Bradley J. Shively

p2k: Top 200 Albums of the 2000s

// October 2nd, 2009 // personal

Over the past several days, Pitchfork released their “p2k” list; touted as THE TOP 200 ALBUMS OF THE 2000s.

The list is an unusual mix of art-rock, mainstream rap, and bands many aren’t familiar with at all. While a sizable number of the artists represented on the list are undoubtedly talented musicians that have revolutionized the face of the music scene over the last ten years for listeners, there seems to certainly be some bias in the bands selected. Pitchfork is known to favor certain genres and bands that are less mainstream, and this is clearly intimated in the contents of the list. While certain commercially successful acts, such as Radiohead and Kanye West, managed to achieve multiple spots on the list, other acts and even entire genres are notably absent.

I think the list does an excellent job of singling out artists who have made significant contributions. For example, Radiohead appearing at number 1 on the list is far from shocking. Similarly, Daft Punk earned their place in the top 10 by changing the face of electronic music and hugely expanding the fan base of many related genres. Indeed, it is difficult to cite specific instances of “this band should be on the list”, especially when trying to suppress your own internal biases. However, what I found most disappointing about the list was NOT that none of my favorite acts made the cut. More, I was let down by the appearance of mediocre, “bubblegum” artists (I’m talking to you, Kanye) appearing not only once, but twice and three times.

While it is difficult to say that band X is number 1, and band Y is number 2, it is extremely easy to compare the artists relatively. Certain acts appear unreasonably high considering the (lack of) artistic merit of the work they produce. Other works on the list seem out of place so close to missing the cut altogether considering the quality and depth of their releases. Does artistic merit even matter? What about units sold? Dollars spent on marketing? Maybe the real issue is that Pitchfork hasn’t, to my knowledge, explicitly shared any criteria upon which the decisions were made. Are the top 10 just what was in the head editor’s cd changer this week? Making a cross-genre list of THE BEST is difficult at best and both misguided and impossible at worst.

The list itself is what I would describe as “50% good.” Unfortunately, this statement really just means it is mediocre, and 50% success is still an F on most grading scales. Given its lack of qualifiers (editor’s choice? user voted? or even just say it’s PITCHFORK’S top 200 on the mast head…), one can’t be too angry. Some of the greatest musical works of the past ten years are surely represented. I just refuse to believe that 1% of the best music released in the past 10 years (2 / 200 albums, in other words) was produced by Lil Wayne. Sorry, I’m not buying it.