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

Justice - †

actual lols - A+ whoever

ahahhaha

As far as metal-influenced radio rock goes, Toxicity remains fantastic. It's a shame SOAD still seem to get tossed in the same "let's do our best to forget about them" bin as nu-metal garbage on the basis of blind association. Getting radioplay alongside the likes Trapt and Crazy Town will do that to you, I guess.

I'd say OK Computer.

Who said the album of the 00s actually had to be from the 00s?

Is this a sad state of affairs? Yeah, kinda.

THe funny thing is that "Origin of Symmetry" is better than most of the things mentioned in this thread. FACT.

Seriously, now, and this will be a rare instance of seriousness from me on this thread, I actually agree with edwardo

The Darkness: Permission To Land
or whatever it was called

Permission to suck?

Duh.

http://www.soundstagedirect.com/media/beatles_love.jpg

QOTSA - Songs for the Deaf

Return to Cookie Mountain?
Yankee Hotel Foxtrot?

Oh wait.. to "rock fans.."

In that case, no.. with extra "no" emphasis on the 2nd half of the decade.

Return to Sucky Mountain?

Yankee Hotel Sucktrot?

my top 6 of the 00s, so far (rock & unrock):

1) MF Doom & Madlib - Madvillainy
2) Erykah Badu - NuAmerykah Part 1: 4th World War
3) The Fall - The Real New Fall LP
4) High on Fire - Blessed Black Wings
5) Radiohead - Kid A
6) Peaches - The Teaches of Peaches

you don't know the name of the group that made your favorite album of the decade?

it's called madvillain...but I just hate typing out "Madvillain - Madvillainy"...just seems redundant to me...

Love and Theft gets my vote.

I also dig:

The White Stripes - White Blood Cells (way better than Elephant)
The Wrens - Meadowlands
Drive-By Truckers - Decoration Day

The most interesting band/artist to emerge in the decade is MIA. That kind of thing is not my usual cup of musical tea, but she is the real deal. Whatever "it" is, she's got it.

Is this it - the strokes. Definitely, though the canonical band would be the white stripes instead of The Strokes.

Whatever "it" is, she's got it.

Herpes, presumably.

Franz Ferdinand's debut, maybe?

Or, OK, maybe The Strokes too, but Franz Ferdinand is like The Strokes with tunes, and somewhat having escape from the tin box, The Strokes recorded that album inside.

slightly off topic,

would i be correct in saying the first yearly poll for ILM was 2002

The ILX Readers Poll 2002 - RECORDS OF THE YEAR

and there were no organized ilm polls for 2000 and 2001 or indeed 2003?

before a decade poll early next year, these need organizing first

If we're talking "everyone can agree" on, can I just express formal dissent over The Strokes? I'm not going to get into detailing why I dislike them so wholeheartedly, it's just that I'm damn sure I'm not the only one to be utterly underwhelmed by 'em. White Stripes, i could be talked into.

The Hives also made a great record.

that's true, except they didn't, and nobody likes them, and they suck

Blood Visions, of course!

"What is 2000s rock?"
"The Strokes?"
"Yeah, the Strokes"
"The Strokes!"
"Fuck the Strokes!"
"Yeah, Fuck the Strokes!!"
"But c'mon, The Strokes..."
"Seriously dudes, he's got a point about the Strokes."
"Whatever dude, I hate the Strokes!"
"Me too. Strokes are douchy."
"Fuck them Strokes!"
"I would like the Strokes, but they're not as good as some other eh band."
+
"I kinda liked the Strokes then."
"Not me. The Strokes are lame."
-----------------------------------
Duh, The Strokes

who are "rock fans"? metalheads? classic rock people who don't move much outside canonical 60s/70s stuff? indie kids who don't like the electro stuff? punx? emoez? generalists who just happen to prefer guitar-based music (like uh, U2, REM, coldplay, dave matthews)?

i mean, what one sound could possibly appeal to all those people? radiohead might be the best bet, cuz not only are they popular, they seem to appeal to all kinds of otherwise primarily niche-dwelling music fans.

strokes would be the answer if the OP wondered what rock record = album of the decade to all kindsa people, and not just "rock fans".

F--k the Strokes.

(xp)

Succinct and to the point.

I saw the Strokes twice and the Hives once, and the Hives kicked the Strokes collective ass so far out of sight the Hubble Telescope couldn't have registered their cute 80's digital watches. I haven't seen anything good said about the Strokes that wouldn't count a hundred times for the Dandy Warhols, who wrote better songs and had more hits,

was hoping you wouldn't pick up on this. i thot you meant the vines :(

i like the hives better than the strokes, but i dont' see how my tastes enter into it

OK, Strokes represent Rock to people who don't like Rock = win? WTF?

gotta be something by qotsa, system, or the white stripes, surely?

quotsa or stripes maybe, system no way - alienates too many subtribes

metal dudes can mostly get behind QOTSA, and so can indie dudes. Whereas lots of indie dudes wouldn't ride for System, and a lot of metal dudes wouldn't ride for White Stripes.

i think some of that foo fighters nonsense might actually be the answer here.

m@tth OTM

FF have some of the same problems as stripes & system, but then again, have lots of appeal outside metal & indie peeplz: the silent majority guitar-based radio pop crowd. think they work better as competition for the strokes in "decade-defining rock bands for not-just-rock fans"

Guys, I already said Kid A like three days ago, we can stop arguing.

unless you guys want to debate the concept of "everyone"

except what if it's OK conputer, or that free rainbows one?

Why do we even need an album of the fucking decade?

many x-posts.

Please. If you're talking about bands liked by not-just-rock fans there isn't a universe in which The Strokes are even 20% as popular as Foo Fighters (the fact that the latter have been shit for the entirety of this decade notwithstanding).

Alfred OTM but the question is about what it is not whether one is needed. (What's not needed is me baiting Radiohead fanboys so I'll shut up now).

xxpost

One came out in 1997 and the other stfu

Shit, I don't even like Radiohead, I'm just saying that the writing's been on the wall for six years that every magazine read by rockist people is gonna have Kid A at the top

Says more about the hyper-involvement of Radiohead fans amongst the readership than consensus mind. I can't see Foo Fighters fans being as slavishly devoted, somehow.

my album of the decade is Ulver - Blood Inside fwiw, but nobody except like me and Scott Seward and maybe John Justen will vote for it, and Scott doesn't vote in polls

If you're talking about bands liked by not-just-rock fans there isn't a universe in which The Strokes are even 20% as popular as Foo Fighters

yeah, but being popular does not necessarily = becoming a (or thee) decade defining. a disproportionate number of supposedly "decade defining" records & bands underperformed, sales-wise. plus i don't really know anyone who holds the foos in especially high regard, so it's hard to properly account for them

i went through a few weeks of loving the blood inside, but then it went away

Besides which most people who like rock music don't read rock magazines (or post on websites for that matter). Kid A can eat a dick (and does) amongst most _rock_ fans, who probably haven't listened to it in eight years.

x-post I didn't say Foo Fighters defined the decade canonically (obviously they don't), I was responding to the post above where it said that if THAT was the criterion, FF would "rival" The Strokes, which is nonsense, as on that score the FFs would probably be the runaway winner, maybe QOTSA in second (and QOTSA are a substantially better band than 00s FF).

;_;

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.