Best Ever Albums

Re: Which means more on an album: the highs or the consistency?

babyBlueSedan — Tue, 20 Jan 2015 18:46:20 GMT

Author: babyBlueSedan

Posted: 01/20/2015 23:46

Treefingers used to be my least favorite part of Kid A, but I can certainly tolerate it now. It's like the essence of what Kid A is - it's the standard sound of the album with everything else filtered away. In that regard it's like the definition of consistency. The real low point of Kid A is Morning Bell, which sounds way better on Amnesiac and just out of place here.

Also Out of Time is clearly REM's second best; Country Feedback makes up for all the filler itself.

Re: Which means more on an album: the highs or the consistency?

HazeyTwilight — Tue, 20 Jan 2015 16:20:47 GMT

Author: HazeyTwilight

Posted: 01/20/2015 21:20

meccalecca wrote:

I think Ideoteque might be their best song, at least in the live setting

As soon as that was said, I immediately went to this video:

Link

Re: Which means more on an album: the highs or the consistency?

Dingerbell — Tue, 20 Jan 2015 16:15:33 GMT

Author: Dingerbell

Posted: 01/20/2015 21:15

Treefingers is a great song, and is better than In Limbo, Optimistic, Morning Bell and Motion Picture Soundtrack, but it sure isn't better than Idioteque- possibly Radiohead's best song.

Re: Which means more on an album: the highs or the consistency?

meccalecca — Tue, 20 Jan 2015 15:55:23 GMT

Author: meccalecca

Posted: 01/20/2015 20:55

Skinny wrote:

I'm being deadly serious. I'm currently listening to Kid A, and I prefer 'Treefingers' to 'Idioteque'. I don't understand the hate 'Treefingers' gets at all, it's one of the most beautiful moments on the album.

I'm only half serious. I think Ideoteque might be their best song, at least in the live setting, but I really do long Treefingers too.

Re: Which means more on an album: the highs or the consistency?

Skinny — Tue, 20 Jan 2015 15:44:36 GMT

Author: Skinny

Posted: 01/20/2015 20:44

meccalecca wrote:

Now you just be trolling. You're gonna wake up Kidamnesiac.

Re: Which means more on an album: the highs or the consistency?

meccalecca — Tue, 20 Jan 2015 15:42:48 GMT

Author: meccalecca

Posted: 01/20/2015 20:42

Skinny wrote:

'Treefingers' > 'Idioteque'. Couldn't be arsed to find an appropriate thread, and it seemed to fit here (sort of).

Now you just be trolling. You're gonna wake up Kidamnesiac.

Re: Which means more on an album: the highs or the consistency?

Skinny — Tue, 20 Jan 2015 15:40:29 GMT

Author: Skinny

Posted: 01/20/2015 20:40

'Treefingers' > 'Idioteque'. Couldn't be arsed to find an appropriate thread, and it seemed to fit here (sort of).

Re: Which means more on an album: the highs or the consistency?

Norman Bates — Tue, 20 Jan 2015 15:21:40 GMT

Author: Norman Bates

Posted: 01/20/2015 20:21

Kiki wrote:

Out of Time is far better than Reckoning.

Kiki. You know it's not. I mean, I trusted you.

Re: Which means more on an album: the highs or the consistency?

CA Dreamin — Tue, 20 Jan 2015 14:26:17 GMT

Author: CA Dreamin

Posted: 01/20/2015 19:26

I guess. Out of Time vs. Reckoning...I'm not gonna argue about it. But I find the album rank order of several of my favorite bands to be strange. I'm not saying I want every band's album rank order to be exactly like mine. In fact, I like them being a little different. But some I just don't get. Like The Police; I love that band, and the album rank order is completely off.

Kiki wrote:

Other than that there is no artists who's album rank order seems strange. :-k

It's "whose," not "who's." Grammar counts.

Re: Which means more on an album: the highs or the consistency?

Skinny — Tue, 20 Jan 2015 14:22:09 GMT

Author: Skinny

Posted: 01/20/2015 19:22

'I'm On Fire' is arguably the best song on Born In The USA (it's between that, 'Dancing in the Dark', 'I'm Goin' Down', and 'Downbound Train').

Re: Which means more on an album: the highs or the consistency?

Anonymous — Tue, 20 Jan 2015 14:22:04 GMT

Author: Anonymous

Posted: 01/20/2015 19:22

noWaxJim wrote:

In your opinion of course, my learned friend. But you're obviously wrong.

Interesting though to pick those two records. OOT is full of filler, and Losing My Religion for me at least has lost a lot of its lustre with repeated listening (I always preferred Near Wild Heaven anyway). Reckoning on the other hand is ace... APART from Camera, which I've always hated, and for me stops it from being held in the same esteem as Murmur, which is consistently good the whole way through in spite of having no mutually recognisable peak or key track (you might want to argue that Radio Free Europe is, but it's not a 'stand out moment' in the same way Religion is on OOT).

90s REM albums had better songs than the 80s one in general. Near Wild Heaven is definitely one of them 😄 Texarkana is another highlight from it's album.

Apart from Radio Free Europe, Talk About the Passion and another song I can't remember the name for right now, Murmur doesn't do much else for me. Then Reckoning and Falbes of something or another have so little going for them. Life Rich Pagent feels a lot better, all dark and jumpy, and then Document is where REM starts coming into their own. 😄

Worse of all, I have a bad feeling there might be an album between Murmur and Document which wasn't mentioned in the last paragraph. 😲 I'll post this without checking. So yeah, if there is, the album was so unmemorable I have actually forgotten about its existence. 🤣

Re: Which means more on an album: the highs or the consistency?

meccalecca — Tue, 20 Jan 2015 14:20:47 GMT

Author: meccalecca

Posted: 01/20/2015 19:20

noWaxJim wrote:

In your opinion of course, my learned friend. But you're obviously wrong.

I'm actually sort of with Kiki on this one. I love Reckoning but Out of Time is also a pretty perfect pop album.It may be a victim of being overplayed but I find it to be pretty much solid from start to finish. But I also think Me In Honey is one of R.E.M's finest moments.

Re: Which means more on an album: the highs or the consistency?

Infinity183 — Tue, 20 Jan 2015 14:19:48 GMT

Author: Infinity183

Posted: 01/20/2015 19:19

meccalecca wrote:

Really? I think it's one of the best songs on the album. meanwhile, it's tough to listen to the title track ever again.

I'd say "Darlington County" is the album's weak link. It sounds like a draggier version of Cadillac Ranch from The River, even though it's grown on me a little since I first heard it, hence the album's placement on my best ever chart.

Re: Which means more on an album: the highs or the consistency?

meccalecca — Tue, 20 Jan 2015 14:08:53 GMT

Author: meccalecca

Posted: 01/20/2015 19:08

Kiki wrote:

I'm On Fire brings down the Born Is USA album.

Really? I think it's one of the best songs on the album. meanwhile, it's tough to listen to the title track ever again.

Re: Which means more on an album: the highs or the consistency?

Jimmy Dread — Tue, 20 Jan 2015 14:08:21 GMT

Author: Jimmy Dread

Posted: 01/20/2015 19:08

Kiki wrote:

Out of Time is far better than Reckoning.

Re: Which means more on an album: the highs or the consistency?

Anonymous — Tue, 20 Jan 2015 14:04:31 GMT

Author: Anonymous

Posted: 01/20/2015 19:04

babyBlueSedan wrote:

My question for people who say one bad song ruins an album: how far does this go? If an album has fifteen songs does one bad one really mean you'd never want to hear the rest again? I can't fathom listening to something and enjoying it for 40 minutes, then hearing something that doesn't work and saying "nope, won't be listening to that again."

One single song, if the reaction is strong enough, would never have met putting the album on from begining to end. Meaning I wouldn't play the songs all in the tracklist order. This makes it less likely to be ranked high on my chart... other than that I still try to like the albums. Marlon JD from Journal For Plague Lovers is one I avoid while I'm On Fire brings down the Born Is USA album.

Re: Which means more on an album: the highs or the consistency?

Anonymous — Tue, 20 Jan 2015 13:58:43 GMT

Author: Anonymous

Posted: 01/20/2015 18:58

Out of Time is far better than Reckoning.

Music You Can Dance To by Sparks was once the 2nd highest rated album by them for a good while although it was more to do with the fact Sparks weren't on so much charts back then. All the best albums are ranked higher than it now. Other than that there is no artists who's album rank order seems strange. 🤔

Re: Which means more on an album: the highs or the consistency?

CA Dreamin — Tue, 20 Jan 2015 13:46:30 GMT

Author: CA Dreamin

Posted: 01/20/2015 18:46

Looking at several artists' pages on this site, I found many examples where BEA users rated the albums with higher highs and lower lows better than the consistent ones. First was Metallica: The Black Album, which has of their best songs but loaded with filler, is rated higher than both Ride the Lightning and ...And Justice For All. Another was The Doors. L.A. Woman has a few of their best songs no doubt, but also a couple of their worst. Yet it is ranked higher than Strange Days, way more consistent. One last example, though I could go on, is R.E.M. Out of Time is higher ranked than both Green and Reckoning, which makes me want to puke. Out of Time has Losin' My Religion (incredible), three or four other good songs, and the rest is filler. Green and Reckoning are far better.

Perhaps this is only my opinion, and you may disagree. But have any of you also found on your favorite artists' pages that the inconsistent albums are the higher ranked ones?

Re: Which means more on an album: the highs or the consistency?

CA Dreamin — Tue, 20 Jan 2015 13:28:26 GMT

Author: CA Dreamin

Posted: 01/20/2015 18:28

babyBlueSedan wrote:

One thing I won't concede though is that one bad song can ruin an album. If anything that one bad song will make the rest seem better by comparison.

I agree with this. I don't know who said one weak track ruins an album, but that is BS. Look at Beatles albums; Every one of them has at least one weak song on them (although the best ones have only one). Yet their albums are the highest rated on this site, and of all time for that matter.

Re: Which means more on an album: the highs or the consistency?

babyBlueSedan — Tue, 20 Jan 2015 08:33:06 GMT

Author: babyBlueSedan

Posted: 01/20/2015 13:33

Quote:

Consistency as a rule makes an LP an experience, as opposed to a couple of great moments and a fair bit of filler.

I took the low hanging fruit with Queen is Dead, I probably could have come up with a better example. Even now the best example I can think of is something like Channel Orange where there's a hidden track that totally kills the ending. Maybe Dinosaur Jr's Bug too, although there are days I enjoy the closer.

It goes without saying that if an album has a fair bit of filler I'm less likely to enjoy it. While I like albums that have ups and downs, too many downs can ruin them. One thing I won't concede though is that one bad song can ruin an album. If anything that one bad song will make the rest seem better by comparison.

Quote:

Welcome to the nuthouse.

Thanks! Been around for a while, but only rarely come to the forums. I noticed everyone was agreeing here so I thought I'd try and stir the soup a little.