To "rock fans", what is meant to be the canonical, everyone can agree on, album of the decade?

has to be 'is this it' then

or something by white stripes

http://image.allmusic.com/00/amg/cov200/drf400/f444/f44455lkaoe.jpg

something by Voxtrot

We're talking about proper rock with noisy guitars and riffs

You mean, industrial and metal? Genres that didn't even exist at the time the rock genre was established?

if the jr cult continues to grow i wouldn't bet against blood visions giving some of the competition a run for rock canon dominance, but that's kind of a personal pipe dream. maybe it already is canonical everyone can agree on punk album though

Big & Rich: Album of the Decade?

question answered, lock thread

yeah i was just talking about albums that are hailed as modern classics up there, i'm thinking of stuff like 'is this it?' and 'kid a' and 'elephant' and whatever, there's tons of rock albums from the decade that i love but none of them were major events critically

never trust a critic?

We're talking about proper rock with noisy guitars and riffs

You mean, industrial and metal? Genres that didn't even exist at the time the rock genre was established?

― Tied Up In Geir (Geir Hongro), Sunday, October 3, 2010 7:54 PM (1 hour ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

or more like... the numerous types of proper rock with noisy guitars and riffs that did exist at the time the rock genre was established.

Geir is way too Hong up on genre stereotypes

The Andrew WK album really is amazing, and totally underrated. I think it maybe is the album of the decade.

"I Get Wet" is my #1 for the decade for sure.

"I found something ever cooler than the ass picture."

I'm blown away by Geir, yet again. Kudos.

or something by white stripes

This seems OTM ^^

I'd venture to guess White Blood Cells or Elephant -- didn't the latter have a bigger profile? According to Wikipedia it's sold almost 2 million copies in the US alone... sounds like consensus to me!

or more like... the numerous types of proper rock with noisy guitars and riffs that did exist at the time the rock genre was established.

Well, garage rock then... But you still didn't like The White Stripes nor any other of the garage rock revival names of the early 00s?

My point being, it seems you want 00s rock to be much more extreme in terms of noise than rock was in the 70s/80s, but then it isn't rock anymore.

And what you're saying is that genres that are derivative or partially derivative of rock didn't exist before rock. I think that is a tautology, but that might just be me.

Rock is rock. Rock today is what rock was in 1968.

no

I dunno, a band called Earth are probably the most important band in rock still.

Rock is rock. Rock today is what rock was in 1968.

this is ludicrous. one might just as well say that "rock today is what rock was in 1955-57." excluding all baroque pop a la the beatles & zombies, excluding all prog and acid rock, excluding everything that doesn't sound of a part with chuck berry, bill haley, jerry lee lewis, little richard, elvis, buddy holly, etc. and that's just ridiculous. rock continued to expand and redefine itself for decades, is perhaps still doing so today.

INSTANT HONGRO CLASSIC

this is ludicrous. one might just as well say that "rock today is what rock was in 1955-57."

No. Because there was no rock in 1955-57. Just rock'n'roll. Which is another genre.

Rock is by its very definition what The Rolling Stones, Jimi Hendrix and Cream were doing around 1967-68. That was rock then, and that is the definition of rock today. So I guess the likes of Paul Weller and Lenny Kravitz probably come closer to true rock than anyone else.

Just the same way pop by its very definition was whatever The Beatles, The Beach Boys and The Byrds were doing around the same time.

Geir is funk rock (funkadelic etc) and metal not rock?

you're manipulating the terms to suit your own idea of what these genres should be, and drawing arbitrary distinctions between things that exist on a continuum. the word "rock" has existed for almost as long as "rock and roll", and originally described exactly the same thing. we can treat early "rock and roll" as the progenitor subgenre of rock (the umbrella genre), leading into things like baroque pop, acid rock, prog, folk rock, etc. - but they're all still just types of rock music, points on the curve. same goes for later permutations like heavy metal, punk, indie rock, noise rock, hardcore, etc.

likewise, the term "pop" predates the 67-68 era by at least a decade, if not more.

Geir is funk rock (funkadelic etc) and metal not rock?

Funk rock is a subgenre of funk, metal is a subgenre of rock, but not really rock.

"Pop" dates back to the 20s.

you're manipulating the terms to suit your own idea of what these genres should be, and drawing arbitrary distinctions between things that exist on a continuum. the word "rock" has existed for almost as long as "rock and roll", and originally described exactly the same thing. we can treat early "rock and roll" as the progenitor subgenre of rock (the umbrella genre), leading into things like baroque pop, acid rock, prog, folk rock, etc. - but they're all still just types of rock music, points on the curve. same goes for later permutations like heavy metal, punk, indie rock, noise rock, hardcore, etc.

likewise, the term "pop" predates the 67-68 era by at least a decade, if not more.

But nobody cared about rock history before the baby boomers. The baby boomers have defined everything once and for all. They know this, they have the key to this. We should all respect the authority of the baby boomers.

Rock history didn't exist before the baby boomers

There was no rock in pre-WWII america or anywhere else.

Please make We should all respect the authority of the baby boomers. the new board description.

And geir, of course Metal is Rock.

We should all respect the authority of the baby boomers.

even if you're not trolling, you're trolling

if I respected the musical opinions of most baby boomers I know then all rock music would sound like Loverboy

because I would be making all rock music

if I respected the musical opinions of most baby boomers I know then all rock music would sound like Loverboy

The typical AOR fan is born in the 50s or 60s, not in the late 40s.

I believe the "baby boomer" phase was up to the late fifties.

..and here to illustrate this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:U.S.BirthRate.1909.2003.png

Ach, romo.

http://img-s3-01.mytextgraphics.com/sparklee/2010/10/05/23ada9627d38870a8e6f8aac7c04b445.gif

<img style="visibility:hidden;width:0px;height:0px;" border=0 width=0 height=0 src="http://counters.gigya.com/wildfire/IMP/CXNID=2000002.0NXC/bT*xJmx*PTEyODYyODg2NTkyMzQmcHQ9MTI4NjI4ODcwMzU*NiZwPTc*MzIxJmQ9Jmc9MSZvPTdhMzUwNzMxZTkwOTQ3NGZhOGI1/ZTFiNjI2Y2JiMjhj.gif"; /><a href="http://www.sparklee.com";><img src="http://img-s3-01.mytextgraphics.com/sparklee/2010/10/05/79e2b9dba4fed5a51ad42a4d8b1e33a6.gif"; border="0" alt="Glitter Text Graphics - http://www.sparklee.com"; /></a><br /><br /><a href='http://www.docloop.com'>;doctor reviews</a>

This XML file does not appear to have any style information associated with it. The document tree is shown below.

this is ludicrous. one might just as well say that "rock today is what rock was in 1955-57." excluding all baroque pop a la the beatles & zombies, excluding all prog and acid rock, excluding everything that does n't sound of a part with chuck berry, bill haley, jerry lee lewis, little richard, elvis, buddy holly, etc. and that's just ridiculous.

I've actually read a few critics that have tried to say something similar; it was a kind of a fashionable angle to approach things for a minute...

Geir raising his game. Hats off.