0028: The "Classic" Albums of the 00's
Submitted by AAA on Mon, 10/11/2004 - 12:43
Tags:
- Definitely
- Dizzee Rascal - Boy in da Corner
- Eminem - The Marshal Mathers LP
- Interpol - Turn on the Bright Lights
- Jay-Z - The Blueprint
- Outkast - Stankonia
- Radiohead - Kid A
- The Streets - Original Pirate Material
- The Strokes - Is This It?
- The White Stripes - Elephant
- The White Stripes - White Blood Cells
- Wilco - Yankee Hotel Foxtrot
- Probably
- The Arcade Fire - Funeral
- Bjork - Vespertine
- The Flaming Lips - Yoshimi Battles the Pink Robots
- Franz Ferdinand - Franz Ferdinand
- Loretta Lynn - Van Lear Rose
- Modest Mouse - The Moon and Antarctica
- Outkast - Speakerboxxx / The Love Below
- The Postal Service - Give Up
- The Shins - Chutes Too Narrow
- Sigur Ros - Agaetis Byrjun
- The Streets - A Grand Don't Come for Free
- Brian Wilson - SMiLE
- Perhaps...
- Beck - Sea Change
- Coldplay - A Rush of Blood to the Head
- Bob Dylan - "Love and Theft"
- The Fiery Furnaces - Blueberry Boat
- Modest Mouse - The Moon and Antarctica
- Bruce Springsteen - The Rising
- Yo La Tengo - And Then Nothing Turned Itself Inside-Out
Author Comments:
This is not my personal view on any of these albums. This is what I believe will be percieved as the high-water marks for music of this decade.
Alright based on these criteria:
1. Overall critical reception and immediate "classic" status
2. Cultural impact
3. Influence
I still say SMiLE isn't that great and should probably be considered a 60s album, anyway. I also don't know that Kid A has widely been considered the best Radiohead album of the 00s.
Otherwise, looks good to me.
I think that the importance of "SMiLE" and its warm critical reception will probably insure it a healthy place on lists at the end of the decade. Personally, I think that it is a very good, but not great album.
As for Kid A, just think about how weird this album was at the time, and how Radiohead has been basically declared the savior of popular music.
Also, Radiohead has a gigantic young critical fanbase, which will insure its lasting power.
I dunno...I think Kid A has been generally regarded as their best of this decade. I think that among some fans, it hasn't been, but the overall critical view of it (and critics do influence a lot of the whole "classic" status) is that it was groundbreaking, and that everything afterwards hasn't lived up to the mark.
Okay. That surprises me, but you know more about it than I do.
Well...I'm not sure what other album could be in contention. Hail to the Thief has sorta unanimously declared "very good, but not their best" and Amnesiac ws actually a collection of songs that weren't used in Kid A.
Of course, I'm just speaking about what I've read and heard, and I was just unaware of any sort of contradiction of this view among critics. If there is, I'd love to read it and I would definitely consider revising my stance.
Nice list. I find your reluctant inclusion of Moon and Antarctica and the absence of GNFPWLBN interesting. Honestly, though I know you like Moon better (and I'm tempted to agree with you), I think News will be more likely to be seen as Modest Mouse's classic album, even if it's largely a cult classic. Actually, I think you should preemptively add "Modest Mouse's next album" to the list - right after their breakthrough album, they'll start off in the critical limelight this time, and if the songs on their next album are as good as Modest Mouse has always been, the album will be heaped with praise instantly.
I'm also not so sure that Love and Theft and The Rising will be seen as classics in the years to come. Both are very good albums by legendary musicians, but that's also what hurts them - they'll just be seen as lesser efforts by these greats, solid albums that nonetheless pale in comparison to their earlier works. If you looked at people's lists of favorite Dylan or Springsteen albums, these two are often overlooked, and I don't think that's going to change. This might apply to SMiLE as well, but I'm not really sure because I haven't heard that album and don't know much about it.
I'm surprised you didn't include any Streets here. I think they've garnered some significant critical acclaim.
But again, good list. I think most of your choices seem pretty accurate.
SMiLE will be included simply because of importance. It was a legend before it was even released.
I don't think Good News will end up being classic, simply because Modest Mouse fans as a whole don't really love it. The reason I include M&A is that ever since it was released, it's been steadily gaining a passionate fanbase. If that continues, I think we have a "classic" album on our hands. But, I do agree with you, for the most part, and that is why it is in the "maybe".
I think "Love and Theft" will fair better than The Rising, seeing as Bob Dylan will ALWAYS be loved.
I wasn't aware that big Modest Mouse fans don't really love Good News, but I think that might just be a case of diehard fans disliking the album that led their favorite band into the critical and popular mainstream. The fact is that Good News has garnered a ton of critical acclaim and popularity from normal listeners, and though this has also generated some retroactive acclaim for Modest Mouse's earlier discs (including M&A), I think it will be Good News that will be seen as the classic.
My best attempt at an analogy is the Coen brothers. They were making great movies for a while, but never had a smash hit until Fargo, which caused critics to go back and rediscover films like Miller's Crossing. And Fargo is often considered the Coen brothers' classic movie, even if it is not their best (not IMHO, at least).
I'm not sure what your point is on Love and Theft. Springsteen is already a rock legend on a similar level as Dylan, isn't he? Do you think people will begin to love Springsteen less in coming years?
"Love and Theft" vs. The Rising
Dylan's album has not lost any of its initial praise, while The Rising has severely faded in its critical stance. Of course, I could just be way off. The more I think about it, the more I agree with you, but it was Dylan's big comeback (I know, I know, not really, but that's how it was painted) and usually his "return to form" albums do very well in the long run. Springsteen is...well...the album was a distinct voice in a certain moment, and it will not age well.
Re: Modest Mouse
The argument you're making absolutely makes sense. In fact, when I was initially considering this list, I had this exact argument in my head. BUT, there's one thing...the people who have been discovering M&A were doing so before "Float On" and Good News. My general point was that I think it will be an album that is eventually brought up as a "lost treasure". Good News could go down as classic (you're 100% right about its critical acclaim) but I'm not convinced that it is actually appealing to most of the people who have heard it.
Well, I do agree with you that Love and Theft will be more likely to be seen as classic than The Rising, but I would personally not bet on either one. Love and Theft isn't like Van Lear Rose, the unquestioned best album of a totally reinvented artist (or so I've heard, at least); it's a very strong album that is nonetheless pretty much more of the same from an artist who has better albums out there. That's just how I feel about it. Dylan's big comeback just hasn't gotten enough attention to make it classic. Does it deserve more? Probably, but that's not really the issue.
Are you sure about the people discovering M&A not being influenced by the 2004 work? I guess I came into the game kinda late. I had seen this sudden new acclaim and popularity of Modest Mouse in mid-2004, seen that they had a new album out with a smash hit single in mid-2004, and put 2 and 2 together. But you're saying that one had nothing to do with the other? That's odd, especially because before Good News, they hadn't put out a new album since 2001. What do you think caused this sudden discovery of Modest Mouse, shortly before their huge success with "Float On"?
Anyway, I hope you're right about M&A, because I do think it is better than Good News. But again, I really think Modest Mouse's classic albums haven't been released yet. Maybe Fargo wouldn't be considered the Coens' classic if the movies they made after Fargo were any better.
P.S. I'm surprised you don't have any Streets on here. They've gotten quite a bit of acclaim, and I'd think you would want to root for them too.
I'm gonna add The Streets. It was stupid of me to leave 'em off.
Maybe you're right about "Love and Theft". I will consider it.
Well, Modest Mouse's huge popularity among kids around me hit about a year before Good News. I also noticed a sudden influx of articles about them, and this was long before Good News.
Modest Mouse's New's will be the classic if they even have an album that could be considered classic. "float on" pawns.
First off, I would agree that M&A will be more acclaimed at the end of the '00's. I don't care for this year's release, but, it did put Modest Mouse on the map which counts for something.
Also, I wouldn't be surprised to see 'Van Lear Rose' at the top of lots-o-lists in 2009.
I actually thought about this and forgot to include it. I will amend this.
I would say that Sea Change should be a definite classic, simply because all of Beck's albums previously have achieved "classic" status... and I would say that Coldplay's album is also a definite classic, because it was so ridiculously overplayed in movie trailers, commercials, tv shows, etc., to the point where everybody and their brother had heard it. Also, did you consider Wilco's Yankee Hotel Foxtrot for this list... due to the incredible critical praise, and the story behind the album's release, I could completely see it being considered a classic by the end of the decade.
Wilco is already in the "definite" category, and I actually am probably going to move Beck's up the list. I barely left it off...but it should definitely be in one of the other tiers.
Coldplay's will probably move up, depending on how they are regarded later.
If Chutes Too Narrow isn't considered a classic by the end of the 00s, then it will only be because the Shins made something better later on. And the idea of them recording something better gives me goose bumps.
I think you're absolutely right, but I just hope that they get the credit they deserve.
Elephant? Nah...
The Moon and Antarctica? Probably.
Agaetis Byrjun? Definitely.
Naw, Elephant has enough credit to get it onto mainstream "best-of" lists come the end of the decade.
The other two are hopefully gonna do well. They deserve it.
Did Pitchfork even include it in the Best of 00-04 album list? I saw White Blood Cells.
No, don't think so. I don't think Elephant was on their 'top 100 of 2003', either.
Silly Pitchfork
I'm no music critic, but I agree with Pitchfork on this one.
Pitchfork's silliness has become rather apparent recently. They make a gigantic fuss over The Arcade Fire (#1 of 2004) and then only put it at #45, behind several 2004 albums.
They seem to be having creative issues among the staff.
What's funny about Pitchfork's list is how much it reflects the changes in taste that have overcome the indie community as of late. A lot more hip-hop, a lot more dance, and a serious revisionist look at the first couple of years in music.
On the other hand, I think Elephant should have safely made their Top 100...evidently the only great albums that anyone has made this decade were break-through albums. Any follow-ups or sophomore efforts seem to have fallen by the wayside.
Yeah, like () got a 7.4 if I recall. Grrr....
Pitchfork just seems to hate following through on their hype for a band. They LOVE this band, and they hype the holy hell out of them all year, and then, two years later, when their follow-up is released, Pitchfork is busy with the next new thing, and the old buzz band is forgotten.
The only artists that seem to be assured a cushy spot on any list of Pitchfork's are Radiohead, Sonic Youth, and Jay-Z.
Yes, good call with the 'big 3'. I'd love to see their 'top 100 albums of the 60s' with 5 of the top 10 being Beatles albums, though :-)
I'm not sure I can fault them for 'not following through on their hype'. I often experience the same feeling; I hear an album and it's fantastic. I listen to it for two weeks, and it's still totally awesome. Then, a few months down the road, I realize that it's still great but not quite as stunning as I first thought. That even happened for me with Funeral, though it's still my favorite album of 2004 (a weak year, imo, especially following the awesomeness of 2002 and 2003).
I completely agree about hype wearing down on an artist, but it seems that Pitchfork is very willing to use hyperbole to hype the next big thing, and once they do it a few times a year, I begin to grow weary.
None of these Albums are Classics. They are all commercial forms of nonsense that somehow somepeople somewhere worship. Why? Who Knows. Rock and Roll died at odeon with Springsteen and Rap has sucked since Kool Kieth came out with dr. octogon. Techno/House/Electronic is the only form of music that can honestly be considered art!
Wasn't most rock always commercial to some extent? Companies didn't spit those platters onto the public out of charity.
When I start hearing people bemoan that rock and rap are dead, I start checking expiry dates...
Then again, given my age, I should probably be checking my own! :)
Shalom, y'all!
L. Bangs