I didn't have the Interpol albums on my Ipod for some reason and confused that album with Antics. That's the one I meant to list. I always adore it when I listen to it but forget about it immediately after. Deserving of listage in everyone's Top 100 of the decade at least. Not really sure what a U2 fan would find to object to with it.
And for crying out loud, I was not implying that taste isn't subjective. I was implying that some people here have pretty uninformed ears and haven't listened to a lot of modern music. Any list without anything indie isn't a coincidence and the user didn't like any of it. They obviously haven't listened to it.
Also, there is the factor of broadening your horizons. Practically everyone starts out really liking a sort of meat-and-potatoes rock band and expands from there. The more acts you listen to, the more you'll like and the more flavors you'll grow to like. Hell, Interpol (coming back to them) is one of about a half dozen artists I heard and went "hmph"....hundreds of other albums later, they make me wet.
I dunno. I just find it incredibly insulting that people would list a hardly innovative Springsteen record like The Rising as one of the decade's best. That's like saying the current crop is so watered down and icky that someone in their decline phase is better than most of it.
What did you think I was responding to? I gave you my reason why I lashed out like I did and received a comment on my personality. It had to be done. It's the same shit film critics get, being called "an elitist douchebag" by many...that's complete bollocks to say the least. Film critics have seen thousands of movie and your average filmgoer sees a half-dozen in theatres per year, most of them action fueled blockbusters. And then the masses complain when one of the one movies they saw had mediocre reviews or when the Oscars nominate "movies I've never heard of"...when it comes to music, it's the same thing. I get called an elitist for having liked, say, The Stars. But the truth is, I am more knowledgeable than most of you because I have heard way more. Two reasons, one - those that hear more have a wider pool to sift from rather than some of the lists of users here who I doubt have heard anywhere close to even a hundred albums this decade. Secondly, hearing more means you know more about quality and have higher standards. If you listen to six albums a year, you'll hold the ones you liked in pretty high contention similar to a six year old liking every movie they see. In all honesty, the thread title alone steered most of the Interference users away from it as I can attest from other posts that 90% of the people here really don't know anything about modern music aside from whatever's on the radio, has a U2 connection (see Arcade Fire) or is connected to another mainstream act with critical credibility (i.e. Radiohead fans hearing Yorke rave about Sigur Ros).
Anyway, quit saying I'm trying to be a taste maker or judging the opinions of others. I'm not. I'm just arguing that a lot of people making lists hardly have the same background as some of the others here. This in turn personally irks me when the music of people my age is continually trashed because the posters here equate the rock of the 00's with Linkin Park, Maroon 5, Nickelback or Daughtry.
I agree with this sentiment but it wasn't exactly a roll down the mountain () was another fantastic album, a classic of lesser scale. Takk was a pretty good album and so is the new one.