top 5 albums of 2011

[FunnyDog]

pitchfork generally knows what's up (for the most part), they're just extremely snobby and pissy about it

[BluPhoenix]

and the only reason they're creating such a stir is because pitchfork likes them, and the only reason pitchfork likes them is because they sound like chill wave

yeah, all the songs are about weed and cats and crushes, but i don't give a shit. they're a throwback to beach rock and her voice is perfect for it.

but to your credit, you can't count "crazy for you" as one of the best albums of 2011, because it came out in 2010.

yeah agreed

but this list of mine is comprised of things that are new to ME this year so its still a best of 2011 4 mi

[trent bortknob]

You are all wrong. The correct answer was Lulu.

[trent bortknob]

and the only reason they're creating such a stir is because pitchfork likes them, and the only reason pitchfork likes them is because they sound like chill wave

as someone who has no idea what pitchfork or chillwave is and discovered best coast by accident through a remix on hypem over a year ago, they are one of my favorite bands and i love their sound.

yeah, all the songs are about weed and cats and crushes, but i don't give a shit. they're a throwback to beach rock and her voice is perfect for it.

but to your credit, you can't count "crazy for you" as one of the best albums of 2011, because it came out in 2010.

i mean i dunno, i like good catchy indie pop as much as the next guy, and when i first heard best coast i thought they'd be a nice band. then i listened to their record and i just got bored with the subject matter. it's the same shit lyrically and it stops being fun after the third song.

seriously, how many times can you fucking rhyme "i love you" with "i miss you" and still call yourself a lyricist? i prefer bands like built to spill, the shins, pavement, they might be giants, or modest mouse for that indie pop sound, because it's catchy and stuff, but the lyrics are still interesting. the one major thing that makes me dislike a group is if their music is mindless.

[trent bortknob]

pitchfork generally knows what's up (for the most part), they're just extremely snobby and pissy about it

it would be really stupid to dislike a band just because they're pitchforkcore, it would be almost as dumb as liking a band for the same reason. pitchfork does like plenty of a good bands, some of my favorite records are on pitchfork's top 100 lists. the problem for me is that they act like what their saying has objective merit, which it very well could, but you can never figure out what their standards are because they review similar artists with incredibly dramatic differences in score. you can't just say "they only like this type of music", because they give numerous things from different genres high and low scores. so what are their standards? it's not technical skill, it's not whether or not something is poppy/catchy or not, it's not whether or not something is in a certain scene, so what is it? it's probably just their opinion, and not any objective measurements of aesthetic value. what could you possibly use to objectively state that built to spill's second album gets a 9.5/10 and the mars volta's second record gets a 2/10? both of those are in my top 20 for sure, but i can see no reason for an objective claim of vast inferiority over the other. their views are all just their stupid opinion and they follow the trends of the day. that's totally fine and dandy with me, but if you're going to do that, you don't have to act like what you're stating is objective truth when in actuality it's pretty much entirely opinion-based, and you don't have to give ridiculously low scores to groups for seemingly no reason.

they're also sketchy to me because they change ratings, like what they did with "in the aeroplane over the sea". when that record became an underground sensation EVEN THOUGH THEY LEFT A PRETTY NEGATIVE REVIEW, they changed their review to a 10/10, probably to match the overwhelmingly positive reactions from people and WHAMMO now it's a "generic hipster record". they've also never reviewed anything done by andrew jackson jihad, who have a HUGE following, nor have they reviewed anything by algernon cadwallader, who are doing very well for themselves as well. why not? my guess is that. because these bands have totally built their reputations with their own hard work, great talent, dedication, and extensive touring, their fanbases are dedicated. i'm assuming the music snobs at pitchfork do not like either of the two bands, but a negative review of them would only hurt the reputation of pitchfork, and have a minimal effect on the fans or reputations of AJJ or AC. they do not want to be discarded as irrelevant, because then their fanbase would disintegrate. they have to be choosy on who they review.

it's safe to give mars volta harshly negative scores, because a lot of people were sore about at the drive-in breaking up, and giving the band that spawned from the ashes a negative bias is not that controversial. it would not hurt their reputation at all.

despite all of this, they do like some really good albums. if they got rid of their numerical system, and just recommended music instead of bashing anyone, then i would actually probably really appreciate them.

[rtil]

and the only reason they're creating such a stir is because pitchfork likes them, and the only reason pitchfork likes them is because they sound like chill wave

as someone who has no idea what pitchfork or chillwave is and discovered best coast by accident through a remix on hypem over a year ago, they are one of my favorite bands and i love their sound.

yeah, all the songs are about weed and cats and crushes, but i don't give a shit. they're a throwback to beach rock and her voice is perfect for it.

but to your credit, you can't count "crazy for you" as one of the best albums of 2011, because it came out in 2010.

i mean i dunno, i like good catchy indie pop as much as the next guy, and when i first heard best coast i thought they'd be a nice band. then i listened to their record and i just got bored with the subject matter. it's the same shit lyrically and it stops being fun after the third song.

seriously, how many times can you fucking rhyme "i love you" with "i miss you" and still call yourself a lyricist? i prefer bands like built to spill, the shins, pavement, they might be giants, or modest mouse for that indie pop sound, because it's catchy and stuff, but the lyrics are still interesting. the one major thing that makes me dislike a group is if their music is mindless.

well not everyone listens to music for lyrics. i could care less how beautifully written a song is lyrically if it sounds pretty to me. i honestly don't get tired of best coast or the fact that all the songs are basically about the same thing.

you're missing out on a lot of music if "mindless" lyrics really bother you that much. m83's lyrics are pretty corny and dumb, but they have a very special sound.

not all musicians have to write brilliant lyrics to make good music..

[rtil]

pitchforkcore

is this really a part of modern musical vernacular? that word makes me want to find the nearest living thing and kill it

[FunnyDog]

i know /mu/core is a term used a lot... on /mu/
though i guess /mu/core is essentially the same exact thing as pitchforkcore

[trent bortknob]

pitchforkcore

is this really a part of modern musical vernacular? that word makes me want to find the nearest living thing and kill it

no not really, it's a joke that people use to describe bands that pitchfork seems to have endless admiration for. like radiohead. it's easier than saying "a band that pitchfork reall likes" and more accurate than saying "a hipster band".

"pitchforkcore" doesn't actually entail any type of music or genre, it only means that pitchfork likes it, so no it's not really even a useful word. though i do find it really funny.

[trent bortknob]

and the only reason they're creating such a stir is because pitchfork likes them, and the only reason pitchfork likes them is because they sound like chill wave

as someone who has no idea what pitchfork or chillwave is and discovered best coast by accident through a remix on hypem over a year ago, they are one of my favorite bands and i love their sound.

yeah, all the songs are about weed and cats and crushes, but i don't give a shit. they're a throwback to beach rock and her voice is perfect for it.

but to your credit, you can't count "crazy for you" as one of the best albums of 2011, because it came out in 2010.

i mean i dunno, i like good catchy indie pop as much as the next guy, and when i first heard best coast i thought they'd be a nice band. then i listened to their record and i just got bored with the subject matter. it's the same shit lyrically and it stops being fun after the third song.

seriously, how many times can you fucking rhyme "i love you" with "i miss you" and still call yourself a lyricist? i prefer bands like built to spill, the shins, pavement, they might be giants, or modest mouse for that indie pop sound, because it's catchy and stuff, but the lyrics are still interesting. the one major thing that makes me dislike a group is if their music is mindless.

well not everyone listens to music for lyrics. i could care less how beautifully written a song is lyrically if it sounds pretty to me. i honestly don't get tired of best coast or the fact that all the songs are basically about the same thing.

you're missing out on a lot of music if "mindless" lyrics really bother you that much. m83's lyrics are pretty corny and dumb, but they have a very special sound.

not all musicians have to write brilliant lyrics to make good music..

don't get me wrong here, i'm not claiming that lyrics are the most important part of a song by any means. there are plenty of groups where the lyrics are either totally unintelligible to me anyways (brainiac) or are so confusing that i don't have the slightest clue what they're about (the mars volta/at the drive-in, algernon cadwallader). i also don't mind if the lyrics are only so-so, like american football (the lyrics can get pretty sappy and sometimes kind of generic) or most progressive rock (hardly any lyrics by yes or king crimson ever changed my life). it was more of the way the lyrics were sung, the emotion of the songs, and the music itself that made me like them. i consider that to be the most important.

however, i do draw a line somewhere. horribly written lyrics, lyrics that support or indulge in superficial bullshit, or lyrics that are too cheesy or uncreative can really kill a song. this makes it hard for me to listen to almost all mainstream rap, a lot of pop punk, dance music, or shit like wolfmother (wolfmother already had a strike against them for sounding just like a 70's metal band and bringing nothing new to the table, so mixing that with the fact that they can't write lyrics for shit makes it hard to respect them).

if your lyrics are trying to make you seem tough, or if they glorify all of your possessions, or they talk about how drunk you got last night or how much fun you're going to have tonight on the dance floor, then i probably don't want to hear your song. if your lyrics are absolutely embarrassing to listen to, either because they're so bad that they're funny or because they're so cheesy that you can't take them seriously, i probably don't want to hear them either.

also, i mean put this in perspective. if the band is mainly focused on the music and only has a small amount of vocals, that's different. faraquet has slightly interesting vocals, i'm not totally sure what any of them mean, but the point of the band is the awesome instrumentals. i'd say something similar about a band like minus the bear. their compositions are so cool that i can handle some of their cheesier lines.

but what does best coast have going for them? a lot of reverb, some chords and yes, catchy vocals and a nice beachy sound. but they're a pop band, and their vocals are important, and because of that so are their lyrics. i don't worry about whether or not melt-banana has good lyrics or not, because i don't give a shit, because it's fucking MELT-BANANA. but someone like bob dylan, for example, had better write some good lyrics if the only instruments are his voice, his guitar and the occasional harmonica.

[trent bortknob]

and really really good lyrics can make a song so much better too. like with my bloody valentine. you can't even fucking understand the vocals, you're just mesmerized by the great music, but the vocals get stuck in your head and you have no idea what the words are, so you look them up and then find even more depth to the songs. it can really propel a band from "good" to "great".

but it's not like a big deal to me that best coast doesn't have the best lyrics in the world, i'll still listen to them occasionally and stuff. they're a fun listen and if you're in the car with your friends and you crank that shit up it's nice. but referring it to the "best album" in any list? i think that's a stretch. that's all i'm saying really.

[cipher]

I've heard of zero albums listed in this thread, and only recognize like, two of the bands

[FunnyDog]

also the black foliage remaster but that doesn't count i guess

[Necronomitr0n]

uhhhhhhh i dunno

goblin i guess

[rtil]

and the only reason they're creating such a stir is because pitchfork likes them, and the only reason pitchfork likes them is because they sound like chill wave

as someone who has no idea what pitchfork or chillwave is and discovered best coast by accident through a remix on hypem over a year ago, they are one of my favorite bands and i love their sound.

yeah, all the songs are about weed and cats and crushes, but i don't give a shit. they're a throwback to beach rock and her voice is perfect for it.

but to your credit, you can't count "crazy for you" as one of the best albums of 2011, because it came out in 2010.

i mean i dunno, i like good catchy indie pop as much as the next guy, and when i first heard best coast i thought they'd be a nice band. then i listened to their record and i just got bored with the subject matter. it's the same shit lyrically and it stops being fun after the third song.

seriously, how many times can you fucking rhyme "i love you" with "i miss you" and still call yourself a lyricist? i prefer bands like built to spill, the shins, pavement, they might be giants, or modest mouse for that indie pop sound, because it's catchy and stuff, but the lyrics are still interesting. the one major thing that makes me dislike a group is if their music is mindless.

well not everyone listens to music for lyrics. i could care less how beautifully written a song is lyrically if it sounds pretty to me. i honestly don't get tired of best coast or the fact that all the songs are basically about the same thing.

you're missing out on a lot of music if "mindless" lyrics really bother you that much. m83's lyrics are pretty corny and dumb, but they have a very special sound.

not all musicians have to write brilliant lyrics to make good music..

don't get me wrong here, i'm not claiming that lyrics are the most important part of a song by any means. there are plenty of groups where the lyrics are either totally unintelligible to me anyways (brainiac) or are so confusing that i don't have the slightest clue what they're about (the mars volta/at the drive-in, algernon cadwallader). i also don't mind if the lyrics are only so-so, like american football (the lyrics can get pretty sappy and sometimes kind of generic) or most progressive rock (hardly any lyrics by yes or king crimson ever changed my life). it was more of the way the lyrics were sung, the emotion of the songs, and the music itself that made me like them. i consider that to be the most important.

however, i do draw a line somewhere. horribly written lyrics, lyrics that support or indulge in superficial bullshit, or lyrics that are too cheesy or uncreative can really kill a song. this makes it hard for me to listen to almost all mainstream rap, a lot of pop punk, dance music, or shit like wolfmother (wolfmother already had a strike against them for sounding just like a 70's metal band and bringing nothing new to the table, so mixing that with the fact that they can't write lyrics for shit makes it hard to respect them).

if your lyrics are trying to make you seem tough, or if they glorify all of your possessions, or they talk about how drunk you got last night or how much fun you're going to have tonight on the dance floor, then i probably don't want to hear your song. if your lyrics are absolutely embarrassing to listen to, either because they're so bad that they're funny or because they're so cheesy that you can't take them seriously, i probably don't want to hear them either.

also, i mean put this in perspective. if the band is mainly focused on the music and only has a small amount of vocals, that's different. faraquet has slightly interesting vocals, i'm not totally sure what any of them mean, but the point of the band is the awesome instrumentals. i'd say something similar about a band like minus the bear. their compositions are so cool that i can handle some of their cheesier lines.

but what does best coast have going for them? a lot of reverb, some chords and yes, catchy vocals and a nice beachy sound. but they're a pop band, and their vocals are important, and because of that so are their lyrics. i don't worry about whether or not melt-banana has good lyrics or not, because i don't give a shit, because it's fucking MELT-BANANA. but someone like bob dylan, for example, had better write some good lyrics if the only instruments are his voice, his guitar and the occasional harmonica.

so .. let me see if i get this. if your music is simple, but you sing and can be understood when singing, then the lyrics are the deciding factor in whether or not your music is good because the instruments are playing a simple melody. oh, and it also counts more if you're popular, even if you did the same thing you had always done even before you were popular. am i understanding this correctly?

and really really good lyrics can make a song so much better too. like with my bloody valentine. you can't even fucking understand the vocals, you're just mesmerized by the great music, but the vocals get stuck in your head and you have no idea what the words are, so you look them up and then find even more depth to the songs. it can really propel a band from "good" to "great".

but it's not like a big deal to me that best coast doesn't have the best lyrics in the world, i'll still listen to them occasionally and stuff. they're a fun listen and if you're in the car with your friends and you crank that shit up it's nice. but referring it to the "best album" in any list? i think that's a stretch. that's all i'm saying really.

i think the real issue here is that you're just a way bigger music snob than i could ever hope to be. i can barely call myself a musician, i don't give a shit about the music scene, music blogs or music theory. i listen to what sounds good to me and i don't care what other people think about what i listen to, what other people are or aren't listening to, and it doesn't influence what i listen to.

it's not a stretch for me to say that crazy for you is one of my favorite albums or that best coast is one of my favorite bands of all time. i don't care that their sound is simple, their music is easy to play or that their lyrics are corny.

the only factor i consider when listening to music is if it sounds good to my ears. nothing else really matters to me, and if anything else does it's honestly stupid.

[trent bortknob]

again, you're now acting like everything i'm saying is way more extreme than what it is. i've never said that any element of any genre was ever ALWAYS the deciding factor on ANYTHING. it's not like it's a rule for me that when the lyrics of a song are understood, that now makes them the most important part and they're now and whether or not they're good lyrics decides if the band or song is good. that isa very extreme view that i did not even articulate once. all i'm saying is that i don't like bad lyrics, i don't see what's so crazy about that. regardless of whether or not you can even hear the lyrics or understand them, bad lyrics usually kill a song. but they have to be REALLY bad for me to dismiss the whole song. i haven't done that with best coast, i still think they're an all right band. and i don't even know what a band being popular has to do with anything i've said in my last few posts. i never mentioned the popularity of any group as a deciding factor of anything. the beatles are one of the most popular groups ever, that doesn't make them good or bad, it just means they're popular. i only like one or two beatles records really, but it has nothing to do with their popularity. obscurity is irrelevant in determining the quality of a band's output. but of course, i didn't actually say anything about a band's popularity affecting their reputation, you just are insinuating that i am a music snob and assuming that i would hold that viewpoint.

well i don't care if other music is popular or "well respected" or not, i mean if i did i wouldn't listen to joan of arc or anything they might be giants has done in the past 20 years after "flood". and i don't even really understand what "music scene" means in the year 2011. it's not like how it was in the 80's and 90's, bands are all over the place now and they can achieve success regardless of what "scene" they're in, it's just way harder than it was before.

and i think simple music is fine too, you don't have to be technically proficient like tool or dream theater to be good (dream theater sucks anyhow).

simplicity vs. technicality is irrelevant to me as far as the music itself goes, really all i'm saying is that IN GENERAL, simple music puts more emphasis on the vocals, right? there are exceptions (my bloody valentine), but all in all simple music usually has vocals as the focal point. when that is the case, i'd say that the vocals become more important than in other song types, where the focal point is something like the beat or the guitar work or something like that. so, when the vocals are the focus of a song, it's cool if their lyrics don't suck. i don't think what i'm saying here is controversial.

best coast's lyrics aren't that great, and while you can certainly think that they're the best band in the world and that crazy for you is the your favorite album of all time, the only list that best coast would belong in is "rtil's favorite bands". having them in a "best bands of all time" list would require more than your opinion of them.

[BluPhoenix]

again, you're now acting like everything i'm saying is way more extreme than what it is.

best coast's lyrics aren't that great, and while you can certainly think that they're the best band in the world and that crazy for you is the your favorite album of all time, the only list that best coast would belong in is "rtil's favorite bands". having them in a "best bands of all time" list would require more than your opinion of them.

contradictory statement

anyways thats kind of the point of the thread in the first place, to display what YOU think are the top 5 albums this past year, and you're picking them out of your preference.

the beatles are a good example of simplicity in music, there's not a terrible amount of brilliance to every song that they had, rhythm and lyric-wise, (all you need is love, she loves you) and they sang songs about drugs (lsd taking weed's place) , and they're regarded as one of the best and most memorable bands of all time. best coast seizes a style that sticks to people the same way the beatles may have had, just to different people

[trent bortknob]

yeah, but the beatles don't deserve half of the amount of praise they get.

also, what i said was not a contradictory statement. the second quote that you cited is not extreme, it's just a fact.

the point of this thread was not to say your favorite albums, it was to make fun of the album "lulu" by metallica and lou reed.

[rtil]

i don't even know what a band being popular has to do with anything i've said in my last few posts. i never mentioned the popularity of any group as a deciding factor of anything. the beatles are one of the most popular groups ever, that doesn't make them good or bad, it just means they're popular.

you said best coast was pop music, which means they're popular. so why else would you mention that if it had no significance

all i'm saying is that IN GENERAL, simple music puts more emphasis on the vocals, right?

not as a prerequisite, in fact-

there are exceptions

oh

but all in all simple music usually has vocals as the focal point.

wait

when that is the case, i'd say that the vocals become more important than in other song types, where the focal point is something like the beat or the guitar work or something like that. so, when the vocals are the focus of a song, it's cool if their lyrics don't suck. i don't think what i'm saying here is controversial.

i never said it was controversial, i just disagree with you. she has a beautiful voice to me, so i really don't care what comes out of her mouth as long as she's singing it.

best coast's lyrics aren't that great, and while you can certainly think that they're the best band in the world and that crazy for you is the your favorite album of all time, the only list that best coast would belong in is "rtil's favorite bands". having them in a "best bands of all time" list would require more than your opinion of them.

woah woah woah..when have i EVER said that best coast was one of the best bands of all time? i said they are one of my favorite bands of all time. this has been clear from the beginning - this never needed to be explained to me.

[trent bortknob]

good then cuz that's all that really matters. everyone is free to have their favorite artists and their favorite albums, and lists of them too, but it's different when they're claiming that the groups or albums are THE BEST.

but just to clear up a little bit, when i say pop music i don't mean popular, i mean it follows pop conventions. best coast is hardly a popular band, i mean they're popular within certain circles but if you ask a random person on the street about best coast i don't think most people would know what you're talking about. but they definitely do follow verse chorus verse, generally have songs in 4/4, have chord driven music and catchy vocals. there is nothing wrong with that or anything i'm just saying that's what i mean by pop music. i consider the shins, radiohead, built to spill, pavement, etc etc etc all to be pop music too, but none of those bands are super popular (well except radiohead)