Best Ever Albums

Re: Is an album's influence overvalued?

Anonymous — Thu, 2 Feb 2012 21:10:55 GMT

Author: Anonymous

Posted: 02/03/2012 02:10

Robert Anton Wilson wrote:

swedenman wrote:

An album by definition cannot be influential the moment it's released because influential means it influenced someone, which it can't do until it's released.

Albums are not made in a vacuum and suddenly released upon the world. Read the epic stories of the release of the albums Led Zep I and Truth by Jeff Beck and you will see that nearly every single track on either of these two albums was a response to one another. Or if you listen to bootlegs from bands like Pink Floyd you will see that the DSOTM was fully formed and played in public for a full year prior to its release, Animals was also palyed nearly in its entirety as early as 1973 (with different titles and lyrics mostly Raving and Drooling was the song Sheep and You Gotta Be Crazy was Dog). Do you really think the fans and budding musicians who were at those shows or who were circulating those bootlegs waited until the album`s release before they decided to ask for or mimick Dave Gilmour`s chops. Then there is the session musicians who play on famous album sessions and who go back home converted. Music is a dynamic art and artists influence one another constantly -while they play, while they record- when they meet on tours, at events, in the studio corridors ... Sure the fans cannot be influenced before they hear the album once but even then some singles are often released months prior to an album and then it is really not so much the fans that make music evolve, it is the players.

Okay, you're taking it WAY too literally. When I say an album cannot be influential on the day of its release, I mean it cannot have a major influence on someone else's work until they've gotten a chance to hear it. Yes, of course music influences different people in different ways at different times, sometime even prior to its mainstream release, but the fact is that their is nothing fundamentally "influential" about music when it is first created. It's not until after it's been created that it can become "influential", which is all I'm saying.

Robert Anton Wilson wrote:

But your comment about the fairness of this mass effect sounds in my ear almost as if you were saying that "influence" is something an album is given and those who are bestowed this privilege then fare better. To me it is clear that influence is something earned by a record. Therefore benefitting from something you earned does not sound to me unfair in any way.

Well, I agree that influence is something a record earns, but, to me, whether or not it should benefit from the influence it's earned depends on why it earned it in the first place. For example, I personally don't think The Ramones deserve to be remembered as a legendary band just because they spawned generations of shitty punk bands, considering that their music is immature, boisterous, and unimaginative (just my opinion, no need to take up arms over that, folks). Do they deserve to be remembered as an important band? Absolutely. Does that make their albums good? No.

Re: Is an album's influence overvalued?

Robert Anton Wilson — Thu, 2 Feb 2012 20:29:16 GMT

Author: Robert Anton Wilson

Posted: 02/03/2012 01:29

swedenman wrote:

what I'm asking is if it's really fair to let influence affect where we personally rank certain albums.

Well if you mean like putting Sgt Pepper on your list because it "has" to be there because everybody else does so then i agree that the "usual suspect" are more likely to be included due to a crowd effect and that yes this is a little sad.

I know myself that I do learn a lot about a member by looking at his lists and seeing where that member put Sgt Pepper, Pet Sounds, OK Computer or Doolittle relative to one another. And I am more likely to be influenced to try the unknown albums from the chart of a member that positions these albums as I would rather than from another member. They do act as nice guiding beacons I find. Even their absence says a lot about a chart.

But your comment about the fairness of this mass effect sounds in my ear almost as if you were saying that "influence" is something an album is given and those who are bestowed this privilege then fare better. To me it is clear that influence is something earned by a record. Therefore benefitting from something you earned does not sound to me unfair in any way.

Re: Is an album's influence overvalued?

Robert Anton Wilson — Thu, 2 Feb 2012 20:15:18 GMT

Author: Robert Anton Wilson

Posted: 02/03/2012 01:15

swedenman wrote:

An album by definition cannot be influential the moment it's released because influential means it influenced someone, which it can't do until it's released.

Re: Is an album's influence overvalued?

HigherThanTheSun — Thu, 2 Feb 2012 20:08:09 GMT

Author: HigherThanTheSun

Posted: 02/03/2012 01:08

In my opinion the best way to compile your list should be as follows;

Firstly, imagine you can only listen to one album between now and the day you die, what album would it be? Once you've had a long think about this, put that album in your number 1 slot.

Secondly, imagine you can only listen to two albums between know and the day you die, what two albums would you pick? Obviously your number 1 pick should stay the same, put the second album at number 2.

Repeat this process until you have filled up your list, simple.

Forget about trying to evaluate albums objectively or satisfying certain criteria, just pick the albums you love it's that simple. It's imposssible to eliminate our personal bias when making our lists so why bother trying? I know for sure my favourite album ever definitely isn't the pinnacle of music, a 'classic' or anywhere close to what a music critic would call a masterpiece, but I don't care because it's the album I love the most so it's top of my list.

After thousands of people have made lists it will be no surprise that certain albums will appear much more frequently than others and hey presto you have an all time list of the albums which people love the most. Let's stop acting like critics and journalists and just choose the albums we like best yeah?

Re: Is an album's influence overvalued?

Anonymous — Thu, 2 Feb 2012 19:52:18 GMT

Author: Anonymous

Posted: 02/03/2012 00:52

Robert Anton Wilson wrote:

swedenman wrote:

... influence. It's the only quality listed above that cannot be objectively evaluated quite literally on the day of an album's release.

I would disagree with that. Most of the albums that end up on the top of the charts are the kind of albums which at first listen you know you jus experienced something you never had before. When it is good it is good and you know it. If you need to examine technical proficency, flow, lyrical depth, blabla bli blabla bla before knowing it is a good album, then it can be a good dran top 100 album, but it is not top 10 of BEA list material... Sgt Pepper and Pet Sounds did not become influential in the 70s, they became influential upon release. Some albums are sometimes influential even before release.

You're talking about originality. It's different from influence. An album by definition cannot be influential the moment it's released because influential means it influenced someone, which it can't do until it's released.

Robert Anton Wilson wrote:

swedenman wrote:

The Who, Black Sabbath, and Led Zeppelin will always be considered legendary. Why? Well, some of them arguably score pretty high on the other criteria (particularly The Beatles), but had any of these artists not had the influence they had on the music industry, none of them would have the legendary status they have today.

This sentence makes no sense to me. Are you saying that if these bands would not be legendary then they would not be legendary. But they are legendary and that is why they are legendary. System of a Down may be quite excellent but thye are not legendary so that is why they are not a legend. The fact that some old bands are legendary does not prevent new bands that are the stuff of legen from becomig legend. Elvis becaime legendary in the 50s, the Beatles in the 60s, Led Zep in the 70s, U2 in the 80s, Radiohead in the 90s and so on ...

This point doesn't make any sense unless you're implying that "legendary" and "influential" are equivalent terms. I guess "legendary" is a subjective term, so if that's how you define it, fair enough, but that's not what I meant.

Robert Anton Wilson wrote:

swedenman wrote:

So why is it so damn important?

Because the gutsy "I never heard that" sometimes hits deeper than the intellectual "I've never heard it done that well". The grand era of classical music and opera composer is past so new classical album are usually evaluated based on the proficency of the conductor, the soloist, the orchsstra, the recording. Rock/pop music is still being composed as we go ... it is not yet a style of music where proficency wins over originality because it is still a music style where playing your own composition is the main medium instead of interpreting someons elses...

Once again, you're talking about originality. I think originality is incredibly important in evaluating an album. That's not what this thread is about.

Robert Anton Wilson wrote:

swedenman wrote:

Is this really fair?

The reason an album is at the top is because more people like it and put it at the top of their chart. Being in number one position does not mean an album is better per se, it means more people consider it is the best for them. It could be done differently but that is the way it is being done. The hope is that if so many people consider a given album to be their favorite it means something. What it means is up to you to interpret.

I agree, but that's not what I meant by "fair". I can understand why the more influential albums will end up toward the top of our overall charts, but what I'm asking is if it's really fair to let influence affect where we personally rank certain albums.

Re: Is an album's influence overvalued?

Robert Anton Wilson — Thu, 2 Feb 2012 19:43:51 GMT

Author: Robert Anton Wilson

Posted: 02/03/2012 00:43

swedenman wrote:

... but in many cases the effect an album has on the music industry is just luck of the draw

This is like saying that the team that won just happened to have been lucky enough to score the most points. It may happen sometimes, being at the right place at the right moment, ... but when it happens over more than 40 years with millions and millions of people listening to an album like Sgt Pepper, Pet Sounds or DSOTM and saying it is among the best things they ever listened to ... that does not feel like luck anymore to me.

Re: Is an album's influence overvalued?

Robert Anton Wilson — Thu, 2 Feb 2012 19:30:26 GMT

Author: Robert Anton Wilson

Posted: 02/03/2012 00:30

swedenman wrote:

... influence. It's the only quality listed above that cannot be objectively evaluated quite literally on the day of an album's release.

swedenman wrote:

So why is it so damn important?

swedenman wrote:

Is this really fair?

Re: Is an album's influence overvalued?

vesander — Thu, 2 Feb 2012 17:41:41 GMT

Author: vesander

Posted: 02/02/2012 22:41

Yeah, and they're all subjective and hard to measure. Who cares really? All I'm saying is the subjective things matter most.

Re: Is an album's influence overvalued?

Anonymous — Thu, 2 Feb 2012 17:33:16 GMT

Author: Anonymous

Posted: 02/02/2012 22:33

vesander wrote:

I disagree with most on here I guess. Influence is not overvalued. First you start with what you like but most "experts" are always going to heavily consider what they think other artists are influenced by. It might depend on how you define "influence" but it's clearly a major criteria.

Meanwhile I couldn't give 2 squirts about most of the other criteria you mentioned. Technical proficient is grossly overrated by many fans. If anyone cared about such things then we'd all still be talking about classical and opera way more. None of the rock vocalists can sing by comparison. Many of the great rock vocalist blow technically... Win Butler? Get real. Technically Thom Yorke, Black Francis, Ian Curtis, Iggy Pop.... 1,00 more revered rock singers later.... all suck.

Guitarists? Is anyone on here praising the greatness of Steve Vai just because he could play well? His music sucks regardless.

Originally, how it sounds, intelligence and influence are the biggest factors. If the technical stuff mattered the Pixies wouldn't be relevant (and neither would any punk band for the most part).

You couldn't give two squirts about the criteria I mentioned? Originality, how it sounds, and intelligence were all either included or implied on the list of criteria I mentioned. In fact, the only criterion that I listed that you addressed was technical proficiency, which I only included because it's an objective criterion that can be used to evaluate music, not because I think it's especially important.

Re: Is an album's influence overvalued?

vesander — Thu, 2 Feb 2012 17:05:06 GMT

Author: vesander

Posted: 02/02/2012 22:05

I disagree with most on here I guess. Influence is not overvalued. First you start with what you like but most "experts" are always going to heavily consider what they think other artists are influenced by. It might depend on how you define "influence" but it's clearly a major criteria.

Meanwhile I couldn't give 2 squirts about some of the other criteria you mentioned. Technical proficient (and complexity too) is grossly overrated by many fans. If anyone cared about such things then we'd all still be talking about classical and opera way more. None of the rock vocalists can sing by comparison. Many of the great rock vocalist blow technically... Win Butler? Get real. Technically Thom Yorke, Black Francis, Ian Curtis, Iggy Pop.... 1,000 more revered rock singers later.... all suck technically.

Guitarists? Is anyone on here praising the greatness of Steve Vai just because he could play well? His music sucks regardless.

Originally, how it sounds, intelligence and influence are the biggest factors. If the technical stuff mattered the Pixies wouldn't be relevant (and neither would any punk band for the most part).

Re: Is an album's influence overvalued?

Anonymous — Thu, 2 Feb 2012 13:59:10 GMT

Author: Anonymous

Posted: 02/02/2012 18:59

gussteivi wrote:

Bork wrote:

Just extending my thanks for bringing up System of a Down. Haven't listened to them for a long time but returned due to this post. They are one of the few bands that proudly keep the metal banner flying high.

They are a fantastic band.
And I'm saying that as someone who by no means would call himself a metal-head.

They do happen to be my favourite behind Queen and Soundgarden. And I'm certainly no metal-head, either...

Re: Is an album's influence overvalued?

Xavygravy — Thu, 2 Feb 2012 07:54:28 GMT

Author: Xavygravy

Posted: 02/02/2012 12:54

I don't think I'd like to deny an incredibly influential album's place in a 'greatest ever' list, just because 'better albums' have come out that are just 'building blocks' on the foundations made by these albums.

I think these 'foundation albums' should always be valued, but should be kept entirely separate in a list based purely on listening experience.

e.g. Trans-Europe Express. Don't like it, but I don't disregard "one of the most influential records of the decade."

Re: Is an album's influence overvalued?

gussteivi — Thu, 2 Feb 2012 06:27:26 GMT

Author: gussteivi

Posted: 02/02/2012 11:27

Bork wrote:

They are a fantastic band.
And I'm saying that as someone who by no means would call himself a metal-head.

Re: Is an album's influence overvalued?

Bork — Thu, 2 Feb 2012 01:30:20 GMT

Author: Bork

Posted: 02/02/2012 06:30

Just extending my thanks for bringing up System of a Down. Haven't listened to them for a long time but returned due to this post. They are one of the few bands that proudly keep the metal banner flying high.

Re: Is an album's influence overvalued?

Anonymous — Wed, 1 Feb 2012 15:17:19 GMT

Author: Anonymous

Posted: 02/01/2012 20:17

HigherThanTheSun wrote:

swedenman wrote:

As music connoisseurs, we all have criteria we use to rank our albums. Some of us have more complex systems than others, but when it comes to objectively evaluating an album, we've got certain qualities we look for. Among these are originality, influence, technical proficiency, production quality, flow, compositional complexity, musicality, and lyrical depth, to name a few.

Seems a complicated way to rate an album. For me I just rate them according to how much they mean to me. Music is subjective so I think it's a bit futile to use a set list of criteria like you do because even if an album ticks all the boxes you still might find yourself not particularly liking it. Similarly there are some albums which barely tick any boxes and you know they're not really that great as an artform yet you can't help loving them.

Surely you just have to ask yourself, how much am I enjoying this album rather than is it original or is it influential etc. I know you say this is your system for objectively evaluating an album but I'm not at all sure it's actually possible to objectively evaluate an album is it?

For example I see you've no hip hop albums in your list, can I assume you're not a fan of hip hop? If so how is it possible for you to objectively say that an album from a genre you enjoy is better than one from a genre you don't? Because that's clearly a personal bias and so subjective rather than objective.

I've tried to be as honest as I can in my list and I've got a lot of albums in there which I know for sure that most people won't like, it doesn't bother me though I'm not just gonna fill my list with the staple 'classics' to give it credibility, my list is a reflection of the albums which I most enjoy listeneing to and nothing else.

To answer your question I suppose you can guess that I don't think 'influence' is an important measure of how 'good' an album is. It tends to be the case that albums which define genres and movements tend to be the best of that genre or movement but essentially I don't think it's important in evaluating how 'good' an album it is. How 'important' the album is, maybe, but not 'good'.

If everyone chose their lists entirely subjectively I think the overall chart would change somewhat, there seems to be a lot of staple albums around that I suspect people add to their lists to give them credibility rather than just choosing the ones they like the best.

Well yes, as I said, I'm speaking in terms of objectively ranking albums. I realize that we as individuals don't value an album's objective qualities as much and that we are generally more concerned with what we enjoy, but when it comes to creating a universal ranking (such as our overall charts), the community as a whole is more concerned with objectivity (even if, as you said, this isn't the way it should be). I personally don't evaluate every album I listen to on those criteria that I listed, but before I say that an album is a true "masterpiece" I would consider those objective qualities first. That isn't how I determine my own personal rankings, however.

It's true that I'm not too big on hip-hop. Not so much because I dislike it as because I just haven't listened to much of it. This isn't because I think the genre is inherently a weaker genre. I will admit that the average hip-hop album does have less objective value in my eyes than most rock genres, but, as has been established, even objectively evaluating an album has some level of subjectivity. But my list doesn't attempt to rank albums objectively. I include an album on my list if and only if it elicits a strong emotional response from me.

I agree with your last point, which is largely the reason I created this thread. So many users seem to include some classic albums because, like you said, of their importance as opposed to their "goodness".

Re: Is an album's influence overvalued?

HigherThanTheSun — Wed, 1 Feb 2012 13:52:05 GMT

Author: HigherThanTheSun

Posted: 02/01/2012 18:52

swedenman wrote:

Re: Is an album's influence overvalued?

Facetious — Wed, 1 Feb 2012 08:25:14 GMT

Author: Facetious

Posted: 02/01/2012 13:25

Mr. Shankly wrote:

Bork wrote:

Jackwc wrote:

Sadly, metal finds no sanctuary amongst the charts and forum posts of BEA

There is a decent size group of people around here who have found the merits of the genre. Country music listeners are the one's who should be complaining.

I like old school country, not just not the new slick, commercial stuff. The 50 something point drop that Johnny Cash at Folsom Prison took on the overall charts last year is inexcusable! ](*,)

😲 Wh..what........you're not joking, are you? Don't tell me that really did happen........ 😢

Re: Is an album's influence overvalued?

gussteivi — Wed, 1 Feb 2012 00:58:11 GMT

Author: gussteivi

Posted: 02/01/2012 05:58

An accordeon can be very enjoyable:

Link

Re: Is an album's influence overvalued?

Jackwc — Wed, 1 Feb 2012 00:52:48 GMT

Author: Jackwc

Posted: 02/01/2012 05:52

Bork wrote:

Jackwc wrote:

Sadly, metal finds no sanctuary amongst the charts and forum posts of BEA

There is a decent size group of people around here who have found the merits of the genre. Country music listeners are the ones who should be complaining (and maybe rapheads, contemporary rhythm&blues wankers, and everyone who can find an accordion enjoyable).

Hey, Arcade Fire is pretty well received on this site!

Re: Is an album's influence overvalued?

Bork — Wed, 1 Feb 2012 00:46:47 GMT

Author: Bork

Posted: 02/01/2012 05:46

gussteivi wrote:

Mr. Shankly wrote:

Bork wrote:

Jackwc wrote:

Sadly, metal finds no sanctuary amongst the charts and forum posts of BEA

There is a decent size group of people around here who have found the merits of the genre. Country music listeners are the one's who should be complaining.

I like old school country, not just not the new slick, commercial stuff. The 50 something point drop that Johnny Cash at Folsom Prison took on the overall charts last year is inexcusable! ](*,)

I have Alison Krauss and Union Station on my 2000's chart. That's country, right :?:

Arguably. Some would call it contemporary bluegrass. Some would say that bluegrass is a form of country. Kudos though. Krauss (with or without Union Station) is not one of my personal favorites, but she clearly is talented.