Rllmuk's Favourite Albums Of 2007 - the results!

[Gorf King]

As mentioned in the stickied rllmukFM thread(s):

From 10pm onwards tonight I'll be broadcasting a show on rllmukFM where I play a track from each of the top 10 albums voted for by mukkers here, counting down from 10 to 1, interspersed with tracks from 9 2007 albums that didn't make the top 10 (two of which didn't even get a single vote, amazingly - though the other seven are placed somewhere in the lower reaches of the chart).

See the stickied rllmukFM thread in this folder for details of how to tune in/join in.

[ChrisN]

I don't much like any of the bands in the top 10. Go me.

[Gorf King]

I'm not keen on a lot of it, but it's the forum's Top 10 albums so that's what gets played on a Forum Top 10 Show.

Go me!

(I've actually recorded this in shitto lo-quality, so if anyone's interested in sampling the Top 10 (plus a few of the lower-ranking albums) keep an eye on the RllmukFM thread where if it's uploaded as an MP3 it'll be announced. And if that does happen, my apols for a less-than-enthusiastic/professional performance).

[Vimster]

It was alright, Gorf. Indeed you let your feelings be known about the chart but you never took the piss or ran things down. It was very honest.

[ngchol]

I'm gonna dare to speak out and say that top ten is pretty dire. It reads like a Pitchforkmedia/Metacritic top ten.

I already pointed out the 70% correlation with Pitchfork, I don't think anybody's going to dispute that... however I'd sooner things resembled Pitchfork's favourites than Q's, to be honest. Just because something is liked by Pitchfork doesn't make it automatically bad...

[Vimster]

I already pointed out the 70% correlation with Pitchfork, I don't think anybody's going to dispute that... however I'd sooner things resembled Pitchfork's favourites than Q's, to be honest. Just because something is liked by Pitchfork doesn't make it automatically bad...

I agree, plus I feel it was complete coincidence that it resembles a Pitchfork chart, there don't seem to be many Pitchfork diehards about, or at least they don't pop up often. I'd love a British Pitchfork equivilent, minus the pretentious bullshit and rank favouritism.

[lancashirebambaata]

I've no idea what pitchfork is but i gave all the albums in the 10 ten a good listen ( the ones i don't already own)

I loved LCD sounds system but I can't get the list below, how they made it into a top 10 I can't understand. Says a lot really

7 - Animal Collective - Strawberry Jam - 47

8 - Deerhoof - Friend Opportunity - 45

10 - Panda Bear - Person Pitch - 42

I'm really starting to feel old.

[Ben]

Have you listened to Person Pitch? I couldn't (and still can't) get on with Feels at all but love Person Pitch to pieces - it's a blissful experience on headphones. I'm no Pitchfork apologist and don't like everything they rate by any means, but I have discovered some excellent albums on their recommendation - just as I have from other magazines and online sites.

What was in your top ten out of interest?

[jonny_rat]

Those would be the ones that raised my eyebrows.

Panda Bear is a member of Animal Collective - there's a bit of a love-in going on between these band members and the fashionable online music journos. They're worst live act I have ever seen and I missed Pearl Jam for the privilege. I bought Feels and convinced myself it was so wonderful and experimental and original and... guess how many times I return to that album these days...

Pitchfork have certain bands that they plug relentlessly and inexplicably: The Thermals, The Unicorns, Wolf Parade, Animal Collective, The Wrens, Menomena, The Cloud Room, some girl band whose member also was a writer for them... they all sound identical. The love weak-ass whispy singers. So I'm cynical about the online press these days. It used to be I'd uncover obscure and brilliant acts, many of whom have made it big since (Arcade Fire, Modest Mouse, NMH) but Pitchfork haven't recommended a good album in well over a year. And last years metacritic top ten is feeble to say the least.

I don't see your point at all. There was a thread on here a little while ago where we had a big discussion about the interacting factors between fans and critics: basically, to say that people are simply aping what the critics say is presumptive, oversimplified and a bit insulting to the people who actually like those bands/albums.

(To repeat my old bugbear from this and every other music forum I've ever been on: please don't presume to tell me why I like something.)

So all I'm seeing in your posts is "why doesn't everyone else like the music that I do?" I'm utterly bemused that anyone could have anything bad to say about Wolf Parade, Menomena or The Thermals, and I can see the attractiction in everyone else you mentioned. But them's the brakes with music, innit? And opinions in general. It's okay not to like the same stuff as everyone else, y'know; but that doesn't mean you have to implicitly accuse everyone else on here of sheep-like behaviour. There is no objective measure of the quality of this music.

Edit: Wolf Parade sound identical to Animal Collective? Whut?

[lancashirebambaata]

So all I'm seeing in your posts is "why doesn't everyone else like the music that I do?"

What he's saying is "how odd that the top ten albums of 2007 contain stuff that would barely be described as music to a large section of the population, and how similar that list is to what some wanky "trendy" website says is good."

[jonny_rat]

I'm not intending to be patronising or offensive. I just do not think that Pitchfork are a trustworthy source. Their reviews and coverage of Menomena was massively OTT. The guy can't sing. Sure lots of great singers can't sing, but he can't sing in the same way Built to Spill, Deathcab etc. singers can't sing. Why does that matter? They laid into a Trail of Dead record because the singer couldn't sing. It's cliquey bullshit. And did you read the Cloud Room interviews and features, relentlessly pushing that shitty Hey Now track as though it was a lost classic? Was it? No it was pretty average, if not awful, just like the band themselves.

"simply aping what the critics say is presumptive, oversimplified and a bit insulting to the people who actually like those bands/albums."

Ok so of Pitchforks reviews last year, how many of the albums you'd never heard of, given fourth bill on the daily update with a score of say, 6.2, did you download or buy? I'm pretty sure the answer is zero. You only heard Menomena because of hype from the online music press who seem to have an agenda to push what's cool in the US indie scene, just like NME pushing gash like Gallows or Horrors. I'm not saying there aren't some gems to be found from following the recommendations of online critics, but I think their influence is just as damnable as that of NME's, which most people this forum would probably scoff at.

I am not telling you why you like certain bands, but the point is that the way the media works is that people give certain bands a chance because of reviews, and there's nothing necessarily wrong with that, but obviously it's important to think about the agenda of those recommendations, what is the relationship between indie record labels and these sites etc.

Why not take the opposite, and much simpler/less paranoid view that there is no agenda to push? Occam's Razor in action, and all. The only evidence you seem to have of such an agenda is that you don't like the music that they seem to like. The truth is probably somewhere in between: just as we're more likely to listen to the things that get a push, so are the journos in the industry.

I can happily say that of everything I've listened to in every single one of these lists I've come across (simply because I can't think of anything that fits this criteria) that I've been able to see the value in it, and been able to appreciate its inclusion. That's not saying I like it; I might even have just been lucky. But I fucking hated the Prinzhorn Dance School album, but I can see that they've got a good grasp on that ultra minimal angular thing that the little leather jacket lot are into.

You *are* absolutely telling me why I like these albums, because you're assuming that coming to an album through a recommendation somehow prevents you from viewing it objectively. It doesn't. I'm confident enough in my own ability to judge whether I like something on my own terms. And what's more, I'm happy enough to assume that everyone else has that same ability: I've basically got no right to assume that they don't.

Another thing, we're going to get anywhere talking about this stuff, it has to be without these reference points of what you like and don't like. I think the guy from Menomena has an excellent voice for the kind of music he's making, as does Ben Gibbard (irritating as I can find Death Cab in places). I think they (the former) couldn't have deserved higher praise; I also think the vocals from lots of TotD stuff let the band down a bit, especially on the newer stuff when the rest of the band is trying a more restrained approach. He doesn't pull it off.

So, to me, this pretty much give me no reference points in your argument whatsoever.

[jonny_rat]

What he's saying is "how odd that the top ten albums of 2007 contain stuff that would barely be described as music to a large section of the population, and how similar that list is to what some wanky "trendy" website says is good."

It's hardly odd, given the similar demographics of this forum and that website. Correlation does not implay causality.

[jonny_rat]

Edit: I'm not sure how you can argue this doesn't imply causality... especially as you admit the forum is the target demograph of the website.

You can't establish cause and effect from two observations when there are other likely third factors that might be responsible for both. So rather than the pitchfork list directly influencing the one on here, it seems just as - if not more - likely that they were both caused by the albums mentioned actually being good, and being picked up by the similar target demographics of the two sites.

Plus, if you've got as specific a claim as 'pitchfork/music sites directly influence these lists,' how do you account for something like Deerhunter? Absolutely heaped with praise all year, 15th in the pitchfork chart.. joint 51st on here? And the Spoon album: top 10 on pitchfork, 7(!) points on here.

I'm being a terrible pedant/bore now, sorry. I'll shut up!

[Lovelyman]

Hmm.

I used to be a total rock / metal head, but I've been slowly drifting into a lot of different genres (now known to me as 'music') and have found these threads a lot of use.

Stuff like person pitch, strawberry jam and in rainbows I wouldn't have given a chance before this thread.

Some is inexplicable to me, as will all music be to someone, but I don't think there's much nominated here just to make the person look cool.

Anyway, I've got some really good music due to this thread, so thanks Ngchol and the people who voted!

XXX

[ngchol]

What he's saying is "how odd that the top ten albums of 2007 contain stuff that would barely be described as music to a large section of the population, and how similar that list is to what some wanky "trendy" website says is good."

From Pitchfork's top 10, I don't think there's anything musically inaccessible about Burial, Radiohead, M.I.A., or LCD Soundsystem - anyone who heard those albums could appreciate their qualities without a maths degree or a manual...

[lancashirebambaata]

From Pitchfork's top 10, I don't think there's anything musically inaccessible about Burial, Radiohead, M.I.A., or LCD Soundsystem - anyone who heard those albums could appreciate their qualities without a maths degree or a manual...

Well yes you're right, I had no issues with those.

[Lovelyman]

I know I can't really complain since I didn't vote, but it's a crying shame that Field Music's Tones of Town isn't in there

[Guest]

Just thinking about this, I bought Feels and Strawberry Jam thinking they sounded interesting, and I now hate them. I also went to see Animal Collective live in Dublin in November and they were awful beyond belief. Probably the worst I have been taken in by hype ever. I won't touch Panda Bear's album with a barge pole.

[lancashirebambaata]

I'm ready to accept that music takes various forms and that we all have different tastes, but I feel I'm in the minority because I prefer music that actually sounds like music, rather than a one man band falling down the stairs, on a heart monitor, going into cardiac arrest, in a police car, under water.

[Gorf King]

I'd wager I'm a fair bit older than yerself, but I rather like most of the Deerhoof album (not so keen on the Panda Bear and Animal Collective efforts, admittedly). Anyway, regardless of that, it's quite obviously music, and quite obviously sounds like music - just maybe not something you like. Taking Friend Opportunity as an example, about 4/5 of that album (coincidentally, the 4/5 I like) is pop-hooky and catchy as hell, with enough quirky arrangement and playing around the molten sugar core to stop it cloying - for the first few listens, in any case.

Talking of age, did you ever like Frank Zappa? I don't think that you can listen to the last Deerhoof album without hearing a connection.

I'm thinking of playing a couple more of the album tracks on tomorrow night's show anyway. Shallow stuff, but nice and fizzy.

(I never read pitchfork. Or NME. Or, well, any music rag really.)

[lancashirebambaata]

I'd wager I'm a fair bit older than yerself, but I rather like most of the Deerhoof album (not so keen on the Panda Bear and Animal Collective efforts, admittedly). Anyway, regardless of that, it's quite obviously music, and quite obviously sounds like music - just maybe not something you like. Taking Friend Opportunity as an example, about 4/5 of that album (coincidentally, the 4/5 I like) is pop-hooky and catchy as hell, with enough quirky arrangement and playing around the molten sugar core to stop it cloying - for the first few listens, in any case.

Talking of age, did you ever like Frank Zappa? I don't think that you can listen to the last Deerhoof album without hearing a connection.

I'm thinking of playing a couple more of the album tracks on tomorrow night's show anyway. Shallow stuff, but nice and fizzy.

(I never read pitchfork. Or NME. Or, well, any music rag really.)

Frank Zappa, I like frank Zappa!, in the same way I quite liked DeerHoof. What I take issue with, and its not so much issue, more massive suprise combined with deep suspicion. Frank Zappa was cool, "best album" of his era,I doubt it. he's an aquired taste. I wouldn't think any less of anyone for enjoying Mr Zappa but if I'm watching c-list celebs talking about "top whataver" lists and Zappa is at number 1, along with Jethro Tull and The teardrop exploded, being the majority choices... I become suspicious, like i do now. Of what exactly I don't know, so I'll shut up for now.

[imp]

I can't believe the amount of animal collective/panda bear backlash. I know they're not to everyone's taste but Strawberry Jam and Person Pitch are utterly fantastic. Or at least I think they are and I've been a fan since Sung Tongs. Their live show is and always has been considerably different to how the albums sound - but cut them a bit of slack, they weren't even touring as a full band this last tour.

[ChrisN]

So all I'm seeing in your posts is "why doesn't everyone else like the music that I do?" I'm utterly bemused that anyone could have anything bad to say about Wolf Parade, Menomena or The Thermals, and I can see the attractiction in everyone else you mentioned.

This is incredibly ironic.

"Not everyone likes the same music you know!"

"I can't see why anyone would have anything bad to say about these bands..."

[SomeNaiveChump]

I know I can't really complain since I didn't vote, but it's a crying shame that Field Music's Tones of Town isn't in there

They were fantastic when we supported them in Sheffield, as well as being really nice guys. But even despite that, I've found myself totally unable to get into the studio material

[jonny_rat]

This is incredibly ironic.

"Not everyone likes the same music you know!"

"I can't see why anyone would have anything bad to say about these bands..."

Comment gracefully withdrawn (the one about being bemused), that was poorly worded on my part. I can completely understand someone not being into those three, but just to hold them up as examples of 'objectively' bad bands; well, that triggered my 'whut' face. Wolf Parade and The Thermals, especially: maybe two of the most accessible and loveable bands I've heard for years.

I don't have any right to assert an objective measure of music than anyone else.

OR DO I?

..No.

[Lovelyman]

They were fantastic when we supported them in Sheffield, as well as being really nice guys. But even despite that, I've found myself totally unable to get into the studio material

Heh, I'm not a fan of their first album, but I really rate the second.

What's your band called BTW?

[SomeNaiveChump]

That gig was with Sikora, now disbanded.

I'm still playing and producing with the vocalist though http://www.myspace.com/oggiano