Best Ever Albums

Re: Hi, I'm New

RFNAPLES — Mon, 1 Jun 2009 08:46:13 GMT

Author: RFNAPLES

Posted: 06/01/2009 12:46

Likewise

Re: Hi, I'm New

joannajewsom — Mon, 1 Jun 2009 06:44:19 GMT

Author: joannajewsom

Posted: 06/01/2009 10:44

Richie, if he really did catch himself personally attacking me and was apologetic , wouldn't he have just deleted or edited his post? Hahaha. He knew what he was doing. Conclusion: RF is full of shit.

Re: Hi, I'm New

RFNAPLES — Sun, 31 May 2009 21:12:14 GMT

Author: RFNAPLES

Posted: 06/01/2009 01:12

Yeah, I caught myself reverting to her level and apologized immediately. 🫢

Re: Hi, I'm New

Richie Hunt — Sun, 31 May 2009 21:05:08 GMT

Author: Richie Hunt

Posted: 06/01/2009 01:05

Mistress Schizoid - thats name calling and a personal attack, something you wanted not to be on this site. You are so full of shit RF...

Re: Hi, I'm New

RFNAPLES — Sun, 31 May 2009 19:36:25 GMT

Author: RFNAPLES

Posted: 05/31/2009 23:36

As you said, 'Your highly-flawed opinion and nothing more." Mistress Schizoid, may all your teeth fall out except one, so that you can have a toothache, God forbid. Sorry I almost reverted to your behavior.

Re: Hi, I'm New

joannajewsom — Sun, 31 May 2009 18:25:15 GMT

Author: joannajewsom

Posted: 05/31/2009 22:25

"You do need to listen to the albums to make a best ever chart"

It's easy to just say that, but your own idea of greatness explicitly suggests that you don't need to listen to the albums. If greatness is a societal determination, like you said, you only need to be aware of what society has deemed to be great in order to make a chart which reflects that. Your inconsistency and contradictions are pathetic.

"RIAA and Acclaimed Music and this site are not all the same."

Thank you, Captain Obvious. Who said that they were the same? Actually, I clearly made the point that albummaster wouldn't have bothered making a site that was the same as acclaimedmusic. There goes those reading comprehension skills of yours.

"Yes they and many other published greatest album charts often include many of the same albums but often in different rank order. That is to be expected if in fact the charts are listing the greatest albums. There will never be total agreement on rank."

Again, Capitan Obvious, my statement that "Every chart would look like Rolling Stone, but in slightly different order," already expressed this idea. I don't see what you're proving here.

And what are you proving by quoting albummaster's opening statement, which I've already read? You make an arrogant assumption by assuming his definitions of 'best' and 'greatest' are the same as yours. If it were, I'm sure he would suggest that people not put their personal favorites, because it's obvious that most sane people would use a site like this to list his/her personal favorites. Only a amateur, wannabe rock historian like yourself would throw his/her own opinion out of the window, and merely report what society thinks. What a waste of time. Guess what, no one here is oblivious to history and culture. We're all aware of the albums that society as a whole has embraced. We all know people love Revolver. A chart like yours is completely redundant, given that there are 1000s of lists like yours, made by people who know much more about the subject than you. What are you adding to this site by making a Rolling Clone list?

"If you feel you are superior to the rest of us, you may continue calling your favourties the greatest albums ever."

How can you claim that I feel I'm superior when I stated that "I personally believe that everyone on this site has the right to call their personal favorites the 'best' and 'greatest'?" Do I need underline and italicize the part when I say "everyone has the right...?" That's not superiority; that's equality. This is just a case of dishonesty on your part.

Your definition requires a self-loathsome devaluing of your own opinion, coupled with an affinity for sheep-like, redundant regurgitation of common knowledge. I'm not surprised that someone like your would prefer your definition of greatness.

Re: Hi, I'm New

RFNAPLES — Sun, 31 May 2009 14:39:11 GMT

Author: RFNAPLES

Posted: 05/31/2009 18:39

You do need to listen to the albums to make a best ever chart. RIAA and Acclaimed Music and this site are not all the same. Yes they and many other published greatest album charts often include many of the same albums but often in different rank order. That is to be expected if in fact the charts are listing the greatest albums. There will never be total agreement on rank.

I don’t go to this site to see what people I don’t know consider their personal favorites. I do go to sites like this to see what the aggregate thought on an album is. I also consult sales figures and critical reviews before I make a purchase. But most importantly I sample the music I have filtered before I make a purchase.

As for albumastater, I don’t speak for him but he entitled the site Best Ever Albums – The Greatest Music Albums of All Time. He also wrote on the home page:

”What is the greatest music album of all time? If you ask a hundred different people to name the best album of all time, the chances are that you will not get a unanimous answer!

This web site's purpose is to achieve a means of establishing the greatest music albums of all time by using legitimate critical sources and calculating a ranking based on the rank and number of times an album has appeared in a 'greatest album' chart and then ranking the albums according to their aggregate performance.”

If you feel you are superior to the rest of us, you may continue calling your favourties the greatest albums ever. You may continue debating this subject even though you recognize we have different definitions of greatness. I prefer mine.

Re: Hi, I'm New

joannajewsom — Sun, 31 May 2009 14:10:12 GMT

Author: joannajewsom

Posted: 05/31/2009 18:10

But how much do you like the albums on your chart, if you even like them? Given your idea that greatness is a societal determination, one doesn't even have to listen to music to make a best ever chart. One can just read RIAA's website and acclaimedmusic and engage in an ungodly amount of regurgitation. Given your approach, this scenario is possible; therefore, asking you if you have even heard all of the albums is not an absurd question, since your approach creates the possibility of that occurring. Given your approach, why should anyone trust you?

What's the point of making a chart like yours? There are 1000s of Rock historians and critics who know much more about the history of music and the cultural significance of music than you, so why would anyone bother to waste their time reading uninformed clone lists like yours? If people wanted that kind of stuff, they would read the 1000s of lists already published by critics and magazines and the 1000s of books written by rock historians, and wouldn't bother going to a site like this. People visit sites like these to see the opinions of everyday people, not to see another Rolling Stone list.

We all have our opinion on what is great. I don't want to bring albummaster into this, but I guarantee he would disagree with the implication you are making about the site. For one, the website would be irrelevant given that acclaimedmusic already exists, and is much more informative when trying to determine the most significant and acclaimed works. Second, if we defined greatness by your standards, there probably wouldn't be more than 200 or so albums in the database. Every chart would look like Rolling Stone, but in slightly different order.

If you feel that you are too inferior to deem something 'great,' fine. I truly feel sorry for you. I personally believe that everyone on this site has the right to call their personal favorites the 'best' and 'greatest.'

Re: Hi, I'm New

RFNAPLES — Sun, 31 May 2009 09:36:20 GMT

Author: RFNAPLES

Posted: 05/31/2009 13:36

Not only have I heard numerous times but also own each of the albums I have listed both in my chart and in comments and posts. You seem to have difficulty trusting others. Did I ever ask you such an absurd question?

I made many comments without quoting facts. Most comments you choose to laboriously attack. Not only do you attack the ideas but the person. Please learn to debate in a civil manner.

I have personal favorites, many do not appear on my list of the best ever albums/the greatest music albums of all time because they are not the greatest only my favorites. Once before I mentioned my father, he was my favorite golfer but he was not the greatest golfer by any measure. That is the difference between favorite and greatest.

I see the purpose of this site to list the greatest albums, not necessarily personal favorites. Most published charts do likewise. If the name of this site and chart was personal favorites then I would list same, but it is not so named.

Re: Hi, I'm New

Richie Hunt — Sun, 31 May 2009 02:28:53 GMT

Author: Richie Hunt

Posted: 05/31/2009 06:28

I agree with Jewsom.

Quote:

I'm really starting to question your comprehension skills.

You just never know who you are cohersing with over the net.

Re: Hi, I'm New

joannajewsom — Sun, 31 May 2009 01:53:37 GMT

Author: joannajewsom

Posted: 05/31/2009 05:53

The king of the strawmans strikes again. Valuing my own opinion means that I don't value the opinion of others? I didn't know that I couldn't do both. My whole point is that we, not just me, are allowed to have our own opinions, and do not have to let society dictate to us what is of high quality.

"But just because jewsome says a particular album is great or bad doesn't make it so for society."

Again, king of the strawmans, when did I ever express the desire to deem something great for society? I'm really starting to question your comprehension skills. My opinion reflects what is great to me. My chart reflects what is great to me, and I have never claimed that my opinion is what society thinks. When I listen to music, I only listen with my pair of ears. I'm not listening for society, nor am I interested in everyone sharing my opinion and getting the same thing of out the music that I do. Out of all the strawmans you've pulled out of your ass, that has to be the most ridiculous.

Wait, your last line of questioning has to be the most ridiculous series of strawmans. Not being willing to throw my own opinion out of the window for the majority opinion, means that I don't value the opinions of others?

"Go think for/to yourself if you don’t want to hear other peoples’ opinions."

That has to be the most absurd suggestion you've ever made. How about I think for myself AND hear the opinions of others? It's not a case of if I don't want to do one, I should go do the other. Saying that an individual can't deem something, only society can, is clearly a case of de-valuing the opinion of others.

I beg you to express your own opinion. In every forum, all you do is quote sales and critics. While people talk about the quality of the music, you just list numbers and poll results. You have no opinion. Your opinion is that of society's. Again, this leads me to believe that you haven't even heard the albums on your chart.

Re: Hi, I'm New

RFNAPLES — Sat, 30 May 2009 11:28:18 GMT

Author: RFNAPLES

Posted: 05/30/2009 15:28

Yes jewsome "We're obviously working with two very different definitions of greatness." We are not all pompous asses. I believe that we all think for ourselves.

Yes collective personal favorites are a factor in determining greatness. But just because jewsome says a particular album is great or bad doesn't make it so for society. Those are personal favorites or dislikes.

If the opinion of others doesn't matter, why are you on this site? Why do you insist on giving us your views? Go think for/to yourself if you don’t want to hear other peoples’ opinions.

Re: Hi, I'm New

joannajewsom — Sat, 30 May 2009 10:53:30 GMT

Author: joannajewsom

Posted: 05/30/2009 14:53

I feel sorry for you if you need society to tell you what's great. Do you also need society to tell you what is right and wrong? I think for myself. Think about this: how are we aware of what society deems great? The societal consensus on greatness is the product of all members of society giving their personal opinion on what is great, right? According to you, each member of society is an individual who "may have their personal favorites which may be great or not as determined by society." In other words, the overall view of society on greatness is merely the collection of people's personal favorites, since, according to you, an individual does not have the authority to deem something great by himself.

Therefore, you give more consideration to a large group of people's personal favorites, rather than just going with your own personal favorite. It's sad to see that you obviously value the opinion of others more than your own. I seriously have to question whether or not you like, or have even heard the albums on your chart. Given your idea that greatness is a societal determination, I'm convinced that you consulted the RIAA and acclaimedmusic.net, threw your personal opinion out of the window, and made a chart.

We're obviously working with two very different definitions of greatness.
I don't see the point of you even participating in a site like this, given your approach. Tell me more about this idea that greatness is a societal determination. Is that what society told you about greatness, or is that your own personal opinion?

"This world is bullshit. And you shouldn't model your life about what you think that we think is cool and what we're wearing and what we're saying and everything. Go with yourself. Go with yourself." - Fiona Apple

Re: Hi, I'm New

RFNAPLES — Sat, 30 May 2009 09:10:37 GMT

Author: RFNAPLES

Posted: 05/30/2009 13:10

Greatness is not a self-centered concept but a societal determination. An individual may have their personal favorites which may be great or not as determined by society.

Re: Hi, I'm New

1234567890 — Sat, 30 May 2009 00:56:40 GMT

Author: 1234567890

Posted: 05/30/2009 04:56

So we should have producers and musicians influence our view of greatness, instead of our actual friends?

Re: Hi, I'm New

joannajewsom — Fri, 29 May 2009 22:21:36 GMT

Author: joannajewsom

Posted: 05/30/2009 02:21

RFNAPLES wrote:

Commercial success and critical acclaim are both partial determinants of greatness..

Your highly-flawed opinion and nothing more. My previous post is one reason, of many, why commercial success means nothing in terms of greatness, not even as a partial determinant. Commercial success proves the greatness of the people marketing the product, but not the product. The only thing it objectively proves is who sold more, not who's greater.

Forget the people buying it and the people reviewing it. Grow up and think for yourself.

Re: Hi, I'm New

RFNAPLES — Fri, 29 May 2009 19:19:39 GMT

Author: RFNAPLES

Posted: 05/29/2009 23:19

Commercial success and critical acclaim are both partial determinants of greatness. Commercial success is more objective and critical acclaim is more subjective. There have been many albums that were commercial successes and critical failures and vice versa. In the end, even if we could get total agreement on relative greatness, it will change with time.

Re: Hi, I'm New

joannajewsom — Fri, 29 May 2009 17:48:35 GMT

Author: joannajewsom

Posted: 05/29/2009 21:48

For every good album that went #1, I could name 10 bad albums that went #1.

Re: Hi, I'm New

Charicature — Fri, 29 May 2009 15:15:26 GMT

Author: Charicature

Posted: 05/29/2009 19:15

RFNAPLES wrote:

I agree with 1234567890: "Large amounts of sales can reflect quality." Actually sales MAY reflect quality but it is not the sole determinant.

Actually, a little anecdotal evidence to bolster this. To come in as runner up of American Idol, Katherine McPhee sang a song called "Black Horse and the Cherry Tree", originally by KT Tunstall. Now, here's the thing - this song was never on the pop charts prior to her performance of it on AI. She was a popular contestant (top 2) and she sang it. Next thing you know, that song is on top 40 radio. That wouldn't be significant in and of itself, but I heard it on a coworker's radio a couple of days ago and noted I've heard it several times in recent months just randomly wandering into that area of the office, and since McPhee was dropped by the AI-affiliated record label months ago, it just went to show me that a song doesn't always have to be good to sell, it just has to be popular, usually made so by having a wide exposure. This song isn't of a style that appeals to most people, but because they liked her, they like the song. I doubt, however, that Tunstall's sales have increased much because of it despite being the original performer (and I imagine possibly writer/composer) of the song.

There's just a hint of a suggestion that this is evidence that popularity of certain music has nothing to do with its quality and vice versa. A lot of people listen to certain music because it's what everyone else in their social circle listens to.

Re: Hi, I'm New

RFNAPLES — Thu, 28 May 2009 00:36:52 GMT

Author: RFNAPLES

Posted: 05/28/2009 04:36

I agree with 1234567890: "Large amounts of sales can reflect quality." Actually sales MAY reflect quality but it is not the sole determinant.