Best Ever Albums

Re: your ratings don't ncssrly suck all or even most of the time

RoundTheBend — Mon, 30 Oct 2017 21:17:08 GMT

Author: RoundTheBend

Posted: 10/31/2017 01:17

I really do like all of you.

Re: your ratings don't ncssrly suck all or even most of the time

Anonymous — Mon, 30 Oct 2017 08:14:06 GMT

Author: Anonymous

Posted: 10/30/2017 12:14

craola wrote:

manurock wrote:

I don't disagree with any of this.

elo269megv wrote:

a zero? sheesh. that's harsh.

i must think those albums suck.

to be fair, this thread was basically just a knee-jerk reaction to seeing holly herndon's album with such a low rating, which jarred me. i generally don't care too much about the ratings (as you pointed out, i give away zeros like their kittens), and i started this thread rather trollishly (titled it your ratings suck).... i didn't mean for anyone to take it too seriously. in the end, i just wanted to ask people for low-rated recs that i mightn't listen to otherwise.

i used to rate across the gamut. it all felt terribly convoluted to give one album an 83 to another album's 81 and so forth. so i opt'd f'r the thumbup-thumbdown appraisal wit 50 being a neutral response. is that hypocritical? sure. i obviously value my opinion of nirvana's discography more than anyone else's. who wouldn't prefer their own opinion?

do i really think the ratings here totally suck? no! ...yes. but no. most of the time, if something gets a 77+ rating, it's at least worth a listen. i just get a willie unsupervised some smacks when an album i thoroughly enjoyed gets the low balls from the highrollers.

---
i'm not even going to bother trying to defend pablo honey. even /r/radiohead spits on its laurels, so i know it's too much an uphill battle to bother.

Giving 0 to Nevermind or Piper is a bit hasty, to say the least… (even I didn’t give a zero to In a Aeroplane Over the Sea... 😮 )

Re: your ratings don't ncssrly suck all or even most of the time

craola — Mon, 30 Oct 2017 02:11:55 GMT

Author: craola

Posted: 10/30/2017 06:11

manurock wrote:

I don't disagree with any of this.

elo269megv wrote:

souplipton wrote:

It seems that craola only give ratings of 100, 50, or 0, and about 3/4 of his album ratings are 100, so it's either a very limited, trinary view of album quality, or an attempt to influence the average rating of albums. It looks to me like an attempt to influence the average rating of these albums, but I guess that's for him to say.

i used to rate across the gamut. it all felt terribly convoluted to give one album an 83 to another album's 81 and so forth. so i opt'd f'r the thumbup-thumbdown appraisal wit 50 being a neutral response. is that hypocritical? sure. i obviously value my opinion of nirvana's discography more than anyone else's. who wouldn't prefer their own opinion?

do i really think the ratings here totally suck? no! ...yes. but no. most of the time, if something gets a 77+ rating, it's at least worth a listen. i just get a willie unsupervised some smacks when an album i thoroughly enjoyed gets the low balls from the highrollers.

---
i'm not even going to bother trying to defend pablo honey. even /r/radiohead spits on its laurels, so i know it's too much an uphill battle to bother.

Re: your ratings don't ncssrly suck all or even most of the time

souplipton — Sun, 29 Oct 2017 16:16:20 GMT

Author: souplipton

Posted: 10/29/2017 20:16

elo269megv wrote:

craola wrote:

yada yada you knw whre this is gng. there are albums on this site that are PHERNOMENAL with piss-poor ratings.

like.. you guys got them waxes in your ears? the hell.

i'm going through my lists, aaand i know i'm not the only one who feels some need to defend some of these albums MASTERPIECES with absurdly low ratings.

Coming from someone who gave 0/100 ratings to albums like:

Please Please Me
In Utero
Nevermind
Piper at the Gates of Dawn
Sticky Fingers
Weezer Blue Album
Sex Pistols Never Mind The Bullocks
Atom Heart Mother
Pinkerton
Sabbath Bloody Sabbath
Whatever People Say I Am, Thats What Im Not
King Crimson Red

Unless you were trying to say these albums are overrated, in which case, I respect your opinion but it's a little hypocritical.

Re: your RATINGS suck

souplipton — Sun, 29 Oct 2017 16:09:35 GMT

Author: souplipton

Posted: 10/29/2017 20:09

elo269megv wrote:

And I love Radiohead. Pablo Honey is the only album of theirs I don't physically own.

Same

dihansse wrote:

Well I also like Pablo Honey a bit more than most people on this site and here is a theory of mine but maybe more for the Controversial Music Opinion thread:

If Radiohead wouldn't have gone on to make these majestic follow-up albums and would have made 3 or so albums like this one and then Thom Yorke would have died (which of course I don't wish), then Radiohead would have been praised as one of the great indie bands and Pablo Honey would have been ranked very high (and at least very much higher than the current rank of the album around 725) as the first album in that great indie heaven in which they led us.

That's an interesting argument. Had they continued in the same vein as Pablo Honey, rather than being their one grungy album, it would be more consistent with their later output, and would be viewed differently. I'm not sure that I buy that Pablo Honey would be viewed significantly more positively, but I do think that it's possible and that it's worth considering.

Re: your RATINGS suck

elo269megv — Sun, 29 Oct 2017 15:29:25 GMT

Author: elo269megv

Posted: 10/29/2017 19:29

craola wrote:

Re: your ratings don't ncssrly suck all or even most of the time

dihansse — Sun, 29 Oct 2017 13:53:55 GMT

Author: dihansse

Posted: 10/29/2017 17:53

souplipton wrote:

I love Radiohead, but yeah, Pablo Honey is at best a mediocre first effort, and I rated it a 65.

Re: your ratings don't ncssrly suck all or even most of the time

manurock — Sun, 29 Oct 2017 13:36:28 GMT

Author: manurock

Posted: 10/29/2017 17:36

craola wrote:

Each one of us has its own music likes and its normal that some don't fit with the general likes and others do (the value of "some" and "others" depends on the user). This is art, not science.

At the end any piece of art has its lovers and its detractors and if it has many more of the first and it has influenced many people's feelings and lives, then it may be generally seen as a masterpiece (and still it's normal that some would think it's sh^t). Many would argue than for it to become a masterpiece it must also have something unique, unexplored before, and I generally agree but won't get into this because it can start many other discussions.

So saying "you have a sh^t taste" is useless. It's better to use this webpage - and other places - to find users whose likes are similar to yours and find new albums based on their likes. That's what I do. Of course I also search my best rated albums every now and then to see how they are doing and wish their ratings improve 😉

Re: your ratings don't ncssrly suck all or even most of the time

souplipton — Sun, 29 Oct 2017 11:24:03 GMT

Author: souplipton

Posted: 10/29/2017 15:24

craola wrote:

Pablo Honey by Radiohead :: 69

sethmadsen wrote:

Also Pablo Honey is kinda terrible... hahaha. Sorry. There's probably only 4 songs I like on it.

I love Radiohead, but yeah, Pablo Honey is at best a mediocre first effort, and I rated it a 65.

Re: your ratings don't ncssrly suck all or even most of the time

bobbyb5 — Sun, 29 Oct 2017 09:36:04 GMT

Author: bobbyb5

Posted: 10/29/2017 13:36

These are the ones that make me doubt the sanity of all you otherwise very nice people..

The Who. Face Dances...63 (!!!!!!!)
David Bowie. Pin Ups....69 rating
Creedence Clearwater Revival. Mardi Gras....67
Paul McCartney and Wings. At the Speed of Sound.....69
Carole King. Rhymes and Reasons....68

Re: your ratings don't ncssrly suck all or even most of the time

AfterHours — Wed, 25 Oct 2017 03:37:44 GMT

Author: AfterHours

Posted: 10/25/2017 07:37

sethmadsen wrote:

Probably all the U2 albums. 🤣

I think even Joshua Tree is rated at 72 or something pretty low.

Haters gonna hate.

72 is only low relative to so many inflated ratings on the site (and other sites). Joshua Tree is a consistently good, well-executed, wholly effective album, which is what a 72 should mean... unfortunately it's treated as "pretty low" ... so many albums that are "decent" or "good" or "above average" (relative to the masterpieces of rock or jazz history) are given 80s, 85s, 90+ or what-have-you. It's all "graded on a curve" but, imo, the curve itself is all out of whack with faulty ideals holding it together.

EDIT: Just checked and Joshua Tree is actually an "83"

Re: your ratings don't ncssrly suck all or even most of the time

Anonymous — Wed, 25 Oct 2017 02:15:40 GMT

Author: Anonymous

Posted: 10/25/2017 06:15

sethmadsen wrote:

Probably all the U2 albums. 🤣

I think even Joshua Tree is rated at 72 or something pretty low.

Haters gonna hate.

Yes, snobbery is rated very high on this otherwise very nice website 😄

Re: your ratings don't ncssrly suck all or even most of the time

Temporary33 — Tue, 24 Oct 2017 19:56:03 GMT

Author: Temporary33

Posted: 10/24/2017 23:56

?

All these albums are at the place they should be.

Re: your ratings don't ncssrly suck all or even most of the time

RoundTheBend — Tue, 24 Oct 2017 18:29:32 GMT

Author: RoundTheBend

Posted: 10/24/2017 22:29

Also Pablo Honey is kinda terrible... hahaha. Sorry. There's probably only 4 songs I like on it.

Re: your ratings don't ncssrly suck all or even most of the time

RoundTheBend — Tue, 24 Oct 2017 18:25:49 GMT

Author: RoundTheBend

Posted: 10/24/2017 22:25

Probably all the U2 albums. 🤣

I think even Joshua Tree is rated at 72 or something pretty low.

Haters gonna hate.

Re: your ratings don't ncssrly suck all or even most of the time

RoundTheBend — Tue, 24 Oct 2017 18:25:00 GMT

Author: RoundTheBend

Posted: 10/24/2017 22:25

Wh3n1nR0me wrote:

Ignoreland.

Nice R.E.M. reference 😄

Re: your ratings don't ncssrly suck all or even most of the time

Fischman — Tue, 24 Oct 2017 17:21:44 GMT

Author: Fischman

Posted: 10/24/2017 21:21

This is one that definitely deserves better than a 66. It may not be Aqualung or Thick as a Brick, but it has excellent variety, all strong cuts, superb songwriting, and a moody delivery with just enough edge to completely overcome 80s style production. The Tull hit all the right notes with this one.

Re: your ratings don't ncssrly suck all or even most of the time

Fischman — Tue, 24 Oct 2017 17:00:14 GMT

Author: Fischman

Posted: 10/24/2017 21:00

Yann wrote:

this blue-eyed soul gem is rated 64

Yeah that rating definitely sucks ... far to high!

Re: your ratings don't ncssrly suck all or even most of the time

Romanelli — Tue, 24 Oct 2017 16:20:10 GMT

Author: Romanelli

Posted: 10/24/2017 20:20

Well...I know for a fact that my ratings most certainly do not suck...

Re: your ratings don't ncssrly suck all or even most of the time

Anonymous — Tue, 24 Oct 2017 14:19:02 GMT

Author: Anonymous

Posted: 10/24/2017 18:19

this blue-eyed soul gem is rated 64