Ken's cool "Best albums of the year" thread

[RocDoc]

Yeah!
Any idea what happened to him?

Or wait! Has he been exclusively with you guys on that Sedaka board?

[rockysigman]

He's never been on Sedaka to my knowledge. I guess this place just bored him so he left.

[Ryosuke]

Compare and contrast with Rolling Stone's albums of the year list, which has Bob Dylan at one and Red Hot Chili Peppers' indigestible double album Stadium Arcadium at two, and I know which side of the Atlantic I'd rather be.

Am I the only one who was a little annoyed by this? Seriously, if the Arctic Monkeys are the pinnacle of modern British rock (as the guy seems to believe), I know which country I don't want to be in...

[rockysigman]

Aside from the fact that just choosing one magazine's list is a pretty lame way of judging an entire country's music.

[Ryosuke]

The guy probably has some superiority/inferiority issues with the mighty US of A. You Americans ought to be proud of inspiring such feelings from people like him.

[kool]

ryosuke said:

Compare and contrast with Rolling Stone's albums of the year list, which has Bob Dylan at one and Red Hot Chili Peppers' indigestible double album Stadium Arcadium at two, and I know which side of the Atlantic I'd rather be.

Am I the only one who was a little annoyed by this? Seriously, if the Arctic Monkeys are the pinnacle of modern British rock (as the guy seems to believe), I know which country I don't want to be in...

I feel ya. Arctic Monkeys do absolutely nothing for me. Although, I'll admit to only having heard a couple of their singles, not the entire album. It just sounds like guitar distortion wankery to me.

[skvorisdeadsorta]

I will say that while I don't think the Arctic Monkeys are in the same canon as the Rolling Stones, I have to say that when I saw them play (friend at my work gave me free tickets, so I figured why not) they put on one hell of a show and those guys are definitely into what they do. They don't set the world on fire to me, but I don't think they're all that terrible either. I think their next record will probably be pretty good, too. I see a fire in those guys and they are pretty young, so you never know.........

Or they could totally just suck on the next one too and thus proving me wrong like so many young bands have before.

[RocDoc]

I just listened to the Arctic Monkey's disc yesterday and I like 'em...especialy because they wear their influences so well.

And they're pretty much ALL influences that I like....Stones, Yardbirds....

[luke]

kmc said:

That Danielson album didn't belong anywhere on the top 50, though. What shit.

I'm pretty sure Coke Machine Glow will have it listed as #1. Complete bullshit.

[kmc]

When I think of the two most hyped new bands of the last 6 years, the Strokes and the Arctic Monkeys come to mind. Amazing, though, that while every Strokes discussion has to hinge around the fact that they weren't deserving of the hype, no one bothers to say that shit about the Arctics. Face it, though. "Whatever You SaY I Am..." is not as good as either of the first two Strokes albums, and none of them are deserving of the "saviors of rock music" moniker that the music press is willing to throw around.

Neither of those bands are top 5 best new bands of the new millenium. There, I said it.

[kmc]

I mean, "A Rush Of Blood To The Head" is better than "Whatever You Say I Am...". Come on.

[rockysigman]

kmc said:

When I think of the two most hyped new bands of the last 6 years, the Strokes and the Arctic Monkeys come to mind. Amazing, though, that while every Strokes discussion has to hinge around the fact that they weren't deserving of the hype, no one bothers to say that shit about the Arctics. Face it, though. "Whatever You SaY I Am..." is not as good as either of the first two Strokes albums, and none of them are deserving of the "saviors of rock music" moniker that the music press is willing to throw around.

Neither of those bands are top 5 best new bands of the new millenium. There, I said it.

I agree with this. I haven't said much against the Arctic Monkeys because I don't find them to be offensively bad or anything, so I didn't feel like poo pooing on what everyone else is digging. But I really don't see much to separate the Arctic Monkeys from any of the other back-to-basics rock acts that have scored a hit in the last couple of years. Of course I think most of the people here have had a pretty good perspective on them. NME may be proclaiming them to be saviors of music, but I think most of the people praising the album here have just said it's a fun little rock record.

[Kensterberg]

kmc said:

I mean, "A Rush Of Blood To The Head" is better than "Whatever You Say I Am...". Come on.

No it isn't. I can listen to Whatever You Say ... without getting sleepy. I can't listen to A Rush of Blood ... w/o having to lay down and snooze for a while. It's not a bad record, but it does get dull (but "Clocks" is absolutely superb -- if they'd channel that expansive sound more often, I'd be a big Coldplay fan).

I like Arctic Monkeys, but I've said from day one that it's a fun little rock record. It's ridiculous to argue that (for example) it's a better -- or more significant -- recording than The Clash was. It isn't. It does say something about how pathetic the mass rock scene has been for the last few years when a band like Arctic Monkeys can even recieve attention as "saviours of rock." In 1980, they would've been just another band who sounded like the Buzzcocks.

Of course, I also think it's ridiculous to try to argue that the Strokes are anywhere near as good or as significant as the VU. Or R.E.M. But they're a fun little rock band who've made some fun records. Just like the Arctic Monkeys.

[phil]

What so terrible happened to Rock music
that it needed to be "saved" ...

And when this happened ??

[Galactus]

I'd say Arctic Monkeys are about even with the Strokes, neither are just great but both are enjoyable. I'd also say Whatever People Say... is better then the first two Strokes albums but not the third.