Malachi Lui's Top 50 Albums of the 2010's (+ Honorable Mentions & Playlists)

For this list, there is no introductory statement that won’t come across as overly self-absorbed and politically bitter, so I’ll just indulge: despite barely being 4 years old at its beginning, I acknowledge that the 2010’s were a complete mess. Disastrous elections, racism, religious and regional intolerance, war, and climate change all contributed to our current feeling of impending doom, yet music remained brilliant. As it’s now “best albums of the decade” list season, to retain our reputation as an excellent music criticism website that doesn’t blindly overrate Vampire Weekend, of course we’re joining the action! Each of our two regular writers will post their top 50 albums of the decade lists, potentially followed by an AnalogPlanet team list with annotations. Before the main top 50 list however, there are several honorable mentions that, for one reason or another, aren’t in an AOTD conversation but are nonetheless enjoyable. Below are the honorable mentions listed in order of how their representing songs appear in the attached Tidal, Spotify, and YouTube playlists (sorry, Apple Music users and Endless fans):

You Won't Get What You Want - Daughters (2018)
Endless - Frank Ocean (2016)
22, A Million - Bon Iver (2016)
Help Us Stranger - The Raconteurs (2019)
Drunk - Thundercat (2017)
Splendor & Misery - clipping. (2016)
ANIMA - Thom Yorke (2019)
Isolation - Kali Uchis (2018)
Negro Swan - Blood Orange (2018)
ANTI - Rihanna (2016)
4:44 - JAY-Z (2017)
No One Ever Really Dies - N.E.R.D (2017)
Sirens - Nicolas Jaar (2016)
You Want It Darker - Leonard Cohen (2016)

After months of preparation, I now finally unveil my long-awaited top 50 albums of the 2010’s list. I highly encourage those unfamiliar with certain titles to listen to them all, as these albums truly defined the decade’s music and might shape the next few years as well. The playlist (linked at this page’s bottom) is a good primer to prepare for those first-time listens, as well as a convenient overview of albums you might’ve forgotten. And now, the list:

50) High Violet - The National (2010)
49) The Epic - Kamasi Washington (2015)
48) Wildflower - The Avalanches (2016)
47) The OOZ - King Krule (2017)
46) Lemonade - Beyonce (2016)
45) Room 25 - Noname (2018)
44) Norman Fucking Rockwell! - Lana Del Rey (2019)
43) 1000 gecs - 100 gecs (2019)
42) Sleep Well Beast - The National (2017)
41) Random Access Memories - Daft Punk (2013)
40) WHEN WE ALL FALL ASLEEP, WHERE DO WE GO? - Billie Eilish (2019)
39) To Be Kind - Swans (2014)
38) Cosmogramma - Flying Lotus (2010)
37) DAYTONA - Pusha T (2018)
36) Masseduction - St. Vincent (2017)
35) DAMN. - Kendrick Lamar (2017)
34) Some Rap Songs - Earl Sweatshirt (2018)
33) All My Heroes Are Cornballs - JPEGMAFIA (2019)
32) ye - Kanye West (2018)
31) The Next Day - David Bowie (2013)
30) channel ORANGE - Frank Ocean (2012)
29) Titanic Rising - Weyes Blood (2019)
28) A Crow Looked At Me - Mount Eerie (2017)
27) This Is Happening - LCD Soundsystem (2010)
26) Currents - Tame Impala (2015)
25) My Beautiful Dark Twisted Fantasy - Kanye West (2010)
24) Speedin’ Bullet 2 Heaven - Kid Cudi (2015)
23) Post Pop Depression - Iggy Pop (2016)
22) 2012-2017 - Against All Logic (2018)
21) Charli - Charli XCX (2019)
20) My Woman - Angel Olsen (2016)
19) Boarding House Reach - Jack White (2018)
18) Plastic Beach - Gorillaz (2010)
17) To Pimp A Butterfly - Kendrick Lamar (2015)
16) EMANON - Wayne Shorter (2018)
15) All Mirrors - Angel Olsen (2019)
14) iridescence - BROCKHAMPTON (2018)
13) Year Of The Snitch - Death Grips (2018)
11) We got it from Here… Thank You 4 Your service - A Tribe Called Quest (2016)
10) Pure Comedy - Father John Misty (2017)
9) A Moon Shaped Pool - Radiohead (2016)
8) A Seat At The Table - Solange (2016)
7) Yeezus - Kanye West (2013)
6) Flower Boy - Tyler, The Creator (2017)
4) IGOR - Tyler, The Creator (2019)
3) The Life Of Pablo - Kanye West (2016)
2) Blonde - Frank Ocean (2016)
1) Blackstar - David Bowie (2016)

(Malachi Lui is the hardest working young music critic in the world. Follow him on twitter: @MalachiLui.)

Anton D's picture

I appreciate that you are not a slave to the 'recency phenomenon' and have a decent time spread on your list!

I am going to check some that I am not familiar with! That's my favorite part of running into people's 'best of' turn ons!

Thanks, man!

MatthewK's picture

So impressed by your articulate and passionate take on music, when I think how barely-aware I was at your age it's intimidating. Aged almost 50 I closely agree with most of your choices, which is pretty cool. One disagreement - the best Charli XCX of the decade has to be Pop 2, as much as I like the new one.
I hope you retain your passion and that you continue to irritate those readers whose window for new music closed in the 1970s.

Nihil Obstat's picture

2010 is not part of the second decade of the XXI Century.The 10's are from 2011 to 2020.

MalachiLui's picture

is part of the 2010's. the years in the 2010's are always 201_. 2020 does not follow that formula. and if the last decade wasn't over yet, then why is literally everyone in the world posting their "best _______ of the decade" lists too?

randybass's picture

A decade is ten years. A new decade doesn't begin until the previous is ended. There was no year 0 so the first decade was 1-10, second was 11-20. Now count up from there. Technically we are still in the 2010's which runs from 2011-2020. Wrap your head around that. Why is literally everyone posting their best of the decade lists? Because they're wrong.

gmeese34's picture

So was 1900 part of the 1890s?

randybass's picture

Actually yes, technically 1900 was part of the 1890s, just as year 2000 was part of the 20th century. See, there was no year 0 so the first decade was 1-10, second was 11-20. Now count up from there.

Michael Fremer's picture
Everyone is wrong, and you are correct but people throughout the world make decade ending lists as the number turns over. It's what they do. It may be "technically wrong" but only you are a few other I don't know what to call y'all, fetish over it.....
randybass's picture

No, based what he wrote he sure didn't know it. Such is the state of education in America today.

Lemon Curry's picture

No Breeders, Snail Mail, Dylan (complete basement tapes, 66 live shows, rolling thunder boxes?, GBV ZoC or W&W, Specials Encore, Chrissie Hynde...but 4 Kanye albums??

Michael Fremer's picture
Will be addressed in a separate list!
MalachiLui's picture

there are actually 5 kanye records plus one that he entirely produced. and i love how some ppl think that reissues count in "albums of the decade" lists - they don't. (reissues list soon.) and tho i did find those gbv and breeders albums to be good, they weren't memorable or significant enough to make any kind of decade list.

jrmvinyl's picture

This is a music forum - please keep this writer's political comments out of his articles. I love music in order to escape the political crap that is infiltrating every forum. Comments like "I acknowledge that the 2010’s were a complete mess. Disastrous elections, racism, religious and regional intolerance, war, and climate change all contributed to our current feeling of impending doom". A boy of Makachi's age has no reference to make these comments. We should not have to listen to any writer's opening salvo about his view of politics.

I do not want to hear about any of this whether or not I agree with it. I can get this crap at Fox or CNN

MalachiLui's picture

1. who is makachi? i've never seen anybody named makachi on this website.

2. art does not exist in a bubble. there is literally NO WAY to disconnect some of these albums from the outside world. political and social issues are what some of these records are about.

3. and how do i have "no reference to make these comments?" yes, this is the only time period i've lived in (duh) but my generation has just as much if not more to worry about than yours ever did. our president tried to undermine our democracy, he could bring us to the brink of war with anyone just whenever he might feel like it, we could be shot to death any second (no matter how safe an area in which one lives), and the earth will probably overheat by the time i die. so you really think i have "no reference" to have political opinions? i'm never in panic mode from these things but they always have to be in the back of my mind.

Michael Fremer's picture
Is a fermented drink similar to Kombucha. Neither can produce as much gas as can Malachi.
Anton D's picture

The average age of the main music reviewers here is, what, 42?


MalachiLui's picture

tbh i haven’t actually tried kombucha yet bc every time i go to a place that has kombucha, i’d rather get some nice coffee.

Idontcare's picture

You have no point of reference about life because you have never lived on your own, been responsible for other people's well being or tried to make ends meet. Your affinity for a puritanical end times cult will leave you searching for meaning in about 15 years. Besides all that, your view on danger all around completely lacks depth and context when statistically it's the safest time to be a human being since the beginning of recorded time.

All that said you are too young to be critiquing creations of other, and instead should be focusing on creating things on your own.

MalachiLui's picture

...but have you ever thought of written criticism as a creation?

Idontcare's picture

In the most literal, obtuse, callow, lowest of all standards sort of way. At best your creation is contingent upon another persons work, and not in the sense of building upon it but literally being contingent upon it. Besides, anybody can write something is good or bad it doesn't really take a lot of guts. Taking years to learn a craft and then putting it all together to create something that is truly yours and putting it out there is not only challenging, but scary. Flippantly saying that something sucks or is awesome takes none of that.

Michael Fremer's picture
If a "critic" writes simply that something "sucks", yes that is easy and not challenging but to suggest that there's no art or creativity or use for critics indicates you are very foolish. The best artists respect and pay attention to astute critics.
Idontcare's picture

I don't believe what you wrote to be true. I am sure that some musicians may give lip service to critics because that's all part of the game, but do they really change or improve because some guy in a magazine didn't like their album? Most critics are seen by musicians as failures who couldn't make it. The same way athletes don't actually respect sports writers. The relationship between Whitler and Ruskin is probably the most honest relationship between an artist and critic that has ever existed.

Michael Fremer's picture
Here's a well reasoned explanation for the role of a critic, written by someone who can actually think, instead of just excreting: What is Art Criticism and Why is it Important in an Artist's Life? The term art criticism refers to the analysis, evaluation and discussion of an artwork. It requires the participant to reflect about a particular work of art and make a personal, substantiated interpretation of the piece. The term was first used in 1719 by English painter Jonathan Richardson in his publication An Essay on the Whole Art of Criticism. In his book, Richardson attempted to create a system to rank works of art based on drawing, composition, invention and use of color. Aside from analyzing the piece itself, professional art critics also question whether an artwork has importance within its historical context and how it relates to works before it. Criticism (the constructive kind) is necessary in an artist's life because it is quite simply one of the best ways to improve our work. We should actively seek ways to better our skills, not only in terms of technique, but in how well we are able to engage and connect with the public. Even though most of us create in solitude, we do it with the purpose of eventually sharing our art with the world. ​Not everyone will react favorably, of course, but we should keep creating for those people that do find themselves in our work.
Idontcare's picture

You keep on calling me names and questioning my intelligence when I haven't been anything but cordial. I really don't understand why you can't have a civil back and forth without acting like douchebag.

Anyway, the problem with Lancaster's point of view (someone who I should point out is not known to be either an academic or someone really tangible in contemporary or representational art scene) is that Richardson was a highly skilled artist of his period and region which is why guys like Joshua Reynolds took his writings seriously. The fact that he was more interested in the theory of and writing about aesthetics as opposed to the actual act of picture making is not unoriginal many over time were the same (Vasari comes to mind).

Of course criticism is a major component for getting better, but where do high skilled individuals receive it? For creative people it's typically their peers and not writers. I don't think this point of view is really all that controversial. I have plenty of professional artists friends in my circle and none of them really pay attention to what is written about their gallery openings but we get more from each other when we have studio visits or painting sessions.

Michael Fremer's picture
"Where's Mozart?" Answer: "He's Haydn". Every great artist, every great piece of art even the most original is dependent in one way or another upon something produced by another artist.
Michael Fremer's picture
Now runs the White House. The cult of The Rapture, of end times etc. runs the lives of Mike Pence and Mike Pimpeo, among others. They support Israel only because they believe Israel must exist for Jesus to return. Once they pick a guy to play Jesus and get enough people to believe it, the way they believe the lying, ignorant clown in the White House actually knows what he's doing, they will offer Jews (me) a choice: buy into their B.S. or get tossed into the fire. To accuse Malachi of having an affinity for a "puritanical end times cult" is an example of your projection. No doubt you support the cult of Trump and "end times" religious crazies.
Idontcare's picture

First of all, let me say that I appreciate the website and all the work you do in getting information on many pressings that I have been on the fence about in past, it has been very informative.

That said, I think it's rather naïve to infer any of what you wrote from my criticism of your boy. I did not vote for Donald Trump nor do I advocate for Christian Zionism (or really our country's policy in the Middle East which is not specific to the current sitting president). I think it's sad that thoughts and ideas for many can't reside in a vacuum without it putting you on a side or a team. I absolutely think the far left's rhetoric of virtue signaling and climate end times proclamations goes too far in the same way that I think the far right's immigrant fear mongering and antagonizing goes too far. Like with all things most political truth reside in the middle.

Michael Fremer's picture
Roy Martin's picture tell Michael Fremer how to run HIS website
...that we care why you personally listen to music
...that politics in this pivotal election year to you is "crap"
...that Malachi and his generation have no stake in said election
...that writing is "listening" that you can't escape by simply skipping the parts that offend you
...that anyone cares about what you want to hear

If you "love music," how about giving us your take on the content of Malachi's list rather than on peripheral comments that have little bearing on his overall presentation?

Anton D's picture

Remember Chef, the guy who was too tightly wrapped for Vietnam? Heck, too tightly wrapped for New Orleans?

That's you on Analog Planet! ;-D

I was Malachi's age during the was pretty easy to pick up on the general vibe, the civil rights issues, the war, etc. Living in a given time gives one the reference.

What did you tune into as a teenager when assessing the status of the country you live in? Nickelodeon? You, as a teen, trying to figure it all his age what did you think?

Side note: His name is not Makachi. But, then, he's probably too young to understand spelling, eh?

Hajidub's picture

If someone doesn't agree with every aspect of Malaki's article you, 60 something in bejazzled skinny jeans, argue and defend with the veracity of a helicopter grandparent. The writer will continue to grow as a writer (he's already better than 70% of the writers on here, including myself) and doesn't need the coddling. Do I like 90% of his music recommendations, no, does he explain them in a fantastic manner, yes. If I hear about the album IGOR will I strangle a kitten, yes, but that's beyond the point.

MalachiLui's picture


jrmvinyl's picture

Makachi: Michaels comments are great.

My point remains: this is not a political site. If the songwriters address politics, then that is fair to discuss in the context of the musical evaluation.

I was remiss in not adding that Malachi's evaluation and comments about the music were well founded and well stated. He is an excellent writer and deserves praise.

PeterPani's picture

Especially, when they come from the youth!

azmoon's picture

..will not get a swelled head with this unearned opportunity to spew his taste on the MF site. Maybe its too late for that. I really have no interest in a 14 year olds opinion on music. And there are probably very few teenagers below age 15 reading this site - if any. Boring.

Anton D's picture

Please give us your age range for being allowed to offer what you consider to be valid opinion!

Did you check out the list?

What did you think of it?

MalachiLui's picture

so building up my knowledge and opinion base about music for 5 years before even starting this job makes this "unearned?" what do you consider as "earning" this job? and what makes you think that i have any interest in YOUR opinion on music? boring.

Michael Fremer's picture
If you'd bother to read some of his jazz reviews, which you obviously haven't, you'd find them informed and useful. In fact, one very well known and well respected music producer, after reading his review of the "lost" John Coltrane album remarked to me "Damn! If I was writing a review, that's pretty much what I'd have written". It was a negative review BTW. As for teenagers below 15, the amount of traffic and views he gets indicated a large influx of new readers. There's no other explanation.
Tom L's picture

Music, politics, whatever. None of it bothers me, certainly not enough to go online and rip someone who disagrees with me. It's all food for thought, and I have enough sense to figure out what matters to me and what doesn't. Why do some people get so worked up about this stuff?

Phil D's picture

I appreciate the young, aware and pro-music perspective - it's a time-saver. These kind of lists are fun. Honestly, probably are enough of us opinionated pre-digital guys to go around.

randybass's picture

Malachi's comments on the state of the world, of feeling impending doom, is an interesting window into what the youth are being exposed to today. It's awful how our children are being indoctrinated and I fear he represents the thoughts of many of his generation, so pay attention to the warning signs and guard against what this line of training will reap in the coming years.

MalachiLui's picture

"the thoughts of many of his generation," because we have the fate of the world to worry about while you don't think about it because you'll be long dead (and deservedly so) by then.

randybass's picture

That's just plain hysterical nonsense. Do you realize humans have seen five ice-ages come and go without a single SUV around? Climate has always been changing. My godfather was the longest serving director of the National Center for Atmospheric Research and still chairs international conferences on climate research dealing in real science. His take: No evidence climate change is significantly caused by human activity, at most a few percent. Despite whatever propaganda ministers have told you global warming ceased about 20 years ago and we may actually be heading into a cooling period. But hey, don't let science and fats stand in the way of a made-up crisis.
P.S. Ageism and judging someone deserves death is not a good look for an aspiring journalist.

MalachiLui's picture

if you (and "your godfather") so strongly believe that climate change hasn't been at least somewhat human-induced, please provide a link to your information source. overwhelming evidence suggests the opposite of what you're saying. i will only take your opinion seriously if a) you post a link to your source, and b) if that source is actually factual.

randybass's picture

My information source is a person whose been studying the atmosphere for over 50 years at the highest level who happens to be my godfather. He's massively credentialed. My godfather and I don't communicate through websites and he hasn't shared links with me. His insights come about through casual conversations at brunch when I bring up the topic of his work, in which he tells me he's neither seen nor heard any convincing evidence that man's contribution to climate change is more than negligible regardless of "the-end-is-near" fearmongers. You don't believe me, fine. I guess I can't blame you if all you've heard all your life is that the planet is doomed and it's man's fault.

Like anyone else I can research websites that cooroberate what my godfather has told me. But before we get to that, you assert that humans are responsible so prove it to me. What "overwhelming evidence" is there? Cite it if you can without referencing hyperbolic proclamations that only aim to seize control of a national economy. (e.g. )

Here is a 2019 source from a House committee in DC that asks what has caused the past 20,000 years of global warming:

One from the UK:

One about the many ice ages including graphs of fluctuating Earth's temps, all without the influence of fossil fuels:

Of global warming having ended in the late 90's:.

And a very brief summary of headlines over 40 years assuring us that the weather will and has already killed us.

MalachiLui's picture

the first link (mo brooks) comes from the website of REPUBLICAN representative from ALABAMA mo brooks. republicans are notorious from taking large donations from fossil fuel lobbying groups to undermine the truth about climate change. and that is not liberal bias or anything: it's proven fact. i did more research into mo brooks and found that in 2018, he READ HITLER'S BOOK on the HOUSE FLOOR. are you sure that this is who you want to be getting strongly biased climate information from?

i would also like to know who your supposed godfather is. just saying that he's "massively credentialed" isn't helping your case right now. i need to know who he is to do my own independent research about him.

(by the way, this is where i'm getting my climate information from. they cite several sources that back up mine and most other people's ideas about climate change. and if you think that the new york times has too much of a liberal bias, they've also recently published some op-eds from some VERY conservative groups. anyway, here's the article:

randybass's picture

Ahh, New York Times? Speaking of Hitler do you know that the Times were instrumental in burying the reporting of the Holocaust as it was occurring (in addition to being anti-Semitic in its current form)?

If your litmus test for truth is motive of the reporter, the New York Times isn't fit to line bird cages.

I read that NYT article on warming you gave me and the article makes assertions that changes of climate are caused by man but never back it up, NASA guys just say it's so, well, because they know it to be true. However, NASA and NASA Goddard Institute are known for manipulating their data to exaggerate Climate Change:

My trusted source shall remain mine and just like your NY Times' sources, I reserve his right to privacy. I love and respect him far to much and it would be unseemly to throw his name around just to prove a point on the internet. So I'm sorry, you'll have to do your "own independent research" without knowing his name.

I don't know who Mo Brooks is or how he could get away with what your research accuses him of, but I wasn't citing him. Read the testimony, it's a matter of public record. Four noted climatologists backed up the claim humans have not been causing the warming that began 20,000 years ago. Isn't that what you were challenging me with producing for you?

I mean, use your head. Earth has come in and out of five ice ages with average surface temps fluctuating 25 deg Farenheight. And you think people are the cause of that?

And I notice you didn't give comment to any of the other ten sources I cited, not that they're my sources of use, which points to the same conclusion; that significant man-made climate change isn't evident and the propogandists are scaring the hell out of our children with a false narrative for their own doubious ends.

tcinoz's picture

All your (and every other climate skeptic's) assertions addressed on one concise page:

tcinoz's picture

I mean how much evidence do you people need? We all know why the fossil fuel industry spends so much money on spreading falsehoods. Same reasons the tobacco industry did. (See 'Merchants of Doubt' by Naomi Oreskes and Erik Conway.) The main reason this has become a specifically conservative rallying point is not because of any convincing evidence but simply because they despise liberals and environmentalists so much that they'll argue that black is white so as not to be seen to be on the same side as them. It's plain petulance - and highly irresponsible at that... not to mention effing irritating in the current context!

tcinoz's picture
randybass's picture

Has nothing to do with hate, just common sense mixed with unatainted science, and a dash of seeing through the charade for what the true motives are.

Michael Fremer's picture
You promote an outlier view based on what's not accepted among the vast majority of scientists. You and the outliers may be correct—they occasionally are— but rather than leave it at that, you feel the paranoid right wing "urge" to ascribe certain "motives" to the scientists and label the science in true Trumpian fashion a "charade". You simply can't help but project onto the scientific community the motives of the fossil fuel industry that runs the corrupt Trump administration and that's the dead giveaway to your dishonesty. In any case, whether or not the heating planet, which only crazy people can deny is happening, is the result of man's activities or not it is happening. It just may be man caused, and if you are 100% sure the science is wrong, then you are truly crazy as a loon. So in case you are wrong, the cost switching to non-fossil fuel energy is not great. It's similar to buying insurance. I don't think my house will burn down or I'll get into a serious car crash. The odds are against it but it would be incredibly STUPID to not take out the policies and in fact, they are mandated but were they not, I'd still get them. Here's a FACT not to be denied: the oceans are rapidly acidifying due to the C02 being dumped in the air and thus into the oceans. The coral reefs that house the fish that a large percentage of the world's population rely upon for food are DYING--bleached because of the acidification yet YOU would do nothing about that. You remind me of two groups of right wing imbeciles: the first were in CA when the air was so filthy and smog-laden you could barely see the mountains and breathing was difficult. The "tree hugger/libtard/socialist/communist/scientists proposed cleaning it all up with mandatory laws specifying auto emission standards. These were labeled "socialism" and "communism" and the usual bullshit verbiage. Were these laws put into effect, argued the lunatics, the costs would spiral out of control and make buying a new car prohibitively expensive! The auto industry would suffer or go bankrupt, millions of jobs would be lost and the technology would never work. I heard it all. The "libtard/tree hugger/socialist/communists claimed the tech would work and be developed creating an entirely new industry and a lot of jobs. The air would get clean, the cost of emissions controls would drop, the tech issues would be solved and health care costs would plummet saving millions of dollars in the process. GUESS WHICH SIDE WAS CORRECT? Right! "The socialist/communist/scientists". The air got clean, the emergency room admissions due to respiratory illnesses plummeted etc. Acidification of lakes was a major issue decades ago caused by pollution spewing from coal fired plants in the midwest blowing into pristine areas back east. That was also stopped and dead lakes came back. The acidified oceans can be restored to the correct PH and the reefs can be saved but it will take strong opposition to knuckleheads like you and that's why i've taken the time to write this. Man may or may not be the cause of the undeniably rapidly changing climate but man is 100% the cause of the acidification of the oceans. And man can reverse that by switching to green energy ASAP. We were on the way towards that here and showing the world true leadership--at least until a lying, grifter, extortionist John Gotti-like thug lost the popular vote by 3 millions but won the electoral college. We will eventually again find our way.
randybass's picture

Here's your motive:

...and I wouldn't call$93 trillion an insignificant amount of money.

I'm not a scientist by trade but I know one who is in the matters of atmospheric research on a world-wide level and he actually says the scientific community does not embrace anthropogenic climate change in great numbers. We as a society are being lied to.

I can't speak to the acidification of oceans either, but what you are saying sounds terrible. I have heard that trees are quite healthy these days. Hopefully they can be promoted and not continued to be mowed down, rain forests that is.

And not that I'm a Trump fan but it looks like he's gonna be reelected by a much wider popular vote this year. Don't you sense that?

Michael Fremer's picture
That's not a science site, it's far right hate-oriented non-journalist site run by the imbecile Tucker Carlson. You keep stepping into your own shit, claiming "science" and using extreme right wing political sites as your source.
randybass's picture

Ok Michael. Here's the same story as the one you rejected outright because you don't trust source. Regarding motive for attempting to scare everyone with killer weather stories and so called Green New Deal to fix it. From four other news sources. I don't know if they will meet your approval, probably not. And when do you scream Fake News? When you disagree with what gets reported, like someone else we know in DC?

ChrisS's picture

Nothing wrong or "scary" about proposing a green and fair economy.

Michael Fremer's picture
Trump lost the popular vote by 3 million votes. He's not particularly popular now nor was he in 2018 when the GOP was pretty much run out of town.
Michael Fremer's picture
Have no common sense. And if you are going to present your godfather as an authority we need a name.
randybass's picture

Thanks for the compliment. As I wrote to Malachi, my source shall remain mine and I reserve his right to privacy. I love and respect him far to much and it would be unseemly to namedrop the great man just to prove a point on the internet. Thanks for the site regardless, it's a great resource!

randybass's picture

I failed to see the argument "All the Data Presented Here Has Been Manipulated" listed

tcinoz's picture

Just that. Huh??

Michael Fremer's picture
Your comment about The New York Times is positively hilarious since the paper was owned and operated by Jews then and is to this day. Who's calling them anti-semites? The Daily Beast? You cite The Daily Caller is Tucker Carlson's website and you cite it as a scientific source?. That's hilarious. All of your sources are tabloids or fake science sites. You cite Principia, which is a known FAKE SCIENCE WEBSITE that's also anti-vaccine. "Overall, we rate Principia Scientific International (PSI) a strong conspiracy and Pseudoscience website that promotes anti-vaccine propaganda and frequent misinformation regarding climate change." The longest serving director of NCAR was Robert Serafin 1989-2000. Is that your Godfather? His email address was easy to find. I've sent him one. I'll soon know if he knows you.
randybass's picture

My source is a person and I've had to try to find supporting documentation because Malachi said he wouldn't believe unless he saw something online to back it up. The NY Times, just this past year, has had to apologize a couple or few times when members of their editorial board let slip their anti-Semitic feelings and published such cartoons, perhaps you didn't catch that if your only news cones from that sad publication. Please let me know what Robert Serrafin has to say!

randybass's picture

Meant in writing AND cartoons

Michael Fremer's picture
The International Edition of The New York Times published an anti-semitic cartoon and apologized. Trump produces a climate of intolerance and anti-semitic hate while courting Jewish voters. He expects to get it both ways, but most Jews (80%+) detest him.
Michael Fremer's picture
Michael Fremer's picture CONSPIRACY-PSEUDOSCIENCE Sources in the Conspiracy-Pseudoscience category may publish unverifiable information that is not always supported by evidence. These sources may be untrustworthy for credible/verifiable information, therefore fact checking and further investigation is recommended on a per article basis when obtaining information from these sources. See all Conspiracy-Pseudoscience sources. Overall, we rate Principia Scientific International (PSI) a strong conspiracy and Pseudoscience website that promotes anti-vaccine propaganda and frequent misinformation regarding climate change.
Michael Fremer's picture
You are the indoctrinated. Malachi is actually quite the aware, well-read individual.
randybass's picture

Sounds like they got to you too!

Michael Fremer's picture
Who is "they"?
MalachiLui's picture

michael and i are PROFESSIONAL JOURNALISTS AND CRITICS who are well respected among the music and audio industries as reliable sources. just ask other people (who are probably are so far above your level that they don’t even have time to answer you) and they’ll tell you exactly that.

you, on the other hand, aren’t a professional writer, much less one with factual statements or valid opinions.

i’m sure b.o.b.’s “flatline” is your favorite rap song.

Michael Fremer's picture
When I was growing up idiots with AR-15s weren't slaughtering children in schools. Kids are now "exposed" to this because of the gun lobby, gun nuts, the NRA and its corrupt Russian friends. OH! And an extremist Supreme Court that overturned a century or more of precedent to invent a new meaning for "A well regulated militia...." etc. So Randy, "are exposed" means school shootings caused by America's right wing. And not by the average responsible gun owner who polls show supports background checks and red flag laws. Unfortunately America is now "exposed" to this violence because extremists are running the place. And people are dying.
tcinoz's picture

..Mount Eerie's 'A Crow Looked At Me' on this list. I have the album and also saw him perform it live. He did a signing session after the show but would not sign this album because of its special significance to him, so I had to buy another of his albums for the signature! Not such a bad thing as it turned out.

dbvl13's picture

So happy to see you put Frank at #2, i'm starting to have more faith in you than Fremer! Great to see Kamasi made the list, the Avalanches. Surprised to see You Want it Darker at all. Love the album, just thought you had to be closer to my age to really love it. Just a few nitpicks. That's what these lists are for, right, nitpick each other's subjective choices?! Kendrick should be much higher, both DAMN and To Pimp a Butterfly. DAMN is soo much better than Earl Sweatshirt. i like Earl, but DAMN is far better. And i hate to say it, it does reveal my bias, but too much Kanye. He should definitely be there, but just not so much of him. i view him as an immensely talented goofball, inconsistent at best. But then i'm 60, so what do i know! Thanks for the work that went into this. Enjoyed it very much.

Michael Fremer's picture
I'm 100% okay with that! Kamasi, Avalanches, L. Cohen, and Kendrick were on both of our lists as was our shared #1 album. I'd say that's pretty good!
dbvl13's picture

I will always love you, Michael. You were my sanity through those dark days of the late 80s and 90s when those who thought Lps were so superior sounding to digital were ridiculed. I have followed you since The Tracking Angle days, used to read every word you wrote because I heard what you heard. Thank you for all your work over the years and thank you for giving Malachi the space and opportunity to write about all “his” music. For what it’s worth, your list is probably closer to mine!

Tom L's picture

I won't be around, but some people are going to look reeeeaally dumb.

Even if only part of the current climate warming is man-made, doesn't it make sense to try to do something about that part of it now, before it becomes an existential disaster?

Michael Fremer's picture
I am open to all kinds of legitimate political comment as it relates to music and/or to opinions like the one's expressed by Mr. Lui relative to the past decade. I am even open to anti-climate change legit science. I am not open to and will argue against fake news, fake science, and references posted on this site to hoax sites and political sites on which science takes a backseat
avanti1960's picture

one of the best works of art of any classification in the last 50 years. I am not aware of any artist that expressed his heart and emotional state so honestly and so vividly through one of his works.
It is so powerful in the context of his impending departure that it is literally difficult to listen to.
Then again that epitomized Bowie's career- he challenged us like no other artist.

lazerdewd2020's picture

How is it even possible that Tool's "Fear Inoculum" album didn't even make honorable mention for 2019? It was their first record in 13 years, debuted a strong #1 on Billboard's album chart (which after such a long layoff is amazing in and of itself) and frankly their first class musicianship makes some of these other bands on this list look silly. Tool is a band that has always done things "their way" with zero compromises - they truly kick rear

MalachiLui's picture

because it was meh. and at this point, i barely remember any of it. i'd probably downgrade my original review score to a 5 or 6 (it was only a light 7 to begin with):

JilliRose's picture

THis is a very good unique collection for next generation.