|
View previous topic :: View next topic
|
|
| Author |
Message |
RFNAPLES
Level 8
Gender: Male
Age: 75
Location: Durham, NC, USA
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
joannajewsom
Location: Philadelphia
|
- #12
- Posted: 10/05/2009 19:30
- Post subject:
|
| Charicature wrote: | | joannajewsom wrote: | | Speaking of "classic" in the historical sense, based on its importance to the artform, there is no time frame. It can take 1 month or 20 years. Free Jazz, Highway 61 Revisited, Sgt. Pepper's, Ramones, Nevermind, and other genre-epitomizing works, we'll call them, had an instant impact, sealing their classic status. This is like asking how long do I have to date someone before we are in love. It's case specific. Putting any number on it is arbitrary. |
Maybe arbitrary, but it's hard to call an album that's been out for a year "classic".
If an album is still reaching an audience and making an impact on them after two generations have passed, and still has a widespread name recognition in those future times, it should definitely be called "classic". That puts it at 20-30 years.
Basically the key indicator is the album's ability to continue attracting an audience beyond those who were exposed to it at or near its release, and to continue to attract an audience well beyond any specific generational appeal. |
Two generations or 20-30 years still seems arbitrary. How are you defining "classic"? I fear we may have a difference of how we see the concept. For me, it's about importance to the artform, not appeal, popularity, or entertainment value. The Ramones debut, for example, had an instant impact on the US and UK punk scenes, inspiring the Clash and the Sex Pistols, and played a significant role in spearheading one the most important musical movements of the last century. Any appeal to contemporary audiences or lack of entertainment value doesn't take away from its historical significance, which is what I think determines whether something is a classic or not.
|
|
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
maxperenchio
Location: Chicago
|
- #13
- Posted: 10/06/2009 05:26
- Post subject:
|
|
I've always seen "classic" as an inherently socio-historical word, something that reflects the feelings of "general critical opinion" as stupid as it may be. I think that 10 years is average for an album to really be placed into such a pantheon.
|
|
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
badfaith
Gender: Male
Age: 48
Location: Kent
|
- #14
- Posted: 10/06/2009 13:04
- Post subject:
|
perhaps then it has something to do with when other bands emerge who claim that a particular album has influenced their own work... and a new genre is born from it, or a variation on one?
Or that you can clearly define music before that album, and everything after it... London Calling, Sgt Pepper, Never Mind the Bollocks, and so-on can claim such a thing. In which case, My suggestion of In Rainbows may be incorrect, despite how much people may like it, it has not had a chance yet to spur others to create anything in that mold, (if it will at all)
|
|
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
Detroit Rock Citizen
Age: 60
Location: Livonia, Michigan U.S.A.
|
- #15
- Posted: 10/06/2009 13:56
- Post subject:
|
| badfaith wrote: | perhaps then it has something to do with when other bands emerge who claim that a particular album has influenced their own work... and a new genre is born from it, or a variation on one?
Or that you can clearly define music before that album, and everything after it... London Calling, Sgt Pepper, Never Mind the Bollocks, and so-on can claim such a thing. In which case, My suggestion of In Rainbows may be incorrect, despite how much people may like it, it has not had a chance yet to spur others to create anything in that mold, (if it will at all) |
I may be Radiohead's biggest detractor on this board but that isn't why i don't think of In Rainbows as an instant classic. I think you have the right idea as far as a dividing line. It is why Bollocks can claim to be an "instant classic" yet the better(IMHO) Clash debut album can't. The same with Sgt Pepper and the infinitely better Rubber Soul. It may be why Thriller would get my vote for that distinction even though I believe that Prince's whole early 80's output rips it to shreds.
_________________
To each his reach but if I don't cop it ain't mine to have - George Clinton
My chart
http://www.besteveralbums.com/thechart.php?c=689
|
|
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
badfaith
Gender: Male
Age: 48
Location: Kent
|
- #16
- Posted: 10/06/2009 23:45
- Post subject:
|
It's also difficult to look at an album objectively if it's one you personally love... While we each have an album that we think is the best ever, yet the rest of the world thinks it is poo, or worse still, ignores altogether, other albums you'd rather eat your own ears than listen to, are generally regarded as works of utter genius.
Like you with Radiohead, myself with Coldplay, sometimes you just stand back scratching your head thinking- "I just don't understand why people love this!"... But while I feel this way about the greater (and later) half of Michael Jackson's career, I can acknowledge that he has had a significant cultural impact, and see where his albums broke new ground etc.
But then that leaves us with the possibility that the measure of a classic album is popular opinion, and mass appreciation, and that unless an album meets that mark, it has no value whatsoever, and that's a world I think none of us want to live in.
Maybe the term "classic album" then is meaningless, and depends only on who you talk to about whichever album?
|
|
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
  |
All times are GMT
|
| Page 2 of 2 |
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
|
