The Whole Love is tied for my second favorite Wilco album after YHF (Summerteeth is the tie). You could make a strong argument for One Sunday Morning being their greatest song. Also, that other site gave The Whole Love a 6.9 and Wilco (The Album) a 7.3. Lolzzzzzz.
Considering 3 of my top 6 or 7 aren't even on this list, it might be time to ask myself: "Self, why are you even here? These are not your people" Btw, they are Woods, Kevin Morby, and Ty Segall (to round out the list, Radiohead, Anderson Paak, Bowie, Car Seat, and some others).
It's ok for youngsters to write about The Strokes, but the writer was 5 or 6 when Is This It came out. I won't speak for undermythumb, but I think the point is this: Someone who was 21 or 22 when Is This It came out is going to be a different kind of Strokes fan than someone in preschool at the time. The now 35-year-old Strokes fan is going to get more excited and expect more because they have more invested—15 years worth of listening, as an adult. So it's okay to get Ryan's take (it is an opinion piece after all), but it's a very different take than someone who's been a fan since the beginning. That's all. Opinions and such.
Also, there's a bit of a discrepancy in the article. The writer says Angles and Comedown Machine are "Great" and "underrated" (I agree), so why wouldn't you be excited about future releases when you considered a band's last two albums "great"?? That's weird, no? To expect that a band is ALWAYS going to follow up a "great" album with a piece of shit? Super-cynical. Anyway, I do get excited about new Strokes. And this EP is very good. And they're still one of my favorite live shows.
Surely Pitchfork can now review more than 5 albums a day with all them Conde Na$ty budgets? More isn't always better, but with album reviews? I'd probably read 10 or 15 a day if they were there. Leaving out several worthy albums a week simply because the 5-a-day thing has been established is not a good reason. imho, of course.
It's the Strokes album I listen to the most. Is This It is maybe a bit more cohesive and more of a singular statement, but Room on Fire plays like a great pop album. On a side note, whenever I hear the Cars' Since You're Gone, I can't help but think the entire Room on Fire album was inspired by it. Especially the drum sound.
Mine too. It almost seems like people haven't listened to it in months and have forgotten how great it is. It's easily the most consistent album I listened to this year from top to bottom. Even if something is telling me that Kendrick's album is better (more "important"?), I just didn't listen to it as much as I did Currents. And that should probably be the mostly heavily weighted criteria when putting together these EOY lists. If you liked something on first listen but didn't go back to it often, is it really your favorite album of the year?
That said, I have been listening to a lot of Art Angels, so it's up there.
pop structure + zeitgeist-tapping + popularity = pop, no? If not, then what? Nevermind reads more like pop than punk for me. It was never really a divisive record. I was listening to a lot of Beatles when it came out and I didn't find it particularly jarring. It was fresh, but seemed a natural progression. Bleach and In Utero on the other hand . . . (fwiw, In Utero is the Nirvana album I listen to most)
That photo next to the headline "Inside Her Real World" is just so perfect. Kim's real world is all about ill-fitting undergarments and sailing. That's all we need to know! No, really, bras and yachts . . .
Rolling Stone through the 90s not only encouraged my love of music, it was the reason I got into the magazine industry. I actually don't have a problem with this as a magazine cover, I guess, but I do have a problem with it as a Rolling Stone cover. Not all pop culture is worth covering . . . Also, what happened to music and politics?
When Rolling Stone dies mercifully in a couple of years (maybe less?), it will be at the bottom of the heap. I'm genuinely saddened by this.
"Rolling Stone: The Magazine of Irrelevant Cultural Happenings, Bruce Springsteen, U2, and Questionable Journalism"
See them again. I saw them on the Innerspeaker tour and it was totally meh, but saw them again a couple of months ago at a festival and it was somewhat mind-blowing. 10x better than the first show in every respect.
And then you realize Help!, Rubber Soul, and Revolver were all released within 12 months and it blows your mind.
A more recent example: Ty Segall has released approximately 96 albums over the course of 5 years and they're all good to great.
My review: "It's a middling pop album and does not warrant in-depth analysis. To do so would be missing the point, as all good pop music is escapism. An escape from things like in-depth analysis, and the stressors of real life."
I'll read 10 reviews analyzing Diamond Dogs or Bringing It All Back Home before reading one analysis of Thriller or, in this case, 1989 (and I have).
Obviously you'll disagree with me regarding analysis of pop, but for me every word written about a pop album takes something away from it.
P.S. Don't ask me why I picked Diamond Dogs and BIABH. Actually, you can ask. Answer: I've been listening to a lot of glam Bowie and electric Dylan of late. That is all.
Suck it and See is a great album. I'm with you there. I like Humbug, but if I had to rank their albums, it's probably still last. Just goes to show how consistent they've been.
Unless of course it's satellite radio and you're listening to the VU station. Maybe you're right about people still finding them avant-garde, but I don't. And believe me, that is NOT a knock on them. They're one of my 10 favorite bands ever.
this isn't avant-garde. Avant-garde is (and has always been) a relative term. What was avant garde in the 60s is no longer shocking. The Velvet Underground were even considered avant garde for a while! Ha! These days I put on a VU record and it sounds so normal that people barely notice it.
Is it really that unbelievable that people think this sounds bad? It might have "artistic merit" but there's just no technical prowess (on Yoko's part). I would venture to say that her role isn't even musical. It's almost spoken word (or screaming word as it were). When I hear this, all I can think is how it might sound nice if there was singing (in-key) over YLT's performance instead of Yoko. If I'm presented with either howling over good music or singing over good music, I'll always choose the latter. And I'm 100% sure the majority of music fans would too. So, in summary, it's more unbelievable that a person would like this than not. Oh, and you're content going through life "appreciating" art? I'd much rather feel it fully and actually enjoy it than simply "appreciate"
Comments