Masterpieces of the 00s

[Josh]

Bloop and I started down this road in the Animal Collective thread, but I don't want to clutter that thread with off-topic stuff. (Not that that's ever stopped us before.) Anyway, what are the albums released this decade to which you would award your highest score-- five stars, an A+, a 10.0, whatever? I'll list mine by year:

2000:
Radiohead - Kid A

2001:
Bob Dylan - Love & Theft

2002:
None

2003:
Joe Henry - Tiny Voices
Over the Rhine - Ohio

2004:
Nick Cave/Bad Seeds - Abattoir Blues/The Lyre of Orpheus
Sam Phillips - A Boot and a Shoe

2005:
Andrew Bird - The Mysterious Production of Eggs

2006:
Maybe nothing, though Tom Waits' Orphans is very close, for its sheer scope.

2007:
Joe Henry's Civilians is right on the line.

2008:
Probably nothing, though time will tell.

2009:
Nothing so far, though the Andrew Bird album really could grow on me more, and there are loads of promising record on the, er, horizon.

[bloop]

I gave full marks to:

2000:
Radiohead - Kid A

2001:
Good call on Love and Theft.  I didn't go so high at the time, but it's a great record.

2002:
Wilco - Yankee Hotel Foxtrot

2003:
none

2004:
none

2005:
Sufjan Stevens - Illinois

2006:
none

2007:
none

2008:
TV on the Radio - Dear Science,

2009:
Animal Collective - Merriweather Post Pavilion (?)

There are several in each of these years (other than '09, seeing as it just started) that I could see wearing well with time and making the canon.

[Josh]

A couple of clarifications about my choices:

The reason why Civilians isn't a straight 10.0 is simply because I don't like it quite as much as Tiny Voices, and it seems odd to give a perfect score to two albums from one artist when one is your clear favorite. Then again, Tiny Voices is my favorite record ever, which makes it a special case, and, taken on its own merits, Civilians is definitely 10.0 material in my book. So it's a matter of perspective, I guess.

Also, I almost never give a 10.0 upon an album's release... it generally takes a year or so for me to be sure that it's an album built to last. That's why the TVotR album isn't a 10.0, but if I'm still listening to it at the end of '09 as much as I was at the end of '08, it's got a good shot of being upgraded.

[bloop]

I just go back and re-evaluate the 10's I've given, just to see if I still think so highly of those albums.  None of the ones I listed have slipped yet.

I do like your "wait a year and see" approach, though.

[Ian]

Ah, I was just thinking of starting a topic like this.

Never given an album a full 10, since I don't want to do that unless I consider an album truly perfect, which probably won't ever happen, but I guess it's possible.  There are a few that I would consider to be landmark albums of the decade though (at least for me), so I'll list those.  When I inevitably make a top 25 of the decade list next year, these will all probably be on it.

2000:
Radiohead - Kid A

2001:
Bjork - Vespertine

2002:
Broken Social Scene - You Forgot it in People  Just full of amazing pop, and maintains a sublime atmosphere throughout.  A lot of albums get praise because they have a few good songs, and the rest simply manages to carry the same atmosphere, but on this album every song ranges from good to great.

2003:
Nothing

2004:
Death Cab for Cutie - Transatlanticism  Like BSS, there is just so much terrific pop on here.  It has a couple tracks that stand out as weaker (weak for trans, that is), but several that are incredible.  Also, this is Gibbard at his lyrical peak.

2005:
The Mars Volta - Frances the Mute  Most epic (by its literal meaning) album I've ever heard.
Mew - And the Glass Handed Kites.  Space rock/shoegaze at its best.  Another album full of brilliant pop/rock songs, and plenty of moments of soaring ecstacy.  I cannot believe or understand how little attention this album gets.
Sufjan Stevens - Illinois
My Morning Jacket - Z

2006:
Joanna Newsom - Ys
Mute Math - Mute Math  The best debut album of the decade.  A perfect blend of traditional songwriting and experimenting.

2007:
The National - Boxer  Will likely be a matchup between this and Kid A for my favorite release this decade, unless 2009 has a few tricks up its sleeve.
Panda Bear - Person Pitch

2008:
Nothing.  Shugo Tokumaru is brilliant, but doesn't quite have the impact of some of these others.

2009:
Haven't listened to too much yet, still need to hear MPP

[bloop]

Well, since I have no point of comparison for "perfect", a 10 simply means that I wouldn't personally change much of anything about the album, and that I find it to be a significant piece of work.

[Ian]

For a 10 I'd need an album where I can't think of anything that could be improved.  For example on OK Computer, Electioneering isn't as strong as the rest, and the last three tracks are too similar.  Both offenses are to very small degrees, so I gave it a 9.8.  It's near perfect, but I'm not going to call it perfect until I can't find a single fault.

[murlough23]

I so rarely give out the "A+" grade that all I can think of right now is Sufjan Stevens' Illinois. I've given a number of A's, and I'll probably still consider those albums classics years from now even if no one else does, so I'll list my "A" and "A+" albums, I guess. As this gets earlier, these are clearly biased towards CCM because that's what I mostly listened to at the time, but if I still think this highly of something almost 10 years removed from my "CCM only" days, I'd say it's reasonable to mention it. A bunch of you will say "no way in hell that's a classic" to several of these, but I'm considering what's been most positively influential for me back when I first heard it and what still has staying power with me now. Whether a general consensus of critics would feel the same now is immaterial.

2008:
Fleet Foxes - Fleet Foxes
Coldplay - Viva la Vida or Death and All His Friends

2007:
Iron & Wine - The Shepherd's Dog
Deas Vail - All the Houses Look the Same

2006:
Jars of Clay - Good Monsters
Vienna Teng - Dreaming Through the Noise

2005:
Sufjan Stevens - Illinois

2004:
Caedmon's Call - Share the Well

2003:
Sufjan Stevens - Michigan
Switchfoot - The Beautiful Letdown
Steven Delopoulos - Me Died Blue

2002:
Vienna Teng - Waking Hour

2001:
Tool - Lateralus

2000:
Iona - Open Sky
Earthsuit - Kaleidoscope Superior

1999:
Chasing Furies - With Abandon
Jars of Clay - If I Left the Zoo
Caedmon's Call - 40 Acres

1998:
dc Talk - Supernatural
Burlap to Cashmere - Anybody Out There?

1997:
Jars of Clay - Much Afraid
Caedmon's Call - Caedmon's Call
U2 - Pop
Radiohead - OK Computer

1996:
Dave Matthews Band - Crash

1995:
dc Talk - Jesus Freak
Iona - Journey into the Morn
(I feel like I should list the first Jars of Clay album, but I'd say the songs from that album are more classic than the actual recordings. Plus Jars of Clay already shows up three times on this list.)

1994:
Iona - Beyond These Shores
Steve Taylor - Squint

1991:
U2 - Achtung Baby

1987:
U2 - The Joshua Tree

(I would list War for 1983, but there's some silliness in the second half that prevents me from doing so. Other than that, I haven't yet become acquainted with any classic music from the 80's or earlier.)

[spacebrat311]

I see masterpieces a bit differently than you guys it seems. Like Ian, I ascribe almost no 10s, and do not see it as a requirement to achieve masterpiece status. Secondly, I don't think of masterpieces as my personal favorite albums. I don't think a masterpiece can be decided upon by one person, but that it is a communal title, and reflects the cultural and critical zeitgeist regarding an album, as well as its influence on later albums. Because of the influence thing, a lot of 00s masterpieces won't surface until at least the next decade, and perhaps later. Obviously there is an amount of subjectivity in ascribing the title of masterpiece, as there' not way everyone will agree, but I think that larger cultural and critical reaction has to be taken into account than just your own. I don't think masterpiece is a title for just a personal favorite, and that speaking from within the 00s, all predictions for what will be regarded as masterpieces are just that, predictions, as ongoing regard and influence have not fully materialized.

All that said, here are my predictions for 2000s masterpieces:

2000
Kid A - Radiohead

2001


2002
Yankee Hotel Foxtrot - Wilco
Yoshimi Battles the Pink Robots - The Flaming Lips

2003
The Black Album - Jay Z

2004
SMiLE- Brian Wilson
(There are a lot of debuts this year that I think would have achieved this status if the artists had not topped them in the folllowing couple of years.)

2005
Illinois- Sufjan Stevens
Z- My Morning Jacket (I don't love it, but I can't deny that it's already gaining traction towards this end)

2006
Return to Cookie Mountain - TV on the Radio
Futuresex/Lovesounds - Justin Timberlake

2007
Neon Bible - Arcade Fire
Ga Ga Ga Ga Ga - sthingy
Person Pitch - Panda Bear
Graduation - Kanye West

2008
Fleet Foxes - Fleet Foxes
too early to tell for me what else will stand out.

[Aaron]

I'll edit a list later (yeah, right)..but

2008:
The Reign of Kindo - Rhythm Chord & Melody

[murlough23]

(There are a lot of debuts this year that I think would have achieved this status if the artists had not topped them in the folllowing couple of years.)

Does beating a previous album that you thought was perfect make it less perfect?

I think this exposes a paradox in our assumption that there can be a perfect album. I say if you thought it was a "classic" and you still love it as much as you did, feel free to list it. But it's your list.

[spacebrat311]

The thing is, I don't go back to those albums very much, but I thought I would, and I think I definitely would have if they hadn't been topped later. I'm referring here to Arcade Fire's Funeral and Kanye West's College Dropout. While both are great albums, I do not listen to either because both artists later put out albums that more effectively flesh out the same musical ideas. More importantly, as my wall of text communicates that I see masterpieces as being largely based on their posterity rather than my personal favorites (and these are my predictions about posterity), I don't think that those albums will be as remembered as their successors.

[murlough23]

The thing is, I don't go back to those albums very much, but I thought I would, and I think I definitely would have if they hadn't been topped later. I'm referring here to Arcade Fire's Funeral and Kanye West's College Dropout. While both are great albums, I do not listen to either because both artists later put out albums that more effectively flesh out the same musical ideas. More importantly, as my wall of text communicates that I see masterpieces as being largely based on their posterity rather than my personal favorites (and these are my predictions about posterity), I don't think that those albums will be as remembered as their successors.

Well put. I can't argue with any of that.

Since I suck at determining what's going to be culturally important to the landscape of music, I just go with personal favorites. Every now and then I get lucky with something like Illinois or the Fleet Foxes album that happens to match both definitions.

[bloop]

I see masterpieces a bit differently than you guys it seems. Like Ian, I ascribe almost no 10s, and do not see it as a requirement to achieve masterpiece status. Secondly, I don't think of masterpieces as my personal favorite albums. I don't think a masterpiece can be decided upon by one person, but that it is a communal title, and reflects the cultural and critical zeitgeist regarding an album, as well as its influence on later albums. Because of the influence thing, a lot of 00s masterpieces won't surface until at least the next decade, and perhaps later. Obviously there is an amount of subjectivity in ascribing the title of masterpiece, as there' not way everyone will agree, but I think that larger cultural and critical reaction has to be taken into account than just your own. I don't think masterpiece is a title for just a personal favorite, and that speaking from within the 00s, all predictions for what will be regarded as masterpieces are just that, predictions, as ongoing regard and influence have not fully materialized.

I completely disagree in that I think something can be a masterpiece even if no one but the artist has ever experienced it.  It doesn't need to capture any kind of zeitgeist for that title from me, although many of them do.  Simply put, it needs to be crafted with the utmost skill and artfulness.  In other words, it needs only to meet the definition of "masterpiece". 

I think to achieve "classic" status, perhaps people need to know about it, for the influential piece.  From that perspective, these are only guesses as to what will be important, and I wouldn't contradict you there.

(Also, I think Funeral will be remembered as the greater of Arcade Fire's albums so far.  Aside from that, I can't really subscribe to anything that would tend to limit artists to one masterpiece or classic album.)

(Oh, and I have zero issues with "Electioneering", or the end of OK Computer in general, so it would be a 10 from me, but I haven't been handing out grades that long.)

[murlough23]

I completely disagree in that I think something can be a masterpiece even if no one but the artist has ever experienced it.  It doesn't need to capture any kind of zeitgeist for that title from me, although many of them do.  Simply put, it needs to be crafted with the utmost skill and artfulness.  In other words, it needs only to meet the definition of "masterpiece".

That's sort of why I went with my own personal feelings about each album. I can't know the artist's experience unless they care to share it, and to some extent, one would hope the artist always likes their own material (maybe being removed from it by a couple albums helps to clarify that for them, because if you didn't like something at the time, you probably wouldn't release it unless under duress from the record label or something). I can know some of your experiences, some critics' experiences, and some of the general public's experiences, in cases where that's been told to me. The positive experiences of others may lead me to re-examine something I thought was merely good or just OK. But ultimately, I have to trust my own ears.

I can't think of a single album where I love every song. I can think of plenty where I love most of the songs and like the remainder. But if an album's weakest spot is a track that I merely like, they've generally done a good job. However, there are several "like every song" albums that I left off of my ad-hoc "classics" list, because there's still that X factor - the difference between a solid genre exercise that I might give an A-grade to, and a true artistic statement that does something really powerful for me.

Further complicating matters are the albums that I think are "classics" in the broader sense of their impact on the general public and the staying power of several of their songs (War, Jars of Clay, etc.), but that are hampered by a weak track or two, or that the artist has blown out of the water since then. Gosh, this is hard.

I think to achieve "classic" status, perhaps people need to know about it, for the influential piece.  From that perspective, these are only guesses as to what will be important, and I wouldn't contradict you there.

This makes it especially hard to call an artist's debut album a "classic" - it might make an impact now and be a totally solid album, but it might not be remembered as fondly (or at all) in 10 years because Fleet Foxes might break up or Sufjan Stevens might make six crappy albums in a row about midwestern states nobody cares about. (Most people likely wouldn't list Earthsuit's lone album as a classic because of the genre trappings of the era it came from, and because, "Who the hell's Earthsuit"? I felt that it passed the every-song-being-solid test and transcended the genre conventions of its time, so on the list it goes. Mute Math's debut didn't quite do that for me, but if the band lasts, that one will likely come to be seen as a classic among fans of the genre.)

(Also, I think Funeral will be remembered as the greater of Arcade Fire's albums so far.  Aside from that, I can't really subscribe to anything that would tend to limit artists to one masterpiece or classic album.)

I should give Funeral another chance now that I've got the hang of Neon Bible. It's weird because I'm lukewarm about Neon Bible as a complete album, but I can't point to a single song that I strongly dislike.

(Oh, and I have zero issues with "Electioneering", or the end of OK Computer in general, so it would be a 10 from me, but I haven't been handing out grades that long.)

Hey, I didn't even get into Radiohead until 2001, and even then I didn't fully appreciate OKC until about 2003, but I went back and graded it along with my other 1997 favorites.

NP: "Wasted", Stabbing Westward

[spacebrat311]

(Also, I think Funeral will be remembered as the greater of Arcade Fire's albums so far.  Aside from that, I can't really subscribe to anything that would tend to limit artists to one masterpiece or classic album.)

Only time will tell, but of writers I've heard compare the two, I've almost never heard Funeral come out on top, and most of the friends/musicians I know that list Arcade Fire as an influence most commonly reference Neon Bible.

[bloop]

I just thought many of us, myself included, were getting "masterpiece" mixed up with "classic".  I think it's possible to be one without the other, in either direction.

[Ian]

Only time will tell, but of writers I've heard compare the two, I've almost never heard Funeral come out on top, and most of the friends/musicians I know that list Arcade Fire as an influence most commonly reference Neon Bible.

Huh, nearly every time I hear the band brought up, it's about how much better Funeral is (although I think I do like Neon Bible a little better).  I think you'll see Funeral place very high in decade end polls, and Neon Bible will be much lower.

If we're talking about classics, I think Kid A is the only album this decade that qualifies so far.  Illinois, Moon & Antarctica, Funeral, Yankee Hotel Foxtrot, maybe Person Pitch, and now Merriweather Post Pavillion, have a chance, but I don't think time has chosen them yet.

Oh, and the Fleet Foxes CD will never be considered a classic.  It's a pleasant album, but if gets any discussion next year (let alone in years to come), it will mostly be about how overrated it was.  Maybe they have it in them to make that classic disc, but it is certainly not their debut.

[murlough23]

Huh, nearly every time I hear the band brought up, it's about how much better Funeral is (although I think I do like Neon Bible a little better).  I think you'll see Funeral place very high in decade end polls, and Neon Bible will be much lower.

My impression when I first checked out Neon Bible was that already existing fans of the band considered it a bit of a disappointment, probably 'cause it was too poppy. Hence my enjoyment of it.

Oh, and the Fleet Foxes CD will never be considered a classic.

I've already established that (a) I consider it a classic, and (b) I don't need the general public's affirmation for that definition to fit. I don't think we started this thread to veto others' classics.

[bloop]

Strange - I don't consider Funeral to be much more difficult, really.

[NinjaRob17]

Oh, and the Fleet Foxes CD will never be considered a classic.  It's a pleasant album, but if gets any discussion next year (let alone in years to come), it will mostly be about how overrated it was.  Maybe they have it in them to make that classic disc, but it is certainly not their debut.

I agree with this wholeheartedly.

[bloop]

I don't get Fleet Foxes backlash.  Beautiful record.

[Josh]

The Fleet Foxes record is very pleasant, and I have no axe to grind against it-- I gave it a very positive review, in fact-- but I agree that, five years down the line, they probably won't be remembered by that many people. Unless they really branch out on their follow-up album.

[bloop]

They're very much an indie band.  There aren't all that many people who know them now to remember them 5 years from now - doesn't change that it's a quality piece of work.

[murlough23]

The Fleet Foxes record is very pleasant, and I have no axe to grind against it-- I gave it a very positive review, in fact-- but I agree that, five years down the line, they probably won't be remembered by that many people. Unless they really branch out on their follow-up album.

I was sort of alluding to that sort of thing earlier. You do have to have a certain level of exposure to have some of your material regarded as classic. So Fleet Foxes' debut 5 years in the future could be regarded very differently based on how well their follow-up albums sell and how well received the band is critically on future efforts.

Here's hoping they knock it out of the park on SNL next week - that'll help a little.

[spacebrat311]

I had no idea Neon Bible was so contentious... My experience with Arcade Fire mirrors Ian's, only with the two albums' position reversed. I'm usually the one who has to defend Funeral for still having merit despite having been surpassed.

[bloop]

I find myself having to defend Neon Bible. 

(Funeral is slightly higher than Neon Bible on metacritic, btw)

[spacebrat311]

Ok, to clarify, I'm not still arguing, I'm just honestly extremely surprised and a bit baffled and I want to understand... Can anyone who prefers Funeral enlighten me as to why?

[Ian]

Most people will say it has the better anthems and reaches greater highs, which I suppose is true, and some may prefer the more raw sound.

[Ian]

I don't get Fleet Foxes backlash.  Beautiful record.

I think everybody likes it, but when it started placing super high on polls and in publications, people where just like, "hold on there, it's not that good."  I mean, I placed it at number 10 this year, so I liked it a lot, but there's no way I would consider it even close to number 1, let alone consider it to be something that stands out this decade.

[murlough23]

I think everybody likes it, but when it started placing super high on polls and in publications, people where just like, "hold on there, it's not that good."  I mean, I placed it at number 10 this year, so I liked it a lot, but there's no way I would consider it even close to number 1, let alone consider it to be something that stands out this decade.

I'm not one to jump on Pitchfork's bandwagon, and they sure as hell aren't aware of what I like, so if we both have something at #1, I think that says something interesting about it.

[spacebrat311]

I think it stands out as a lesser classic so far this decade. It wouldn't be near the top of my classic albums of the 00s list, but it would definitely make it, which is more than I can say for any other 2008 release.

As for Funeral, I wouldn't disagree with any of those statements, but as I can tell you would probably agree, I think Neon Bible has other things going for it as far as emotional depth that overshadow those strengths. We would probably just disagree on the extent.

[Ian]

I'm not one to jump on Pitchfork's bandwagon, and they sure as hell aren't aware of what I like, so if we both have something at #1, I think that says something interesting about it.

It appeals to a wide range of people, there's no doubt about that.

[spacebrat311]

I agree with Ian that the Fleet Foxes record, while beautiful, is a bit lacking in substance. I think they have the potential to pull off some truly classic albums in the future. I might have to back off labeling it a masterpiece, but I think that it will be remembered as a classic simply because it is the kind of thing that has a massively wide appeal, and I don't think its reached the extent of its eventual exposure yet. I think we will see it slowly seep into public consciousness, much the way Iron and Wine did over the course of the last 6 years.

[Ian]

Just realized I completely forgot about Vespertine.  That album is some gooooooood stuff.

[murlough23]

It appeals to a wide range of people, there's no doubt about that.

Perhaps, but that isn't entirely what I was getting at. Nickelback appeals to a wide range of people, too, so this isn't one of those "X million people can't be wrong!" arguments.

It's more a defense of my reasons for liking it and considering a "classic". I'm merely pointing out that it's my own evaluation and not something I feel any sort of pressure to rate higher than I otherwise would simply because a few key publications are raving about it. This obviously isn't sufficient reason why you should consider it a classic (to try and force you to do this would undermine my entire argument), and I don't even really think anyone's accusing me or whoever else of bandwagon-jumping, either. But it's something I feel the need to clarify when I hear statements like "I don't get all the hype".

As for substance... it's hard to quantify that. To me the "substance" of Fleet Foxes' record is more abstract. I can't point to a particular song and say, "Wow, what powerful lyrics, that's the rallying cry for a generation", because the words to the songs (what few there are in some cases) tend to be more esoteric than directly meaningful. For me it's an exercise in mood-painting. I wouldn't regard it nearly so highly if the music and words didn't interlock together so nicely in this regard. But that makes my reaction to it and my reasons for rating it so high an extremely subjective reaction. So from that perspective, I understand how someone else could listen to it and get almost nothing from it.

[murlough23]

Just realized I completely forgot about Vespertine.  That album is some gooooooood stuff.

Vespertine is almost there for me, but not quite. Some of the stuff in the back half is kinda boring.

Homogenic was a close call, too.

[Ian]

Only song I find boring is "Crabcraft" (and maybe "Unison", but only parts of it).  Everything else is just sublime, although you're right that the first half is noticeably better.  Actually it's somewhat comprable to Fleet Foxes, as they both have really terrific atmospheres, but are lacking substance in certain streches, FF in the middle and Vespertine near the end.  However, the more I listen to the back half of Vespertine the more substance I find, which tends to go the opposite way on Fleet Foxes; it has a terrific sound, but the more you study it the more you realize that there's not as much there as you first thought.

[bloop]

I think Vespertine has classic potential as well.  Homogenic and Post, too.

[murlough23]

Only song I find boring is "Crabcraft" (and maybe "Unison", but only parts of it).

Funny, "Crabcraft" isn't in my track listing. I'm OK with "Unison", though it's not one of my favorites. "Sun in My Mouth" and "Harm of Will" are the interminable ones for me. (I like the microbeats. Not so much the lack of beats altogether.) I used to dislike "An Echo, a Stain", but it's grown on me.

Similarly, I could probably give Homogenic an A if the single mix of "All Is Full of Love" had been used as the album version - and that's about the only time you'll hear me state my preference for a radio edit. (Though in any event, "Pluto" is still annoying.)

Actually it's somewhat comprable to Fleet Foxes, as they both have really terrific atmospheres, but are lacking substance in certain streches, FF in the middle and Vespertine near the end.

"He Doesn't Know Why" is my least favorite song on FF, and the minimal, repetitive lyrics are the only thing I don't like about "Quiet Houses" (though the lack of lyrics on "Heard Them Stirring" doesn't bother me a bit - that one's a highlight), so I can see why you'd feel that way about the album's midsection.

I think Vespertine has classic potential as well.  Homogenic and Post, too.

Post is wildly inconsistent for me. I love a song and then I'm indifferent about the next one, and it jumps back and forth like that throughout the album. It's my least favorite of her 90's albums - I'd rank Debut above it even though that one has its obvious weaknesses and is the only Bjork album I'd ever accuse of sounding dated.