The greatest album of all time discussion board

[rockysigman]

shin said:

I won't argue against Who's Next, because even though I don't care much for a few songs that's purely subjective, but I've still yet to see a substantial argument against White Album that doesn't involve "IMHO". When the uncontested greatest band of all time puts out an epic monolith like that and succeeds on every level they intended to, commercially, artistically, culturally, historically, critically, and musically, that's a force to be reckoned with, not easily dismissed with "well what about Rubber Soul?" as if there's something implicitly greater in that album.

Ken cited a bunch of reasons, namely that several of the songs aren't that great (which you acknowledged). Seems to me that no argument is going to convince you, which is understandable considering you obviously think it is the greatest album ever. But that doesn't mean that they aren't worthy points nonetheless. The jist of what you seem to be saying is, "I disagree, and therefore you are unequivically wrong wrong wrong."

Certainly Ken's arguments against it are just as valid as your arguments for it. Just because Ken has acknowledge that it is "in his opinion" and you refuse to acknowledge that your feelings on the album are just your opinion doesn't mean that your argument is any less opinion based than his.

And really (and pay attention here because this is key): any argument for or against any album is just based on someone's opinion. We're talking about the quality of music. It's all opinion based inherently. So to discount the arguments against the White Album because they are just someone's opinion is garbage.

[shin]

rockysigman said:

As I said, Warhol got the music heard by more people, and the band's associatation with him did allow them to record the album they wanted rather than being subject to record label pressures, but other than that...well, I'm really not sure what you're talking about. If I'm reading you right, you seem to be saying that no one would like the Velvet Underground if not for the Warhol association, and that's just ridiculous, and for that matter insulting. Also, you don't seem to be basing that argument on anything other than an apparent hatred for people who like art.

No. Anyone can love any album for whatever reason. But only a select few albums can reasonably be called the "greatest album of all time" and in order to do that you have to meet certain requirements. And I'm merely saying that the VU would NOT be brought up in this conversation if it wasn't for Andy Warhol and what he brought to the table. It might be unfair to the band, but that's the way it is.

[Galactus]

shin said:

I won't argue against Who's Next, because even though I don't care much for a few songs that's purely subjective, but I've still yet to see a substantial argument against White Album that doesn't involve "IMHO". When the uncontested greatest band of all time puts out an epic monolith like that and succeeds on every level they intended to, commercially, artistically, culturally, historically, critically, and musically, that's a force to be reckoned with, not easily dismissed with "well what about Rubber Soul?" as if there's something implicitly greater in that album.

The album falls apart on the second record. It becomes a scattershot mess...in a beautiful sort of way. I suppose you could argue that as either a flaw and a point in it's favor. Revolution 9 is still crap. It only landed on the album becuase Lennon threw a big hissy and treatened to quit, it's not a good sound collage by any standard. I suppose you can give them a few extra point for being the first to put it on a commercially successful record...it's still 9 minutes of crap though.

[rockysigman]

shin said:

No. Anyone can love any album for whatever reason. But only a select few albums can reasonably be called the "greatest album of all time" and in order to do that you have to meet certain requirements. And I'm merely saying that the VU would NOT be brought up in this conversation if it wasn't for Andy Warhol and what he brought to the table. It might be unfair to the band, but that's the way it is.

You're right, no one would be talking about the Velvet Underground if not one single person had ever heard their music, and Warhol helped to get their music heard. But I think that's a ridiculous argument.

If it weren't for Brian Epstein, the Beatles wouldn't have gotten their record deal with EMI. If the VU can be discounted because their manager got them exposure, than the Beatles can too. But its a fucking ridiculous argument.

[shin]

rockysigman said:

Ken cited a bunch of reasons, namely that several of the songs aren't that great (which you acknowledged). Seems to me that no argument is going to convince you, which is understandable considering you obviously think it is the greatest album ever. But that doesn't mean that they aren't worthy points nonetheless. The jist of what you seem to be saying is, "I disagree, and therefore you are unequivically wrong wrong wrong."

Certainly Ken's arguments against it are just as valid as your arguments for it. Just because Ken has acknowledge that it is "in his opinion" and you refuse to acknowledge that your feelings on the album are just your opinion doesn't mean that it isn't so.

Ok. VU&N is one of the worst albums of all time. Same with London Calling. Now that it's established that my argument is inherantly valid, in spite of it being my opinion, acknowledge that your feelings on both albums doesn't take away from my declarations, and that in fact they are equal in weight.

And since Ken was able to vanquish the White Album from contention, somehow overriding my equally subjective claims, I subsequently vanquish LC and VU&N, also immune to any equally subjective disagreement based on personal opinion. Stalemate.

[rockysigman]

shin said:

Ok. VU&N is one of the worst albums of all time. Same with London Calling. Now that it's established that my argument is inherantly valid, in spite of it being my opinion, acknowledge that your feelings on both albums doesn't take away from my declarations, and that in fact they are equal in weight.

Of course my opinion doesn't diminish yours any. I never said otherwise. You are the only one who seems to think that your statements have any greater weight than anyone else's (as demonstrated by your insistence that no one else has made good argument against the White Album because it is only based on their opinions, whereas your arguments for the White Album seem to somehow be based on some sort of indisputable facts).

shin said:

And since Ken was able to vanquish the White Album from contention, somehow overriding my equally subjective claims, I subsequently vanquish LC and VU&N, also immune to any equally subjective disagreement based on personal opinion. Stalemate.

I never said that Ken "vanquished the White Album from contention". All I said was that he gave some reasonable arguments against it.

Cut it out, Tuatha.

[shin]

rockysigman said:

You're right, no one would be talking about the Velvet Underground if not one single person had ever heard their music, and Warhol helped to get their music heard. But I think that's a ridiculous argument.

If it weren't for Brian Epstein, the Beatles wouldn't have gotten their record deal with EMI. If the VU can be discounted because their manager got them exposure, than the Beatles can too. But its a fucking ridiculous argument.

I've said what I have to say, I don't know why you haven't understood it yet.

[rockysigman]

shin said:

rockysigman said:

You're right, no one would be talking about the Velvet Underground if not one single person had ever heard their music, and Warhol helped to get their music heard. But I think that's a ridiculous argument.

If it weren't for Brian Epstein, the Beatles wouldn't have gotten their record deal with EMI. If the VU can be discounted because their manager got them exposure, than the Beatles can too. But its a fucking ridiculous argument.

I've said what I have to say, I don't know why you haven't understood it yet.

Shin, I understand your argument perfectly, I just disagree with it. Why are you so offended by this?

[shin]

Because statements like "If the VU can be discounted because their manager got them exposure, than the Beatles can too" isn't what I'm saying.

I'm saying that people initially only liked the VU because of Warhol, in an attempt to be part of the crowd that "gets" it, not that they only heard about the VU because of Warhol.

[Rit]

phew.. had dinner. steak.

I'm saying that people initially only liked the VU because of Warhol, in an attempt to be part of the crowd that "gets" it, not that they only heard about the VU because of Warhol.

wrong.

[rockysigman]

shin said:

Because statements like "If the VU can be discounted because their manager got them exposure, than the Beatles can too" isn't what I'm saying.

Right, it's what I'm saying. You were saying that the fact that the Velvet Underground's manager lead to a lot of their exposure was some sort of shot against them, and I was countering it by saying that the Beatles' exposure was due to their manager as well.

shin said:

I'm saying that people initially only liked the VU because of Warhol, in an attempt to be part of the crowd that "gets" it, not that they only heard about the VU because of Warhol.

I guess it could be true that people only liked the VU at first because of the Warhol association (and probably likely that this was true of some people), but it's certainly not documented fact or anything. I guess it's possible. But really, I don't think that has one single thing to do with how good the album is. If it's a great album (and I realize you don't think it is, but hang with me here), and made a huge impact (undeniable), then I don't see what it matters if their early fans attached themselves to them for the wrong reasons.

Should a band or album be discounted because some of their fans suck? A lot of people only bought the White Album because the Beatles were hugely popular and some people are interested in whatever is topping the charts only because its popular. Doesn't mean it isn't a great album, right?

[Galactus]

ok, to try to bring it back on track, little of this argument concerns why VU&Nico should/chould be considered the greatest album ever. For instance why is VU&N better then WL/WH? or The White Album? Some notables pertaining to that particular album.

[rockysigman]

Better than White Light/White Heat because...well, the songs are better. And the sound is better. I don't think WL/WH has any filler per se, but I think that "Here She Comes Now" is the closest that they got in the Cale-era (still a pretty good song though). White Light/White Heat was probably more influential to some musicians than VU&N (I'm guessing that Sonic Youth, for example, probably owes more to WL/WH than to the VU&N), but for the most part it just expands on the ideas initially presented on the VU&N (namely on tracks like "The Black Angel's Death Song" and "European Son"), but doesn't necessarily express those ideas quite as well as they did on the previous album. Still a 5 star album though.

And I'd say the VU&N over the White Album for the mostly the same reasons (other than the sound--I certainly wouldn't argue the sound quality of VU&N is better than on the White Album, it's just that, unlike on WL/WH, I think that the less-than-perfect sound quality doesn't hurt the quality of VU&N). The songs on VU&N are just better than those on the White Album. No filler on the VU's album at all. No failed experiments (unlike "Revolution #9). No disjointedness. The White Album is a fine album, it just isn't as consistent and as cohesive as the Velvet Underground & Nico.

Also, I think that the Velvet Underground & Nico had a bigger impact on the future of music. And no, I'm not saying that the Velvet Underground, as a band, made a bigger impact than the Beatles did. I'm just talking specific albums here. The Beatles released several albums that were massively influential. But the White Album (with the exception of the experiments, which largely were failures), was the most conventional rock and roll album of the later era of the Beatles. It didn't influence anyone in any ways that their earlier albums hadn't already taken care of, and it didn't make the artistic statement that some of the other later period Beatles albums did (Sgt. Pepper, Abbey Road).

[shin]

The issue is not the quality of the album but the motive behind their submission to "greatest album of all time" status. It becomes an issue of how agendas influenced the ability for such a nomination to even be taken seriously.

I remember back in late 1997 I was reading Entertainment Weekly's Best of 97 issue. OK Computer was #1. The critic who compiled the list, I think it was Ken Tucker, said something like "I gave this a B+ a few months ago but since then this album has really grown on me. I hear things I didn't originally hear and it's starting to make more sense to me. I don't know how I ever doubted it"

I remember thinking at the time "this guy's just jumping on the hype bandwagon, he obviously doesn't mean this." Funny thing is? I felt the exact same way about the album. I originally hated OKC, and a few months later it finally started to grow on me and now it's in my top 10. In spite of the fact that I had the exact same experience, the list still felt tainted by politics. No matter how genuine the critic was, I couldn't trust his conclusion.

It's the same with Nevermind. Everytime they make the top of a "Best of the 90's" list, doesn't it always just feel like the compilers simply didn't want to buck the trend, so they just jam Nevermind in the top 10 somewhere? It takes *nothing* away from Nevermind, an album that's so overhyped historically that it's actually swung back around to underappreciated (overrated by critics, underrated by detractors, so no one really every fully appreciates it on it's own merits for what it is: a rock solid pop rock album).

There are alot of albums out there that fall victim to this, usually through no fault of their own. But I think it's a big detraction when it can be truthfully applied. Not enough to tank an album's chances, but it's something that has to be reckoned and dealt with. I think with OKC, the album stands on it's own merits juuuuust enough that it can overcome it. Nevermind still struggles with it and hasn't quite overcome it properly.

And in the case of VN&U, I think it's too overwhelming. The band owes it's place in history, and thus in the critical pantheon of modern music, to hype.

[Galactus]

Actually I was thinking...I think almost everything Ken & Rocky have said about VU could also apply to Nirvana. Other then "Well it's just better" give me some real examples why VU&N is a vaible consideration then Nevermind.