1. The Antlers - Hospice
2. The Flaming Lips - Embryonic
3. Animal Collective - Merriweather Post Pavillion
4. Dirty Projectors - Bitte Orca
5. Grizzly Bear - Veckatimest
6. fun. - Aim and Ignite
7. Bibio - Ambivalence Avenue
8. Mos Def - The Ecstatic
9. Raekwon - Only Built For Cuban Linx II
10. The XX - XX [read more]
Yes, easily. It's not in the top 250 of the decade.
well either way, its not our call. i turned 10 at the beginning of the decade and you were like 6. youre delusional if you think you can make a top 250 list of albums of this decade with any accuracy. that album is incredible. i mean clearly you favor more pop music, but as far as true musicianship goes, man orc definitely has to be considered for the top spot this year.
well either way, its not our call. i turned 10 at the beginning of the decade and you were like 6. youre delusional if you think you can make a top 250 list of albums of this decade with any accuracy. that album is incredible. i mean clearly you favor more pop music, but as far as true musicianship goes, man orc definitely has to be considered for the top spot this year.
Oh, so because I was 6 at the beginning of the decade I can't have listened to a lot of albums from this decade and make a list about it? You're an ignorant asshole. Mean Everything To Nothing is hardly ground breaking or creative, it's just a good album, not album of the year material in any way shape or form. And I don't clearly favor pop music, just give up.
Oh, so because I was 6 at the beginning of the decade I can't have listened to a lot of albums from this decade and make a list about it? You're an ignorant asshole. Mean Everything To Nothing is hardly ground breaking or creative, it's just a good album, not album of the year material in any way shape or form. And I don't clearly favor pop music, just give up.
youre still only 16. you really CANT have listened to enough albums this decade to determine such a list, and if you think so, then youre the ignorant asshole. this is something that goes for everyone, regardless of how special or unique you think you might be: you gain more knowledge of, get more appreciative of, and become more aware of music as you get older. so even if you listened to every cd that came out since that day you joined the site, what were you, 13 years old?...it would take longer than three years to fully listen to, appreciate, and judge every album that came out in the seven years prior to your join date. plus, most of those albums, or at least some of them, would have been listened to in your early teens, when most if not all people are ignorant of what's truly good. even if such a young person has "good taste" in music, they probably dont really even understand it fully themselves until years later. im three years older than you and i've been really into all this type of music since i was 14 i'd say. thats when i started playing guitar, going to shows on my own, blah blah blah. but not till i was 16 or 17 did i become more aware of music and what's true talent compared to whats a facade.
so no, you cannot possibly have fully listened to an entire decade of music at this point in your life. in my own opinion, although this would be different for every individual, you'd probably have to be at least 18 or older at the beginning of a decade to fully be able to judge it. thats why im pretty stoked for the 2010's as my first full ten years in this scene. im positive that no matter where my life leads me, ill be collecting cds and playing music and always listening to whats new, even if my tastes do change.
in response to the rest of your statement, which wasnt quite as dumb as the first, if you dont think mean everything to nothing is ground breaking or creative, then i'd like to know why you put fun.'s album at number 6. nate ruess did the SAME EXACT THING, but equally as good or better, with the format on their latest release, which also came out this decade, and is absent from your list. you have pheonix's album at number 17, i believe. that pop-rock sound has been done thousands of time before. the fact that you have those albums higher on your list of AOTY candidates is hypocrital at best.
youre still only 16. you really CANT have listened to enough albums this decade to determine such a list, and if you think so, then youre the ignorant asshole. this is something that goes for everyone, regardless of how special or unique you think you might be: you gain more knowledge of, get more appreciative of, and become more aware of music as you get older. so even if you listened to every cd that came out since that day you joined the site, what were you, 13 years old?...it would take longer than three years to fully listen to, appreciate, and judge every album that came out in the seven years prior to your join date. plus, most of those albums, or at least some of them, would have been listened to in your early teens, when most if not all people are ignorant of what's truly good. even if such a young person has "good taste" in music, they probably dont really even understand it fully themselves until years later. im three years older than you and i've been really into all this type of music since i was 14 i'd say. thats when i started playing guitar, going to shows on my own, blah blah blah. but not till i was 16 or 17 did i become more aware of music and what's true talent compared to whats a facade.
so no, you cannot possibly have fully listened to an entire decade of music at this point in your life. in my own opinion, although this would be different for every individual, you'd probably have to be at least 18 or older at the beginning of a decade to fully be able to judge it. thats why im pretty stoked for the 2010's as my first full ten years in this scene. im positive that no matter where my life leads me, ill be collecting cds and playing music and always listening to whats new, even if my tastes do change.
in response to the rest of your statement, which wasnt quite as dumb as the first, if you dont think mean everything to nothing is ground breaking or creative, then i'd like to know why you put fun.'s album at number 6. nate ruess did the SAME EXACT THING, but equally as good or better, with the format on their latest release, which also came out this decade, and is absent from your list. you have pheonix's album at number 17, i believe. that pop-rock sound has been done thousands of time before. the fact that you have those albums higher on your list of AOTY candidates is hypocrital at best.
I'm going to completely ignore the first part were you are blabbing on like you're king of the world or something and it's too ridiculous to warrant a response.
fun. are not the same bad as The Format, he did not do the same thing that he did in The Format, and that album is simply more enjoyable. As for Phoenix, they don't sound like an average pop-rock band. But if you remove those two albums, Mean Everything To Nothing is still 21st, and there are still 20 albums that are better than it. I didn't say the albums ahead of it were creative or groundbreaking, so don't put words in my mouth. However, you were hailing Mean Every To Nothing like the second coming of Jesus, saying that it deserved to be ahead because of "true musicianship". Please top commenting on this, your asinine arguments are becoming annoying.
I'm going to completely ignore the first part were you are blabbing on like you're king of the world or something and it's too ridiculous to warrant a response.
fun. are not the same bad as The Format, he did not do the same thing that he did in The Format, and that album is simply more enjoyable. As for Phoenix, they don't sound like an average pop-rock band. But if you remove those two albums, Mean Everything To Nothing is still 21st, and there are still 20 albums that are better than it. I didn't say the albums ahead of it were creative or groundbreaking, so don't put words in my mouth. However, you were hailing Mean Every To Nothing like the second coming of Jesus, saying that it deserved to be ahead because of "true musicianship". Please top commenting on this, your asinine arguments are becoming annoying.
wow, youre a typical AP.net user. someone says something you dont agree with? first respond with fun and light-hearted quote.
"No, I'm not.
Play again though, you'll probably get one right."
good job executing that one.
after evil other user makes a point or states an opinion, respond with 1) crybaby whining sentence and 2) insult to user because you now think you know so much about him.
"Oh, so because I was 6 at the beginning of the decade I can't have listened to a lot of albums from this decade and make a list about it? You're an ignorant asshole."
its like you read a book on how to be a moron.
after a long-winded explanation of what the user meant following your insult, you decide to palay the high-horse/pretentious/king of the world card, since absolutely no one knows better or even as much as you do, and if they try to explain themselves, they are being ridiculously prententious while your explanation,
"fun. are not the same bad as The Format, he did not do the same thing that he did in The Format, and that album is simply more enjoyable. As for Phoenix, they don't sound like an average pop-rock band. But if you remove those two albums, Mean Everything To Nothing is still 21st, and there are still 20 albums that are better than it. I didn't say the albums ahead of it were creative or groundbreaking, so don't put words in my mouth. However, you were hailing Mean Every To Nothing like the second coming of Jesus, saying that it deserved to be ahead because of "true musicianship". Please top commenting on this, your asinine arguments are becoming annoying."
all i did was explain myself and claim to know what I meant,
"but not till i was 16 or 17 did i become more aware of music and what's true talent compared to whats a facade. ".........
not that i even knew more than you,
"you'd probably have to be at least 18 or older at the beginning of a decade to fully be able to judge it. thats why im pretty stoked for the 2010's"
or that i was "king of the world".
You didn't just "explain yourself and claim to know what you meant" you told me that I couldn't have an opinion on music becaue I wasn't old enough. Just because you couldn't appreciate music until you were 16 or 17 doesn't mean that I have the same problem, and I don't think you have to be 18 years old at the beginning of a decade to be able to fully judge it. That would mean that almost any current music writer wouldn't be able to have a valid opinion on the 60's. Think about it for a second.
Browse Blogs
Start a Blog
The Charts
Adv. Search
Share This Blog
Blog Tags
RSS Feed
wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong. wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong. youre wrong. youre wrong. youre wrong.
wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong. wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong. youre wrong. youre wrong. youre wrong.
Play again though, you'll probably get one right.
as for placements, as far as who's on the list:
grizzly bear, dirty projectors and manchester lower.
pos and dan deacon higher.
Play again though, you'll probably get one right.
so no, you cannot possibly have fully listened to an entire decade of music at this point in your life. in my own opinion, although this would be different for every individual, you'd probably have to be at least 18 or older at the beginning of a decade to fully be able to judge it. thats why im pretty stoked for the 2010's as my first full ten years in this scene. im positive that no matter where my life leads me, ill be collecting cds and playing music and always listening to whats new, even if my tastes do change.
in response to the rest of your statement, which wasnt quite as dumb as the first, if you dont think mean everything to nothing is ground breaking or creative, then i'd like to know why you put fun.'s album at number 6. nate ruess did the SAME EXACT THING, but equally as good or better, with the format on their latest release, which also came out this decade, and is absent from your list. you have pheonix's album at number 17, i believe. that pop-rock sound has been done thousands of time before. the fact that you have those albums higher on your list of AOTY candidates is hypocrital at best.
so no, you cannot possibly have fully listened to an entire decade of music at this point in your life. in my own opinion, although this would be different for every individual, you'd probably have to be at least 18 or older at the beginning of a decade to fully be able to judge it. thats why im pretty stoked for the 2010's as my first full ten years in this scene. im positive that no matter where my life leads me, ill be collecting cds and playing music and always listening to whats new, even if my tastes do change.
in response to the rest of your statement, which wasnt quite as dumb as the first, if you dont think mean everything to nothing is ground breaking or creative, then i'd like to know why you put fun.'s album at number 6. nate ruess did the SAME EXACT THING, but equally as good or better, with the format on their latest release, which also came out this decade, and is absent from your list. you have pheonix's album at number 17, i believe. that pop-rock sound has been done thousands of time before. the fact that you have those albums higher on your list of AOTY candidates is hypocrital at best.
fun. are not the same bad as The Format, he did not do the same thing that he did in The Format, and that album is simply more enjoyable. As for Phoenix, they don't sound like an average pop-rock band. But if you remove those two albums, Mean Everything To Nothing is still 21st, and there are still 20 albums that are better than it. I didn't say the albums ahead of it were creative or groundbreaking, so don't put words in my mouth. However, you were hailing Mean Every To Nothing like the second coming of Jesus, saying that it deserved to be ahead because of "true musicianship". Please top commenting on this, your asinine arguments are becoming annoying.
fun. are not the same bad as The Format, he did not do the same thing that he did in The Format, and that album is simply more enjoyable. As for Phoenix, they don't sound like an average pop-rock band. But if you remove those two albums, Mean Everything To Nothing is still 21st, and there are still 20 albums that are better than it. I didn't say the albums ahead of it were creative or groundbreaking, so don't put words in my mouth. However, you were hailing Mean Every To Nothing like the second coming of Jesus, saying that it deserved to be ahead because of "true musicianship". Please top commenting on this, your asinine arguments are becoming annoying.
"No, I'm not.
Play again though, you'll probably get one right."
good job executing that one.
after evil other user makes a point or states an opinion, respond with 1) crybaby whining sentence and 2) insult to user because you now think you know so much about him.
"Oh, so because I was 6 at the beginning of the decade I can't have listened to a lot of albums from this decade and make a list about it? You're an ignorant asshole."
its like you read a book on how to be a moron.
after a long-winded explanation of what the user meant following your insult, you decide to palay the high-horse/pretentious/king of the world card, since absolutely no one knows better or even as much as you do, and if they try to explain themselves, they are being ridiculously prententious while your explanation,
"fun. are not the same bad as The Format, he did not do the same thing that he did in The Format, and that album is simply more enjoyable. As for Phoenix, they don't sound like an average pop-rock band. But if you remove those two albums, Mean Everything To Nothing is still 21st, and there are still 20 albums that are better than it. I didn't say the albums ahead of it were creative or groundbreaking, so don't put words in my mouth. However, you were hailing Mean Every To Nothing like the second coming of Jesus, saying that it deserved to be ahead because of "true musicianship". Please top commenting on this, your asinine arguments are becoming annoying."
is accurate and trendy.
"but not till i was 16 or 17 did i become more aware of music and what's true talent compared to whats a facade. ".........
not that i even knew more than you,
"you'd probably have to be at least 18 or older at the beginning of a decade to fully be able to judge it. thats why im pretty stoked for the 2010's"
or that i was "king of the world".
"but not till i was 16 or 17 did i become more aware of music and what's true talent compared to whats a facade. ".........
not that i even knew more than you,
"you'd probably have to be at least 18 or older at the beginning of a decade to fully be able to judge it. thats why im pretty stoked for the 2010's"
or that i was "king of the world".