I was going to bitch and moan about Pitchforkmedia's Top Albums of the 1990's Redux (specifically, about the switching of MBV and Radiohead at the top of the list) but then I mellowed out and decided to say something nice instead.

Both albums are worthy of their positions because no other band has even remotely duplicated them. Each band's previous work has been aped to no end, but once these two records came out, it was game over for their competition and the competition knew it. "Isn't Anything" has been xeroxed countless times, from Sianspheric's "There's Always Someplace You'd Rather Be" to Ash and BMRC's buzzsaw guitars and the increased density of most rock albums from grunge onwards. "The Bends has also been ripped off by scores of bands, most by notably Coldplay, who have made a career out of remaking that album.

But nobody tried to follow up "Loveless". Any attempt to do so was doomed to failure. "Loveless" was a singular achievement. The competition had been left so far behind, there was no use in even trying to catch up. Similarly, "The Bends" is far, far easier to remake than "OK Computer", which is why there's been so many clones of the former and no serious attempts to match the sentiment of the latter.

----------

I was prepared to leave my comments like that: short, sweet and nice, but after I saw the Pitchfork writers' individual lists I got in a stew again. First, there is the absurdity of making a Top 100 list. Justifying a Top 10 is easy because each position is of obvious justifiable importance, a Top 30 is about the limit of one's self-assurance, a Top 50 is the limit of sensibility, but a Top 100 is absurd. I can't believe that anyone can state a cognisant, definite reason for having "Adventures Beyond the Ultraworld at #87 and "Dummy" at #88, rather than vice versa.

The tabulation system isn't stated, but I've got a feeling that assigning points 100-1 to albums 1-100 was the chosen method. This would mean that the difference between an album ranked at 1 compared to 8 would be just as much "better" as something ranked at 91 compared to 98. This is obviously inappropriate, partly due to the relative insignificance of the Top 50 compared to the bottom 50, but mainly because the Number One ranking, and probably the entire Top 10, must count for something extra. To use a simplified sports analogy, the team or player with the most first-place votes doesn't always win the award, but this is usually the case. The points systems are geared toward generating results in this way. Thus, I believe there's something of an injustice in "Loveless" ranking at #1 on FOUR writers charts (out of twenty) compared to just ONE for "OK Computer" (and two for Neutral Milk Hotel's In the Aeroplane Over the Sea).

I've given some thought to making my own Top 30 Redux, but I'm just one person, and my tastes haven't changed enough to produce alterations as dramatic as Pitchfork's (due to large turnover of the staff since 1999, plus the effect of little changes from many people adding up to large changes by the whole). But in short, I'd bump "Loveless" up to #1 on my list, and find room for Slowdive's "Souvlaki", Vainqueur's "Elevations", maybe Bardo Pond's "Lapsed", maybe a Yo La Tengo album, maybe Spectrum's "Highs, Lows, and Heavenly Blows", maybe Slint's "Spiderland" (but unlikely), perhaps Gas' "Konigsforst" (but unlikely, but big ups to Mark Richardson for putting it on his list), and that's pretty much it (off the top of my head). Half of those records were in the running in 1999 (but just missed the cut), and the other half are new (to me) since then.