Surprising omissions include Sigur Ros, Broken Social Scene, Lightning Bolt (shocking omission, as it's awesome), and the aforementioned Bright Eyes (not that I mind). The list isn't really any worse than others I've seen, and better than most. At least it mixes things up.
Plus, it's got Congotronics on it, which I've just heard, and which is amazing.
I think you're right. I look at that top 5 and just shake my head.
Really? Other than Art Brut (who bore me), the rest of the Top 5 is pretty darn good. The problem is they all are albums with super-high highs, but a fair amount of filler. The all-around solid album seems to be nonexistent this year.
Regarding the comment around 'filler' - Perhaps if artists stopped trying to put 15-18 tracks on an album and focused on giving us ~10 solid tracks I'd have more patience with some of them. I'll let Sufjan Stevens off though!
Regarding the comment around 'filler' - Perhaps if artists stopped trying to put 15-18 tracks on an album and focused on giving us ~10 solid tracks I'd have more patience with some of them. I'll let Sufjan Stevens off though!
Agreed right down the line. And yes, much of the charm of Illinois is that it overreaches in places; the ambition is part of the point.
A few of Pitchfork's 'Best New Music' designations of the year, which are supposed to be the absolute cream of the crop among the records they review, did not show up at all on the top 50. Most notable for me was Caribou's The Milk of Human Kindess, one of my favorites of the year (it looks like we won't see that one in the 2500 like Up in Flames). I guess like every music fan, the shine of some albums immediately wears off for them, while others gradually become more compelling. This is the first year I've followed Pitchfork pretty addictively and it's interested to see ones in the top 50 that came out of nowhere, even after reading their reviews.
Illinois' timeliness for me is not in it's quality as a full-length album (listening to the whole thing can be exhausting), but how it allows you to take in perfect chunks of 3-4 epic song cycles to fit my different moods at given times. Of course, I live in Illinois too, but no bias there honest.
I guess Bright Eyes is too popular for his own good, since he did not make it to the list despite getting a better review (8.7 for I'm Wide Awake...) than quite a few albums on that list (My Morning Jacket 7.5, Franz Ferdinand 8.3...)
The Pitchfork chart is put together from the opinions of the entire staff so its likely that whilst the reviwerer really rated it, not everyone else on the staff did. Thats why a lot of polls are loads different from if you try to stick them together from the seperate scores from the year...
"The Pitchfork chart is put together from the opinions of the entire staff so its likely that whilst the reviwerer really rated it, not everyone else on the staff did. Thats why a lot of polls are loads different from if you try to stick them together from the seperate scores from the year... "
True enough, all I'm saying is that sometimes "Pitchfork" is a little bit obsessed with the setting in which an album is presented, opposed to viewing the album by it's own merits.
Not that I'm a particular "Bright Eyes fan", I can safely say that on this album he shows some inspired songwriting, up there with the best of this year's songwriters.
I realize the individual review does not reflect the opinion of the entire staff, but at least it lays foundation to the idea that it can be considered a "good album"
But he was too young when he started, got too many Dylan comparisons, wrote too many lyrics that could be considered "pretenteous", dated Wynona Ryder, got too successful on the Billboard chart, has too many connections with the "emo thing"
...I have a feeling that those reasons had more say in his album not appearing on the EOY list, rather than the individual writers thinking that the more "obscure" albums were any better...
