|
Post by jimc on Nov 14, 2008 9:02:08 GMT -5
In the Quick News Links section of the main board, there is a note about a recent NME poll -- here we go again -- the best albums of all time. Oasis is number 1 with Definitely, Maybe (it is an outstanding album...we didn't "get it" here as much as the Brits obviously), with Sgt. Pepper and Revolver at 2 and 3, I think.
What I was most struck by, however, is the comment (Steve?) about Radiohead having two top 10 albums -- the editorial note is ("Huh?")
I'm not surprised by that at all, and one could argue that by any standard it's quite legitimate. One risks being hopelessly mired in the past if the merits of Radiohead are not recognized. They are a great band releasing great albums. Timeless work, with no pandering to trends. Thom Yorke and company are out there ahead of most bands.
Anyway, this poll and the reaction to it made me think of another completely non-scientific and probably useless idea. I'm rating rock and roll performers based on the quality of their body of work, no individual albums can vault a band or performer into this list; therefore, no Sex Pistols, as great as Bollocks is...no Nirvana because of Nevermind.
Here's my list (no particular order!):
1. The Beatles 2. Elvis Presley 3. The Rolling Stones 4. Bob Dylan 5. Radiohead 6. Bob Marley 7. The Clash 8. Bruce Springsteen 9. U2 10. Talking Heads
|
|
|
Post by Steve Marinucci on Nov 14, 2008 9:57:20 GMT -5
In the Quick News Links section of the main board, there is a note about a recent NME poll -- here we go again -- the best albums of all time. Oasis is number 1 with Definitely, Maybe (it is an outstanding album...we didn't "get it" here as much as the Brits obviously), with Sgt. Pepper and Revolver at 2 and 3, I think. What I was most struck by, however, is the comment (Steve?) about Radiohead having two top 10 albums -- the editorial note is ("Huh?") I'm not surprised by that at all, and one could argue that by any standard it's quite legitimate. One risks being hopelessly mired in the past if the merits of Radiohead are not recognized. They are a great band releasing great albums. Timeless work, with no pandering to trends. Thom Yorke and company are out there ahead of most bands. Anyway, this poll and the reaction to it made me think of another completely non-scientific and probably useless idea. I'm rating rock and roll performers based on the quality of their body of work, no individual albums can vault a band or performer into this list; therefore, no Sex Pistols, as great as Bollocks is...no Nirvana because of Nevermind. Here's my list (no particular order!): 1. The Beatles 2. Elvis Presley 3. The Rolling Stones 4. Bob Dylan 5. Radiohead 6. Bob Marley 7. The Clash 8. Bruce Springsteen 9. U2 10. Talking Heads The comments were mine and I stand behind the Radiohead comments. If we're talking "The Greatest Albums of All Time" Radiohead does not belong there. Where are the Stones and Derek and the Dominoes? But the bigger problem is these lists -- any of them -- are stupid. I don't know why the magazines that make these up make them sound so general when they aren't. "The Greatest Albums of All Time By British readers ages 15-19" would make more sense.
|
|
|
Post by revolver66 on Nov 14, 2008 11:19:43 GMT -5
In the Quick News Links section of the main board, there is a note about a recent NME poll -- here we go again -- the best albums of all time. Oasis is number 1 with Definitely, Maybe (it is an outstanding album...we didn't "get it" here as much as the Brits obviously), with Sgt. Pepper and Revolver at 2 and 3, I think. What I was most struck by, however, is the comment (Steve?) about Radiohead having two top 10 albums -- the editorial note is ("Huh?") I'm not surprised by that at all, and one could argue that by any standard it's quite legitimate. One risks being hopelessly mired in the past if the merits of Radiohead are not recognized. They are a great band releasing great albums. Timeless work, with no pandering to trends. Thom Yorke and company are out there ahead of most bands. Anyway, this poll and the reaction to it made me think of another completely non-scientific and probably useless idea. I'm rating rock and roll performers based on the quality of their body of work, no individual albums can vault a band or performer into this list; therefore, no Sex Pistols, as great as Bollocks is...no Nirvana because of Nevermind. Here's my list (no particular order!): 1. The Beatles 2. Elvis Presley 3. The Rolling Stones 4. Bob Dylan 5. Radiohead 6. Bob Marley 7. The Clash 8. Bruce Springsteen 9. U2 10. Talking Heads While we all have our own opinions on this it is interesting based on a whole body of work. That is why someone like Elvis would actually rate lower on my list. His complete body of work isn't so impressive when you add in all the crummy Soundtracks etc...I agree that one shouldn't live in the past but a complete body of work should be based on much more than a few albums. However I bet many will feel that one great LP by a band is better than a whole output by another! Also Nirvana did much more than Nevermind. I think In Utero the LP after is superior. They have a nice body of work(but admittedly it is small). My List: The Beatles The Stones The Kinks The Who The Beach Boys Dylan CCR The Doors Led Zeppelin Oasis/Guided By Voices These are in no real order except the top and can change on most any day.
|
|
|
Post by jimc on Nov 15, 2008 0:23:50 GMT -5
In the Quick News Links section of the main board, there is a note about a recent NME poll -- here we go again -- the best albums of all time. Oasis is number 1 with Definitely, Maybe (it is an outstanding album...we didn't "get it" here as much as the Brits obviously), with Sgt. Pepper and Revolver at 2 and 3, I think. What I was most struck by, however, is the comment (Steve?) about Radiohead having two top 10 albums -- the editorial note is ("Huh?") I'm not surprised by that at all, and one could argue that by any standard it's quite legitimate. One risks being hopelessly mired in the past if the merits of Radiohead are not recognized. They are a great band releasing great albums. Timeless work, with no pandering to trends. Thom Yorke and company are out there ahead of most bands. Anyway, this poll and the reaction to it made me think of another completely non-scientific and probably useless idea. I'm rating rock and roll performers based on the quality of their body of work, no individual albums can vault a band or performer into this list; therefore, no Sex Pistols, as great as Bollocks is...no Nirvana because of Nevermind. Here's my list (no particular order!): 1. The Beatles 2. Elvis Presley 3. The Rolling Stones 4. Bob Dylan 5. Radiohead 6. Bob Marley 7. The Clash 8. Bruce Springsteen 9. U2 10. Talking Heads The comments were mine and I stand behind the Radiohead comments. If we're talking "The Greatest Albums of All Time" Radiohead does not belong there. Where are the Stones and Derek and the Dominoes? But the bigger problem is these lists -- any of them -- are stupid. I don't know why the magazines that make these up make them sound so general when they aren't. "The Greatest Albums of All Time By British readers ages 15-19" would make more sense. As I said, I think Radiohead definitely belongs on ANY such list. Sure, I think the Stones should be there -- Exile, Beggars Banquet, etc. -- but Derek and the Dominoes? Layla is a favorite of mine, and it's a fine album overall, but Radiohead has at least three albums better than that one. And in case anyone's wondering, I'm far from alone in that analysis. And I really wonder if it's accurate to say British 15 to 19 year olds. I have a feeling the sampling is much older than that. I know American 15 to 19 year olds would have a much different list -- the gnashing of teeth would be much greater around here. Personally, I'm happy my son's generation has its own music.
|
|
|
Post by jimc on Nov 15, 2008 0:28:50 GMT -5
In the Quick News Links section of the main board, there is a note about a recent NME poll -- here we go again -- the best albums of all time. Oasis is number 1 with Definitely, Maybe (it is an outstanding album...we didn't "get it" here as much as the Brits obviously), with Sgt. Pepper and Revolver at 2 and 3, I think. What I was most struck by, however, is the comment (Steve?) about Radiohead having two top 10 albums -- the editorial note is ("Huh?") I'm not surprised by that at all, and one could argue that by any standard it's quite legitimate. One risks being hopelessly mired in the past if the merits of Radiohead are not recognized. They are a great band releasing great albums. Timeless work, with no pandering to trends. Thom Yorke and company are out there ahead of most bands. Anyway, this poll and the reaction to it made me think of another completely non-scientific and probably useless idea. I'm rating rock and roll performers based on the quality of their body of work, no individual albums can vault a band or performer into this list; therefore, no Sex Pistols, as great as Bollocks is...no Nirvana because of Nevermind. Here's my list (no particular order!): 1. The Beatles 2. Elvis Presley 3. The Rolling Stones 4. Bob Dylan 5. Radiohead 6. Bob Marley 7. The Clash 8. Bruce Springsteen 9. U2 10. Talking Heads While we all have our own opinions on this it is interesting based on a whole body of work. That is why someone like Elvis would actually rate lower on my list. His complete body of work isn't so impressive when you add in all the crummy Soundtracks etc...I agree that one shouldn't live in the past but a complete body of work should be based on much more than a few albums. However I bet many will feel that one great LP by a band is better than a whole output by another! Also Nirvana did much more than Nevermind. I think In Utero the LP after is superior. They have a nice body of work(but admittedly it is small). My List: The Beatles The Stones The Kinks The Who The Beach Boys Dylan CCR The Doors Led Zeppelin Oasis/Guided By Voices These are in no real order except the top and can change on most any day. Fine list there, and I can definitely see the argument for Nirvana. Another day they'd probably make my list. I thought a few minutes about Elvis. There are some amazing LPs from the 50s, then one or two OK soundtracks -- but the late 1960s comeback LPs made me decide that he belonged. That and this contradiction to what I said about one album not being enough -- the Sun Sessions LP (it's collected singles, yeah) IS enough.
|
|
|
Post by superhans on Nov 15, 2008 4:09:13 GMT -5
But the bigger problem is these lists -- any of them -- are stupid. I don't know why the magazines that make these up make them sound so general when they aren't. "The Greatest Albums of All Time By British readers ages 15-19" would make more sense. If the readership of the NME does mainly comprise British 15-19 year olds (which is probably reasonably accurate) I say 'well done' to them on picking one Oasis album and two Beatles albums in the top three. It could easily have been something like the Ting Tings or the Arctic Monkeys. Just on the Derek and the Dominoes vs Radiohead debate, I think Radiohead should win by, at the very least, two falls and a submission.
|
|