I know I should be relistening to stuff on my EOTY list and listening to some stuff I haven't given that much time to, but this time of year I really just want to listen to Copeland and sulk.
RS list is actually pretty excellent given their lane. A heavy dose of classic artists (whose work is always under-represented in every list but theirs) and country, which are their stock in trade, and then some nice crossover into other genres for stuff like Danny Brown and Chance and such.
the only truly ridiculous thing on the rolling stones list is, as i said, rolling stones in the top ten
25/50 on Consequence of Sound 7/10 on Time 39/50 on Rolling Stone Eh. Clearly need to catch up to Angel Olsen as she's been on all 4 lists posted in here so far.
I'd say that's a garbage opinion. I feel like we could sketch a rough draft of this convo out to about 12 additional responses if we chose to.
angel olsen record is so ridiculously good, it gives me the feeling i was hoping from that mitski record
I heard an older record of hers (the last one, I believe) and it didn't do much for me. But I'm always game to revisit an artist.
I liked the Mitski album a whole lot more than the Angel Olsen album. MY WOMAN didn't click with me at all Plus, "Your Best American Girl" is a near perfect song
probably! feels weird to single out "classic" artists as being overlooked though, especially this year when we had people like cohen and bowie and ATCQ and Eno put out albums that rank among the best albums of their careers/this year. there is probably an argument to be made that certain artists get the shaft because of their longevity but i think on lists usually compiled via staff voting its a weird thing to be mad at, especially since by virtue of being "classic" they already have probably transcended the kind of boost that accolades like these can provide. aint like the rolling stones are hurting for cred or an audience
i love "your best american girl" but bury me at makeout creek is an all time favorite for me at this point and while it may be better written as a record, it's missing the punch that really hit me on the last one. still good, but missing the bite.
i remember when these lists used to be a way to discover a bunch of new music, now it feels like ive heard at least 90% of every list
I mean...isn't almost everything hurting for an audience now? Tell me Jackson Browne's album from last year couldn't have used a boost. Or Bonnie Raitt or Vince Gill or Mudcrutch or Bruce Hornsby this year. Or David Crosby (which I freely admit to not having heard yet, but saw some good reviews). And sure Bowie and Cohen and Tribe will make lists. But when the same thing happens with, say, a genre like metal (pick 3 albums and put them on every list) people rightfully notice that's kinda bullshit. And these artists span across all kinds of genres, too. I'm not saying any of them belong on every list (though I think Gill does) but the almost complete shut out excepting RS is silly.
yeah I think I like bury me at makeout creek more than puberty 2 too, but I really like both in general, Angel Olsen hasn't hit me in the same way Mitski or similar singer/songwriters like Waxahatchee, Torres, etc have, and her new one confirmed that for me more than it changed that
i was thinking about this earlier: what albums/artists has pitchfork driven hype up for this year that weren't already getting mega hype from other publications? feels like there's a lot less trendsetting from their side these days, focusing (as every publication is) on everything done by chance, beyonce, kanye, etc instead of the editorial staff pushing up smaller artists and making them their own