Albums of the Year in My Collection (Updated)

For a few months now, I've been thinking about going through my album collection and coming up with a list of my favourite albums of each year. Of course, once having sat down to look at my collection I realized that I don't have enough albums to justify making a specific list for every year. Hence, I decided to break down my "Of the Year" lists as follows:

1. pre-1990
2. 1990-1994
3. 1995-1999
4. 2000-2003
5. 2004
6. 2005
7. 2006
8. 2007
9. 2008
10. 2009
11. 2010
12. 2011
13. 2012

It was in 2004, after having graduated University, that I really got down to buying CDs for my collection. That is clearly reflected in the breakdown of categories. Perhaps those readers who are obsessed with accuracy might argue that I should have titled this article "Albums of the Specified Timeframe" but that doesn't really catch interest, in my opinion.

So without further preface, here are the lists:

Pre-1990:
1. Exile on Main St, the Rolling Stones (1972)
2. Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band, the Beatles (1967)
3. Rust Never Sleeps, Neil Young & Crazy Horse (1979)
Honourable Mentions: Every Other Beatles Album, the Beatles

1990-1994:
1. Ten, Pearl Jam (1991)
2. Weezer (The Blue Album), Weezer (1994)
3. Smash, the Offspring (1994)
Honourable Mention: Nevermind, Nirvana (1991)

1995-1999:
1. Clumsy, Our Lady Peace (1997)
2. Mirror Ball, Neil Young (1995)
3. The Presidents of the United States of America, Presidents of the United States of America (1995)

2000-2003:
1. Youth and Young Manhood, Kings of Leon (2003)
2. A Rush of Blood to the Head, Coldplay (2002)
3. Silver Side Up, Nickelback (2001)

2004:
1. Me & Mr. Johnson, Eric Clapton
2. Music from the Motion Picture Garden State, Various Artists
3. How to Dismantle an Atomic Bomb, U2
Honourable Mentions: Live at Benaroya Hall, Pearl Jam and Antics, Interpol

2005:
1. Aha Shake Heartbreak, Kings of Leon
2. Silent Alarm, Bloc Party
3. Employment, Kaiser Chiefs
Honourable Mention: The Warrior's Code, Dropkick Murphys

2006:
1. Whatever People Say I Am, That's What I'm Not, Arctic Monkeys
2. Continuum, John Mayer
3. Waterloo to Anywhere, Dirty Pretty Things

2007:
1. Wincing the Night Away, the Shins
2. Into the Wild, Eddie Vedder
3. Yours Truly, Angry Mob, Kaiser Chiefs

2008:
1. Vampire Weekend, Vampire Weekend
2. Dear Science, TV on the Radio
3. The Virgins, the Virgins
Honourable Mentions: One Kind Favour, BB King and Viva La Vida or Death and All His Friends, Coldplay

2009:
1. A Positive Rage, the Hold Steady
2. Sigh No More, Mumford and Sons
3. Big Whiskey and the GrooGrux King, Dave Matthews Band

2010:*
1. Of the Blue Colour of the Sky, OK Go
2. This Is Happening, LCD Soundsystem
3. Brothers, the Black Keys
Honourable Mentions: The Suburbs, Arcade Fire and Infinite Arms, Band of Horses

2011:
1. Divine Providence, Deer Tick
2. American Goldwing, Blitzen Trapper
3. The Head and the Heart, The Head and the Heart
Honourable Mentions: The King is Dead, The Decemberists and Wasting Light, Foo Fighters

2012:
1. Mirage Rock, Band of Horses
2. Boys and Girls, Alabama Shakes
3. A Thing Called Divine Fits, Divine Fits
Honourable Mentions: New Wild Everywhere, Great Lake Swimmers and Clear Heart Full Eyes, Craig Finn

Any surprises?

I'm not a big Nickelback fan, but Silver Side Up was omnipotent in the early 2000s. It also contained a strong set of simple, straight-forward hard rockers that still sound good today - Nickelback's subsequent output notwithstanding.

John Mayer, the demented pop-prince, strayed a bit from his niche in 2006 to release an album he really liked. The result was the Clapton-lite blues-pop of Continuum. Consider my softer side served.

The Presidents of the United States of America kind of disappeared after amusing pop-punk fans with little ditties like "Peaches" and "Lump", but their 1995 eponymous debut is still a lighthearted and fun album.

When Eric Clapton finally paid due tribute to his great (tor)mentor with 2004's Me & Mr. Johnson, I got my first taste of real blues, and I was hooked. My collection, thanks to Me & Mr. Johnson (and less so to Aerosmith's Honkin' on Bobo), now includes albums by Howlin' Wolf, Robert Johnson (the "Mr. Johnson" in the album title), BB King, Buddy Guy, and John Lee Hooker. Even albums like the Black Keys' Brothers and the North Mississippi Allstars' Hernando wouldn't be in my collection without Clapton's modern masterpiece.

Some interesting notes about the albums featured above:

• Neil Young is the best represented (Rust Never Sleeps, Mirror Ball, Le Noise) unless you count the honourable mentions (then the Beatles win).
• Pearl Jam and the Rolling Stones, my two favourite rock bands (the Beatles are more pop than rock) are each only represented once (though Pearl Jam backs Neil Young on Mirror Ball, and Eddie Vedder's Into the Wild is on the 2007 list).
• 2008 stands out for me as the best set (not including "Pre-1990" which is too broad to count).
• Two soundtracks made the grade (Into the Wild and Garden State).
• Kings of Leon made the grade twice (Youth and Young Manhood and Aha Shake Heartbreak), but their break-out blockbuster Only By the Night narrowly missed (largely because 2008 was such a strong year).
• Only one live album made it. The Hold Steady's A Positive Rage broke into 2009's list. Neil Young and Crazy Horse's Rust Never Sleeps was recorded live, but significantly mastered with most crowd noise removed and overdubs added.
• Two of the three Kaiser Chiefs' albums I have, appear. The other, Off with Their Heads, fell victim to the strength of 2008.
• Bob Dylan, who I consider one of my favourite artists of all time (I have five of his studio albums and two compilation albums), did not make the grade.
• 2010 has been significantly changed with Brothers slipping to number 3 and two albums not previously on the list taking over the top 2 spots.  Sometimes albums are immediately great, but other times they take time to weasel their way into your head.

Bonus Lists:
Favourite Live Albums in my Collection (with year recorded):
1. A Positive Rage, the Hold Steady (2007)
2. Live at the Spectrum (31 October 2009), Pearl Jam (2009)
3. Get Yer Ya-Ya's Out!, the Rolling Stones (1969)
4. Live at Leeds, the Who (1970)
5. Live, BB King (2007)

Favourite Folk Albums:
1. Sigh No More, Mumford and Sons (2009)
2. Blonde on Blonde, Bob Dylan (1966)
3. Blood on the Tracks, Bob Dylan (1974)
4. Into the Wild, Eddie Vedder (2007)
5. Monsters of Folk, Monsters of Folk (2009)


Hope you enjoyed my lists!

#OWS

There has been a lot of confusion about what Occupy Wall Street and its progeny really stand for (we'll henceforth refer to it as simply "Occupy").  People from across the socio-political spectrum have had difficulty identifying the meaning behind Occupy.  This is no surprise as members and supporters of Occupy have refused to come up with a consistent message.  Luckily, a quick look at the circumstances leading to Occupy, and the majority of the opinions that have come out of Occupy, give us a very clear answer.

The most dominant message has been the 99% versus the 1%.  This has lead people to believe Occupy is anti-wealth and anti-wealthy.  People believe this makes Occupy a socialist movement.  It doesn't.  The 99% versus 1% message is merely an attention getter.  It fits nicely on a sign, and media types like how neatly it defines the terms for them.  Occupy knows that not everyone in the 1% is evil.  This is just a convenient way to summarize the conflict.

The real message is found in the choice of locations.  For those out there who think this is about putting down the wealthy and stealing their money, think about why the name "Occupy Wall Street" and location was chosen over options like "Occupy Beverly Hills" or "Occupy the Hamptons" or "Occupy Palm Beach."  The choice of location puts the enemy squarely in Occupy's sights: Wall Street bankers.  Wall Street spent the past 15 years trading toxic assets like a game of hot potato.  Finally, in 2008, some bankers were caught with the potato.  The financial institutions that made bad bets and were eventually bailed out makes for a long list.  A bail-out is one thing.  A lot of these financial institutions were legitimately "too big to fail" (an issue onto itself).  The real insult comes in the aftermath of the bailout.  For example, Fannie Mae and Freddy Mac, who were caught with a large portion of the hot potato, received approximately $170 billion in bail out money.  Their executives turned around and paid themselves $35 million in salary and bonuses.  Do the executives of a financial institution that failed and were saved by taxpayers deserve any bonuses at all?  Of course not.  But this is the type of "punishment" executives at banks across America received for their significant part in running the world economy into the ground.  Over $18 billion was paid in bonuses on Wall Street in 2009 after the bailout.  This is the heart of Occupy's protest.  The people who's assets were critically devalued are paying the price.  The people who caused it are walking away with the profits they made trading those assets, the tax money they received in the form of bailouts, and the bonuses.  The people are paying.  Why aren't the executives?

The other side of Occupy's protest is directed towards Washington.  The cozy relationship between Washington and Wall Street can be summed up in one person: President Barack Obama's Chief-of-Staff is former JPMorgan Chase executive Bill Daley.  You'll recognize JPMorgan Chase from the list of bailed out banks above - and Bill Daley was there right up until the bail out came.  A closer look will reveal an even more incestuous relationship.  The government agency that is supposed to police Wall Street, the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), has done exactly the opposite.  They've shredded records of investigations, they've called off investigations for no apparent reason, and they've had a revolving door at top leadership levels.  Where does that revolving door lead?  To big Wall Street banks being investigated.  The above article shows the stunning coincidence of investigations being dropped and the decision-makers who dropped the investigation moving from the SEC into high-paid positions with the bank that was being investigated.  Occupy knows that Washington should respond to voters, not donors.  To the people, not the banks.

Of course there have been other reported Occupy demands.  As with any movement, there are fringes.  There are the anarchist, who would otherwise be squatting elsewhere anyway.  There are the communists hoping to tax the wealthy until they're just average.

But the core of the Occupy movement is nothing of the sort.  The core has been supported by leading economists like Jeffrey D Sachs and Richard Florida.  The core wants the rich to pay its share.  Common are calls for reasonable taxation on hedge-fund traders, a small "wealth tax", a break-up of the "too-big-to-fail" financial institutions that required bail outs, and honest, meaningful enforcement of the laws designed to stop financial institutions from causing world economic collapses.

Occupy is not asking to have the 1% stripped of their wealth, for companies to forgo profits, or to end capitalism.  The wealthy are wealthy because they've earned it (usually).  Capitalism and profits are important motivators for individuals and economies.  Occupy is asking for financial institutions and others in the 1% who have been cheating to play by the rules.  Occupy is asking the super-wealthy to pay their share.  Even some in the super-wealthy are promoting this argument.

Ultimately, in spite of everything you've read so far, Occupy is about one thing: "government of the people, by the people, for the people".  When the President's top adviser is a former Wall Street executive, when Wall Street is in bed with the SEC (imagine if Al Capone and Eliot Ness were sleeping together), and when money buys politicians, it is clear that Lincoln's declaration has been ignored.  Occupy demands that its government, the US government, resume representing the people.  That is a message that I can get behind.  That should be the goal of every government: represent the people.  Until Washington gets that right, I'll continue to support Occupy.

The Worst Thing About Yesterday's Election

Believe it or not, I'm not going to say "Conservative Majority".  I'm half hoping that with a majority, Stephen Harper will be able to put aside all the cheap, dishonest, partisan, stupid tricks he used with a minority, and start to govern the way he said he would as Leader of the Opposition so many years ago.  I'm hoping that now, with the comfort of a majority, he will be able to clean up the scum on Parliament Hill, be able to lead with truth and honesty, be able to manage Canada's finances responsibly, and disclose the information he is legally bound to disclose.  Here's hoping.

No, the worst thing about yesterday's election is not Stephen Harper's ill-gotten majority.  The worst thing about last night's election is the scores of no-name NDP candidates who became MPs.  The stories of nobodies, with no campaign, with no effort, who became NDP MPs is truly frightening.  We've long known the days of the local candidate meaning anything are gone, but now we have irrefutable proof.  Give a piece of stool a name, put it on the ballot next to the letters "NDP" and call it a Parliamentarian.  I have no problem with anybody becoming MP.  I'm not disrespecting these people for winning seats as unknowns.  I would love it if that happened more!  I think it would be good for democracy.  My problem is that they did nothing to earn it.  I expect, at least, that a candidate would have to at least campaign to win.  But many stories indicate some of these newbies were nothing more than names on the ballot.  What a shame.  These people are going to waltz onto Parliament Hill without having earned a thing.

But enough about the bad.  What good came of last night?  The near-death of the Bloc Quebecois.  Finally, a federalist party was able to conquer Quebec.  Hopefully this means the return of classic Quebec: the economically competitive, culturally massive bearer of the french language in North America.  I also wonder, with no Bloc to pander to, will Stephen Harper back away from his promise to pay Quebec for its HST adoption?

I am truly apprehensive about this Conservative majority.  I worry that an emboldened Stephen Harper will irreversibly change Canada into something we're not prepared for.  I worry that he will continue to ensure Canada is unprepared for the environmental crisis on the horizon.  I worry that he will build jails and forget to build the bridges required to keep people out of those jails.  I fear he will continue to commit to expenditures he doesn't know if he can afford (i.e. fighter jets), causing him to start cutting spending elsewhere.  Will he continue to pursue measures that oppose each other (i.e. if you're going to cut income taxes, you can't also cut value-added taxes [HST])?  Will he bother to keep promises like the HST payoff to Quebec or the continuation of the 6% escalator in health transfers?  If he does, how will he balance the budget?  He promised $11B in savings through efficiencies in the public service, but everyone involved doubts he can find even one-tenth of that.

I look forward to the Liberal Party finally having the opportunity to develop it's base, create some stable policy directions, and develop a leader outside the fire (which I'm still not certain will happen).  Neither Stephane Dion or Michael Ignatieff had a chance to develop outside the dual fires of Parliament and Conservative attack ads.  Maybe Trudeau, or Leblanc, or whoever, will be able to find their sea-legs before being tossed into the perfect storm.  Maybe Liberal supporters will start to see the need to open their pocket-books a little wider.  Maybe the Liberal Party will be able to more clearly define policy direction, and stick with that direction beyond the next question period.

A lot of good and a lot of bad happened last night.  Here's hoping a Conservative majority, with an NDP minority, will balance into something Liberal.