Jump to content

top 10 albums last 20 years according to Spin


Pete

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 95
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Humor attempt? Nah....

 

My 14, almost 15 year old daughter and her school friends frequently surprise me when they too dig out some oldies (Lep Zep is big) and tell me what a great old song they've come across. Then I turn on my PC and play it again for them.

 

Music that can transcend generations, that's a sign of truely great music. Yet, it's not the only sign. Influential effect is another. Again it's the lasting influence that counts. Trendy, hip, popular is fine, but that in and of itself does not attest to it's greatness.

 

Bottom line, whatever one's preference is, enjoy. That's what it's here for....

363115[/snapback]

 

Oh, sure, I know that...But in my younger years I never listened to that stuff. Mostly punk and metal. Wasn't till I started really enjoying the herbage and God's little fungal helpers that I started listening to the Grateful Dead.

 

Now, of course, I appreciate it for what it is, but then it was all aobut the buzz.

 

And no, I don't really puff any more. Gotta be respeckable now. <_<

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Where's ACDC?  <_<

363151[/snapback]

 

If they included AC/DC they would have taken up 1/5 of the list since every album is simply a re-make of the previous one. Actually I don't mind AC/DC and I own Back in Black, but there is a band who hasn't come up with a new idea in 25 years.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not saying those are bad bands, but if those are the 100 greatest albums in the last 20 years that's not saying much for music.

362759[/snapback]

 

I realize it's completely subjective, but it would be interesting to take this list from the last 20 years and then compare it to the previous 20 years, 1965-1985.

I don't think the 1985-2005 top 100 could put a dent in the top albums catalog from the prior 20 years.

 

Some of the artists who put out their most prolific work during this period - Led Zep, Who, Stones, Beatles (and all the solo stuff), Jethro Tull, Temptations, Supremes, Yes, ELP, Clapton, Allman Bros, Stevie Wonder, Sex Pistols, Ramones, Bowie, Genesis, James Taylor, Buddy Guy, Jeff Beck, Steeley Dan, Crosby, Stills, Nash, & Young (again - all the solo stuff), Aretha Franklin, James Brown, Pink Floyd, etc etc etc.

 

And what's sometimes forgotten is the fact that it was expected that rock acts churn out at least 2 albums every 3 years. It wasn't unusual to have one every year for some acts. Most of the albums were good from beginning to end.

 

Seems like a lot of artist today take 2-3 years between albums, and a lot of times there are 1 or 2 good tracks with lots of filler in between.

 

The record companies want to point the finger at internet music piracy for lagging sales. I think they're way off base. The reason sales lag is because the quality isn't there. Kids aren't willing to pay $16 at a retailer for 1 or 2 songs.

They've got tattoos and other stuff to spend their money on!

 

I know I sound like our parents, but really, most acts in the past 20 years are flash in the pan poets. The Rock & Roll Hall of Fame is going to be hard pressed to find deserving inductees 25 years from now.

 

The army of uncharismatic, has-been rock bands, with the shirtless beanpole bass players and instruments hanging to their ankles, swaying like possessed muslims, aren't going to be filling stadiums in 2045, as McCartney, The Rolling Stones, Clapton, Bowie, et al are doing 40 years after they made a name for themselves.

 

You'll find most of the previously mentioned losers hanging around your local town parks, bumming smokes off kids who won't be born for another 25 years.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yup, I give in.  You guys are right.  Why listen to anything new when it's all crap, right?  Why buy a new record when I can just drive around in my Astrovan cranking good' ole Led Zep?  Maybe the Pink Floyd reunion will inspire them to make another record and tour?  That would be awesome.  Hey, man, is that the new Aerosmith single?  Crank it up.

363130[/snapback]

 

 

In general I tend to question whether innovation in art, whether it be visual or auditory, is seldom an improvement. In the last century or so, there has been what I'd call three major revolutions in music, in Jazz, R&B, and Rock. Credit for all three in large part is due to African influences in one way or another. Since most of the world is now tied together, it is unlikely that there will be any more outside influences...

 

However, there is a point where innovation becomes difficult to appreciate. Look at classical music written this century. In trying to sound different, it abandons what made it so popular in the days of Hayden an Mozart.

 

On that list, if it was a Rock list, I'd say Metallica and G&R, and Clapton's Unplugged are left off. If it is any genre, then there ought to be something from Madonna, who has pretty much owned pop music for the 20 years. At this point I would have to say, grudgingly, that she is more important to the evolution of pop music than the Beatles.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If they included AC/DC they would have taken up 1/5 of the list since every album is simply a re-make of the previous one.  Actually I don't mind AC/DC and I own Back in Black, but there is a band who hasn't come up with a new idea in 25 years.

363159[/snapback]

If it ain't broke, there's no reason to fix it. I find it humorous when a band changes their sound and gets accused of selling out while another band stays with their roots is "unoriginal." Ah, the delicateness of balance.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yup, I give in.  You guys are right.  Why listen to anything new when it's all crap, right?  Why buy a new record when I can just drive around in my Astrovan cranking good' ole Led Zep?  Maybe the Pink Floyd reunion will inspire them to make another record and tour?  That would be awesome.  Hey, man, is that the new Aerosmith single?  Crank it up.

363130[/snapback]

There are alot of responses to this list so maybe your general broadside is directed at specific posts you do not specify rather than at all posts valuing oldsters over the youth that derive from them however.

 

However, there are clearly those who see great value in the older rockers and also the new ones. Do you really feel like if one embracing any new sounds then you must reject the old sounds? there clearly is room for both in my record collection.

 

however, choosing the "top" albums of the last 20 years or overall is a different question. For me I can easily choose my top 100 of the past 20 years and with more difficulty but it can be done select a top 20 from the past 20 and it probably looks something like the Spin list. However when choosing my top picks overall. criteria is the key thing and staying power is important so no albums from the last 5 years no matter how great I think they are musically makes my top overall list because they simply have not had enough time to exhibit staying power with the broader public or my own growing (it is to be hoped) musical tastes.

 

I do think those who are locked into 1984 are probably wrong with their best of lists as are those who are locked into 2004.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh, sure, I know that...But in my younger years I never listened to that stuff. Mostly punk and metal. Wasn't till I started really enjoying the herbage and God's little fungal helpers that I started listening to the Grateful Dead.

 

Now, of course, I appreciate it for what it is, but then it was all aobut the buzz.

 

And no, I don't really puff any more. Gotta be respeckable now. <_<

363147[/snapback]

 

Don't we all.....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If it is any genre, then there ought to be something from Madonna, who has pretty much owned pop music for the 20 years.  At this point I would have to say, grudgingly, that she is more important to the evolution of pop music than the Beatles.

363183[/snapback]

 

You should go sit in the corner for the rest of the day for uttering such a sacrilegious comment as that. The Beatles influenced more than a narrow genre. We'll let you know when you can come out of the corner, but not just yet......

 

Give us ten hail Mary's, four Our Father's....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As much as I love OK computer, I'd go with The Bends as Radiohead's best...

362737[/snapback]

 

Ya, The Bends pwns all.

 

Where the hell is Master Of Puppets?

 

YOu don't have to like new stuff, but don't dis it unless you know it.

362914[/snapback]

 

Can I dis Limp Biskit and Phish anyway? I'd rather puncture my eardrums with knitting needles than get to know 'em.

 

there ought to be something from Madonna, who has pretty much owned pop music for the 20 years.  At this point I would have to say, grudgingly, that she is more important to the evolution of pop music than the Beatles.

363183[/snapback]

 

If you mean the evolution of pop from good and sometimes great songs into image-driven corporate dreck where music is entirely ancillary, then I would agree.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You should go sit in the corner for the rest of the day for uttering such a sacrilegious comment as that. The Beatles influenced more than a narrow genre. We'll let you know when you can come out of the corner, but not just yet......

 

Give us ten hail Mary's, four Our Father's....

363252[/snapback]

 

Considering I had brought up Madonna, the Hail Marys and Our Father's seem most inappropriate... :w00t:

 

I was trying to look at things objectively... for better or worse, (I think worse), there are the Spears, to the Twains that have patterned their careers after her. She still cranks out hits, and the Beatles nor any of the solo acts can claim that they did so consistantly over a 20 year span...

 

If you mean the evolution of pop from good and sometimes great songs into image-driven corporate dreck where music is entirely ancillary, then I would agree.

363295[/snapback]

 

 

That's exactly what I mean, although a case can be made that pop music has headed down that path all along... That's why there were white bands that sang the black bands material.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh, sure, I know that...But in my younger years I never listened to that stuff. Mostly punk and metal. Wasn't till I started really enjoying the herbage and God's little fungal helpers that I started listening to the Grateful Dead.

 

Now, of course, I appreciate it for what it is, but then it was all aobut the buzz.

 

And no, I don't really puff any more. Gotta be respeckable now. :w00t:

363147[/snapback]

 

I thought I was gonna be the only one to bring that point up.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I realize it's completely subjective, but it would be interesting to take this list from the last 20 years and then compare it to the previous 20 years, 1965-1985.

I don't think the 1985-2005 top 100 could put a dent in the top albums catalog from the prior 20 years.

 

Some of the artists who put out their most prolific work during this period - Led Zep, Who, Stones, Beatles (and all the solo stuff), Jethro Tull, Temptations, Supremes, Yes, ELP, Clapton, Allman Bros, Stevie Wonder, Sex Pistols, Ramones, Bowie, Genesis, James Taylor, Buddy Guy, Jeff Beck, Steeley Dan, Crosby, Stills, Nash, & Young (again - all the solo stuff), Aretha Franklin, James Brown, Pink Floyd, etc etc etc.

 

And what's sometimes forgotten is the fact that it was expected that rock acts churn out at least 2 albums every 3 years. It wasn't unusual to have one every year for some acts. Most of the albums were good from beginning to end.

 

Seems like a lot of artist today take 2-3 years between albums, and a lot of times there are 1 or 2 good tracks with lots of filler in between.

 

The record companies want to point the finger at internet music piracy for lagging sales. I think they're way off base. The reason sales lag is because the quality isn't there. Kids aren't willing to pay $16 at a retailer for 1 or 2 songs.

They've got tattoos and other stuff to spend their money on!

 

I know I sound like our parents, but really, most acts in the past 20 years are flash in the pan poets. The Rock & Roll Hall of Fame is going to be hard pressed to find deserving inductees 25 years from now.

 

The army of uncharismatic, has-been rock bands, with the shirtless beanpole bass players and instruments hanging to their ankles, swaying like possessed muslims, aren't going to be filling stadiums in 2045, as McCartney, The Rolling Stones, Clapton, Bowie, et al are doing 40 years after they made a name for themselves.

 

You'll find most of the previously mentioned losers hanging around your local town parks, bumming smokes off kids who won't be born for another 25 years.

363171[/snapback]

 

That's how I feel 100 percent. You are preaching to the converted!!!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Check out Pete Townsend's 'White City' from 1985...

363117[/snapback]

 

If you really like Pete Townshend and The Who, pick up Scooped. It's a double album of demos, outtakes, etc. Some brilliant stuff there.

 

I think Townshend is one of the best songwriters of this century.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you really like Pete Townshend and The Who, pick up Scooped. It's a double album of demos, outtakes, etc. Some brilliant stuff there.

 

I think Townshend is one of the best songwriters of this century.

363417[/snapback]

When he's not surfing kiddie porn.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nice summary on why people actually like the GD.

363414[/snapback]

 

Q: What does a Deadhead say when he runs out of dope?

A: Damn, this music SUCKS!

 

Q: Where do you hide money from a Deadhead?

A: Under the soap.

 

Q: What do you call a Deadhead without a girlfriend?

A: Homeless.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Q: What does a Deadhead say when he runs out of dope?

A: Damn, this music SUCKS!

 

Q: Where do you hide money from a Deadhead?

A: Under the soap.

 

Q: What do you call a Deadhead without a girlfriend?

A: Homeless.

363422[/snapback]

 

 

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!! You got any more of those?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...