As an only somewhat abashed fan of nineties alt rock music, I’ve been waiting all week with bated breath for Pitchfork to reveal their very top tracks of the 1990s if only to see what kind of crazy bullshit they come up with. And I’m impressed! Things start off banally with the decision to put Pavement in the number one slot rather than one of the era’s better-selling alternative outfits. The genius move, here, however, is to really fuck with us by trying to insist that “Gold Soundz” is actually better than the much better-known “Cut Your Hair.” The claim is offered with so much panache that you might actually believe until you go back and listen to the songs. Then it turns out that, much as you remember, “Cut Your Hair” was a big beloved hit because it’s so awesome.
Pavement – Gold Soundz by pluxy
Pavement – Cut Your Hair by pluxy
The true stroke of genius, however, comes with the one-two punch of “Smells Like Teen Spirit” at number 13 and Aphex Twin’s “Windowlicker” at number 12. I can’t even count the layers of brilliance on display. A lesser list-compiler might have tried to take the iconic nineties song and argue that it’s somehow bad or mediocre. But no! Number thirteen is a really high number! What are you even complaining about? They agree that it’s great. Just not, you know, quite so great as a wacky experimental electronica tune with zero broader cultural impact. The mind reels. You the poor reader are simply unworthy.
If there’s a false note here it’s the odd decision to strand Dr Dre’s classic “Nuthin But a ‘G’ Thang” at the number three slot. If you think this is the best hip-hop song of the decade, and also superior to any number of iconic rock hits, then why not make it number one? After all, it strikes even this pasty white rock and roll fan that musical history will record the 1990s as the decade in which hip-hop overtook rock as a relevant cultural force. If you’re going to make hip-hop top out at #3 on the list, then you need to go with something more idiosyncratic in the absurd “Gold Soundz” mode. “Fuck Wit Dre Day,” perhaps.
I wonder how long it’ll take for Matt’s trolls to turn in the comment section and write rude things.
[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by mattyglesias, Tom Lee, shekbaker, Sam Miller, Danny Mears and others. Danny Mears said: Hahahaha. RT @mattyglesias: The blundering brilliance of Pitchfork's best tracks of the nineties: http://bit.ly/bq527j [...]
To be fair to Windowlicker, its video removed the need for any other music videos to be made EVER, on account of its incredibleness.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J639xIdgzQU&fmt=22
[...] is counting down the top 200 tracks of the nineties this week, and I did a brief response item at the hot hot hot newish music blog Pinna [...]
The list was compiled from ballots from the site’s contributors, not hand-selected. The results were what the results were.
Sean is right. They are not doing some sort of double pump out fake by putting “sounds like teen spirit” at 13.
All hail “my boo”:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jZdMFB4BhrQ
good choice at 99.
[...] is counting down the top 200 tracks of the nineties this week, and I did a brief response item at the hot hot hot newish music blog Pinna [...]
[...] is counting down the top 200 tracks of the nineties this week, and I did a brief response item at the hot hot hot newish music blog Pinna [...]
You’re clearly not in the marketing field, nor immersed enough in the indie music scene.
The entire point of Pitchfork is to find the most obscure, unknown music available and praise it; transferring any ounce of creativity that the band may have into your own grasp as the purveyor of such a deeply-buried gem. Ah, your worldlyness then astounds all of your friends, as does the fact that your skinny jeans are THAT skinny; wow!
Also, your beard is 12 times more unkept than everyone else’s — you must know everything about music!
Ha! Yeah I think “You the poor reader are simply unworthy” really sums up the Pitchfork ethos.
Sean — I think the argument stands, whether its the compiled picks of the staff or the driving hand of the editorial board. The content producers of the site are the site’s voice. Whether its one person’s indier-than-thou ranking or many, it’s still The Pitchfork Way.
Pitchfork doesn’t need me white-knighting them, but Matthew is saying that the placements were a “decision” picked for maximum effect, something that simply isn’t possible if they’re just adding up votes, which is what they did. You can criticize the sort of critical consensus that led to the rankings, but the idea that this was some masterstroke of malice aforethought is bogus.
But Gold Soundz is better than Cut Your Hair.
Also–is Cut Your Hair actually better known? I don’t know of anyone that would recognize that song that hasn’t also listened to the album it came from, “Crooked Rain, Crooked Rain.”
Both songs had Spike Jonze videos, but the Cut Your Hair one was more conventionally entertaining and thus got semi-significant play on MTV, so one imagines there is a category of person who just knows Pavement as “that band with the funny barbershop video.” Although in real life you are probably somewhat more likely to run into Chuck Klosterman pretending to be that person than an instance of that actual person.
And I wouldn’t want to make really strong assertions about which song is better (Gold Soundz is in fact totally better) but its placement as number one on the PF list is pretty clearly a case of every music critic ever feeling a sentimental attachment to Gold Soundz because of all the resonant lines, rating it mid-high, and then having their other votes cancel each other out.
Pitchfork is shite; they only like something if everyone hates it, and every review is a minutely calculated effort to be cooler than you. If their reviewers actually enjoyed the music they were listening to instead of reveling in the obscurity and inscrutibility of their iPod playlist they might be worth something. Rolling Stone, Allmusic, etc are far better mostly because they acknowledge that rock music is supposed to have an element of fun.
No Gin Blossoms on that list = major fail.
I agree with the general critique of Pitchfork, but c’mon: Gold Soundz is better than Cut Your Hair. But it’s not the #1 track of the 90′s.
Not clear on why Pitchfork – our resident music experts – think that Smells Like Teen Spirit and Boston’s More than a Feeling are the same riff. They have a similar rhythm, granted, and Nirvana took note of this in concert, but they are not the same riff:
Nirvana’s SLTS: F, Bb, G#, C#
Boston’s MTAF: G, C, Em, D (or, a step down, F, Bb, Dm, C)
Could it be that Pitchfork knows more about how to sound cool talking about music than they know about music?
I think “Cut Your Hair” is a lot better known. Anecdotally, I know it got significant radio play on WHFS in Washington, D.C. when it came out. No other Pavement song did that I remember.
Right…sales. Good stuff.
[...] The Blundering Brilliance of Pitchfork « [...]
I agree with Amanda here. Whether it is a reader’s poll versus staff picks, ,it’s still under the responsibility of the site to publish a counterpoint.
It’s interesting to compare Pitchfork’s list of the Greatest albums of the ’90s versus the Best Songs of the ’90s.
For me, I would love to see a list based more so on social importance than popularity (some songs surely cross boundaries but clearly not enough). But Beck’s “Loser” as one of the greatest songs of the ’90s, and better than Nirvana? That’s like saying “Mickey” is better than Devo’s “Whip It.” If it was Pitchfork, I would have thought “Rowboat” would have been a more eclectic choice and socially relevant being the Johnny Cash later covered the song and brought about the folk art status Beck originated from.
I dunno, I generally find it hard to believe that the poll reached its final form based purely on number of votes. The omissions are so glaring and the placements are so idiosyncratic to a Pitchfork list that I can’t believe that it was just plain chance that it ended up this way. I really have no problem with the list. Top ____ Lists are what they are, and when they’re “shocking” they’re more fun to discuss. It is exactly as absurd and against the grain as I would have expected it to be.
I agree with commenter Alex above. It seems pretty unlikely that it’s randomly selected. Whatever one thinks Pavement’s best song is, it seems unlikely that Pavement fans (or Aphex Twin fans, or Bjork fans, &c.) wouldn’t have split their votes among several different tracks by their favored artist. I mean, maybe “Gold Soundz” is better than “Cut your Hair,” but did it really get so many more votes that it’s #1 and the latter isn’t anywhere near there? (I didn’t even see it in the top 100.) And that is true of so many of the popular artists on the list: only one high-ranked track, and one which wasn’t clearly the best or most popular.
Nice post
I appreciate your effort and the quality of the information you provide. I certainly will folow these recommendations!…
What a awesome write-up, I did not imagine that you’ll locate anything right here. A pleasant shock, it comes about almost never, but here we can speak of the authentic extra value towards the reader. Annoy me about blogs often amateurish post with no very good form and with errors. Here I’m pleasantly stunned. Hopefully make it to some authors, and create for their readers and not to have something on the internet!
[...] The Blundering Brilliance of Pitchfork « [...]
[...] The Blundering Brilliance of Pitchfork « [...]
[...] The Blundering Brilliance of Pitchfork « [...]
[...] The Blundering Brilliance of Pitchfork « [...]
[...] The Blundering Brilliance of Pitchfork « [...]
Great post! I wish you could follow up to this topic?
Great information! I’ve been looking for something like this for a while now. Thanks!
[...] is celebrating the 90s. Though slightly behind the trend, we’ll take it where we can get [...]
[...] “events in the news to elements of a bigger picture.” But he also likes music, particularly of a certain vintage. And that’s why I spoke to him [...]
Wow! Thanks so much, Marybelle Rajaphoumy! What would I have done without you!