Posted in music on December 15, 2009

DOWNLOAD: Big Boi f. Gucci Mane, "Shine Blockas" (MP3)

Top 100 Tracks of 2009

In theory, she was an artist you want to root for-- all these ideas about art and celebrity and a flair for the dramatic. But the first few singles made the Lady Gaga project feel so presumptuous, her artsy entitlement overwhelming her songs' occasional strengths. "Bad Romance" was the moment where the music didn't just live up to the (self-inflated) hype, but surpassed it. The track is epic in construction-- by the time she gets to the bridge, more than three minutes in, the realization that there are hooks yet to come is thrilling. It helps that RedOne's production matches the songwriting's torrential drama; the churning, earth-shifting low-frequency synths are a programmatic reflection of the singer's unsteady, perhaps unwise, infatuation. But it's Gaga's performance, the wholly unapologetic fools-rush-in carnal energy, that commitment to emotional bravery in a context of increasingly twee chart pop, that makes "Bad Romance" feel so necessary. --David Drake [39. Lady Gaga "Bad Romance"]
Pitchfork posted their Top 100 Tracks of 2009. Lady Gaga took two spots.

Neon Indian is also on there twice, which is the the same amount of times they're playing Mercury Lounge (Tuesday and Wednesday night).

The video for the 21st best song, below...

---

      

Comments (62)

first

Posted by Anonymous | December 15, 2009 10:36 AM

second

Posted by Anonymous | December 15, 2009 10:40 AM

meh

Posted by Anonymous | December 15, 2009 10:47 AM

they just named every single released in 09...what a crap site.

Posted by Anonymous | December 15, 2009 10:58 AM

i like the last comment.

Posted by Anonymous | December 15, 2009 11:03 AM

It is rather annoying that 'top tracks' pretty much automatically defaults to whatever singles were released/songs pushed by the band/label.

Yeah, and someone named 'Gucci Mane' is better than Future of the Left?

Fuck off, pitchfork.

Posted by Anonymous | December 15, 2009 11:04 AM

Torrent?

Posted by Fearand loathing | December 15, 2009 11:05 AM

pitchfork sux dixfork

Posted by Anonymous | December 15, 2009 11:07 AM

pitchfork is the main stream.

Posted by Anonymous | December 15, 2009 11:07 AM

Carrie Underwood can buy every hipster band with one week's CD sales even if she didn't make the list.

Posted by Anonymous | December 15, 2009 11:13 AM

Shine Blockas should've been number one

Posted by Anonymous | December 15, 2009 11:19 AM

Bad Romance too low

Posted by Anonymous | December 15, 2009 11:29 AM

that is a wonderful list..I look forward to the album list as well. There is a reason pitchfork is the class of music related websites.

Posted by Anonymous | December 15, 2009 11:31 AM

Where the fuck is Gene Shalit (If Gay)?????

Posted by anonymouse | December 15, 2009 11:35 AM

i would rather listen to someone ripping a wet fart in my face than listen to a mix tape including these 100 songs. what garbage.

Posted by f&&k buttons man | December 15, 2009 11:35 AM

zip! zip! zip???

Posted by Anonymous | December 15, 2009 11:39 AM

you can pretty much determine the top 10 album list based on these top songs. i could have told you that they'd name merriweather post pavilion as the year's top album weeks before it even came out. pitchfork = so overrated. animal collective = so overrated. (will we really still be listening to them 5 years from now? i think not.)

Posted by Anonymous | December 15, 2009 11:49 AM

As soon as I read that they were considering pretty much everything under the sun, I knew there were going to be some terrible picks.

Posted by Anonymous | December 15, 2009 11:55 AM

animal collective are such a bore. no soul whatsoever. but that describes just about every single band that PF praises. i've listened to merriweather about five times and it's just vapid wank.

Posted by f&&k buttons man | December 15, 2009 11:57 AM

vapid wank

Posted by Anonymous | December 15, 2009 12:01 PM

Dig that edgy Nano rollover

Posted by Anonymous | December 15, 2009 12:07 PM

pitchfork sucks this, animal collective sucks that. Such a tired topic of conversation.

Posted by Anonymous | December 15, 2009 12:08 PM

it's just pop

Posted by Anonymous | December 15, 2009 12:10 PM

My Girls #1 REALLY?

Posted by Anonymous | December 15, 2009 12:16 PM

much much better than the best-of-decade list, where the burden of history was just too heavy. in fact, most of these write-ups are actually smart and fun to read.

Posted by Anonymous | December 15, 2009 12:25 PM

best thing ever written about Taylor Swift, at #69:

But Taylor's is-he-really-going-out-with-her narrative links the track to the most fragile, heartbroken strains of twee indie pop. --Tom Breihan

Posted by Anonymous | December 15, 2009 12:25 PM

Poop stains in the rain, gripping cold grains sipping plains

Posted by best artist of the future | December 15, 2009 12:27 PM

It seems to me the problem with Pitchfork is that they say exactly what you expect them to say and its very redundant. Would be nice if someone in the music industry lived outside of their little glass house.

Posted by Anonymous | December 15, 2009 12:49 PM

I f*cking hate p-fork now.... first they have that ANNOYING iPod ad and THEN the Top Sh*t...... a f*cking blight.

Posted by jules | December 15, 2009 12:59 PM

Animal Collective are so yesterday.

Posted by Phil | December 15, 2009 12:59 PM

Pitchfork: Don't make monuments out of molehills

Posted by Anonymous | December 15, 2009 1:04 PM

i normally take p4k for what it is:. i don't hate them but sure, they are full of themselves.

but this list is utter crap. they blew their load way too soon. some of the best songs of the year are way up in the 80s and 90s.

and 2 nods to Lady CaCa?!? they've lost themselves. putting Annie at number 1 a few years ago... sure. i can get behind that. Robyn, Kylie, Justin... ok. but this talentless hack? fuck off!

that said, people need to differentiate between "best of" and "favorites". someone else's list is no more meaningful than another. this list is a conglomeration of p4k's favorites. mine or yours are just as valid.

Posted by Anonymous | December 15, 2009 1:07 PM

hey where can i find these writers so i can kick them straight to the Jaw

Posted by Anonymous | December 15, 2009 1:13 PM

boy that band Girls really lame-o

Posted by Anonymous | December 15, 2009 1:37 PM

this rating shit means nothing and never will. don't understand why it's done.

Posted by Anonymous | December 15, 2009 1:56 PM

the hatred for the Pitchfork site and crew is blinding people's chance to admit that some of the tracks they list as best of 2009 are actually good
of course nobody will agree 100% with any best of list, but that's what creates variety and helps others discern what they want to check out or not
would like to see what those people's picks are as the best tacks of 2009 before they choose to attack so valiantly from the safeness of anonymity

Posted by Anonymous | December 15, 2009 2:10 PM

"pitchfork sucks this, animal collective sucks that. Such a tired topic of conversation."

Best comment of the day. The website has an opinion which they broadcast on the Internet--tough sh*t. They like Animal Collective a lot... big deal.

Posted by Anonymous | December 15, 2009 2:52 PM

Why don't websites say "100 songs we liked this year". It sounds less definitive. Pitchfork is a tad overated. I am tired of hearing about Animal Collective, G. Bear, National, and ferchrissakes....Radiohead etc...all decent bands but enough already!

Posted by Anonymous | December 15, 2009 2:53 PM

Pitchfork is the blog equivalent of that person who stares at some bullshit painting of a circle colored in black...and they just stare at it for a long time...and say, "it's just so...beautiful..." But they don't actually think it's beautiful, they just want you to think that they're incredibly deep and see something that you don't...that you're missing something. Deep down, they're as shallow as they come. The more abstract, obscure or avant garde some new bullshit is, the more likely they are to give it a high rating and talk about how beautiful it is...not b/c it's actually good, but b/c there is a much better chance you will not get it.

If you're a band and you want some love from Pitchfork, start throwing around some obscure sounds, random rhythms and harmonies that don't compliment one another at all. They will say it's genius.

And I'm not sure if it's just Pitchfork or if it's the general state of indie rock music today (although sadly, I think they dictate a large portion of what is and is not listened to). But God, I fucking hate Pitchfork.

That is all. Thanks.

Posted by Mike Hunt | December 15, 2009 3:17 PM

no matter what you may say or think about pitchfork, the reality is that Brooklyn Vegan commenters are the worst and most corrosive influence in indie rock, hands down

Posted by Anonymous | December 15, 2009 3:29 PM

"throw it in the bag" was the major thing missing.

Posted by public school whitey | December 15, 2009 3:50 PM

agreed

Posted by Anonymous | December 15, 2009 3:51 PM

@3:29, I think you are grossly over-estimating the influence of BV commenters.

Posted by Anonymous | December 15, 2009 4:03 PM

and I think you're quite naively unaware of how damaging the things said here are to the psyches of many of your indie musician heroes, and other noncelebrities who get skewered here, daily, by neophytes and morons just wasting time in their cubicles being evil.

don't agree? why don't you ask some small scale successful bands how they feel about Brooklyn Vegan comments.

If you've never experienced the gauntlet don't assume you could handle it yourself.

Posted by Anonymous | December 15, 2009 4:38 PM

the worst part of the hurtful shit people post here is that it's being said by lazy fucks who do nothing themselves but want to bitch about everyone else's work.

fuck y'all! Pitchfork is a helluva a website. They work their asses off, have decent ethics, don't allow hateful anonymous comments, keep their ear to ground for new good stuff, and have stayed important for years now. Kudos to Pitchfork, the scene is lucky to have them.

Posted by Anonymous | December 15, 2009 4:46 PM

I agree with the last two commentators, most of the people on here are complete assholes. Like honestly people if you hate a band or a website, why even bother reading the articles about them? You claim pitchfork sucks yet you are obviously taking the time to read what they have to say. I don't care one bit about the business world, so when I read the paper I skip that section. Do you really need to waste your energy trying to ruin bands people like? If you don't like them just don't support them, no need to trash them.

Posted by Anonymous | December 15, 2009 6:05 PM

@4:38, it sounds like you got butt-hurt.

Posted by Anonymous | December 15, 2009 9:46 PM

and btw, this anonymous posting format obviously helps traffic, or else BV would institute accounts for posting comments if he cared about controlling content of the comments. But he doesn't.

Posted by Anonymous | December 15, 2009 9:48 PM

I like the BV anonymous comments. I think they add a dimension of truth to some legitamite shitty bands.
BV doesn't run a communist state restricting free speech here and I think its one of the reasons why BV is 100 times better then pitchfork... Not to mention, I find the hummus jokes really quite comical. (pass the tahini please)

Posted by Anonymous | December 16, 2009 1:55 AM

mmmm, chipotle

Posted by Anonymous | December 16, 2009 5:26 AM

wow surprise, people are complaining about the top 100 list.

Posted by Anonymous | December 16, 2009 9:49 AM

while you wait for the others should be #1....they gave the track a 10 in their review of it. that's higher than two weeks (which was ahead of it on the list) and my girls, number one on the list. at least they should be consistent...

but yeah, pitchfork is just one opinion. they're not trying to be the only voice in music so it's not worth getting upset at them for having certain opinions. read another site if you don't like it. it's that simple

Posted by Anonymous | December 16, 2009 1:05 PM

Im' not a particularly big Grizzly Bera fan but I agree with the comment above...While You Wait for the Other's is the best song of the year

Posted by Anonymous | December 16, 2009 3:48 PM

Animal collective so yesterday? f-ing hipsters! Good music is never 'yesterday' - go to a park in Barcelona and find people from around the globe, teens to people in their fifties, singing Beatles songs on shitty classical guitars. That blew my mind. Good music stays forever, something made with heart will stay in someones heart for a long time.

"animal collective are such a bore. no soul whatsoever. but that describes just about every single band that PF praises. i've listened to merriweather about five times and it's just vapid wank."

vapid? no soul? just cause they aren't your key to soul, doesn't mean they don't have any. My Girls is deeply personal and beautiful, full of soul for me. I hope you have something that opens your soul...Kenny Loggins' "Highway to the danger zone"? That fucking gets me every time....

Posted by musicmusic | December 16, 2009 3:51 PM

animal collective, dirty projectors, and grizzly bear - the bands with the three most overrated albums of 2009

Posted by Anonymous | December 16, 2009 8:05 PM

why does everyone insist on crying about pitchfork's lists? Like all media they have a bias and thats to be expected. they aren't saying theyre power over music lists is ABSOLUTE. listen to the music you like. quit bitching because someone else likes other music

Posted by Anonymous | December 16, 2009 10:04 PM

I love pitchfork! They've helped me come across great bands that I would never hear about otherwise! In my personal opinion their reviews are 60 to 70% right on, and thats pretty hard to do given music is so subjective, I dont care too much for lists though, I think nobody should. it is impossible to agree with an entire list of songs or albums!

Posted by Justin | December 18, 2009 10:41 AM

Hi Friends,
I am new here and really enjoyed this article.
I got lots of information from here, and do keep us update.
With some more interesting article.

Posted by Stretch Marks | February 4, 2010 5:08 AM

lol

pitchfork and brooklyn vegan, that's not surprise.

pitchfork is garbage.

Posted by dave | May 30, 2010 7:45 PM

verre nicee

Posted by شات | August 23, 2010 11:45 PM

Leave a Comment