Best Ever Albums

Re: proof that new music sucks?

RaineyWins — Fri, 4 Dec 2009 08:39:17 GMT

Author: RaineyWins

Posted: 12/04/2009 13:39

The list isn't bad, yes, it missing some far better albums. And the fact that The libertines are second on the list is shocking. But I do believe that "Is this it" deservely sits at the top spot, or "Funeral".

And "Room on Fire" is great some songs such as "What ever Happened?" and Reptilla" and "Under Control", are better than the majority of tracks on "Is this it".
But "Is this it", I feel every track is very good, I could listen to every track over and over, whereas "Room on Fire" has less great tracks..

Re: proof that new music sucks?

videoheadcleaner — Fri, 4 Dec 2009 07:23:51 GMT

Author: videoheadcleaner

Posted: 12/04/2009 12:23

I like Room On Fire better.

Re: proof that new music sucks?

badfaith — Fri, 4 Dec 2009 06:58:24 GMT

Author: badfaith

Posted: 12/04/2009 11:58

Ok then, it is just me.

Re: proof that new music sucks?

cartoken — Fri, 4 Dec 2009 05:22:43 GMT

Author: cartoken

Posted: 12/04/2009 10:22

i prefer is this it by far even if room in fire is in my top 10 albums ever ? and most people i know too. actually most people don't even know room on fire. i think that it's exactly like nevermind and in utero.

Re: proof that new music sucks?

Anonymous — Thu, 3 Dec 2009 21:32:55 GMT

Author: Anonymous

Posted: 12/04/2009 02:32

No, most people I know like Room on Fire better; I like Is This It better, though I do think the musicianship in Room on Fire is better--- it depends on where you give your points.

And yes, NME is absolutely retarded. When people think of "best album ever" they usually don't think "Stone Roses"; but that's because the NME staff isn't human...

Re: proof that new music sucks?

badfaith — Thu, 19 Nov 2009 09:48:23 GMT

Author: badfaith

Posted: 11/19/2009 14:48

Incidentally, am I the only one who thinks that the Strokes Room on fire is a vastly superior album to Is This it?

Re: proof that new music sucks?

badfaith — Thu, 19 Nov 2009 09:24:54 GMT

Author: badfaith

Posted: 11/19/2009 14:24

Just as a point of interest, that may have relevance here, take a look at Radiohead's website... the chaps from the band often post in a similar way to threads on this site- they make a few short lists of music they're listening to right now, things that will undoubtedly be influencing their own work in the future, but I can say with confidence I've absolutely no desire whatsoever in listening to myself... Totally obscure stuff, which I defy any common or garden fan to have heard ( perhaps we are the baby birds of music, waiting for music group parents to regurgatate predigested lumps of artistry in more pallettable tuneful pieces).
But this makes a couple of points- firstly, they are in the music business, and probably spend an inordinate amount of time listening to music, being around musicians, and generally being musicated, even by the standards of the most dedicated music fans to be found on a site like this- we have other concerns in life- work, learning etc.
Also, something which could properly be refered to as the Bono affliction, or the Sting syndrome... that is, just because you entertain me, and I appreciate WHAT YOU DO, doesn't mean I give a flying fuck what you like, think, or feel on any given subject outside of that. But alas, some still do set too much store by their opinions, and in the NME's list, this is displayed perfectly, because of all most recent lists, I think this one will garner most disagreement from ordinary fans- I mean XTRMINATR... one oof the best?... REALLY?!!!- it's good, but nothing you want played on your deathbed or anything. But in truth, it's only probably because gillespe's a pal of most of those picking these albums, and is generally a very nice chap in their eyes, that this Primal Scream album makes it on the list.

Re: proof that new music sucks?

videoheadcleaner — Thu, 19 Nov 2009 06:40:47 GMT

Author: videoheadcleaner

Posted: 11/19/2009 11:40

I think my comment comes from a naivety (sic) towards music. Being 24, I thought I had a large music knowledge and within my circle of friends and family, that might be true. But some people on this site who are younger than me have an expanded sense of music compared to myself. I guess I don't get bored of some similarities within music. Film yes, but not with music.

Sometimes I want music that doesn't require me to dissect every time signature and chord progression. Recently I have been listening to The Mars Volta and to me, their music is new and innovative. However, they have inspiriations and influences. I may not know them and that helps with the appreciation of the music. But listening to Frances the Mute or Bedlam In Goliath can seem strenuous at moments.

I'm not sure of my point but I can see why I like 2000s music. Be it Radiohead continuing to try something different, or appreciating the songwriting of Sarah Blasko and Elbow, or standing in the middle of the mosh watching Muse at some nondescript venue. It's my era and my voice. The voice may sound like some others but it can still speak up when it needs to.

Re: proof that new music sucks?

brohio — Wed, 18 Nov 2009 20:33:49 GMT

Author: brohio

Posted: 11/19/2009 01:33

joannajewsom wrote:

But harkan, you surely must be aware of the concept of people being absolutely bored with ideas that they have heard before. This isn't exclusive to music. The first time I heard a "George Bush is so stupid" joke, I probably laughed. The millionth time, I didn't. The first time I ate sushi, it was the greatest thing I've ever tasted. Now I've eaten it so much, I've gotten used to it. The first time I saw a slasher movie, I was like, "oh noooo! watch out!" Now it's like, "yeah, a bunch of teens get killed...blah, blah, blah, don't get in the shower or have sex, of course you'll die." Whenever I hear that formulaic and derivative song with the same chord progressions, bland lyrics, and guitar 101 solos I've heard somewhere else, it bores me to tears.

Where the music came from pretty much makes the music what it is. I think it's fair to expect artists of all mediums to give us something new. When life is predictable it gets boring. Same with music.

For once I almost agree with you. And I'm much older and have heard the "same" thing for more years. I NEED that "twist" or odd beat or special chord progression that sets this song apart from that song. That's why writing music is as difficult as it is. Anyone can write most of the crap that gets written these days. So, JJ, your NEED for something less formulaic finds me in total agreement. What doesn't is your obsession with rap. Could we, besides polka, find anything more repetitive? Can you? Huh? Huh? Huh?

I think it's fair to expect artists of all mediums to give us something new. When life is predictable it gets boring. Same with music.[/quote]

Darn JJ, just when I thought you knew what you were talking about.

Re: proof that new music sucks?

joannajewsom — Wed, 18 Nov 2009 10:01:16 GMT

Author: joannajewsom

Posted: 11/18/2009 15:01

But harkan, you surely must be aware of the concept of people being absolutely bored with ideas that they have heard before. This isn't exclusive to music. The first time I heard a "George Bush is so stupid" joke, I probably laughed. The millionth time, I didn't. The first time I ate sushi, it was the greatest thing I've ever tasted. Now I've eaten it so much, I've gotten used to it. The first time I saw a slasher movie, I was like, "oh noooo! watch out!" Now it's like, "yeah, a bunch of teens get killed...blah, blah, blah, don't get in the shower or have sex, of course you'll die." Whenever I hear that formulaic and derivative song with the same chord progressions, bland lyrics, and guitar 101 solos I've heard somewhere else, it bores me to tears.

Where the music came from pretty much makes the music what it is. I think it's fair to expect artists of all mediums to give us something new. When life is predictable it gets boring. Same with music.

Re: proof that new music sucks?

RFNAPLES — Wed, 18 Nov 2009 09:04:13 GMT

Author: RFNAPLES

Posted: 11/18/2009 14:04

harkan wrote:

Appreciate the music for what it is and not what it came from.

Concur

Re: proof that new music sucks?

videoheadcleaner — Wed, 18 Nov 2009 06:26:39 GMT

Author: videoheadcleaner

Posted: 11/18/2009 11:26

I don't rate the Strokes album that high as the best of the decade. Good, but not great. Out of this top ten, Funeral would probably be the better number one. But as stated before, decade lists seem to become more similar as they go. The usual suspects will always crop up. And if NME's chart is user-voted, I don't think you can blame NME.

Onto "new music sucks": I personally have liked this decade but it was only within the last ten years that music has become a part of my life. Since joining this site, I have been exposed to older albums but it is the newer ones I seem to go back to. Contemporary music may not be new, but this decade will forever be known as the Remake and Rehash decade.

But why can't music be similar in style to older music? Innovation does not always lead to greatness. Are the general populus going to look back at the 2000s and see MPP as the greatest album because it is different and new or will they see the top selling albums as better? Personally, Muse's Absolution, Elbow's Asleep In The Back and Something For Kate (SFK)'s Echolalia would be in my top 10 of the decade. SFK is an Aussie band so not many overseas charts would see Echolalia in there. Absolution is a great experience for an album and yes, inspiried by Pink Floyd, Radiohead and Queen but still a great album.

If we avoid the digital music downloads of tweens which consist of generic pop, then digging deeper, we find better music and possibly music that is good. I don't care if Radiohead listened to numerous Beatles albums and got inspired and somehow sound a little similar. Appreciate the music for what it is and not what it came from.

Re: proof that new music sucks?

Charicature — Wed, 18 Nov 2009 05:54:05 GMT

Author: Charicature

Posted: 11/18/2009 10:54

1234567890 wrote:

Charicature wrote:

I'd say proof that NME sucks (it does, they've exercised their "journalistic" power to destroy bands for petty reasons before) but if it's as badfaith says, then I guess the record company execs and the smattering of bands included in the list simply don't have very good taste or perhaps a lot of exposure. Or maybe just really eclectic tastes.

I'm sorry, but what's new?

Absolutely nothing - but since no one else was stating the obvious, and instead coming up with other explanations, I figured it needed to be said.

Re: proof that new music sucks?

Elston — Wed, 18 Nov 2009 00:42:14 GMT

Author: Elston

Posted: 11/18/2009 05:42

*giggles sheepishly*

oh max...

*is smitten*

Re: proof that new music sucks?

maxperenchio — Tue, 17 Nov 2009 23:59:13 GMT

Author: maxperenchio

Posted: 11/18/2009 04:59

Certainly a questionable list- Libertines at number 2 is especially hilarious. British music critics in general usually leave me bewildered, no offense.

I never get too bent out of shape over these things, after all, what kind of sick people sit around and make numerical album lists anyways?

Re: proof that new music sucks?

40footwolf — Tue, 17 Nov 2009 16:33:53 GMT

Author: 40footwolf

Posted: 11/17/2009 21:33

All these best of the decade lists just look the Goddamn same to me after a while.

Re: proof that new music sucks?

Anonymous — Tue, 17 Nov 2009 16:18:37 GMT

Author: Anonymous

Posted: 11/17/2009 21:18

100% proof that NME sucks and always will. Instead of ranting and raving ill just list some bands which were excluded from the list, which lead to the suck found on this list:
Modest Mouse
The Microphones
Animal Collective
Wolf Parade
Trail Of Dead
Explosions In The Sky
Okkervil River
and more that really should have been on there instead of Amy Winehouse or Green Day (they were both actually on the list)

Re: proof that new music sucks?

1234567890 — Tue, 17 Nov 2009 16:15:59 GMT

Author: 1234567890

Posted: 11/17/2009 21:15

Charicature wrote:

I'm sorry, but what's new?

Re: proof that new music sucks?

Charicature — Tue, 17 Nov 2009 15:42:21 GMT

Author: Charicature

Posted: 11/17/2009 20:42

I'd say proof that NME sucks (it does, they've exercised their "journalistic" power to destroy bands for petty reasons before) but if it's as badfaith says, then I guess the record company execs and the smattering of bands included in the list simply don't have very good taste or perhaps a lot of exposure. Or maybe just really eclectic tastes.

Turn On the Bright Lights is a really good example of weakness in this list. I have it, and the songs frequently come up on my iPod. I always think two things: a) this sounds a lot like Bowie and b) this is very mediocre music. Not bad, but not very good either. Not a good pick for top 10 of the decade. NME's likely aging staff are just trying to seem like they're still hip while also tossing a bone to their personal favorites like PJ Harvey.

Re: proof that new music sucks?

Norman Bates — Tue, 17 Nov 2009 11:43:37 GMT

Author: Norman Bates

Posted: 11/17/2009 16:43

Proof that NME sucks, definitely (and tell us something new ! They actually liked Oasis !). Strokes are not bad (although nowhere near #1 to me), but Libertines at #2 is a really bad joke. The only albums I feel relevant to a 00s top 10 are In Rainbows and Original Pirate Material. They're not necessarily in mine (maybe The Streets), but I can understand. Arcade Fire sounds logical too, in a way.