Customer Reviews

The Pitchfork 500: Our Guide to the Greatest Songs from Punk to the Present

5 star:		(3)
4 star:		(2)
3 star:		(2)
2 star:		(1)
1 star:		(2)

 

 

Preface: I am a 40 year old music fan who prefers the "indie" stuff, so I've long been a reader of Pitchfork. Like any review site, however, all ratings are subjective opinion and shouldn't be interpreted as gospel.
That said: This is a great book. I have learned a lot about the back-stories, relevancy, and/or even hidden meanings about some of my favorite songs. Mostly, however, it's turned me on to songs I had never heard. This book doesn't only cover "alternative" or "indie" music, it runs the gamut. (Although, as the years progress, there is more of a slant towards their niche.) For anyone who likes music, this is worth picking up. You'll find yourself re-listening to, no - re-hearing songs for the first time. (How's that for pretentious.) Of course you won't agree with every selection, but it is a worthwhile collection of substantial tunes. Well done.
Finally: It's funny to me that people don't see the irony of giving poor reviews to a book of compiled reviews. It's not the opinion that matters, it's that there are opinions.

How would the smug folks at pitchfork review their own book? I'm giving it a 6.0 in their parlance. But first, a few things that you need to know: 1)the book is songs only, 2)virtually all of the p-fork reviewers contributed to this book (including some non-regulars like Douglas Wolk), 3)the inclusions and exclusions will drive you as crazy as some of their album reviews.

It's interesting that p-fork ever created this title. It's such an odd concept: it's limited to 1977 - present, it's songs only, and it eschews some standard record guide tenets. I half expected the preface to berate me for even buying it! You will find some interesting nuggets and some b-sides you weren't familiar with. The book delivers in that sense. I agree with another reviewer who suggested that it needs an editor (much like this review). There are some odd little two page spreads where a reviewer extends on a particular genre of music. These essays were interesting, but some are intended as humorous (yacht rock?) while most are straightforward. The inconsistency seems sloppy to me. I was hoping that one reviewer-voice would emerge from the website and take hold of this thing. Instead, it feels like a mish-mash.

In the end, I would recommend this to music nerds like myself but not to the general public. On pitchfork's website they have lists of "best albums by decade." Those lists are more useful in the traditional sense, and I would recommend them to most folks.

I found this book to be very insightful and it is a good conversation piece for when friends come over and see it on the table. It has helped a great deal when it comes to making mix CDs for people. I don't agree with all the songs listed in the book but for the most part I do and I have found some interesting tracks from this book.

Great reading whether you're trying to get into lesser-known pop music or are already a connoisseur. Would buy it again in a heartbeat.

I have read reviews from Pitchfork Media for a number of years and have considerable respect for their opinion: they are as good a source of information about newer music as is available and provide well-argued reviews of older records with which people in my Australian homeland are unlikely to be familiar.

"The Pitchfork 500", however, does not possess quite as much skill as one might expect from writers of their pedigree (as one reviewer notes, it is probable that Pitchfork actually know this very well). Whilst those songs I do know from the book often are exceptionally good and highly deserving of praise (most especially Godspeed You Black emperor's "Storm"), and no doubt the very many songs listed which I have never heard, there could certainly be better and possibly more concise arguments. Also, having read Piero Scaruffi I do get the impression that there exist a number of omissions that seem serious. Another problematic feature is the way in which categories of song that really have little relevance in the context of post-"punk revolution" rock music.

All in all, "The Pitchfork 500" is a reasonable guide to some of the most acclaimed (and indeed, sometimes "best") rock songs, but it is not as good as Pitchfork's best online reviews and has some disappointing sidetracks.

Great book I bought it as a gift and then received it as well. Great compilation of 500 songs over the last thirty years with a nice summary of every one. A must have for any music fan, especially young ones that need to download greatness for that new ipod they got.

I did learn of some new songs from this, and I'm ecstatic about that. Sometimes I was forced to think about an artist/song in a way I hadn't before. These are fantastic accomplishments. I enjoyed reading it, but was there an editor? The very first entry gets one of its facts wrong; later there's misspellings, at least two instances of subject-verb disagreement, and one sentence that went nowhere and didn't even make poetic sense. Fragments. I appreciate the subjective nature of their reviews (Bellbottoms as the important JSBX song?), but often they are show off-ish, pandering, and cutesy. I like Pitchfork (except for their belief that Springsteen actually matters) but this feels like an undergrad project that an ex-prom committee chairperson put together ("Great job, guys!" even though everything is crooked and amateurish.)

I think you should buy this, I'm sure you'll love arguing with it as much as you agree with it. I did. I just expected some professionalism & care.

Ah, pitchfork. Somehow still the popular face of wool cap, plastic indiedom while both heaping praise upon corporate slop for teenagers (ex. In Flames, various pop) and dissing artists who have been making creative music since most of their writers have been in diapers (ex. Laibach).

Gotta love the patronizing, so-non-rockist, we-actually-take-hip-hop-seriously-isn't-that-wacky attitude in their rap reviews. Their amateur treatment of metal isn't much better, but at least it lacks the subtle racism.

Their opinions are so horrible that maybe it's a blessing in disguise that the majority of their reviews are all lower case chat logs and/or unreadable stream-of-consciousness attempts at offbeat quirkiness. Yeah, don't buy this.

The premise of Pitchfork's attempt at a music guide is that the songs of today are just as relevant, exciting and creative as the boomer approved canon of the 50's through early 70's.

To this I answer...no duh.

Misguided and insecure, editors Shreiber and Plagenhoff subsequently claim to offer a bold repudiation of the established cannon but do little more than play it safe offering only well worn staples of the past 30 years. Entire vibrant genres of music (metal, post 70's punk) are relegated to single page featurettes, obnoxious non-factors are legitimized and major musical movements such as house music and rap are either mangled beyond recognition or see their long established classics dug up and exhumed by a writing staff of closed-minded hipsters in way over their heads. While this thankfully prevents the book from falling into the snotty shlock journalism and sensationalism that Pitchfork's online component is best known for, it also makes the book feel like little more than a Rolling Stone guide for the tight jeans and ugly haircut set: a smug canonization of records with little in common apart from being socially acceptable among the slime that inhabits the gentrified neighbourhoods of Williamsburg and Silver Lake rather than the suburbs of middle America. Fantastic songs are ignored, agonizing failed experiments are deified in the name of "indie" and the resulting book is just as ignorant and misunderstanding of black music and non-rock as any "boomer approved" tome (to say nothing of the near total lack of African, Asian and South American music).

Of course, the book isn't all bad. Anywhere from 300 to 400 of these songs are either quite good or flat out spectacular though they're better covered in other more authoritative music guides. I also suppose that if one had to turn a cousin or friend into an obnoxious music snob overnight, this book could also be useful.

In trying desperately to live up to the 60's (I haven't seen anyone this angry at that decade since the Neo-Cons took power), the Pitchfork staff do little to nullify the errors of the previous generations' music writers. Instead they simply erect monuments to their very own Paul McCartneys and Jimmy Pages, the only difference being that the new idols prefer drum machines to guitar solos. While the late 70's through today offers an incredible array of fantastic music, you'll only find a fraction of it covered here...along with a whole lot of garbage and bad writing that serves only to prove the idea that good music is still being made wrong.

I rate this book 1.3 out of 10.

Attention all music lovers - Pitchforkmedia.com is a great online resource for you if:

A. They deem the bands you like worthy of their love and praise
B. The worthy bands you like do not manage to achieve mainstream attention of any kind thus making them unworthy of Pitchfork's love and praise
C. You like the derivative musical stylings of Kanye West, Kelly Clarkson and Justine Timberlake
D. You need someone else to tell you what is good and what isn't

If you fall into any of those categories then you might appreciate Pitchfork's first foray into publishing: The Pitchfork 500

Yes, there are some amazing and pivotal songs listed in the book with entertaining anecdotes and essays about each one. However, Pitchfork's need to remain 'hip' and 'counter' to any and all established critical opinion and/or popular mainstream taste, has resulted in list that is not only short sighted but insulting to anybody who happened to have been around during the short 30 years documented in the book.

For those of us who DO remember 1977 to 2007 - this is for you:

Boomtown Rats - I Don't Like Mondays
The Stranglers - Peaches
X - Los Angeles
Yaz - Only You/Situation/Don't Go
Wall of Voodoo - Back in Flesh
Killing Joke -
The The - This is the Day
Rush - Tom Sawyer
OMD - Enola Gay
Joy Division - Love Will Tear Us Apart
Leftfield - Open Up and anything else from Leftism
Japan - Gentlemen Take Polaroids
Riuyuchi Sakamoto/David Sylvian - Forbidden Colors
Grace Jones - Pull Up To The Bumper
The Cult - She Sells Sanctuary
Big Audio Dynamic - Medicine Show
Jane's Addiction - Jane Says - Mountain
The Police - Roxanne - Don't Stand So Close To Me
Peter Gabriel - Shock The Monkey - In Your Eyes
Eurythmics - Sweet Dreams
Tones on Tail - Go


I could go on and on and on and...