Should Newer Albums Be Included In Charts - Music

RFNAPLES
Level 8

Gender: Male
Age: 75
Location: Durham, NC, USA

Should newer albums be included in Greatest Albums of All Times charts? Are they too new to be ranked? Has their importance, influence, critical or commercial success stabalized? Consider these albums all released from 2005 to 2008:

Cooder, Ry-Chavez Ravine-2005
Eels-Blinking Lights & Other Revelations-2005
LCD Soundsystem-LCD Soundsystem-2005
My Morning Jacket-Z-2005
System Of A Down-Mezmerize-2005
West, Kanye-Late Registration-2005
Wilco-Kicking Television: Live In Chicago-2005
Dylan, Bob-Modern Times-2006
Hold Steady, The-Boys & Girls In America-2006
Killah, Ghostface-Fishscale-2006
Toure, Ali Farka-Savane-2006
TV On The Radio-Return To Cookie Mountain-2006
Lambert, Miranda-Crazy Ex-Girlfriend-2007
LCD Soundsystem-Sound Of Silver-2007
M.I.A.-Kala-2007
Plant, Robert & Alison Krauss-Raising Sand-2007
Robyn-Robyn-2008

Great albums, but ...
_________________
Top 100 Greatest Music Albums by RFNAPLES
Bubbling Under The Top 100 Greatest Mus...y RFNAPLES

TheManOfCabbage

Location: England

I don't see why not. Although tbh my chart was picked purely on what albums I enjoy listening to the most, rather than their influence or critical/commercial success.

If people did pick charts that are based on success/influence then I would probably agree that very few modern albums should be included. LCD Soundsystem's self titled is maybe the only album on your list that i'd put in based on these factors btw Wink

_________________
I am right because I am never wrong because I am always right

acb27

Sure, they should be included. Some great albums would be going unrecognized if we didn't post new albums, like Weezer's "The Red Album" (not that I know how many people like it), Eminem's "Recovery", and Vampire Weekend's two albums.

Grzywa

Gender: Male
Location: Polska

Of course they should. On this website everyone presents their own personal choices and this is the whole charm of it.

Speaking for myself, when I was making my own list, I really didn't care whether the albums I choose have been certified historically important by Rolling Stone or Q, but I went for what I love and what is of special significance to me at this point in my life. 3 years before it would have been different.

This is also why there are no Beatles, Rolling Stones, Pink Floyd or Led Zeppelin on my list. Not that I do not appreciate their music: it's just that right now I feel that they never added to my life as much as Vampire Weekend debut or TV On The Radio's last album did.
_________________
Always shouts out something obscene

Kiki

A lot of people come on here make a chart then leave. For every 1 person who comes onto the forums or changes their charts another 3 leave it as it is forever. Many of these people have albums on their charts which were released a week before to much acclaim (Muse, Vampire Weekend, Arcade Fire etc). They have been listening to the album for little over a week and enjoy it very much. As a result they get put them on charts as they just happened to discover the site that week. They then leave and don't come back. Much of the chart may stay the same, may change a little, who knows. While they continue to play their copies of Elephant, Ziggy Stardust and Definitely Maybe throughout the year, their copy of Teen Dream is slowly forgotten and shelved, with only their most favorite songs from the album left on their Ipod. And one day as we land the first man on Pluto, Teen Dream will still be counted as someones 4th best album of all time.

That all said, albummaster has explained to me the flaws of stopping new albums (less than 1 year old) being put on charts.

cartoken
The Seer

Gender: Male
Age: 39
Location: Paris

my chart is full of new albums and i definitely prefer those albums to many classic albums i've listened to for years. i don't think that mass people approval is an important criterion to include an album in my favorite. i did that for animal collective last year, and the album is still in my chart, and i guess for a very long ... long time.

P.S: i approve the inclusion of : KALA, LCD Soundsystem and Sound of Silver (the 3 are in my chart) Very Happy

Wombi

I think you should definitely include whatever you maintain to be you're favourite ever albums whether that be from 1910 or 2010 and historical significance should generally not be considered, If an album is good it will remain good for years (though some users who focus on newer music don't seem to be able to get past older production values, let alone appreciate them for what they are, which is sad). However I think a lot of users (myself included) have listened to an album and either straight away or a week or so later added it to their chart, being so hyped up by the freshness of it to them. This goes for both old and new material, it's probably a mistake to add it without letting it be part of your musical repetoire for a while to see whether it stands the test of time. But hey I guess everyone's chart is bound by the rules they choose to keep.

thomas697

Gender: Male
Location: Melbourne

Teen Dream is awesome. The whole album is still on my Ipod. I think maybe High Violet would be a better example of an album that is good that also has its skip factors.

Teen Dream FTW
_________________
Having a family is the kind of thing that could be held against a person

Jimmy Dread
Old skool like Happy Shopper

Location: 555 Dub Street

Moderator

Of course new albums should be included - after all, most of us base our own charts about how we feel about an LP (is that term still valid?) at the time we're compiling our lists, hence to me at least my chart is an ever-evolving animal.

To exclude albums released in the last two years, say, because they haven't had a chance 'to age' is fatuous. Hell, an album I bought last month could very well mean everything to me right now, but then given the amount I've listened to it could grate all too quickly by next week. I cite Merriweather Post Pavillion as a perfect example of this - loved it the minute I got my grubby mits on it, now I'd much rather listen to Strawberry Jam.

All these charts are subjective and based upon our own personal experiences and connections with the albums we're lauding, as opposed to discussing their musicianship, etc (unless of course you're a muso or a professional critic). To this end, I'm going to cherish the records that make me smile, amplify my mood and make me dance or drive faster, regardless of when they get released.

Besides, the best thing about having an opinion is that mine's always better than yours.

Peace.

ffudnebbuh
level 8

Gender: Male
Location: Boston

an_outlaw wrote:

A lot of people come on here make a chart then leave. For every 1 person who comes onto the forums or changes their charts another 3 leave it as it is forever. Many of these people have albums on their charts which were released a week before to much acclaim (Muse, Vampire Weekend, Arcade Fire etc). They have been listening to the album for little over a week and enjoy it very much. As a result they get put them on charts as they just happened to discover the site that week. They then leave and don't come back. Much of the chart may stay the same, may change a little, who knows. While they continue to play their copies of Elephant, Ziggy Stardust and Definitely Maybe throughout the year, their copy of Teen Dream is slowly forgotten and shelved, with only their most favorite songs from the album left on their Ipod. And one day as we land the first man on Pluto, Teen Dream will still be counted as someones 4th best album of all time.

That all said, albummaster has explained to me the flaws of stopping new albums (less than 1 year old) being put on charts.

I completely agree with you.