, I guess) I think that the top twenty of both the old and the new lists are right on.

Loveless is still the best in my book. I'd say Loveless, Lazer Guided Melodies, Heaven or Las Vegas, Modern Life is Rubbish, Millions Now Living Will Never Die, The Bends, The Autumn Sweater EP, the first two SeeFeel EPs, Slanted and Enchanted and the Telescopes s/t would be in my top 20.
posted by n9 at 5:14 AM on November 26, 2003


Neutral Milk Hotel at #4

I don't know about 4, but I think it belongs in the top 10. Certainly better than 85. And while I love Pavement, I don't know if two discs belonged up there - I might drop Crooked Rain, Crooked Rain down a bit. Otherwise I don't have much to quibble with.
posted by jalexei at 10:40 AM on November 26, 2003


« Older Dave's List of Words That Are Fun To Say...  |  An Educational Exploration of ... Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments