Taking Sides: Reliable Versus Unreliable But Potentially Novel (Or Not)

[koganbot]

I'm something like three weeks behind in reading the Singles Jukebox. So here's a sociological question:

Supposing I had time to read only one but not both, should I

(a) catch up on the Jukebox entries I've missed, or

(b) read the Pitchfork's P2K, The Top 500 Tracks of the 2000s?

The thing is, it didn't occur to me that the answer should be anything but (a) until I pondered the fact that I've read plenty of Jukebox entries but have rarely read Pitchfork, only going to the latter when someone on ilX or some other community or some blog had linked a Pitchfork piece. Of course, there are reasons for the preference, but wouldn't taking a look at the Pitchfork 500 potentially give me surprising info or ideas that I wouldn't get from the more familiar Jukebox? (That's not a rhetorical question.) I have looked at P2K a little, the blurbs that Tom wrote or highlighted on one of his Tumblrs, and from there my eye wandered to some neighboring P2K blurbs. And of course I'm likely to continue clicking on Tom's links.

Comments

[koganbot]

Ah, but taking the question I actually posed, suppose that I'm not going to have time to catch up on the Jukebox, so I have to choose one or the other.

[skyecaptain.livejournal.com]

I don't believe it! (Anyway, Jukebox tracks have been eh of late, through no fault of Jukebox -- just not the strongest crop of contenders.)

[koganbot]

Yes, but I'm asking you to make a choice.

[skyecaptain.livejournal.com]

Well, I've clearly chosen P2K lately over reading or WRITING for Jukebox. I need to do some blurbs 'fore I get the boot!