Best Ever Albums

Re: historically acclaimed versus personally resonant

Anonymous — Mon, 10 Mar 2014 02:07:07 GMT

Author: Anonymous

Posted: 03/10/2014 06:07

rayword45 wrote:

I'm guessing the newest album you've listened to multiple times is Abbey Road?

He was joking.

Re: historically acclaimed versus personally resonant

junodog4 — Sun, 9 Mar 2014 22:33:28 GMT

Author: junodog4

Posted: 03/10/2014 02:33

�'� Thanks guys - an interesting and civil discussion at the same time. I'll try to remember this next time a discussion about Jay-Z, Queen, or gay marriage gets derailed.

Re: historically acclaimed versus personally resonant

latenighttv — Sun, 9 Mar 2014 21:12:41 GMT

Author: latenighttv

Posted: 03/10/2014 01:12

lethalnezzle wrote:

There are endless variables. It could be anything from the record company's refusal or inability to properly back the record, the artist's own issues (illness that prevents touring or promotion), the fact that a record just doesn't seem to fit a certain zeitgeist, the fact that the artist in question is totally unknown, certain tastemakers either praising or criticising it, society's own rather poisonous pre-existing ideas about what constitutes "great art" and what constitutes "disposable crap", etcetera etcetera. Pretty much everything except the music can be a reason for a "great" album getting lost over time. Any record has the potential to be a "classic" (i.e. a record that becomes canonical and gets pulled into a cycle of being a record that is discussed widely and passed from generation to generation), it just depends on whether the outside factors all work in its favour. We live in a society that puts more value and import on the songs of The Beatles and Bob Dylan than it does on the songs of Herman's Hermits and Donovan, but in another lifetime the roles could be have been reversed. 'Sunshine Superman' could be seen as a piece of musical genius that puts 'Like a Rolling Stone' to shame. I'd say the promotion and critical praise a record receives is far more influential in deciding whether or not said album becomes a "classic" than the music is. An album can be appraised and reappraised and re-reappraised endlessly, and they often are, yet the music itself never changes.

Agree that there are any number of non-musical reasons why it can happen. I suppose of late, rightly or wrongly, I had given some thought to whether there might be any shared characteristics (weaknesses, flaws or whatever) between some of these albums in a musical sense that damage their ability to remain 'recommendable' as time goes on.

It definitely seems to be true in general that what was acclaimed / popular 'then' is still acclaimed / popular 'now', but many albums do enjoy widespread acclaim upon release, only to quickly become obscure in spite of this.

Re: historically acclaimed versus personally resonant

Anonymous — Sun, 9 Mar 2014 19:57:18 GMT

Author: Anonymous

Posted: 03/09/2014 23:57

ihh2013 wrote:

I had been thinking more in terms of bands / artists with much smaller discographies. What's your own take on why some great albums get lost over time?

Re: historically acclaimed versus personally resonant

rayword45 — Sun, 9 Mar 2014 19:52:37 GMT

Author: rayword45

Posted: 03/09/2014 23:52

Dingerbell wrote:

Whenever I find an album I like that Rolling Stone hasn't included in their top 500 albums I immediately cast it aside, and never listen to it again.

I'm guessing the newest album you've listened to multiple times is Abbey Road?

Re: historically acclaimed versus personally resonant

latenighttv — Sun, 9 Mar 2014 19:39:22 GMT

Author: latenighttv

Posted: 03/09/2014 23:39

lethalnezzle wrote:

Oh I get you. You mean like Bob Dylan's voice, or experiments like 'Revolution 9'?

I had been thinking more in terms of bands / artists with much smaller discographies. What's your own take on why some great albums get lost over time?

Re: historically acclaimed versus personally resonant

SuedeSwede — Sun, 9 Mar 2014 18:58:23 GMT

Author: SuedeSwede

Posted: 03/09/2014 22:58

Tradex wrote:

In my chart are albums that are pretty personal to me, as a reminder of some sort or hold a message but I will listen to other albums and if I do like them then I shall put them in my chart so it's a mix really.

'Historically acclaimed' just means what's considered to be the best or most influential for music history, and 'personal resonance' is just anything that clicks with you or resonates with you. So your chart is solely personal resonance in this case.

Re: historically acclaimed versus personally resonant

Anonymous — Sun, 9 Mar 2014 18:55:26 GMT

Author: Anonymous

Posted: 03/09/2014 22:55

ihh2013 wrote:

For sure, that will definitely be the case during the early years of an album's life but I reckon if it has any characteristic that can attract strong / sharp criticism from anyone (be it a professional reviewer or any ordinary consumer) then the album tends to slowly evolve into a 'cult classic' and maybe then, in time, an obscure gem or whatever.

Oh I get you. You mean like Bob Dylan's voice, or experiments like 'Revolution 9'?

Re: historically acclaimed versus personally resonant

latenighttv — Sun, 9 Mar 2014 18:39:16 GMT

Author: latenighttv

Posted: 03/09/2014 22:39

lethalnezzle wrote:

It's all very dependent on which critic is reviewing the album in question. One man's trash and all that jazz.

Mies wrote:

True.
Also, critics usually consider things like historical importance, or society and glamour importance (I'm thinking about Rolling Stone)..
Or sometimes there are albums that just represented a whole generation, and that resist to time like no others, so everyone should try to understand the reasons.

I've probably been thinking about the whole thing a little bit lately as a lot of the '90s music I liked is starting to fade into obscurity while albums / artists I don't necessarily see as being better continue to find new listeners / their way into published lists. 😉 Just the way it goes, I guess.

Re: historically acclaimed versus personally resonant

Anonymous — Sun, 9 Mar 2014 14:51:47 GMT

Author: Anonymous

Posted: 03/09/2014 18:51

ihh2013 wrote:

Agree with you on this. There are lots of 'flawed gems' out there, but if an album is flawed in any way then I think critics will ultimately turn their back on it.

Long-term critical acclaim is far more likely to be bestowed upon a good / unspectacular album with no noticeable flaws than an album that is great apart from say, a few obvious lyrical mis-steps, or the vocalist's 'annoying voice', or something.

Re: historically acclaimed versus personally resonant

Anonymous — Sun, 9 Mar 2014 14:35:18 GMT

Author: Anonymous

Posted: 03/09/2014 18:35

ihh2013 wrote:

Maybe it's usually very obvious that there's something on an album that drags it down. Some of Brian Molko's lyrics, for instance, or his voice. Something that definitely 'won't be for everyone' and would make it harder for critics to wholeheartedly recommend the album (I tolerate more than enjoy Molko on the second Placebo album, for instance, but am attracted back to listen to it by the excellent backing music).

It's all very dependent on which critic is reviewing the album in question. One man's trash and all that jazz.

Re: historically acclaimed versus personally resonant

latenighttv — Sun, 9 Mar 2014 13:43:36 GMT

Author: latenighttv

Posted: 03/09/2014 17:43

lethalnezzle wrote:

Who decides what constitutes a "flaw"?

Re: historically acclaimed versus personally resonant

Anonymous — Sun, 9 Mar 2014 13:22:18 GMT

Author: Anonymous

Posted: 03/09/2014 17:22

ihh2013 wrote:

Who decides what constitutes a "flaw"?

Re: historically acclaimed versus personally resonant

latenighttv — Sun, 9 Mar 2014 13:19:29 GMT

Author: latenighttv

Posted: 03/09/2014 17:19

Mies wrote:

I start from these that are my personally favourites, even for very personal reasons. Well, I should say that among these, there are many historically important and acclaimed albums. But there are some unfamous ones, too. Usually, if I like one of them, I think that's important for music, even if other people don't think so. So the question is not so easy.
Anyway, if I like so much an album and I realize that's not so important for music, and I understand it has some points of weackness, but I still like it very much.. then I'll put on my chart anyway. But maybe I'll try to consider those weackness points and think about it in a more objective way.

Re: historically acclaimed versus personally resonant

NickVolos — Sun, 9 Mar 2014 12:22:43 GMT

Author: NickVolos

Posted: 03/09/2014 16:22

paladisiac wrote:

Hi all,

This may have been asked before, but i'm asking it now. Which is more important to you in drawing up your "besteveralbums" chart -- that an album is historically and widely acclaimed or that it is personally significant or meaningful in your life?

I think this is pretty obvious for most of us (94% of votes)... 😜

Re: historically acclaimed versus personally resonant

Tradex — Sun, 9 Mar 2014 12:00:37 GMT

Author: Tradex

Posted: 03/09/2014 16:00

In my chart are albums that are pretty personal to me, as a reminder of some sort or hold a message but I will listen to other albums and if I do like them then I shall put them in my chart so it's a mix really.

Re: historically acclaimed versus personally resonant

Anonymous — Sun, 9 Mar 2014 11:45:56 GMT

Author: Anonymous

Posted: 03/09/2014 15:45

I start from these that are my personally favourites, even for very personal reasons. Well, I should say that among these, there are many historically important and acclaimed albums. But there are some unfamous ones, too. Usually, if I like one of them, I think that's important for music, even if other people don't think so. So the question is not so easy.
Anyway, if I like so much an album and I realize that's not so important for music, and I understand it has some points of weackness, but I still like it very much.. then I'll put on my chart anyway. But maybe I'll try to consider those weackness points and think about it in a more objective way.

Re: historically acclaimed versus personally resonant

mickilennial — Sun, 9 Mar 2014 03:17:15 GMT

Author: mickilennial

Posted: 03/09/2014 07:17

For anybody that has followed me on RYM (so nobody here) knows, I go back and forth between variable scaling systems but I can't bring myself to do it here yet, perhaps my OCD hasn't hit rock bottom yet.

On RYM my ratings currently reflect a sort of a "I dont care, these are my feelings" scale right now, but in the past I've dabbled with a 50/50 objective-subjective scale and other such things. I think musical influence, importance, and composition cohesiveness should play a role in SOMETHING. I believe that there's a lot of objective, mechanical, and factual basis's we could look for but it ends up becoming way too complicated.

Re: historically acclaimed versus personally resonant

Anonymous — Thu, 27 Feb 2014 19:24:26 GMT

Author: Anonymous

Posted: 02/28/2014 00:24

sp4cetiger wrote:

What did you think it was before?

Well I noticed it was a tiger and probably subconsciously noticed it was in space but never really registered that it was related to your name.

Re: historically acclaimed versus personally resonant

Anonymous — Thu, 27 Feb 2014 19:22:42 GMT

Author: Anonymous

Posted: 02/28/2014 00:22

swedenman wrote:

Oh wow I only just now realized that sp4cetiger's avatar is literally a space tiger. Funny.

What did you think it was before?