Still reeling
After seeing that Rolling Stone rated Appetite for Destruction higher (#61) than Led Zeppelin IV (#66). And how does Led Zeppelin (#29) rank higher than IV? And why isn't IV in the top 10?
And how does Physical Graffiti rank (#70) when Led Zeppelin II and Houses of the Holy are clearly better Zeppelin records?
And how is it that the Beatles, a band which is basically un-listen-able today--ask yourself, when was the last time that you sought out a Beatles song?--have three of the top five albums, and the Beach Boys have one of the top five?!?
The Beach Boys. I know that you listen to them . . . ironically, if at all.
Feel free to disagree in comments.
posted by Number Three @ 6:45 PM
4 Comments:
Totally agree on Zep and GnR. Also agree, as a matter of personal preference, on both Beach Boys and Beatles. But come on. The Beatles, at least, WERE that important, and if I don't seek out Beatles songs very often it is more due to their ubiquity than their obsolescence. I wouldn't have necessarily given them 4 of the top 10, however.
I wouldn't mind seeing Born To Run (18), Joshua Tree (26), Moondance (65), Murmur (197), Big Pink (34), and Who's Next (28) a bit higher than they were (with Murmur WAY higher). From the back half, Big Star's Radio City (403) would have gone much much higher on my list too. And isn't Legend (46) a bit of a cheat? Not to take anything away from Marley or that album, which is phenomenal. But it's a greatest hits, so not really a fair competitor.
I'd love to have more of my own unique voice here, but I basically agree with tmcd (who already mostly agrees with #3).
We are all the same age, which is why we (mostly) all think alike about this stuff. Led Zeppelin IV simply WAS a greater album for all of us than the listing has it. And I agree completely with tmcd about Born to Run, Joshua Tree, and Murmur. But hell, I actually think Thriller should be higher up as well. Oh, and it goes without saying it, but I'll say it anyway: Achtung Baby is a better album than Joshua Tree.
But let me say something about the Beatles, as here I differ with #3 even more. It's hard to see how great the Beatles WERE from the perspective of someone our age. At least for me, I had really NEVER LISTENED to the Beatles my whole life, because I always just HEARD them in the world around me. But a year or so ago when iTunes released the entire collection, I bought it; and for the next 4 months I basically listened to nothing else. So 2 years ago I would have agreed with you, but now I only quibble with their putting Sgt Pepper's so high. I would move Abbey Road up, too, but I pretty much agree with Rubber Soul, Revolver, and the White Album. Never thought I'd say that...
Fro--I went through an intense Beatles phase while in college. My roommate Eric was a huge fan, and we listened to the albums (CDs at that point) over and over again. This is largely why I find them un-listen-able, now that I think about it. My favorite has always been the White Album.
So I know the Beatles' albums pretty well (one might say too well). To lessen the disagreement a bit more, I think that the albums you mention are very good, and clearly important, but for one band to get three of the top five spots on a list of 500 albums suggests to me that that band's albums basically define rock-n-roll. And that's just not right.
Oh, and one more thing: No Black Sabbath in the top 50? I don't even know whether a Sabbath album made the list. Sabbath basically created heavy metal (with Zeppelin and a few others!). So if the Beatles' influence requires them to OWN the top 50, Sabbath should get some love.
Post a Comment
<< Home