so basically, they listed songs from the 90's that didn't suck, because all the radio ever played was shit. hurray for the internets! good music is so much easier to find now.

Ween's Mollusk was strangely absent despite being just as good as anything by pavement or gbv, heck they are up there with Beck, IMHO, what a silly thing to overlook!

Thank God Pitchfork is around to tell me what I should like, instead of what I do.

If Vibe magazine made a list of the best songs from the 90s, I wouldn't get mad that Radiohead wasn't on the list. And besides, Alanis is awful (not as bad as Pavement, natch, but still).

I've grown apart from Pitchfork for this exact reason. They give noise albums like the Fuck Buttons 9/10, while giving perfectly listenable music like Green Day or U2 a 4/10. Indie music always has an air of self-importance about it, but Pitchfork takes that to an extreme sometimes. I guess that my tastes are just too pedestrian for those music gourmets, so I suppose that I'll take my Rolling Stone reviews and be happy.

We get it, Pitchfork. You're obscure. Now stop trying so hard.

At least Aaliyah got her due.

What's the point of a list like this? Yea, pitchfork prides itself as a taste maker and aims for obscurity as much as possible, but would you rather read a list of songs from the 90s that puts “smells like teen spirit” at the top, and fills it with a bunch of music we've all heard ad nauseum, or would you rather have a list like the one pitchfork composed that encourages exploration and discovering new stuff? I've discovered a bunch of awesome music by perusing their decade album and song lists. If I wanted to hear my own played-out itunes library played back to me, I'd just go check out a list of the greatest albums of all time at Rolling Stone and masturbate while Revolver blasts from my speakers.

I so called that a Pavement song was going to be number 1!

have some of the right artists but of course choose all the wrong songs. pavement sucks.