Boards of Canada the pitchfork 500

THEY ARE AWARE OF THE PAST

but only in relation to the present

  Awepittance said:

how and why did Pitchfork become such powerful musical trend gate keepers?

 

when i saw this list i just got very confused, it reads like the top 500 songs in a magazine like Entertainment Weekly, is it supposed to? I like a lot of these songs but i was under the impression Pitchfork admired more eclectic music

yeah there's a book. http://thepitchfork500.com/

they review mostly "indie" rock music whatever that means, but also more popular things, nothing too strange/eclectic really.

pitchfork just grew and grew out of being a good place to learn about new music.

yeah i find music because of that site, it could be any other site, but i don't feel like having anymore bookmarks

warp20

pitchfork500

etc.

this is the end

  Adjective said:

yeah i find music because of that site, it could be any other site, but i don't feel like having anymore bookmarks

is it mostly new music you find out about through it? i'm so fucking out of it when it comes to anything non electronic or experimental that is new

im actually finding there 1960's best songs list pretty good, cool they have samples for each one.

here - http://pitchfork.com/features/staff-lists/...s-of-the-1960s/

it would be interesting to see a list of the most influential songs of the last 20-30 years, some of the same ones they included would probably still stay like TG 'hot on the heels of love' and 'trans europe express' and the donna summer ones

maybe once a month i'll go through and grab a few of their high rated albums or their "best new music" section

they even have just single tracks that they review

oh and no not necessarily new music, i end up finding a lot of old stuff when i just sort by rating

old as in "80s" i guess. now i'm curious to check out their older lists

Every list pre-00's is actually pretty good... the past couple of years though Pitchfork really has dropped the ball in terms of what they cover. Its all very focused on being trendy... which is exactly the same trap MTV fell in which made them lose their clout.

For the most part though they do cover a lot of some of the best music, its just over the years more and more shit keeps getting praise from them I find.

there wasn't that much released music in the 60s, compared to recent times

  karmakramer said:

Every list pre-00's is actually pretty good... the past couple of years though Pitchfork really has dropped the ball in terms of what they cover. Its all very focused on being trendy... which is exactly the same trap MTV fell in which made them lose their clout.

yeah i havent been reading it too long so thats how it's always looked from my perspective.

Did at one time pitchfork review a lot of actual unsigned bands? like have they discovered anyone super obscure and helped skyrocket them to a really popular level?

sadly. i'd like to hear the unreleased music from the past.

there was less of it

  Awepittance said:

  karmakramer said:

Every list pre-00's is actually pretty good... the past couple of years though Pitchfork really has dropped the ball in terms of what they cover. Its all very focused on being trendy... which is exactly the same trap MTV fell in which made them lose their clout.

 

 

yeah i havent been reading it too long so thats how it's always looked from my perspective.

Did at one time pitchfork review a lot of actual unsigned bands? like have they discovered anyone super obscure and helped skyrocket them to a really popular level?

Sure and they still do, the problem with Pitchfork now is that their egos have gotten ahold of each of them, they are no longer listening to the music through their ears but through the ears of their audience. And their audience are hipsters... whether you want to call them that or not.

I worked in the same office as the founder, editing videos for pitchfork.tv... and the guy has good tastes in music, they all do (aphex twin/autechre posters on the walls :angry: ) but its a business now in my opinion, so their clearly no longer letting their own musical journey disrupt the "indie wave" they created.

  karmakramer said:

but its a business now in my opinion, so their clearly no longer letting their own musical journey disrupt the "indie wave" they created.

makes sense , im curious who they singlehandedly helped expose or get popular. they are called 'taste makers' a lot and it must be for a reason

broken social scene?

they've exposed a lot of things to me that I wouldn't have heard of.

i'm lame

i've learned about a ton of new music from pf, but i hardly ever read any of the reviews.. they do interview a ton of new music people and that seems to be where a lot of the "influence" comes from, that they have an "in" with what is "hot", not really that they make shit "hot"... for example,, all of these bands i had already been pumping before i even knew that pitchfork was a website,, and this is coming from someone who lives in an isolated community for half of the year:

No Age, Deerhunter, Atlas Sound, Broken Social Scene, Dan Deacon, Grizzly Bear,, and the list goes on,, now i am way into underground techno and house music for 15 years +, so it seems like finding good, obscure, independent music is in my blood, so sites like this serve as a virtual record store shelve so to speak.. i mean, when you walk into a record store are they not basically shoving music in your face, attempting to "make" your "taste"?

but it is true that hipsters ruin good shit, like awesome music, cheap rent and dance parties with their "anti-establishment" elitist and standoffish attitude.

i downloaded the torrent, i and have to say that it is put together really well, at least the first 10-15 track i have been listening to, lou reed's street hassle into trans-europe express into 1/1 by eno?? i think yes!!

absorb.org was good

501. stargard - which way is up

ps stop getting your panties in a bunch, pitchfork is pitchfork and that list does have some good tunes and the grass is green(er?)

  Awepittance said:

how and why did Pitchfork become such powerful musical trend gate keepers?

 

when i saw this list i just got very confused, it reads like the top 500 songs in a magazine like Entertainment Weekly, is it supposed to?

It's not pitchfork's fault some people started regarding it as a bible when it comes to music. I think its funny because if pitchfork would have compiled a list with their favorite "indiest of indie" tracks, the same people would be arguing about how the list is soo

"excluvise".