|
|
Post by Kensterberg on Jan 16, 2006 15:54:55 GMT -5
To recap. I feel like the greatest album of all time should really qualify for almost every accolade one could thrust upon it. It should be historically, socialy, commercially, criticly and any other "ly" you care to add. I don't really think that a "greatest album of all time" exist but I do think you could reasonably come up with contenders for the title. The catch is you have to explain why. If you'd like we can make a criteria of sorts and see if your album fits. By the criteria Mantis laid out here, there's one obvious contender for "greatest album" that meets every requirement, and just blows away the previously nominated records. That recording is the Who's landmark achievement, Who's Next. Critical success? This record was recognized as a masterpiece from the day it hit the record stores. I don't think I've ever seen a mediocre review of Who's Next, much less a bad one. Commercial success? Sold a bunch of copies, the band toured extensively behind it, which was also very succesful, and the album's songs registered on both singles and the then new album-oriented format. Maybe just as importantly, these same songs are heard by millions (and millions, and millions) of people every week. "Won't Get Fooled Again" and "Baba O'Reilly" are both used as themes for popular television shows, "Bargain" was a succesful Nissan commercial, "Behind Blue Eyes" has been in several film soundtracks, etc. Townshend has kept these songs in the public eye, and if part of the criteria is the extent to which an album has been embraced by the public over a lasting period of time, then Who's Next blows away pretty much any record of comparable artistic worth. And speaking of artistic worth ... there are few recordings in rock which top all the artistic achievements included in Who's Next. Moon's drumming to match synth loops while still sounding wild and human; Daltrey's incredible vocal performance (even today, the climactic scream in "Won't Get Fooled Again" ranks as one of the great rock and roll archetypes); Entwistle's hilarious (and rocking) "My Wife" and killer bass playing; and most of all, Townshend's power-chords and rythymic guitar work, arrangements, and some of the best lyrics ever put to vinyl make this record absolutely essential. As an added bonus, it still sounds fresh and contemporary today. Unlike most records of its time, the production and performance still sound fresh and timeless. This is a great album that simply doesn't date. Personally, I think London Calling is a better record, but when you start talking about commercial success, etc., well, it's very hard to find another album that's as good as Who's Next which has also been so commercially viable (and visable) for so long. So by the criteria that Mantis put forth in the first post, Who's Next is scientifically demonstrably the greatest album in rock and roll. meet the new boss, same as the old boss |
|
|
|
Post by Kensterberg on Jan 16, 2006 15:57:12 GMT -5
Why Velvet Underground & Nico is not the "Greatest Album of All Time" ... It has Nico on it ... Case closed ...  ROTFLMAO! Great line, Phil. I don't agree, but it's a great line ...  |
|
|
|
Post by Kensterberg on Jan 16, 2006 16:03:22 GMT -5
Some more reasons why Who's Next wins this debate:
The four guys in the band were damn near the only musicians on the record. Rock and roll should be something that can be created by four or five guys in a room playing together, not something that requires a symphony orchestra or tons of overdubs. This is a Who album, period. It's not "the Who and friends" or "parts of the Who playing together" or whatever. It was THE WHO, and when the Who went on tour, they were able to pretty convincingly pull these songs off live.
Townshend was rip-roaring drunk for large parts of the process of creating this record. What could be more rock and roll than that?
It's got Keith Moon playing the drums.
You can't tell when Townshend is writing for characters or for himself, which makes the record's lyrics and themes almost universal in their scope, but still very personal.
The record was originally going to be a half-assed sci-fi concept album, multi-LP, multi-media production. Thank god that fell through and we got this marvellously edited and performed single disc.
No filler. At all.
No barbershop harmonies.
One of the greatest album covers in history.
|
|
|
|
Post by rockysigman on Jan 16, 2006 16:15:06 GMT -5
Some more reasons why Who's Next wins this debate: The four guys in the band were damn near the only musicians on the record. Rock and roll should be something that can be created by four or five guys in a room playing together, not something that requires a symphony orchestra or tons of overdubs. This is a Who album, period. It's not "the Who and friends" or "parts of the Who playing together" or whatever. It was THE WHO, and when the Who went on tour, they were able to pretty convincingly pull these songs off live. Townshend was rip-roaring drunk for large parts of the process of creating this record. What could be more rock and roll than that? It's got Keith Moon playing the drums. You can't tell when Townshend is writing for characters or for himself, which makes the record's lyrics and themes almost universal in their scope, but still very personal. The record was originally going to be a half-assed sci-fi concept album, multi-LP, multi-media production. Thank god that fell through and we got this marvellously edited and performed single disc. No filler. At all. No barbershop harmonies. One of the greatest album covers in history. All of those reasons can apply to The Velvet Underground & Nico too (for the most part). Just three guys and one girl in a room making a record. No overdubs at all that I know of (other than the plate breaking and the sound of the chair scraping against the ground on "European Son"). Lou Reed was on speed the whole time. That's as rock and roll as being drunk, I say. Okay, Moe Tucker isn't quite as rock and roll as Keith Moon, but she's mighty unique and talented on the skins nonetheless. Also lots of questions about if Lou Reed was writing about himself or not. The use of the first person in "Heroin", as well as the ambiguity of that song (whether its portraying the drug positively or negatively) is one of the greatest lyrical controversies in rock, IMO. Never even toyed around with a stupid sci-fi theme. Just great rock songs, no stupid concept necessary. No filler (although some people have insisted that "European Son" is filler, but it's not--the people who don't like it just can't handle it. Pussies.) No barbershop harmonies (no, the harmonies in "There She Goes Again" are not barbershop). It's also incredibly far ahead of its time. "The Black Angel's Death Song" and "Venus in Furs" are still ahead of the times. Not just innovative, but also of a remarkable quality. And of course one of the all time great album covers. The colorform banana peel with the pink banana underneath was and still is a unique cover, iconic beyond the album itself. And of course it is the only album I know of that caused people to chew a part of it because of rumors that it had LSD on it. Beat that. The only reason that I didn't plunge into this earlier is because I can't make a case for this album based on Mantis's criteria, as obviously it didn't make much of a commercial impact. However, I think that that aspect of the criteria is bunk anyway. Who cares about units moved? No, The Velvet Underground & Nico wasn't heard by a lot of people, but it made a profound impact on those that heard it, and because it became so incredibly influential to a lot things that did find greater commercial success, it actually made a huge impact on people that did not ever hear it. So no, using Mantis's criteria I can't make a good case for it, but I disagree with some of that criteria. |
|
|
|
Post by Kensterberg on Jan 16, 2006 16:22:19 GMT -5
I agree 100% with that last post, Rocky. Which is why I've been careful to use the caveats of "by these criteria," etc. I don't think that the whole sales thing is a really useful measure of "greatness," particularly in a genre that is rapidly shrinking to niche status in the marketplace.
I think it's very close between VU & Nico and Who's Next, actually. Right now, after having written such great things about WN, I'd be inclined to give it the nod, but that might change in five minutes. And anyway, all these albums are just duking it out for the first runner-up position, as London Calling is simply the greatest rock and roll album of all time.
And I'll offer this as definitive proof: it is the only album in the history of either this board or the original Rollingstone.com to provoke a spontaneous discussion between more than four posters which consisted of ranking every track from said LP. And that happened on a board which was not specifically about the Clash (I'm pretty sure it was the original Influential Music board), and we weren't all immediately booted off the board!
So London Calling it is, then!
now don't look to us -- phony Beatlemania has bitten the dust!
|
|
|
|
Post by rockysigman on Jan 16, 2006 16:27:23 GMT -5
And I'll offer this as definitive proof: it is the only album in the history of either this board or the original Rollingstone.com to provoke a spontaneous discussion between more than four posters which consisted of ranking every track from said LP. And that happened on a board which was not specifically about the Clash (I'm pretty sure it was the original Influential Music board), and we weren't all immediately booted off the board! So London Calling it is, then! Actually, I think we ranked the tracks twice, because I remember doing it on Influential Music, but I think we did it on the Blank Generation board as well. |
|
|
|
Post by Kensterberg on Jan 16, 2006 16:32:29 GMT -5
And I'll offer this as definitive proof: it is the only album in the history of either this board or the original Rollingstone.com to provoke a spontaneous discussion between more than four posters which consisted of ranking every track from said LP. And that happened on a board which was not specifically about the Clash (I'm pretty sure it was the original Influential Music board), and we weren't all immediately booted off the board! So London Calling it is, then! Actually, I think we ranked the tracks twice, because I remember doing it on Influential Music, but I think we did it on the Blank Generation board as well. Well that's even better! Greatest album of all time based upon pointless discussions on internet message boards by self-professed music geeks. Of course, VU & Nico has a pretty strong claim for that criteria as well. Just take a look at the recently completed Greatest Rock and Roll Album board. |
|
|
|
Post by phil on Jan 16, 2006 16:49:34 GMT -5
Cough ... Cough ...Not so fast "Kiddos" ... There is a case to be made for this album ...  More later ...
|
|
|
|
Post by luke on Jan 16, 2006 16:49:56 GMT -5
I think that by Mantis's criteria, you don't have to be "commercially" successful, but rather, you have to make up for that lack of it with other "ly" words. There has to be enough there to make up for the lack of commercial success, even in the face of other bands who achieved great commercial success.
I think London Calling and VU & Nico could still slip in and be contenders on the strength of their other "ly's". London Calling moreso than VU & Nico, I'd say.
|
|
|
|
Post by rockysigman on Jan 16, 2006 16:52:28 GMT -5
Cough ... Cough ...Not so fast "Kiddos" ... There is a case to be made for this album ... More later ... Great album, but like the White Album, it's not even that particular artist's best, and therefore can't be the greatest of all time. Blonde on Blonde kicks Highway 61 Revisited's ass. Bringing It All Back Home edges it out too. |
|
|
|
Post by Rit on Jan 16, 2006 16:53:45 GMT -5
as far as i know, VU and Nico and Dylan's Bringing It All Back Home are the major contenders for greatest.
i refrained from entering into the fray with a diabolical and devastating mindwarping defence of Vu and Nico because i wanted to see Rocky have a go at it, since he is the other major VU fan here. And he did a good job too.
So now i'm here as Rocky's bodyguard against the haterz.
|
|
|
|
Post by Rit on Jan 16, 2006 16:54:50 GMT -5
hey, didn't see that Dylan post, Rocky, but i agree with your take on that as well. Blonde on BLonde and Bringin' It are better than Highway 61
|
|
|
|
Post by shin on Jan 16, 2006 17:05:15 GMT -5
It's not the best Beatles album: Rubber Soul, Revolver, and Abbey Road are all at least as good, if not better. And Help! isn't far off the pace. Since this completely objective matter of personal taste is somehow supposed to prove something, let me offer this devastating counterargument: you're wrong. Long Long Long is one of my favorite songs on the album. Good Night is the closer, and in that function it's quite good. So out of 30 tracks, we have 3 not good songs...which is exactly what I had said to begin with. And even if we lend to you all five songs, that's NOT a "full side of filler"...that's 16% of the album, and only if you're generous. On a 12 track album, that would mean that MAYBE two songs were bad. And that's easy on a 12 song album if you're talented. Not so easy to miss the mark ONCE ( ONCE!) in 30 songs, considering that Revolution 9 and Wild Honey Pie are intentionally stupid. How many number ones did London Calling or VU&N have? Zero combined? But seriously, like I said before, 4 of the most recognizable Beatles songs are on this album. Who cares about singles sales or charts, that's a pretty asinine complaint. Besides, Hey Jude was recorded during the White Album sessions and released along with Revolution, so we can reasonably attribute that single to this album. An album is a collection of material that intertwines, not some arbitrary assemblance of singles. So every lyric has to "mean" something? To who, to you? A very trite complaint. "I don't get it, therefore it sucks." Not to mention that you're stripping context from the lyrics. Helter Skelter is SUPPOSED to be meaningless. Didn't you get that point when Ringo screams "I've got blisters on my fingers!!!"? You think he's trying to mean something? Balls to the wall, baby. But then again, Charles Manson thought this song was a vision of a global race war. So, you know, it's sorta subjective like that. All the more impressive. And even if you're going to use that to discredit the album, that would mean that no solo artists can lay claim to this title in the first place. And that's fucking stupid. As if you HAVE to have a "band" to make the greatest album of all time. That's like saying blacks can't coach sports or only men can be soldiers because they have the proper temperment for war. It's offensively short sighted and probably is nothing more than your attempt to bottle the discussion in your preferred direction. |
|
|
|
Post by rockysigman on Jan 16, 2006 17:13:34 GMT -5
On a 12 track album, that would mean that MAYBE two songs were bad. Find me a 12 track album with two bad songs that anyone would argue is the greatest album of all time. The greatest album of all time should, obviously, have NO bad songs. How many number ones did London Calling or VU&N have? Zero combined? Who cares? Who cares about singles sales or charts, that's a pretty asinine complaint. Oh, apparently you don't care about #1 singles either. So why the hell did you bring it up to combat the VU and Clash arguments? Besides, Hey Jude was recorded during the White Album sessions and released along with Revolution, so we can reasonably attribute that single to this album. So now the White Album gets credit for songs that aren't even on it? That doesn't make any sense at all. I recognize that the criteria for greatest album of all time are open to interpretation and debate, but can we at least agree that the discussion can be limited to songs that on the album? So every lyric has to "mean" something? On the greatest album of all time? Yes. Or at least each lyric should fullfill some sort of purpose, if not have a strict meaning. |
|
|
|
Post by shin on Jan 16, 2006 17:17:34 GMT -5
Rocky must have missed it when I said "But seriously". On the greatest album of all time? Yes. Or at least each lyric should fullfill some sort of purpose, if not have a strict meaning. Good, because all the lyrics on the White Album make sense to me. Then it's settled. |
|
