Shareefruck
Registered User
Which thing are you annoyed by? That they're both too high or that Sgt. Pepper's isn't #1?Sure they did.
Which thing are you annoyed by? That they're both too high or that Sgt. Pepper's isn't #1?Sure they did.
I wouldn't say I'm annoyed. I've seen too many of these types of lists over the years to still be annoyed by them.Which thing are you annoyed by? That they're both too high or that Sgt. Pepper's isn't #1?
Well I'm not going to even get into some of the 70's and 80's bands, which some are honestly pretty obscureWeren't they all pretty much all all-time classics/dad rock cannon stuff? What was included that could be considered hipster? If anything, it was guilty of being too generic, dull, and cliched.
I didn't mean to use "annoyed by" in an accusational tone, it was just a random word to use.I wouldn't say I'm annoyed. I've seen too many of these types of lists over the years to still be annoyed by them.
But I'll play along. I am "annoyed" by two things.
That Pet Sounds placed considerably higher than Sgt. Pepper.
And that Pet Sounds placed number one.
I'm not sure I would give either the top position but I would never place Pet Sounds above Sgt. Pepper and with that much separation. In my opinion Sgt. Pepper is considerably better than Pet Sounds, but even Sgt. Pepper doesn't necessarily deserve the number one position.
I'm backed up by overwhelming general consensus over the years, record sales, etc. Although I admit that record sales in and of itself is a ****** method for judging how good an album is. But when critical opinion and record sales combine that can be convincing.
And let's face it, there is no criteria or rulebook for judging what is the best in this type of exercise. It's an opinion poll, not a "best" poll. My opinion along with the majority of critics, musicologists, etc., is that Sgt. Pepper is superior to Pet Sounds. I am not right. It is my opinion.
Without a doubt compilation albums should not be on a best of all time list, in my opinion.
Zero. Because they are based on opinion and we all have different opinions.Out of curiosity, what are some examples of published all-time lists that people think are actually spot on, though?
That's a fair assessment I think. It's more of a concept album than Pepper is. Pepper is basically just a collection of Beatles songs like any other album bookended by a single song - "Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band" and at the end, the song's reprise. They could have done the same thing with The White Album and used the two versions of "Revolution" and called it that.Personally, I think Pet Sounds is tighter, more consistent/cohesive/fully realized than Sgt. Pepper's, but I always find it overly polished in its perfectionism, and any poignancy in its songs seems to get washed out by this busy sheen of gloss in its sound, and the whole thing ends up feeling a bit sterilized to me. I have no problem with people considering it good, but it's closer to the bottom rung of things that I respect and would recommend to people than the top. I actually admire it more when I listen to the isolated vocal tracks than the completed album. They're well conceived songs.
I feel the same way about Pet Sounds - it has some amazing songs but also some stuff I've just never been able to get into it. Far more than Pepper has for me.I think Sgt. Pepper's is far more bold, interesting, dynamic, and brilliant than Pet Sounds when it's on, but to me, it has massive glaring weak points that either feel out of place or just aren't up to the rest of the album's standards (Getting Better, Fixing a Hole, When I'm Sixty Four).
Well it was groundbreaking. The recording techniques and innovations that they came up with along George Martin changed music. When you apply those to the songwriting talents of The Beatles you have a recipe for greatness.I love the psychedelic/twisted/dense sound/tone of the thing in general, though, and if the whole album was the quality of one of the more representative songs, it would be among my greatest albums of all time.
If I were writing for a magazine and the editor said "You need to rate the Beatles albums in order of greatness from number one to whatever their total is", and I had to back up my opinion with facts and arguments that others would challenge, I'm not sure which album I would have at number one. It could be Revolver, Pepper, Rubber Soul, or The White Album. That isn't a bad top 4 order as I look at it though.Given that, I think Revolver is far superior to either one. Not much hesitation there. In fact, while there are brilliant things about the core five or six Beatles albums, I think that's probably the only one that can be called perfect from start to finish. Each of the others arguably come close but for me, they always have at least a few missteps somewhere that holds it back.
Yeah I don't like WYWY. He's done so many more better songs in my opinion. While my Guitar Gently Weeps and a lot of stuff from All Things Must Pass are fantastic. Maybe it's the fact that I couldn't get into the Indian music thing unless it was just as complementary instruments on Beatles songs. The weak spot for me on Revolver is Yellow Submarine.Heh.... Within You Without You is actually close to my favorite track on the album (only Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds and A Day in the Life, I like more). I think it's the best thing Harrison's done, personally.
But what I mean about the other Beatles albums is, I can't bring myself to call Rubber Soul, White Album, Sgt. Pepper, or Abbey Road untouchable masterpieces because tracks like When I'm Sixty Four, Octopus' Garden, Maxwell Silver's Hammer, What Goes On, and Don't Pass Me By compromises them a bit, for me. Which is a shame, because a huge chunk of the tracks on those albums are totally worthy of that distinction.
There isn't a track on Revolver that does that for me. Dr. Robert is probably the weakest, but I think it's still a damn solid track.
Out of curiosity, what are some examples of published all-time lists that people think are actually spot on, though? Personally, I've never seen any (except the lists of individual people), so when I see something like this, which is more of the same, I'm resigned to just be like "ehh, all things considered, it's not as bad as it can be."
I shouldn't have said spot on-- I don't mean exact agreement, but simply respecting a list and finding the picks solid.It can't be done if you're looking at music as a whole. Too much ground to cover.
Seriously, even I identify various oversights. Not too impressed with that list over all.
I think Yellow Submarine is a solid song, personally.
That's a good point. I don't mind it on the more uptempo songs but a beautiful song that's ruined is Run of the Mill. Here it is, just Harrison on guitar and vocals. I much prefer this over the Spector produced version.I might feel differently about Harrison's All Things Must Pass songs if I didn't feel they were neutered by Phil Spector's stupid wall of sound overproduction. A lot of people love that album, but I've always felt that Spector ruined what was otherwise solid/impressive material.
It can't be done if you're looking at music as a whole. Too much ground to cover.
I don't agree with much of the list, but I respect this guy's opinion. He covers a lot of ground. As a somewhat culturally isolated prairie boy, he turned me onto some diverse music I didn't know about:
http://fastnbulbous.com/list-search/
I think there is SOME basis for what makes something better than something else.... you can't expect an exact identical match between two different people of course, but it's not JUST about subjectivity and every list being as good as the next. You could still very reasonably look at a list and criticize it for shamelessly pandering, having indefensible picks that don't meet any sort of a standard, selected in a way that feels mechanical/artificial, and having no internal consistency.
I'd prefer if these lists became MORE subjective if anything-- I think they would benefit from it-- At least you would have an easier time seeing where somebody's coming from.
I think there is SOME basis for what makes something better than something else.... you can't expect an exact identical match between two different people of course, but it's not JUST about subjectivity and every list being as good as the next. You could still very reasonably look at a list and criticize it for shamelessly pandering, having indefensible picks that don't meet any sort of a standard, selected in a way that feels mechanical/artificial, and having no internal consistency.
I'd prefer if these lists became MORE subjective if anything-- I think they would benefit from it-- At least you would have an easier time seeing where somebody's coming from.