ITT: Artists with multiple 10/10s in one decade

...

There's no such thing, only plebs think this is a real thing

Can

...

The Residents are the only band in history to achieve this

Coming through now with the obligatory Beatles post

Kanye did it twice.

do you mean within 10 years of each other or in decade brackets like 80s 90s 00s 10s 20s etc

Death Grips

King Crimson

>Best debut album in UK history
>Best follow up album in UK history

Captain Beefheart, Velvet Underground. kind of obvious

...

What were their 10/10s?

I was thinking the latter - 80s, 90s, etc.

KYS

...

niggas had 4 (FOUR) 10/10's in the 70's

Bowie in the 70's and 90's

...

Came here to post this.
Meet the Beatles, Revolver, Sgt. Pepper, White Album part 1.

Whoops, meant With the Beatles. I get those 2 confused sometimes.

only 2?

2 still more than 1, and they had 3.

tom waits

King Crimson
>70s
Lark's Tongues in Aspic
Starless and Bible Black
Red
>80s
Discipline
Beat
Three of a Perfect Pair

Revolver, Sgt Pepper, Rubber Soul, White Album, Magical Mystery Tour, Abbey Road

I only count two.

t. 15y girl

those girls are 30 now

>best compilation album

my nigga
white album is not a 10, but in its defense that would be a crazy feat at 30 tracks
deloused, amputechtre and octa? frances is great but not a 10
kek

this tbqhwy

>white album is not a 10
Why not?

Bowie

where dafuq is tyler the creator?

yeah he was a pretty major omission itt i have to admit

i DESPISE cedrics hair.

...

You first, Mercury Rev only have one in the 90s and that's their debut.

You first. Boces is better

...

See You On The Other Side is better than either

Discipline and beat
>10/10

...

ok computer, kid a, and in rainbows came out within 10 years

rainbows is not a 10
ok computer is not a 10 either

they have more than one album?

>ok computer is not a 10 either
Why not?

Because it is not,their only 10/10 from that decade is kid a.

>Because it is not
Why not?

Death Grips

The Smiths

>Because it is not
Sweet, thanks

electioneering isn't a good song

...

you should listen to the singles off their upcoming

saw them live recently and the new shit is pretty good
I wasn't a huge fan of All We Love We Leave Behind but they're bringing me back

you find this funny?i prefer to fight rather than explain you why.

OP here, I was referring to Yerself Is Steam and Boces, but I think SYOTOS is a 9/10 and could easily see someone considering it a 10/10 as well

>pic related
Is what i intended to avoid

Well congrats you played yourself

Holy fuck how plebian do you have to be think all three of these are 10s. One is bad enough, but fucking all 3? Fuck man. Have you listened to anything other than radiohead? Do you know what 10/10 means?

Why not?
That's because you don't know why

How are Kid A and OKC not 10/10s?

I'm just gonna write two mini reviews.
>OKC
This album should've been called "The Nigel Godrich Album", because without him it's nothing. There are some great tracks, but at least half of it is filler and very basic songwriting, with absolutely nothing special besides the production. Which I mean yeah, the production is nice but it doesn't warrant an otherwise alright album to be the highest rated on rym and to get 10s from any and every entry level "serious" music listener
>Kid A
I'll admit there was a time in my life where I considered this album a 10, but I was 12. It's definitely not bad, and easily one of the bands best, but growing older and being exposed to new music I've seen that it isn't the experimental masterpiece I used to think of it as. It's very flashy, but there's a lot less substance to it than there seems to be. Very few songs are actually amazing, it's just an album full of solid tracks with a few highlights. There's nothing wrong with that, but it nose certainly is not a 10/10, and does not deserve the overwhelming amount of praise it gets

'has' should be before "very basic songwriting" on the okc "review" and nose should be most in the kid a one

flaming lips did it three times lel

>This album should've been called "The Nigel Godrich Album", because without him it's nothing.
Except that the band had already been performing the material live before he produced the album.
>but at least half of it is filler
I don't think you know what filler means
>and very basic songwriting,
How so?

>but growing older and being exposed to new music
I'm asking about the album, not you. You, as a non-musican who doesn't know theory, are irrelevant. The album stayed the same.
>but there's a lot less substance
How is that measured?

this

I don't think you understood what I meant by calling it the Nigel Godrich album, and I certainly know what filler means. When do you ever listen to Fitter Happier or Let Down or Electioneering without listening to the complete album? A lot of the tracks do not come even close to matching up to the best songs, therefore making them filler. Filler=/="bad" necessarily. And other than Paranoid Android the songwriting is really basic. There's nothing really special about it.

I actually am a musician who's pretty well versed in theory, but regardless that's irrelevant. What I meant by that isn't that my tastes changed, I just found much better, more experimental music, which made me realize that Kid A wasn't as good as I thought it was.
>how is that measured?
Lot's of different ways, quality of songwriting for one, which some songs are very basic. Doesn't mean they're bad just not exceptional. A song has to be really special to be a 10, and there's only a few on that record. That's not to say that simple songs with basic songwriting can't be considered a "10", but they have to have something else going for them, whether it be extreme amounts of charm, or whatever

>and I certainly know what filler means
Explain it.
>When do you ever listen to Fitter Happier or Let Down or Electioneering without listening to the complete album?
Why wouldn't you just simply listen to the whole album, how it was meant to?
>A lot of the tracks do not come even close to matching up to the best songs, therefore making them filler
Not what filler means.

>I actually am a musician
Prove it. Chart out Paranoid Android. Show us how simple it is.
>What I meant by that isn't that my tastes changed
Still irrelevant. The album is still the same 10/10. It's not the album's fault your taste devolved into garbage snobbery.
>quality of songwriting for one,
How do you measure that?

...

You're fucking retarded
>explain it
Filler songs are songs that "fill" out the track list. They are either added as an afterthought or obviously don't meet the quality of the better tracks

I guarantee that you've listened to Paranoid Android, Karma Police, or No Surprises without listening to the entire album

I could "chart out" paranoid android but I'm not going to do that because that would be a waste of time, and you obviously didn't read my post you mongoloid because in I said Paranoid Android was not simple. It's an exceptionally well written song, but most of the album does not match up to that quality. The album is not the same 10/10, it never was a 10/10. My taste isn't garbage snobbery, it's actually fairly basic and there are a lot of people who would call me pleb. Most of what I listen to is like Modest Mouse, Nick Drake, and Animal Collective.
>how do you measure that
Lyrics, melodies, chord progressions, key signatures/changes, time signatures, song progression, etc.

>Filler songs are songs that "fill" out the track list.
Ah! Radiohead had about 30 songs recorded for OK Computer. Obviously, no songs were needed to "fill out" the album, they had twice the needed material. If you are curious about the actual filler, check out their b-sides from that era like Lull or A Reminder.
>I guarantee that you've listened to Paranoid Android, Karma Police, or No Surprises without listening to the entire album
No. That's not how the album was meant to be heard.

>I could "chart out" paranoid android

>but most of the album does not match up to that quality.
OK then chart out Airbag.

>lyrics, melodies, chord progressions, key signatures/changes, time signatures, song progression, etc.
What about these things though? How are they measured?

Also, how do you know if they're good or bad if you don't know theory and can't chart it out?

The Flaming Lips did it once, with Clouds and The Soft Bulletin

2112, fly by night, book 1 and 2 of Cygnus x1 (aka farewell to kings and hemispheres) caress of steel, they started the revolution of prog rock, they are the true prog kings

See: in a Priest Driven Ambulance

I could honestly put Priest Driven Ambulance and Hit to Death pretty close to 10/10 as well, but that's still all in the same decade
They came close but didn't do it in the 2000s, and the definitely didn't do it in the 1980s

Deserter's Songs is also easily 8.5+/10

You have no idea what you're talking about dude lmao, you're really grasping at straws. Just accept that you've lost

>Just accept that you've lost
>to user who doesn't know what filler is
>to user who doesn't know theory
Yeha we get that you just discovered Can but that doesn't make Kid A and OKC not 10s

A song doesn't need to purposefully be filler to actually be filler, numbnuts

I could "chart out" airbag if I wanted to, but I don't want to. Also also no matter how complex a song is it doesn't make it any harder to transcribe. It might take longer but it wouldn't actually be any harder. And I do not for a second believe you've never voluntarily listened to a single song without listening to the entire album it's on

Theres no objective rubric for measuring the quality of a song/album, retard

t. retard

>A song doesn't need to purposefully be filler to actually be filler,
It does because that's what it means. Do you know how words work?

>I could "chart out" airbag if I wanted to
>b-but I w-won't!
kek sure

>I don't listen to full albums
>so that means you don't either!
You are not very intelligent. I seriously doubt you understand the more experimental music you claim to have gotten into. Is it just a status thing? You saw it on Sup Forums perhaps?

>Theres no objective rubric for measuring the quality of a song/album
>Oh but let me tell you objectively the quality of a song/album
Ugh

t. non musician

This is a major point of contention among Rev fans
To me (OP), Deserter's Songs was where they began to decline creatively, but to others, it's the peak of their talents
Holes is most definitely up there with their greatest works, however
And it is interesting how a band can change their sound so radically and still continue making solid albums

No it doesn't faggot, that's not what that word means

I'm not gonna take time out of my day to do a pointless task for an argument on mu with a retard who thinks radiohead has 3 10/10 albums

I listen to full albums you retard, but there are times I might just want to hear one song from a certain album. Also almost anything is more experimental than radiohead. Any idiot could understand that music

God you're stupid. I'm not telling you objective quality of anything, just that you have shitty undeveloped taste/you don't know what 10/10 means

>you have to be a musician to talk about music
lmao, sure pal. Pretty sure you aren't a musician either

>No it doesn't faggot, that's not what that word means
But you agreed with me. You said it here >Filler songs are songs that "fill" out the track list. They are either added as an afterthought

>Also almost anything is more experimental than radiohead
experimental =/= better

>just that you have shitty undeveloped taste
Tell me more about all that music theory you've studied user

Oh, no you can certainly discuss it. It just will be invalid

I didn't though, nowhere in that post did it say it had to purposefully made to fill out the track list

I never said experimental was better now did I? I was just providing a counterpoint to your retard argument that I didn't understand the "experimental music I claimed to get into"

People who believe music theory is the end all be all to music listening and creation are some of the stupidest people on earth and clearly have very little grasp on what music theory actually is. It's just in place to make writing (on paper) and playing with other people easier. That's all it exists for

>Kid A
>Hail to the Thief
>In Rainbows
>Arguably Amnesiac
How did they do it bros

They didn't. 2 of those are good, none of them are 10s

Why do people on Sup Forums like to make assertions then not follow through with their explanation?

This x10000000000000000000

This. The 10/10s are from the 90s

>nowhere in that post did it say it had to purposefully made to fill out the track list
>Filler songs are songs that "fill" out the track list.
kek


>I never said experimental was better now did I?
Your implications did.

>I was just providing a counterpoint to your retard argument that I didn't understand the "experimental music I claimed to get into"
You failed on that then, it just made you look like a child.

>People who believe music theory is the end all be all to music listening and creation are some of the stupidest people on earth and clearly have very little grasp on what music theory actually is. It's just in place to make writing (on paper) and playing with other people easier. That's all it exists for
>Oh but let me judge music for how complex the lyrics, melodies, chord progressions, key signatures/changes, time signatures, song progressions are
kek

Didn't It Rain and Magnolia Electric Co are both 9.5/10, despite their current standing in the culture.

Revolver/Sgt Pepper's, you could argue for one or the other but not really both 10's

Kid A is a 9.5, everything else they did in the 2000's is below this

Astral Weeks is a 10 and he never got close again

Sticky Fingers is a 10, Exile is a 10

I don't think this thing you're talking about actually exists. Can or Bowie is maybe closest, but then again, not really.

>kek
>kek

>He thinks OKC is anything above a 7
Its just alt rock, and I say that as a radiohead fan

Oops I meant Exile is not