Rocky Road

From Classic Rock to Progessive to hip hop to today's hot new tunes!

Return to Rocky Road

the end of the decade lists begin - Uncut magazine

71.116.236.66
Posted on November 5, 2009 at 17:11:50
tunenut
Audiophile

Posts: 7175
Joined: July 18, 2000
 Here is a link to their list of the top 150 of the first decade of the 2000s. I love lists, although as would be expected I have a number of issues with this particular one.

I hope Mojo does one. I think all the mags will. Anyway, despite the "where's Richard Hawley" type complaints and the "Bob Dylan's record really wasn't that good" complaints and the like, there is a lot of good stuff on here.

the decade finishes at the end of 2010... ten years in..., posted on November 5, 2009 at 19:29:59
dave c
Audiophile

Posts: 28377
Location: Ferny Hills
Joined: April 17, 2000
 I don't know about you, but I start counting with "1".
Image Hosted by ImageShack.us
Where did you dump those 12 months in 2000?, posted on November 6, 2009 at 08:14:25
LWR
Audiophile

Posts: 35665
Location: The woods
Joined: August 12, 2003
 can we have them back now?
http://routes61and49.com/index.php?go=home
in the 20th century where they belong, posted on November 6, 2009 at 15:36:09
dave c
Audiophile

Posts: 28377
Location: Ferny Hills
Joined: April 17, 2000
 My millennia have 1000 years each...years 1-1000, 1001-2000, 2001-onwards.
Someone has sold you short-weight on the last one.
Image Hosted by ImageShack.us
sheesh...we're talking about decades, posted on November 6, 2009 at 16:21:29
tunenut
Audiophile

Posts: 7175
Joined: July 18, 2000
 Most people don't require a particular decade to relate to the year 1 AD.

People talk about "the 60s." Almost everyone considers "the 60s" to be 1960 to 1969. I've never heard of anyone including 1970 in the 60s.

You can be sure people are going to be looking back at the decade 2000 to 2009. Nobody will be, in one year, looking back at the decade 2001 to 2010.

Except maybe you and some other pedantic friends.

so what do you think of the decade 0000-09?I, posted on November 6, 2009 at 18:20:46
dave c
Audiophile

Posts: 28377
Location: Ferny Hills
Joined: April 17, 2000
 It didn't exist then and it SHOULDN'T now. I count 1-10 as the years have always done, there was no year zero.
When do you consider the first decade that started in a zero? And what year went adrift?
When people talk about the 60s they usually start in 1963... WOW... TIME SLIDE!!!
;-)
Image Hosted by ImageShack.us
here's the deal, posted on November 7, 2009 at 08:07:26
tunenut
Audiophile

Posts: 7175
Joined: July 18, 2000
 There are two ways to refer to a time period:

1. Relative to year 1: such as "the 20th century", which, related to year 1, must mean Jan 1, 1901 to Dec 31, 2000.

2. Not relative to anything else, like "the 1900s", which means the 100 year time with years starting with "19". This is from Jan 1, 1900 to Dec 31, 1999.

I've never heard of people talk about the major events of "the one hundred ninety-third decade." They talk about the major events of the "1930s." This extends from Jan 1, 1930 to Dec 31, 1939.

Computer programmers count from 0 all the time. Nothing at all wrong with that.

I actually had a good idea for year 2000, posted on November 7, 2009 at 14:04:18
dave c
Audiophile

Posts: 28377
Location: Ferny Hills
Joined: April 17, 2000
 ... which was to call it the "millennial Eve Year" so that people could sell new millennium stuff all year, arrange all kinds of parties and everyone knew that on 31-12-99 we were in the old millennium and on 01-01-01 we were in the new one and the entire year would become special.
But no one else thought it even interesting!
Personally I thought everyone else was wrong about when the new one started.
;-)
And I still can't see when we lost a year...
Image Hosted by ImageShack.us
Iknow for a friggin honest to god fact, posted on November 6, 2009 at 18:32:24
LWR
Audiophile

Posts: 35665
Location: The woods
Joined: August 12, 2003
 that the 60s went on and on well past 1973. Then they ricocheted back a few times in the 80s and maybe again in the early 90s.
http://routes61and49.com/index.php?go=home
Zoned out, posted on November 6, 2009 at 15:44:43
LWR
Audiophile

Posts: 35665
Location: The woods
Joined: August 12, 2003
 I think is what happened to you. Too much fun and you lost a year...don't feel bad, I lost at least a decade ....maybe more than one!

http://routes61and49.com/index.php?go=home
I went out in 1968 and suddenly..., posted on November 6, 2009 at 15:56:37
dave c
Audiophile

Posts: 28377
Location: Ferny Hills
Joined: April 17, 2000
 ... it as 1983.
Image Hosted by ImageShack.us
Eggs Zackley, posted on November 6, 2009 at 16:03:18
LWR
Audiophile

Posts: 35665
Location: The woods
Joined: August 12, 2003
 I know just whatcha mean.
http://routes61and49.com/index.php?go=home
Sorry, you're in the extreme minority, posted on November 6, 2009 at 07:59:21
DAT
Audiophile

Posts: 1341
Location: North Carolina, mountains
Joined: February 1, 2001
 I know the ancient church retroactively went from 1 B.C. to 1 A.D. with no year 0, but, seriuosly, how many millenial celebrations did you attend on December 31, 2000?

RE: Sorry, you're in the extreme minority, posted on November 6, 2009 at 08:20:20
GCrouser@hvc.rr.com
Audiophile

Posts: 215
Location: NY
Joined: January 18, 2006
 Yes, the majority of people are mathematically ignorant.

My favorite annoyance ? Say a baseball team has 100 wins & 50 losses. Everyone will say that that team is "50 games over .500" But if a team played a total of 150 games, a record of 75-75 would give them a 500 winning pct. They're really only 25 games over .500.

G
The one's who were mathmatically ignorant were the ones who developed the calendar, posted on November 6, 2009 at 12:43:28
DAT
Audiophile

Posts: 1341
Location: North Carolina, mountains
Joined: February 1, 2001
 If they had accepted the concept of zero, logically, Jesus' alleged birth year would have been year 0, unless you think children are born at age 1.

It seems the natural thing to do, after all ..., posted on November 5, 2009 at 20:18:46
rickmcinnis@dogwoodfabrics.com
Audiophile

Posts: 723
Location: Atlanta
Joined: December 15, 2003
 Another stupid list.

You should realize it is a warning to anyone with any sense when they do not know how to count. You were not supposed to pay any attention. But you did anyway and you should be ashamed. Even though you are ashamed a day ahead of me I will forgive you tomorrow.

I would love to hear how these absurd rankings are derived.

The only good excuse would be a three days mushrooms extravaganza.

Listed in alphabetical order it would would have made some sense. One can have 150 favorite records for a given period of time (one can assume) but to assign a ranking to them is ludicrous in the extreme. And VERY psychedelic.

Are they laughing to themselves (one hopes) or do they really think they have figured out which one is the #! RECORD and that #33 is just that? I guess they have not heard the Dylan Christmas record yet?

Tell me we don't live in an age where self confident stupidity is a measure of intelligence; where one's bumper stickers are "proof" of intelligence.

On second though, forget it. I know we do.

I should go pour another glass of wine.

Bye,
either way works for me, posted on November 5, 2009 at 19:34:38
tunenut
Audiophile

Posts: 7175
Joined: July 18, 2000
 This magazine is using the 10 year period from 2000 to 2009 as the first 10 year period, i.e. decade, of the "noughts." And that seems fair enough to me. I, like most people, celebrated a new millenium on the last day of 1999. I know some people had problems with that since there was no year 0, but I'm not worried about that kind of stuff.

Page processed in 0.041 seconds.

[ Top Top of Page ] [ Contact Us ] [ Support/Wish List ] [ Copyright © 2009, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ] [ Go Green ] [ Take5 ]
[ General ] [ Speakers ] [ Tubes ] [ Vinyl ] [ Digital ] [ Hi-Rez ] [ Video Asylum ] [ Cables ] [ Tweaks/DIY ] [ Music ] [ Films ]