« previous next »
Pages: [1]   Go Down

The "All-TIME 100"

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic. Read 2001 times.

AB

The "All-TIME 100"
« on: 26 Nov 2006, 05:47 pm »
Have a look. Time Magazine's top 100 albums of all time...

http://www.time.com/time/2006/100albums/

Logged

gongos

Re: The "All-TIME 100"
« Reply #1 on: 26 Nov 2006, 05:59 pm »
There are a bunch of lame-ass albums on that list. 2 Radiohead albums, 2 U2 albums, 2 REM albums. :o
Logged

zybar

  • Volunteer
  • Posts: 12087
  • Dutch and Dutch 8C's…yes they are that good!
Re: The "All-TIME 100"
« Reply #2 on: 26 Nov 2006, 07:24 pm »
While it isn't exactly my top 100, I applaud TIME for taking a little different approach and not just selecting the same old albums that everybody else does.

Although not having anything from the Doors and Pink Floyd was a bad call.

BTW, they did nail it when they said the best album of the 90's was Nirvana's "Nevermind".

George

Logged

Wayner

Re: The "All-TIME 100"
« Reply #3 on: 26 Nov 2006, 07:45 pm »
No Floyd, No Supertramp, No Steely Dan, Santana,......It's almost a worthless list. Anyone can come up with 100 albums. Dark Side of the Moon has been on the charts for how many years and not even 1 Floyd made the list?

How many albums are in the current Time/Warner catalog?

W
Logged

Bill Baker

  • Industry Participant
  • Posts: 4906
  • Musica Bella Audio- Custom Design and Manufacturi
    • Musica Bella Audio
Re: The "All-TIME 100"
« Reply #4 on: 26 Nov 2006, 08:20 pm »
We researched and listened and agonized until we had a list of the greatest and most influential records ever - and then everyone complained because there was no Pink Floyd on it. And that's exactly how it should be.

 What the hell does this mean? No music that had anything to do with drugs? I don't get it. Not having Dark Side of the Moon was a big oversight. This album was in the top 100 since it's introduction until just last year or the year before. No "The Wall".....come on now.
At least they have Hotel California.
Overall, I agree it is a pretty lame list.
Logged

Rob Babcock

  • Volunteer
  • Posts: 9319
Re: The "All-TIME 100"
« Reply #5 on: 26 Nov 2006, 09:23 pm »
Reading Time to learn about music is like reading Road & Track to learn about patio furniture.
Logged

Wayner

Re: The "All-TIME 100"
« Reply #6 on: 27 Nov 2006, 10:46 pm »
I went back to the list. No Queen? We will WE WILL ROCK YOU. What adult or kid dosen't know this song?
No YES, (ha, ha). No Bob Segar?

I'm just getting pissed..............
Logged

WEEZ

  • Full Member
  • Posts: 1341
Re: The "All-TIME 100"
« Reply #7 on: 27 Nov 2006, 10:52 pm »
I own (7) off that list. And they are far from being my favorites at that.

Goes to show how 'out of it' I must be.....

WEEZ
Logged

BradJudy

Re: The "All-TIME 100"
« Reply #8 on: 27 Nov 2006, 11:10 pm »
I think it's mostly fair, although I'm not a fan of putting greatest hits type albums on such a list. 

I agree that many influential items are missing, and obviously the genres are limited (mostly rock and hip-hop with token country and jazz).

How about a compare and contrast to Rolling Stone's list (since Time's authority on the matter is in question): http://www.rollingstone.com/news/story/5938174/the_rs_500_greatest_albums_of_all_time/

RS is pretty Beatles and Bob Dylan heavy and has a pretty heavy genre slant too (it is Rolling Stone afterall).
Logged

ZLS

  • Full Member
  • Posts: 834
Re: The "All-TIME 100"
« Reply #9 on: 27 Nov 2006, 11:45 pm »
:duh:  Music is about emotion, and emotion is illogical.  Any person or organization that has the hubris to attempt to define the best is doomed to failure.  Any argument to define the "best" is ultimately reduced down to "I like it therefore it is good" 
    It would be presumptuous enough to compile a list of most significant and/or influential recordings, but at least then you could be given the reasoning behind the choice. 
    There is no overall best, there is only what a person likes in a particular genre of music.  It would be difficult enough to agree on what genre's should be included, never mind what music from said genre's. 
    I will leave with the immortal quote from Duke Ellington, " There is only really two types of music, good music and bad music"
Logged

Russtafarian

  • Full Member
  • Posts: 1118
  • Typical reaction to the music I play
Re: The "All-TIME 100"
« Reply #10 on: 28 Nov 2006, 12:03 am »
Nice to see PJ Harvey on the list.  For those who've missed the "Stories... " album, it's an Oh-My-God! experience.
Logged

Thump553

  • Full Member
  • Posts: 511
Re: The "All-TIME 100"
« Reply #11 on: 28 Nov 2006, 02:55 am »
The list seems to be heavily tilted towards greatest hits compilations, which I personally would automatically exclude from consideration.  A good album is a work of artistic statement.  A greatest hits collection is mining the art for some more money.
Logged

fredgarvin

  • Full Member
  • Posts: 1337
Re: The "All-TIME 100"
« Reply #12 on: 28 Nov 2006, 06:10 am »
What do you expect? Time, the rag, is written with a 6th grade vocabulary and a smart 6th grader should find it moronic. And Thump is quite right, compilations need not apply.
Logged

Rob Babcock

  • Volunteer
  • Posts: 9319
Re: The "All-TIME 100"
« Reply #13 on: 28 Nov 2006, 06:46 am »
Quote from: fredgarvin on 28 Nov 2006, 06:10 am
What do you expect? Time, the rag, is written with a 6th grade vocabulary and a smart 6th grader should find it moronic. And Thump is quite right, compilations need not apply.

In all seriousness, anyone who uses Molly Hatchet album art as their Avatar is a lot more qualified to write a "Top 100 List" than anyone at Time Magazine! 8)
Logged
Pages: [1]   Go Up
« previous next »