
But I've been so focused on 2009, that I just barely realized we're entering a new decade in a couple of weeks. That means I'm going to have to do a 'Best of the Decade' list, too. And that one is going to be much harder.
This didn't hit me until the new issue of Rolling Stone showed up at my house. It's the best of the 2000's issue and I haven't opened it yet. I can almost guarantee that I will not agree with 75% of what's in there. I can see Arcade Fire or TV on the Radio somewhere close to the top and the Jonas Brothers on the list because they have to be. They'll probably praise one or two shitty Britney Spears songs because she made a "comeback" too. I'm already disappointed with their poor selections and I haven't even read the issue yet.
But at least they did it.

That's the most likely scenario.
How do you even choose the best of the decade? That's probably how I'll spend winter break. Staring at my computer screen, silently debating the merits of whether the three (sometimes four) insanely brilliant Muse songs make up for the other seven forgettable tracks that everyone will skip over (as is the case on every album they put out) makes them a better band than, say, Crime In Stereo.
This is what I'm worried about this holiday season.
(edited to add: Flipped through the issue. Arcade Fire is no. 6, TV On The Radio is 48 in albums. Britney Spears - "Toxic" is no. 44 in songs. No Jonas Brothers on the list, thank Christ.)
No comments:
Post a Comment