[IndieMatty]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
given that its the only objective way to judge something like this you have to take it into account. What makes the albums you listed good, and why should I believe that they are better than what the masses like?

[/ QUOTE ]

Attempting to objectify (is that a word?) appreciation of art through a direct correlation with popularity is comically retarded.

[/ QUOTE ]

you made a list of the 10 best rock albums of 2005 without including a single band that is widely popular. if this was CMI's 10 favorite albums of 2005 that would make sense, but its not. Note the 5 artists/bands you listed as the greatest of all time. What did they all have in common? the fact that they were all widely popular. It is the same in any art form. Those who are recognized as the greatest in their field are those who were most popular in their field. I agree that their is room for listing artists that are not so popular among the best, but to have a top 10 list not include any popular artist at all is as you would say "comically retarded".

[/ QUOTE ]

Wrong, what about movies? Taking away Titanic, when was the last high gross movie nominated for an Oscar for best picture? Should I call the Academy idiotic for not nominating [censored] Charlies Angels or Men in Black?

[/ QUOTE ]

well if we're using oscars to qualify the best movie, then i guess we can use grammy's to qualify the best music. Seeing how none of the albums you or CMI mentioned will even get nominated for album of the year this year, I guess you're both wrong.

[/ QUOTE ]

Actually, Wilco's album which was heralded (by the hipsters) as the best album of 2003, won 2 awards. I guarantee Beck's Guero will be nominated this year. I can see Bloc Party being nominated for best new artist...etc.