1001 albums to listen to before you die

[DynamiteKid]

I was in HMV t'other day and saw the 1001 Albums You Must Hear Before You Die for five pounds. I bought it simply as something to read (my ambition is to be a music journalist so reading this kind of wank is quite enjoyable for me), and as I'm sure any of you would have done too, I then went through it to see how many of them I'd listened to.

I'd listened to 156. As for last week that went up to 158 thanks to a few purchases, and by the end of the week thanks to an amazon order that will jump to 163.

Admittedly this is the 2006 edition where I used the 2007, but how many of these have you heard?
http://www.rocklistmusic.co.uk/steveparker/1001albums.htm

Also, while I hadn't listened TO a great percentage, I'd heard of at least in the region of 900 of them before reading this book, which I was happy about. As for how many of them I own - I think around 140.

For anyone who gives a shit, the amazon order and other CDs I bought since I bought the book were:
The Who - Live At Leeds
Nick Drake - Bryter Layter
Manic STreet Preachers - Everything Must go
Iggy Pop - The Idiot
Nirvana - In Utero
Spiritualized - Ladies And Gentlemen We Are Floating In Space
Paul McCartney - McCartney

[KickThatBathProf]

That is kind of an odd list isn't it.  Like, there are some amazing records on there and then you see Slipknot and Offspring and Kid Rock and Brittney Spears

[DynamiteKid]

It is an odd list. I'm not even going to ATTEMPT to hear them all simply because I refuse to listen to Britney, for example. But I'm going to try and manage most of them, because most of them are awesome.

[NotAFanOfFenders]

There probably aren't enough good albums out there to make it 1001, he had to fill it out.

[a pack of wolves]

That is kind of an odd list isn't it.  Like, there are some amazing records on there and then you see Slipknot and Offspring and Kid Rock and Brittney Spears

Although the only one of those where I'd enjoy any of the music is Britney (and much as I like some of her singles I can't see myself ever wanting to sit down with an album), I can see good reasons for including them on a list like this. After all, they're all very interesting in their own way and this isn't the 1001 best albums but the ones you should hear before you die. Like them or not there's definitely a reasonable amount to say about all of those records and their influence. Despite some oddities, like the list from the '50s being so short and unless what seemed like it being pretty short on jazz even to a philistine like me, that actually seemed like a pretty good list. There were a lot of albums I didn't like on there, but I don't remember seeing anything where I thought someone listening to it would be wasting their time.

I think I've heard a little over 300. That's a bit of a guess though, I've heard something by the majority of the artists and since there's a lot that don't do much for me it's hard to remember exactly what I've heard by them.

[KickThatBathProf]

Yeah listening to Linkin Park is definitely not waste of time

[Be My Head]

The 2000s list is full of hipster dreck and awful pop (I use this term widely) music.

I'm not really surprised.

[KickThatBathProf]

I really don't see where you are coming from and would like examples of what "hipster dreck" is on there

[Be My Head]

o Radiohead – Kid A
o Radiohead – Amnesiac
o Silver Jews – Bright Flight
o Gorillaz – Gorillaz (1st Album)
o Strokes – Is This It
o Super Furry Animals – Rings Around the World
o Wilco – Yankee Hotel Foxtrot
o Flaming Lips – Yoshimi Battles the Pink Robots
o Beck – Sea Change
o Radiohead – Hail to the Thief
o Winehouse, Amy – Frank
o Yeah Yeah Yeahs – Fever to Tell
o Mars Volta – Deloused in the Comatorium
o Lightning Bolt – Wonderful Rainbow
o Morrissey – You Are the Quarry
o Arcade Fire – Funeral
o Banhart, Devendra – Rejoicing in the Hands
o Cave, Nick & the Bad Seeds – Abattoir Blues/Lyre of Orpheus
o West, kanYe – College Dropout
o TV on the Radio – Desperate Youth, Blood Thirsty Babes
o MIA (UK) – Arular
o Beck – Guero

the ones I know

To be fair I like some of them, but they didn't need to put all this shit on there when they could have been more diverse.

[michaelicious]

o Silver Jews – Bright Flight

Let's not say things we can't take back now.

[a pack of wolves]

Pop's really very important. It is after all just the music that is most popular at a given time, and given that the music you've listed there is reasonably diverse. My only problems are the multiple albums chosen for certain artists and the choice to include albums by people who'd already appeared on the list in previous decades with more seminal work, an exception being Radiohead. Given their enormous popularity and critical attention they should have at least one album there but three is still a bit of a stretch even for them. It's not like anyone really thought You Are The Quarry was the pinnacle of Morrissey's career.

Yeah listening to Linkin Park is definitely not waste of time

It really isn't! Since you have you know what one of the most popular bands from a certain time period sounds like. That's pretty useful knowledge if you enjoy discussing culture.

[Lhefriel_Medies]

Yeah, I'm thinking that the list isn't so much albums that are so good that you absolutely have to listen to them, but albums that you should listen to if only for general knowledge. I mean, you should at least know what terrible rap metal and terrible pop music and such sound like and have a decent reason for not listening to them from that point forward if nothing else. It would be wrong to grow up in the 21st century and have no idea what a Britney Spears album sounded like. Similarly, the random hipster music is so that the reader would understand what random hipster music sounds like; the idea seems much more to encapsulate every subculture and integrate their preferences into a list rather than to make a definitive list of good albums. I'm guessing that if this was released again it would have Katy Perry and similar things on it just so it serves as an accurate, if not ideal, account of what culture was at the time of writing.

[Inlander]

113, give or take. As usual I've sought out and heard a lot of the more obscure stuff while being hopelessly clueless about the body of work of the likes of the Beatles, Bob Dylan, and Neil Young.

I was actually pleasantly surprised by this list. It was far from being the usual suspects and there were some personal favourites in there that I was genuinenly not expecting to find (the aforementioned Bright Flight, Zombie by Fela Kuti, Count Basie's the Atomic Mr. Basie).

As far as lists of this nature go, this one was by far the most diverse that I've seen. Perhaps not surprising when there's 1001 albums on there, but still: credit to the guy.

[AanAllein]

165...more than i thought. pretty much had to get all the way to about '77 before i got into double digits though

[Bastardous Bassist]

Why are all of these "x albums that are awesome" lists exclusively pop music without mentioning it?  I went through a good portion of the list before I realized there wasn't going to be anything but pop music.

Also, I think I agree that these are 1001 albums that you must hear to understand 1955-2005 popular music culture rather than 1001 albums that you must hear because they're great, which I wish was mentioned somewhere.  I don't think that it's a bad thing (it makes me happier than a "x greatest album" list because this list can be a lot more objective), just so long as the author is not trying to pretend it is anything different.

[Inlander]

I would say it's not exclusively pop. I don't think the Black Saint and the Sinner Lady by Charles Mingus has ever been popular, for instance. Actually I was pleasantly surprised by the number of jazz albums in the 50s and 60s parts of the list - even if most of them are mainstream albums, by that time jazz had well and truly been surplanted as the popular music of the day (not withstanding occasional break-out hits like Time Out by the Dave Brubeck Quartet).

[a pack of wolves]

Why are all of these "x albums that are awesome" lists exclusively pop music without mentioning it?  I went through a good portion of the list before I realized there wasn't going to be anything but pop music.

Er... Liars? Lightning Bolt? Gillian Welch? Slayer? Sepultura? Napalm Death? Seriously, if you have hit a point where you think grindcore is pop then you need to go and have a little lie down and a bit of a think about what you're doing with your life (I'm guessing murders. Lots of murders).

[Bastardous Bassist]

"Pop" as opposed to "art" music.  Sorry if my terminology is not quite common on this board.

[a pack of wolves]

What's the distinction?

[Spluff]

One is enjoyable to listen to, one is enjoyable to talk about listening to.

[De_El]

Why are all of these "x albums that are awesome" lists exclusively pop music without mentioning it?  I went through a good portion of the list before I realized there wasn't going to be anything but pop music.

It depends on how you understand the term "album," I think. Since the 70s, when album-oriented rock music became popular, the idea of an "album" has become the domain of various kinds of popular music.

I'm probably wrong though. Give me an example of album-oriented art music, I'm curious now.

[sarcasticsmoothie]

This forum needs to steal Facebook's "like" button for Spluff's post.

If the distinction is anything like that of art movies, then he's talking about "independent" albums made outside of a big label or even without a label at all.

You can't expect to see much in the way of true "art" music in a list like this though. Ideally, a list will have important and exemplary albums across multiple genres, most of which will be those on a (relatively) major label. "Art" music is a bit too in-depth and usually not as accessible to an outsider of a genre for a list like this.

[a pack of wolves]

No, he must be using a very different distinction since this falls into the pop category (as you can guess, that wasn't released by a major).

[Bastardous Bassist]

I am definitely using a different definition of art music.  Commonly, it refers to what lots of people call "classical music," or slightly more accurately "concert music."  It's slightly difficult to explain with words, especially since I've not really got much time right now.

It depends on how you understand the term "album," I think. Since the 70s, when album-oriented rock music became popular, the idea of an "album" has become the domain of various kinds of popular music.

I'm probably wrong though. Give me an example of album-oriented art music, I'm curious now.

I guess it really does, because I'm not quite sure about how an "album" would work out.  Would one consider it a group of songs intended to be released on a record together?  If so, then I would definitely have to think about art music that would fit the album form.  If you want to consider it a group of music intended to be listened to together, then I would say a symphony or a song cycle could probably be considered "albums."

One is enjoyable to listen to, one is enjoyable to talk about listening to.

Because I hate listening to art music.

[De_El]

True! They could, by that criterion, be considered "albums," but symphonies aren't albums, and no one really calls them that. It's pure nomenclature.

[KickThatBathProf]

To be fair I like some of them, but they didn't need to put all this shit on there when they could have been more diverse.

I really don't think 20 albums out of a list of 1001 constitutes as "weighted heavily towards one genre", especially when a few of those albums are completely different styles

[Bastardous Bassist]

That is what they call a good point.  They might be things that are liked by "hipsters," but they are not all the same style of music.

True! They could, by that criterion, be considered "albums," but symphonies aren't albums, and no one really calls them that. It's pure nomenclature.

It's an interesting thing to think about, and I will probably be doing so for most of tomorrow instead of thinking about the problem I'm having with my research.

Also, everyone, I am not saying pop music doesn't have any artistry to it.  It is just a nomenclature thing.

[a pack of wolves]

I guess it really does, because I'm not quite sure about how an "album" would work out.  Would one consider it a group of songs intended to be released on a record together?  If so, then I would definitely have to think about art music that would fit the album form.  If you want to consider it a group of music intended to be listened to together, then I would say a symphony or a song cycle could probably be considered "albums."

I wouldn't consider a group of songs intended to be released together as an album. Some albums only have one song, some EPs have over ten. It's hard to put a definite rule on it, but roughly I'd say it needs to be a particular recorded work which by length, number of songs or scope somehow approximates other recorded work generally thought of as albums. The group of songs don't have to be intended to be released on a record together (at least initially). The Dicks album 1980-1986 is still a distinct album despite being made up of songs collected from several previous releases.

So if I'm understanding the distinction correctly the Ensemble Avantgarde's album of John Cage compositions Music For Eight would be an art music album as would the City of Birmingham Symphony Orchestra's recording of Messiaen's Turangalîla Symphonie. After a little wikipediaing it also appears that it's one of those bits of terminology that worked well at one time but not anymore.

[BrittanyMarie]

I've listened to 336 of those. My favorite bit was #269 was 69 Love Songs

[Bastardous Bassist]

So if I'm understanding the distinction correctly the Ensemble Avantgarde's album of John Cage compositions Music For Eight would be an art music album as would the City of Birmingham Symphony Orchestra's recording of Messiaen's Turangalîla Symphonie. After a little wikipediaing it also appears that it's one of those bits of terminology that worked well at one time but not anymore.

Any performance of those works would be the same, no?  Now, here's a question.  Can a collection of pieces be considered an album, even though they weren't written to be released together, or even written by the same person?  Before you answer, consider that there have been albums of popular music that were composed entirely of covers (the two I can think of immediately are Metallica's "Garage Inc" and The Bad Plus' "For All I Care").

Also, it may be a bit outdated, but I've not heard anything coming up to replace it, so I still use it.  Would you prefer I use "concert music"?

[Spluff]

I think the key to your problem with the list lays in the term you just used. 'Concert music'. Music designed to be listened to a concert. The 'pop' music that makes up the majority of the list is designed to be listened to as an album, which is why it is so dominant on a list of albums to listen to. The other aspect is that the target audience of the list is obviously going to be 'pop' oriented, not concert oriented - it's a website called "rocklistmusic"; you could probably guess how rock album-centric the list would be before you even opened it.

Because I hate listening to art music.

For what it's worth, I don't think there is any genre of music that is inherently pretentious and without merit - I was just being facetious. I listen to Sun O))), I'm hardly in a position to judge people.

[Joseph]

"Pop" as opposed to "art" music.  Sorry if my terminology is not quite common on this board.

There's a whole other book by the same folks of the 1001 recordings you need to hear before you die, covering the sort of thing you are talking about.

They also do 1001 books, among other things.

[Inlander]

I believe the first one was about movies. That was surprisingly succesful so, publishing being like any other business in many respect, we've had a flood of "1001 [nouns] to [verb] before you die" books ever since, on increasingly esoteric topics. It's just the latest publishing phenomenon.

[Zombiedude]

I have no interest in these sorts of lists.

[Bastardous Bassist]

I think I always take these lists a bit too seriously and a bit too much at their word, but usually I just let it slide.  This time I just can't.

I think the key to your problem with the list lays in the term you just used. 'Concert music'. Music designed to be listened to a concert. The 'pop' music that makes up the majority of the list is designed to be listened to as an album, which is why it is so dominant on a list of albums to listen to. The other aspect is that the target audience of the list is obviously going to be 'pop' oriented, not concert oriented - it's a website called "rocklistmusic"; you could probably guess how rock album-centric the list would be before you even opened it.

I disagree strongly.  A lot of "concert music" exist only because of recording technology, and as such is not intended for concert as much as for a recording.  Steve Reich's "Electronic Counterpoint," for example, would not work in concert, because it is just a bunch of chopped and edited bits of guitar playing.  Also, should I really have to look at the domain name to determine the intent of the web page?  Maybe instead people should just not try to pass lists off as things they're not, which brings me to:

There's a whole other book by the same folks of the 1001 recordings you need to hear before you die, covering the sort of thing you are talking about.

As mentioned earlier, it brings up the definition of album.  Is there a definition of album that excludes concert music that I've missed somewhere?  (not being sarcastic, just curious because of the previous discussion that we had about what an album means)

Also, I don't feel that the two should be separated (as much as I've used terminology to separate the two).  They both inspire each other, and as such I feel there should maybe be a good list of 1001 recordings of things that might be considered an album or a "classical recording" one should listen to, regardless of genre because sometimes all music is valid.  Sure, people who listen to the stuff listed in the first group would probably not listen to the stuff listed in the "classical recordings" (hate "classical" being used to describe things that aren't classical), and I guess the people are trying to sell books and maybe I shouldn't take this as seriously as I am, but it seems that maybe the two groups should actually listen to the albums/recordings enjoyed by the other group.  After all, exposure to music foreign to one's aesthetic is rarely a bad thing.

[Beren]

I would not put a potatoe in a list of 1001 best fruits I have ever eaten, but that doesn't diminish my exposure or love of potatoes. (I really do love potatoes).

I understand what you mean, and I think you're half right. Their are some cross-genre (the genres being the broad "art" music and "pop" music distinctions) recordings/albums that could have been added and were almost certainly excluded because of the album criterion and the way they're often thought of, but mostly they just belong on their own list. It just comes down to the custom of regarding most "art" productions as recordings and not albums. I don't think there's anything wrong with it, and there's certainly an historical basis for it, but it does sideline a few things in this situation that might/should have been in consideration.

Also, should I really have to look at the domain name to determine the intent of the web page?  Maybe instead people should just not try to pass lists off as things they're not, which brings me to:

It's a minimal page, I don't see anything wrong with it, and for the latter, I don't think there was any such intention.

[Beren]

I didn't see any Righteous Brothers.

Cocks.

[David_Dovey]

Weren't they a singles band?

Wait was that sarcasm?

Oh blast it all.

[DynamiteKid]

I have no interest in these sort of lists.

Well then you came to the right thread...?

[Inlander]

He only came into this thread so that he could ask for directions out of this thread.

[a pack of wolves]

Any performance of those works would be the same, no?  Now, here's a question.  Can a collection of pieces be considered an album, even though they weren't written to be released together, or even written by the same person?  Before you answer, consider that there have been albums of popular music that were composed entirely of covers (the two I can think of immediately are Metallica's "Garage Inc" and The Bad Plus' "For All I Care").

Also, it may be a bit outdated, but I've not heard anything coming up to replace it, so I still use it.  Would you prefer I use "concert music"?

So long as the recordings were collected by someone into a release then they don't need to be written by the same person, or even performed by the same person. Mix albums really blur who you would consider the performer. Should the piece I'm listening to now be thought of as being by Skream, who originally recorded it, or DJ Youngsta, who included it in his Dubstep Allstars Vol.2 mix, or a collaboration?

Concert music seems to make more sense, but it's not the word art that I don't think works but the idea of separating music into art, traditional/folk and pop which is just as problematic if you replace the word art for concert. Based on the tiny amount I've looked up (so I could be way off base here) that gets problematic when you get to experimental music. Noise would seem to be classified as pop since it doesn't ordinarily use written notation and doesn't use formal styles, yet it does require focussed attention from a listener and relies heavily on theoretical and critical consideration. Adorno seems to come up in mentions of people who used the division, but if you were to take Adorno's criticisms of popular music and the culture industry and apply them to noise then they don't really work, so the division he was describing seems to me to be one that has fallen apart since the time of writing.

[Bastardous Bassist]

Or maybe the definition is outdated, not the use?

I would not put a potatoe in a list of 1001 best fruits I have ever eaten, but that doesn't diminish my exposure or love of potatoes. (I really do love potatoes).

Okay, Dan Quayle (sorry, I had to call you out on it since that's the EXACT mistake he made in the spelling bee).

I understand what you mean, and I think you're half right. Their are some cross-genre (the genres being the broad "art" music and "pop" music distinctions) recordings/albums that could have been added and were almost certainly excluded because of the album criterion and the way they're often thought of, but mostly they just belong on their own list. It just comes down to the custom of regarding most "art" productions as recordings and not albums. I don't think there's anything wrong with it, and there's certainly an historical basis for it, but it does sideline a few things in this situation that might/should have been in consideration.

Obviously, it doesn't effect people who know lots about music and might buy both books, or look at both lists (I'd like to see the 1001 greatest performances, because I bet it's heavily weighted towards music before the 20th century).  However, this seems to be a list for people who don't know as much as that (or maybe it's not), and they'll live their whole lives thinking that there is a huge separation not just between the genres, but between the people who listen to them.  After all, I've been to tons of concert music performances and the primary attendees are old people in their suits and dresses.  The opposite is true of most pop music performances I've been to and maybe somebody (or multiple sombodies) who is (are) respected by both concert and pop communities needs to come along and let more people know that there's something of value in both.

Using your example of the potato, somebody who likes fruits might figure vegetables are for stuffy, boring people (after all, vegetables tend to get a bad rap) but fruits are sexy, whereas if you put 1001 greatest plant products you've eaten together, maybe that person will realize that potatoes (and other vegetables) are really awesome and can be tasty.  I really stretched that metaphor to its breaking point.

[IronOxide]

You see, by virtue of this list, I find it it a little difficult to include both of the genres that you are talking of, bassist. Even in the case of Steve Reich, there are already multiple recordings of many of his works, making it hard to include them on the list.

On the whole, when people buy 'classical' albums, they are buying the performance, not necessarily the work. Not to mention that few recordings in the classical world have really made such an impact as most pop albums in terms of distribution (with the exception of such standouts like Gershwin does Gershwin, etc.), but even then, it is just yet another performance of a work people frequently hear.

Which copy of Drumming should make the list, the Nonesuch version or the Cantaloupe version? Perhaps they deliberately avoided these because such arguments will inevitably arise. Very few 'classical' artists release albums with the intent of the album in mind (of course with exceptions, like Glass's Songs From Liquid Days), but if you ask most composers (at least those I know and have met), the recording is a secondary or tertiary concern.

That being said, 102, and I'm a little disappointed that they have John Zorn playing Ornette Coleman but no Ornette Coleman on the list.

[a pack of wolves]

Or maybe the definition is outdated, not the use?

Very possibly. What would the usage be then?

From what you're saying there really is a large disparity between not just concert and pop music but the people who listen to them, if the attendees of live performances are so starkly different in age and appearance. Bridging the gap between the two is tricky without knowing exactly what constitutes art or concert music. How about Glenn Branca? I've seen him perform at a pop festival and he's got a huge amount of links to underground NY rock music, or would he be considered primarily a pop composer?

[Bastardous Bassist]

In the same vein, I'd bet that a lot of the people who listen to art music don't care for the jazz that is considered art music.  Also, a bit of crossover is not really the same as being aware of the tradition, which I'm sure Glenn is.  He's one of those people who could help bridge the gap between the two traditions.  With pop music, especially as post-modern as we are today, people are obsessed with the past and the tradition (not trying to recreate it, but really trying to fit what we write today into what has already been written).  Why can't that include art music as well?  It would help avoid "inventing the wheel" multiple times.  And it would introduce more people to awesome music, possibly saving the contemporary art music scene from extinction (both with the influx of new composers and performers as well as new fans).

You see, by virtue of this list, I find it it a little difficult to include both of the genres that you are talking of, bassist. Even in the case of Steve Reich, there are already multiple recordings of many of his works, making it hard to include them on the list.

On the whole, when people buy 'classical' albums, they are buying the performance, not necessarily the work. Not to mention that few recordings in the classical world have really made such an impact as most pop albums in terms of distribution (with the exception of such standouts like Gershwin does Gershwin, etc.), but even then, it is just yet another performance of a work people frequently hear.

Which copy of Drumming should make the list, the Nonesuch version or the Cantaloupe version? Perhaps they deliberately avoided these because such arguments will inevitably arise. Very few 'classical' artists release albums with the intent of the album in mind (of course with exceptions, like Glass's Songs From Liquid Days), but if you ask most composers (at least those I know and have met), the recording is a secondary or tertiary concern.

That being said, 102, and I'm a little disappointed that they have John Zorn playing Ornette Coleman but no Ornette Coleman on the list.

...........You really did just negate the first half of your argument with that last sentence.  Clearly, he put in an album of somebody performing work that was not written by him without putting in the original artist because he thought Zorn's performance was better.  Also, if you consider performers as concert music artists, then I'd say a number of them put out albums intended to be albums.  The list also includes Ella Fitzgerald performing Gershwin's music.  As such, the argument that the composers don't consider recordings generally falls flat, because Gershwin didn't consider recordings as primary.  So, this list has precedent against both of those points, which I had previously thought about too.

[Ptommydski]

One day you wake up, stacked around you is my entire record collection, a record player and a handgun with one bullet.

There are no exits or windows.

You drop the needle.

[Aegir]

Is the Grateful Dead concert music?

[DynamiteKid]

Is the Grateful Dead music?

[Retrospectre]

The list really needed more Wu-Tang.

[KharBevNor]

o Morrissey – You Are the Quarry

Hipsters /= middle-aged homosexuals