I think so. I've always thought so, but i'm yet to find anyone who agrees. It's in the vocals. The way the words are sung in a way that makes tham hard to understand. Slurred together almost... Am i crazy?

All Music Guide agrees with you.

oh of course. it's quite obvious in creep. In fact, it's obvious throughout Pablo Honey. Much less so in OK Computer, and Kid A, but i still hear it to an extent.

I Can't remember where I heard it. But Thom thork once described wanting to have the same influence in in europe that nirvana had in the states. He wanted OK Computer to be the nevermind over seas.

And Jeff Buckley...

Well, if you ask me, I think Yorke was successful. OK Computer is indeed the UK's Nevermind, in both stature and influence.

that's because the UK press wanted it that way.

That happened in both of the albums' respective countries. Personally, they both were, and still are, highly overrated by the press. Give me Kid A and In Utero any day of the week.

Kid A is certainly not even close to OK Computer and most would also say the same about In Utero to Nevermind...

I really hope Kid A doesn't knock off the Strokes for album of the decade. It'll look bad to have an album that was inferior to something they released in the 90s. I'd rather see a fresh new band that represented what was fresh and youthful in the 00s.

Oh, I totally disagree with that. Kid A is much more representative of the 00's sound. The Strokes- Is This It kind of is, but it's more telling of the trend to copy the past. But, when it comes to creating a fresh new sound, Kid A really is the shining example of a 00's album that did that.

it's not so much the album as it is the band. Kid A isn't going to surpass OK Computer when it comes to critical acclaim which is why it will make the 00s look like it's inferior to the 90s. Plus not having a band that was NEW to the 00s to represent the 2000s will make it look like we haven't moved on from the 90s. Nothing against Radiohead but they had their spotlight and were a great representation of the 90s.

Well it's purely subjective, and from a strictly artistic point of view, Kid A doesn't surpass OK Computer. At most, it is just as good as OK Computer (which I personally agree with). However, I listen to Kid A much more than its predecessor. When I'm relaxing and want some Radiohead to listen to, I more often than not reach for Kid A. It just has a special x-factor for me.

Same with In Utero.

Nirvana is the defining 90's band. I wouldn't even put Radiohead in the top 3 for bands that define the 90's. Nirvana, Pearl Jam and Oasis are all above Radiohead and I might even put Metallica and Garth Brooks (Maybe even Tupac?) above them as well since they were the biggest sellers. You can say it's the most critically acclaimed album of the 90's for sure, but it takes a lot more than one amazing album to be the defining band of a decade.

But, when you think of the 00's I can't think of many other bands that are more deserving than Radiohead as the defining band of the decade... Coldplay, White Stripes, maybe Jay-Z but most of his acclaim came at the tail end of the 90's.

This is it - doesnt have a hope in hell of remaining the best of the decade. Personally I dont even like the album. I have given it many tries, but it just comes off as some dull wannabe VU bubble gum experiment.

The obvious contender for album of the decade are (IN ORDER UNITIL RADIOHEAD PARAGRAPH)

ARCADE FIRE'S : Funeral, and Neon Bible. Mostly for the former.

SUFJAN STEVENS - ILLINIOS

TV ON THE RADIO - Return To Cookie Mountain

WILCO - YANKEE FOXTROT HOTEL

BRAIN WILSONS - Smile

JOANNA NEWSOM - Ys

BOB DYLAN - Modern Times

PANDA BEAR - PERSON PITCH

WHITE STRIPES - Elephant, and Blood Cells

LCD SOUNDSYSTEM - Sound of Silver

BROKEN SOCIAL SCENE - You forget it in people



However. I personally feel none of them will touch Kid A. I think its the greatest album of all time, so its hard for me to judge what others might think. But I have seen a trent on this site that tends to favor Kid A. Alot of Publications see it that way as well. Its a safe bet, they'll praise radiohead for remaining vital for almost 20 years. They'll just want to right about them more then the others.

IN RAINBOWS will also showcase very well. It'll be the Bends of the 90's as far as standings go.

of all those albums posted Is This It? is so much all of them put together but that's not saying much. I'd rather see a rock record top the 00s instead of some artsy, experimental, pretentious album that caters to critics which is why I like seeing Nevermind at #1. It This It? is #1 for a reason and critics will not forget that during the end of the decade. It's the last record you should be counting out.

Is this was different for the time. But time has shown it to be dull. Very lacluster in its lyrics, and in its music. It just did what alot of bands wanted to do, but werent able to at the time. Doesnt make it groundbreaking, its not like they werent knocking off a shit loads of bands. Hell! they havent had one decent fallow up, people just got bored, and the band never changed a bit.

If your look for a balls out rock record to be number 1, then your looking in the wrong place my freind.You need to take in PJ HARVEYS - Stories From The City, stories from the sea, INterpol - Turn on the bright lights, Tom Waits - Orphans, Sonic Youth - Rather Ripped, The Hold Steady - Boys and girls of america.

These records far better represtent the kind of stripped down rock people and critics were looking for. IS THIS IT just happened to come out in 2000, so needless to say, critics wanted something to root for. The late 90's werent very fruitful.

IS THIS IT- Sucked

*sigh*

i think you're looking for answers in the wrong places. you know, it's quite possible that you have missed something. i certainly consider that more likely than IS THIS IT being total crap and critic bias explaining it being ranked higher than any album of this decade.

The only reason its ranked higher than the rest of this decade is becuase it came out before the rest. It has more opportunity to be involved in more all time lists. FACT!

But kid a came out before 'is this it' so by that logic shouldn't kid a be even higher? and are you sure that's even how the formula works? (it could be, i not sure how it works)

hey, maybe you are right; maybe all of those albums will end up higher than 'is this it' once the best of decade lists come in. you shouldn't be too disappointed if that doesn't happen, though. 'is this it' is a great album and if it doesn't take out top spot, it's worthy of at least a very high one. anyone who calls it crap has clearly missed something. i used to think that it was crap too (i actually think that i started a topic about not getting it. have a look if you like :p). the first track that i managed to understand was "hard to explain". start there if you feel like giving it once last chance. listen for the bass riff just before the verses. if you can't find beauty in that, you are crazy :p.

... the point i've been trying to make is don't so confidently claim that an album is crap when it's so obvious that you only think that it's crap because you don't understand it. that's just silly...

yeah I'm chagrined at all the Is This It haters. I think it's overrated, sure, not particularly the best of the decade, but I still love it. Big difference between hating something and just thinking other people praise it too much. It still deserves to be ranked very high.

Im not talking about kid A. everyone knows Kid A was poorly recognized when it was first released. Its an album that has grown over time. Im refering to Funeral, Illinios, Return to cookie Mountain. Those are the labum that have an unfair disadvantage to IS THIS IT. Kid A will get alot of #1 of the decade mentions when it comes time. Im not worried at all.

I love "Funeral" to death, but I don't think that "Is This It" is bad. I get why critics love it - it is good, it's not just that it came out early. Now I don't think that it'll remain number one (as of now, I think "Funeral" and "Kid A" will be number one and two in some order), but it is a worthy record for this decade.

I hope Illinoise gets some love at the end of this decade, I have it second to Kid A and I often get slack for it...

I hope it's not Funeral. I'm still upset that Franz Ferdinand was ready to top all the critics when at the very end of the year Funeral stole Franz Ferdinand's year end victory. Had Franz Ferdinand released their album in December of 04 it would have topped Funeral in all the year end lists. Funeral came out after I discoved neo psyche, britpop and shoegaze so I know if Arcade Fire were british the album wouldn't be the standout of 04 because it certainly resembles british bands that came out in the 90s. It's too familiar sounding and nowhere near as good as most of the 90s britrock band. Luckily they're from Canada so they don't really get bombarded with comparisons to british bands.

yeah, i was disappointed that franz got kicked off top spot. especially since i'm not a huge fan of the arcade fire.

Funeral was a revelation. There wasnt an album with as much heart and flavor out there for many years. nothing as raw or immediate. It reminded of the first times I heard Velvet Undergorund & Nico, My Bloody Valentines Love, Van Morrisons astral Weeks, Or Springsteen E street Shuffle. There a power and rawness that we rarely stumble apon in music. Its an album that you either immediately like or hated. Arcade Fire forced you into its songs, and for a minute you felt like a band member. Being Canadian, I am very proud to have this album in our country. God know we dont have alot to yell about. Just a small hand full of goodies

Yeah, Funeral changed my life. It will always be in my top 20, unless we get a few more OK Computers, Odelays and Lovelesses (not in style but in quality and importance). Which I doubt.

you've inspired me to listen to arcade fire again. i don't actually own funeral so i couldn't listen to that; i listened to neon bible. it's starting to hit me now. i would even go as far as saying that i like it. funeral was already on my list of albums to get, but i might make it a priority now. i don't think there's a such thing as an album that you either love or hate from the start. there certainly isn't for me anyway.

I perfer Neon Bible to Funeral (GASP!!!!!!). I'm tired of people panning a album for being "overproduced." That word is overused. Lo-fi production was so 90s. If you want to talk about overproduced look at MVB's Loveless which cost the band their entire career. Besides when a band has 10 members in it it's going to sound pretty flashy. That's why I think Is This It is a much cooler album. Yes the Strokes sound oldschool but they sound like the better parts of the 60s and 70s. Everyone loves Television and VU. The original cover screams rock star and so does the look of the band. They were made famous by Rodney Bingenheimer. Some nerdy blogger like Perez Hilton was probably the first to play Arcade Fire. And yes PJ Harvey shouldn't be counted out for album of the decade. With Pink, Avril and Katey Perry dominating music and posing as punk rockers it's nice to have someone like Polly to put them in their place.

I don't think Neon Bible is over Produced. It's just Arcade Fire being Arcade fire. There a big band with a big sound. I was also going to mention that I think Arcade Fire is probably the most important band to come out of this Decade. They've got something to say, they might not have the audience John Lennon and the Beatles did, but they've got there hearts in the right place.

INtervention may be the most important song of this decade. Not best, but most important. don't get me wrong, there are alot of essential tracks, INtervention just screams out at me!