BEA forum regulars top 400 results - Music

sp4cetiger

meccalecca wrote:

It's very very difficult. But I think a lot of us will favor the unheralded masterpiece for the sake of giving it the attention it needs. If I include Rubber Soul on my chart instead of Gene Clark's No Other, it really doesn't benefit anyone. But by including No Other, someone here may actually find an album they'll really love.

I disagree that it's useless to add the Beatles (or any artist that I love) to a chart because I think great music can never get too much exposure. But if you really do view all of those few hundred albums as equal, then I guess we're coming from different places anyway.

meccalecca
Voice of Reason

Gender: Male
Location: The Land of Enchantment

sp4cetiger wrote:

I disagree that it's useless to add the Beatles (or any artist that I love) to a chart because I think great music can never get too much exposure. But if you really do view all of those few hundred albums as equal, then I guess we're coming from different places anyway.

Well it's not useless to include the Beatles but far more useful to include the equally great Gene Clark

Necharsian
Best Ever User

Gender: Male

One thing I have a hard time doing in regards to my chart, is having diversity or not. I'm in a similar boat as Mecca in that there are tons of albums that, on any given day, could be on my chart but I have a hard time distinguishing reasons to put them on from others. I listen to more black metal or ambient than hip hop but I can't help but have a need to have Blackalicious or Eric B & Rakim to my chart. I have an extremely hard time comparing Xasthur to Harold Budd or Tribe Called Quest and so I struggle when dealing with who should be on there. I could fill my overall chart with black metal easily, but sometimes I don't listen to it. So I make my chart to incorporate everything. It's not because I want people to see how cool and diverse my tastes are, but rather sometimes I want to listen to death metal, sometimes dance pop. My chart tries to include the best of everything while focusing on what I usually want to listen to at a given moment.

Apologies if this incoherent mumbo jumbo but I sympathize with those that have no distinction between #33 and #133 of their overall album list

sp4cetiger

Necharsian wrote:

One thing I have a hard time doing in regards to my chart, is having diversity or not. I'm in a similar boat as Mecca in that there are tons of albums that, on any given day, could be on my chart but I have a hard time distinguishing reasons to put them on from others. I listen to more black metal or ambient than hip hop but I can't help but have a need to have Blackalicious or Eric B & Rakim to my chart. I have an extremely hard time comparing Xasthur to Harold Budd or Tribe Called Quest and so I struggle when dealing with who should be on there. I could fill my overall chart with black metal easily, but sometimes I don't listen to it. So I make my chart to incorporate everything. It's not because I want people to see how cool and diverse my tastes are, but rather sometimes I want to listen to death metal, sometimes dance pop. My chart tries to include the best of everything while focusing on what I usually want to listen to at a given moment.

I can understand that, too. My chart is fairly diverse as well, but it tends to be that way just because I give more value to albums that provide me with a different way of listening to music. Nas, for example, goes in my top 10 for his major role in helping me fall in love with hip-hop for the first time. I don't know, maybe that's saying the same thing...

Guest

This is a good discussion.

I discovered this site because I had recently gotten into Steve Earle. I searched on the internet for the best Steve Earle album and found this site.

I registered and made a list of "The 40 greatest albums". In making the list, I tried for the first 25 picks or so to list albums I thought were musically important. These were not necessarily my favorite albums, but albums I thought changed music. For example, I like Louis Armstrong's Hot 5s and 7s, but it is not a favorite. The same for Elvis Presley's Sun Sessions.

After being on this site for a week, I realize it is dominated by mostly people in the age range between 18 and 30. There is nothing wrong with that, it just skews the lists of the posters in a certain way.

After a week, I realize that most of the people here don't recognize or, at best, vaguely recognize bands or artists that I love. Elvis Costello is one such example. The Clash is another. I saw Elvis in concert 3 times in his prime, and the Clash 4 times in their prime. I saw the Who and the Stones in their prime. I tracked their careers, and waited for each new album.

As an aside, I think music has gone somewhat downhill, particulalrly over the past decade. A lot of the rock today is too processed, too sterile, and too computerized. For example, I like Radiohead alot, but I could never put 6 of their albums in a top 400 list. I find myself listenign to rap and (God forbid) recently more country. But that is the subject of another thread.

I still follow new music. I subscribe to Spotify and will use this site to solicit new music. However, I realize that when it comes to rating "greatest albums" list, my tastes will vary greatly from the posters here. Again, there is nothing wrong with that, it just is.

HigherThanTheSun

Gender: Male
Age: 33
Location: UK

How could you complain about this chart, and simultaneously argue that your favourite artists aren't appreciated on BEA, when The Clash, The Who, Rolling Stones have nine albums included between them, on said chart?
_________________
Shut up mate you're boring!

Dingerbell

Gender: Male
Age: 27

Ceccon wrote:

After a week, I realize that most of the people here don't recognize or, at best, vaguely recognize bands or artists that I love. Elvis Costello is one such example. The Clash is another.

Seriously?! London Calling is at number 11 of the overall chart. People have already commented on having listened to, and enjoyed, Elvis Costello's music. An I can say the same to you about my favourite bands. Do you "recognise" The Wrens, Bonobo or Yuck? Just because your favourite artists are on Rolling Stone's greatest albums list it doesn't mean they're more entitled to respect and it doesn't mean that everyone should listen to them. You've put older artists on a pedestal and, until you do something about it, you aren't going to respect music that you might have enjoyed, but instantly dismissed because its not hugely acclaimed.

Ceccon wrote:

As an aside, I think music has gone somewhat downhill, particulalrly over the past decade. A lot of the rock today is too processed, too sterile, and too computerized. For example, I like Radiohead alot, but I could never put 6 of their albums in a top 400 list. I find myself listenign to rap and (God forbid) recently more country. But that is the subject of another thread.

Have you not heard of a genre called indie rock? Or, specifically, lo-fi indie rock? Artists such as Pavement, Elliott Smith or Guided By Voices could hardly be called "processed". I think you're, again, taking the view that Rolling Stone magazine are omniscient on all things music when, in fact, they are not. Not has music not gone downhill, but it has gone significantly uphill. The amount of music that's released each year means there'll always be something you enjoy; you just have to be prepared to look.

meccalecca
Voice of Reason

Gender: Male
Location: The Land of Enchantment

Ceccon wrote:

This is a good discussion.

I agree. This is what I love about this forum. We can have civilized conversations without berating each other.

well hopefully this eases one concern, The Clash is a top 5 - 10 band for me. Everything they did is pure gold (not counting Cut The Crap). I'm jealous that you saw them in their prime, as well as 1970s NYC for all its seedy glory.

I understand what you're saying about the sterility of a lot of modern music, which many can credit to digital vs analog recording, but fortunately there's a lot of artists who have been putting out really phenomenal music recently.

Hopefully spending some time here will open you up to some modern revelations.

Guest

meccalecca wrote:

I agree. This is what I love about this forum. We can have civilized conversations without berating each other.

well hopefully this eases one concern, The Clash is a top 5 - 10 band for me. Everything they did is pure gold (not counting Cut The Crap). I'm jealous that you saw them in their prime, as well as 1970s NYC for all its seedy glory.

I understand what you're saying about the sterility of a lot of modern music, which many can credit to digital vs analog recording, but fortunately there's a lot of artists who have been putting out really phenomenal music recently.

Hopefully spending some time here will open you up to some modern revelations.

Actually, my intention in hanging around here is to find good new music. I subscribe to Spotify and have access to most new music (except Radiohead, which pulled its albums from Spotify). I have been relying on Ro0lling Stone and NME for recommendations and have found some good music. I am hoping to find even more good music using these forums.

But, let's face it, I'm an old guy. My 50+ years of experience have taught me this - Pretty much everyone thinks that the mmusic they heard in college, or thereabouts, is the best. I am no different.

Guest

Dingerbell wrote:

Have you not heard of a genre called indie rock? Or, specifically, lo-fi indie rock? Artists such as Pavement, Elliott Smith or Guided By Voices could hardly be called "processed". I think you're, again, taking the view that Rolling Stone magazine are omniscient on all things music when, in fact, they are not. Not has music not gone downhill, but it has gone significantly uphill. The amount of music that's released each year means there'll always be something you enjoy; you just have to be prepared to look.

Listening to Elliott Smith now. Good stuff.

What album by Pavement and Guided by voices do you recommend?