Chart of the day (#485): By Norman Bates - Music

Mother Nature's Son

Gender: Male

Age: 31

Jasonconfused wrote:

What's harder to believe is that this is 70s chart with no Pink Floyd, no Led Zeppelin, no Rolling Stones, no The Who, no Bruce Springsteen, no Black Sabbath, no Yes...

Not that there should be any of these bands, but it's a pretty good indicator of why I'm mostly not interested in these albums, but at least it has many of the albums that you can't go wrong with here on BEA.
_________________
"The Beatles, the greatest band known to mankind." - Bismah Mughal

Norman Bates

Gender: Male

Age: 51

Location: Paris, France

Jasonconfused wrote:

What's harder to believe is that this is 70s chart with no Pink Floyd, no Led Zeppelin, no Rolling Stones, no The Who, no Bruce Springsteen, no Black Sabbath, no Yes...

Hi everyone. Thanks for the kind words and/or the interest.

As to the artists quoted and why they're not in this 70s chart :
- I don't like post-Barrett Pink Floyd. I really have tried.
- I'm not interested in Led Zeppelin's output, or blues rock in general. I'll admit there's more to LZ than blues rock, but I find their records to be uneven and have difficulties accepting the singing. They sure have recorded some classic tracks but the albums do not move me, or rock me. I know all first four albums and I admit I haven't bothered with the later stuff though. Will try.
- Exile on Main St. was once on this chart, it's a very good record, somehow I found 100 albums from the era that move me more. There's some RS on my sixties chart, their best period IMO.
- After '71 I'm not that keen on The Who and much prefer their earlier output. They never were a favourite of mine though, and are one the bands I'd gladly settle with a singles compilation, or a personal selection if I want to listen to them.
- Could have slid a Springsteen in there, like him, not enough maybe. I've got Nebraska in my 80s chart if I recall well.
- Black Sabbath is only a recent discovery for me. I really enjoyed their first 3 LPs though, and who knows, after a few more listens they might make it up there.
- I really can't stand Yes.

These 100 are the albums from the decade that move me most, to me the period is foremost a mix of awesome folk, punk and postpunk, free jazz, German brilliance, and unchartable stuff.

Jasonconfused

If We Make It We Can All Sit Back and Laugh

Gender: Male

Location: Washington

Norman Bates wrote:

Hi everyone. Thanks for the kind words and/or the interest.

As to the artists quoted and why they're not in this 70s chart :
- I don't like post-Barrett Pink Floyd. I really have tried.
- I'm not interested in Led Zeppelin's output, or blues rock in general. I'll admit there's more to LZ than blues rock, but I find their records to be uneven and have difficulties accepting the singing. They sure have recorded some classic tracks but the albums do not move me, or rock me. I know all first four albums and I admit I haven't bothered with the later stuff though. Will try.
- Exile on Main St. was once on this chart, it's a very good record, somehow I found 100 albums from the era that move me more. There's some RS on my sixties chart, their best period IMO.
- After '71 I'm not that keen on The Who and much prefer their earlier output. They never were a favourite of mine though, and are one the bands I'd gladly settle with a singles compilation, or a personal selection if I want to listen to them.
- Could have slid a Springsteen in there, like him, not enough maybe. I've got Nebraska in my 80s chart if I recall well.
- Black Sabbath is only a recent discovery for me. I really enjoyed their first 3 LPs though, and who knows, after a few more listens they might make it up there.
- I really can't stand Yes.

These 100 are the albums from the decade that move me most, to me the period is foremost a mix of awesome folk, punk and postpunk, free jazz, German brilliance, and unchartable stuff.

Fair enough. I love the 70s so I'll definitely be using this chart for recommendations.
_________________

Saoirse

The second user chart I saw on BEA, after Norman's overall. And this is just as brilliant, and filled to the brim with a number of great albums Ive heard but more importantly a lot of (hopefully) strange new sounds to discover.

junodog4

Future Grumpy Old Man

Gender: Male

Location: Calgary

Jasonconfused wrote:

What's harder to believe is that this is 70s chart with no Pink Floyd, no Led Zeppelin, no Rolling Stones, no The Who, no Bruce Springsteen, no Black Sabbath, no Yes...

I like these bands... but they get plenty of critical love, and rank highly on BEA. I appreciate a chart without them - I can see other works on note from the decade.
_________________
Finnegan was super bad-ass.

Guest

junodog4 wrote:

I like these bands... but they get plenty of critical love, and rank highly on BEA.

Precisely. And it isn't that difficult to comprehend that somebody may not find the same appeal in the sounds we have been spoon fed from birth that others do. This chart doesn't look anything like my '70s chart (or rather, how it would look if it wasn't currently a reggae chart, which I do really need to organise and convert into a custom chart in order to utilise my decade chart in the manner it was intended to be used), but I find it infinitely more interesting - and, more importantly, personal* - than a chart full of the bands mentioned in this thread, and this coming from someone who loves Sabbath, and the Stones, and Springsteen, and The Who, and London Calling. What is hard to believe is that people still think a chart not containing any of those elements is in some way inferior or, worse, disingenuous. This chart is worth a thousand staid, predictable '70s charts, simply because of the breadth and quality of largely hidden gems that it can open one's ears too. So before questioning the acts that you believe are being done a disservice by their absence, you should instead pick something near the top of this chart which you haven't previously heard and do yourselves a favour by indulging in something you would otherwise probably be completely unaware of.

I'd also just like to add a thanks to Norman for his charts, which have been a constant source of brilliant music for me since I started re-using the site last year. He is one of a handful of users whose charts regularly inspire me to check out new things, and new things that are shockingly consistent in quality at that. So it may differ from your tastes, and it may cater to a certain sect of the forum regulars whose tastes go beyond the RS500 (although I can state with absolute confidence that catering to certain forum users is not Norman's intention, despite knowing little about him beyond his comments on the site), but I genuinely think - for the reasons stated above - that this chart, and many others like it, should be cherished. They are here to catalogue, and bring to rest of our attention, the tastes of one individual, and when a chart can bring so much largely underappreciated music to our attention then we should just bask and take in that music, as opposed to quibbling over the inclusion of artists whom we are all already aware of.

* That isn't to say that a chart full of canonical artists can't appear personal to me, although they have to be done right (Jason, your chart is excellent for example, despite little of it appealing to my tastes).

Jasonconfused

If We Make It We Can All Sit Back and Laugh

Gender: Male

Location: Washington

lethalnezzle wrote:

Precisely. And it isn't that difficult to comprehend that somebody may not find the same appeal in the sounds we have been spoon fed from birth that others do. This chart doesn't look anything like my '70s chart (or rather, how it would look if it wasn't currently a reggae chart, which I do really need to organise and convert into a custom chart in order to utilise my decade chart in the manner it was intended to be used), but I find it infinitely more interesting - and, more importantly, personal* - than a chart full of the bands mentioned in this thread, and this coming from someone who loves Sabbath, and the Stones, and Springsteen, and The Who, and London Calling. What is hard to believe is that people still think a chart not containing any of those elements is in some way inferior or, worse, disingenuous. This chart is worth a thousand staid, predictable '70s charts, simply because of the breadth and quality of largely hidden gems that it can open one's ears too. So before questioning the acts that you believe are being done a disservice by their absence, you should instead pick something near the top of this chart which you haven't previously heard and do yourselves a favour by indulging in something you would otherwise probably be completely unaware of.

That isn't to say that a chart full of canonical artists can't appear personal to me, although they have to be done right (Jason, your chart is excellent for example, despite little of it appealing to my tastes).[/size]

Good point. I don't consider this chart inferior just because those bands are on it. In fact, I'm impressed that someone could find so many albums they think are greater than any of those bands' albums. I definitely plan on listening to albums from this chart.
_________________

Mother Nature's Son

Gender: Male

Age: 31

I actually agree on the Stones being greatest in the 60s. At least my favourite song of theirs is "Ruby Tuesday". Wondered about one thing, Norman! You have two Beach Boys albums in your overall chart, but no Beach Boys albums here? I think Sunflower wouldn't be out of place and I even have a couple of favourites in front of that one. One question more: The reason why you don't like Pink Floyd, is it because they're pretentious or is it something else? Just curious.
_________________
"The Beatles, the greatest band known to mankind." - Bismah Mughal

Saoirse

Yeah, I think this quasi-side discussion actually brings up an interesting point, in how do we really interpret another user's chart? By comparing it to our own? By how it portrays the personality of the creator? By how well it represents "the most important" albums? I think like music we all interpret other's works in different ways. And yeah, it doesn't matter what albums are put on someone's chart, there is always a personal reason for doing so and making a chart from your gut always seems like the best way to go, even if it sometimes is lacking the albums others may deem "necessary" for a good chart. And any album a user finds essential makes it personal, there isn't a certain album type or specific artist that are required for it to be so.

MrFrogger

Where am I

Gender: Male

Age: 28

Location: Oakland

Saoirse wrote:

Yeah, I think this quasi-side discussion actually brings up an interesting point, in how do we really interpret another user's chart? By comparing it to our own? By how it portrays the personality of the creator? By how well it represents "the most important" albums? I think like music we all interpret other's works in different ways. And yeah, it doesn't matter what albums are put on someone's chart, there is always a personal reason for doing so and making a chart from your gut always seems like the best way to go, even if it sometimes is lacking the albums others may deem "necessary" for a good chart. And any album a user finds essential makes it personal, there isn't a certain album type or specific artist that are required for it to be so.

I completely agree.

Also I love your new Signature (Wes Anderson films are the best)