Topic: Time Top 100 Albums List (Read 11169 times)

bff · « **on:** 15 Nov 2006, 09:47 »

I should have known better, and I shouldn't let it piss me off so much, but have you seen the TIME All-Time 100 Albums list? I don't even know where to begin with this thing it is such a mess. Every time I try and find somewhere to begin on what is wrong it makes my head hurt; seriously, looking at this list causes me physical pain. I will just summarize those errors I consider most glaring, your opinion may (will) vary.
Anthology/Greatest Hits records - Do not belong listed under the decade they were released. Many of the artist who got onto the list this way are deserving, but having Elvis and Sam Cooke in the 2000s is just ridiculous.
Great Band/Wrong Album syndrome - Metallica, Radiohead, Led Zepplin, AC/DC, and Stevie Wonder are just a couple examples I see of this.
Metallica - Get "Master of Puppets" out of there and replace it with "Ride the Lightning"
Radiohead - "The Bends" is the album that changed them from "Those guys who did the Creep song" into "OH MY FUCKING GOD THESE GUYS ARE GENIUSES". Get it in there.
Led Zepplin - I'd probably roll with the Brown Bomber if I only get to pick one.
AC/DC - While "Back in Black" is a great story and wonderful tribute, it also marks the beginning of AC/DC recycling the same sound over and over again. My pick is "Highway to Hell".
Stevie Wonder - How in the fuck does "Innervisions" not get the nod?
Missing completely - The writers do a good job of pointing one huge problem with their list: apparently Pink Floyd never happened. Neither did the Pixies, Operation Ivy, Black Flag, Jefferson Airplane, the Grateful Dead, KMFDM (or any industrial act; I'll take Nitzer Ebb here), The Cure, Bauhaus, Joy Division, or Tupac. You may or may not be a fan of any of those acts, but their influence upon the music landscape can not be denied. I would also take this moment to argue that "The Grey Album" by DangerMouse belongs on this list.

Like I said, these are just a few of my beefs with the list; I am sure everyone who reads this will have their own opinion on not only the original list but my suggestions as well.

Gridgm · « **Reply #1 on:** 15 Nov 2006, 10:04 »

firstly - master of puppets is a far greater album than ride the lightning...of the four greatest thrash records of all time released in that year i rank it 2nd among them

secondly - i don't know where to start complaining about that list, how did that much rap get into a single list, how is that not a single concept album didn't make it onto the list, why is there no indie, good metal (apart from master of puppets) and why no appetite for destruction

Johnny C · « **Reply #2 on:** 15 Nov 2006, 10:30 »

Quick answer for these and other queries:

It's Time Magazine

This isn't their thing, guys. We can cut them some slack.

Slick · « **Reply #3 on:** 15 Nov 2006, 10:42 »

"...and then everyone complained because there was no Pink Floyd on it. And that's exactly how it should be."

Hat · « **Reply #4 on:** 15 Nov 2006, 10:52 »

I have a lot of opinions on this list, but the only one I can be bothered expressing is this. Despite what Bff thinks, I consider it a reaffirmation of this lists potential that Jefferson Airplane are not on it.

As for replacing Master of Puppets with Ride the Lightning, that is also a crazy mans choice, but I digress.

It was exactly what I figure a Time magazine best 100 albums list would look like.

Scytale · « **Reply #5 on:** 15 Nov 2006, 11:30 »

Quote from: Gridgm on 15 Nov 2006, 10:04

firstly - master of puppets is a far greater album than ride the lightning...of the four greatest thrash records of all time released in that year i rank it 2nd among them

"RideThe Lightning" is definately Metallica's best album, "Master of Pupets" is a weak record that I'd hardly call thrash, "Battery" is probably the most thrashy part of it...

You're crazy if you think it was the second best thrash album of 1986, there was a hell of a lot of good thrash releases then, even more if you count "Spreading the Dissease", "Feel the Fire" and "Bonded by Blood", which were all 1985.

Kreator - Pleasure to Kill
Megadeth- Peace Sells
Slayer - Reign in Blood
Dark Angel - Darkness Descends
Sodom - Obsessed by Cruelty
Destruction - Eternal Devastation
Possessed - Beyond the Gates
Sepultura - Morbid Visions
hell even
Metal Church's "The Dark" is a hell of a lot better then MOP.

By 1986 you had shit like Celtic Frost, Bulldozer and Bathory who at that time were considered thrash comming onto the scene. By MOP Metallica was in decline, all the intensity is gone from their music.

Anyway but you're not going to please everyone, just bare in mind that there are a lot better thrash bands then Metallica around.

edit: typos

Storm Rider · « **Reply #6 on:** 15 Nov 2006, 11:33 »

Scytale's list is good but missing a whole lot of Testament.

But then again, their debut album was '87, so I might forgive him because it's not technically in the timeframe.

Edited for blindness.

Hat · « **Reply #7 on:** 15 Nov 2006, 11:53 »

(That is actually another guy, dude.)

Also for me, the reason I like Master of Puppets is that it showed that Metallica WEREN'T just a thrash band, and reminds me that at one point they were capable of slowing it down a bit without being utter shit.

Then again I am not that big on thrash, and have massive boners for Cliffs bass tone in Orion.

Gryff · « **Reply #8 on:** 15 Nov 2006, 12:00 »

Considering it's Time magazine, I think it looks alright. Basically everything you'd expect is in there. In fact it's probably better than Rolling Stone or Q's efforts at the same kinds of list. If you're going to bitch because your personal favourite albums are not on it then I don't really know what to say to you. It's Time magazine. It's a top 100 list. Woooooo.

Thrillho · « **Reply #9 on:** 15 Nov 2006, 20:58 »

Christ, much better than I expected it to be. But then, I should by now know better than to try and analyse these things. At least Straight Outta Compton was on it.

Will · « **Reply #10 on:** 15 Nov 2006, 21:07 »

Usually on these top-100 type of lists, I manage to average having between 5 and 10 of the albums mentioned in my own personal collection. This time around, I have all of two* - Miles Davis' "Kind Of Blue" and Radiohead's "OK Computer." There's a LOT of stuff on this list that I can agree was tremendously influential as far as music across the decades is concerned, but not a whole lot that really does it for me...

*I'm only counting the ones I actually own on CD, not what I've downloaded. When I'm actually paying money for music, I tend to be a LOT pickier than I am when it's just costing me hard drive space.

jcknbl · « **Reply #11 on:** 15 Nov 2006, 21:55 »

The inclusion of compilations (at all) but particularly in the decade they were released is pretty much the most obnoxious thing I've ever seen. The 2000's list is pretty inexusably ignorant and makes it clear that this thing was written by a bunch of baby-boomers. At least have the guts to leave the 2000's catagory with only 5 choices (I am really surprised they didn't put Yankee Hotel Foxtrot on there- its sort of perfect for this crowd.)

In general though, I'm still sort of confused regarding why people still publish "100 Greatest Albums" lists. This list is pretty much identical to just about every list out there. If you're gonna publish one of these at least do something completely insane- put the Arctic Monkees at #1. Leave out all of the Beatles Albums. Give nu-metal some representation.

Given that they were totally right to leave out Pink Floyd.

Misereatur · « **Reply #12 on:** 15 Nov 2006, 22:56 »

You guys, like johnny said, it's Time Magazine. Do you really want a mainstream magazine to tell you what are the best 100 albums of all time? Seriously?

Will · « **Reply #13 on:** 15 Nov 2006, 23:34 »

What criteria would we base it on though? Would it be commercial sales as a measure for success (in which case many of us would be having to do some hardcore research to determine just how many copies were sold of ____'s first, mostly obscure album) or just listing the top 100 albums that have had the biggest impact on us as individuals? I imagine that would be two ENTIRELY different lists...

Misereatur · « **Reply #14 on:** 15 Nov 2006, 23:44 »

I guess Tommy ment the we should compile a list of the top 100 albums that have the biggest impact on us as individuals.

It would take me years to do this, really.

jcknbl · « **Reply #15 on:** 16 Nov 2006, 00:00 »

Yeah, I'm not sure I know 100 albums well enough to list them as "greatest". 10-20 would probably do the trick though.

And if someone wanted to take the time and assign each rank value and then create a composite list we could have a QC forums Top 100 Albums of All Time list. But I absolutely refuse to organize such a project.

KharBevNor · « **Reply #16 on:** 16 Nov 2006, 03:45 »

I will totally do this brb guys

Gridgm · « **Reply #17 on:** 16 Nov 2006, 04:02 »

how bout every one nominates their favorite album and then we set up a vote....thinks about this for a few seconds and dismisses the notion

bff · « **Reply #18 on:** 16 Nov 2006, 04:22 »

I'm going to need at least a few days to even get a half-assed list together, and judging from what people say in other threads most people on this forums will hate my list

for example, I don't have a problem with most of the rap albums TIME had listed.

Johnny C · « **Reply #19 on:** 16 Nov 2006, 04:37 »

I can't do this, really. I'm only just getting into metal and jazz and techno and experimental and I guess what I'm saying is I don't have nearly enough music to decide on a hundred best.

John Butler Train · « **Reply #20 on:** 16 Nov 2006, 04:47 »

Make it "100 Least Bad" then.

jcknbl · « **Reply #21 on:** 16 Nov 2006, 05:16 »

Quote from: tommydski on 16 Nov 2006, 04:01

Man, I wouldn't know where to start.

Heres how I envision it

Every ranking equals a certain number of points. In general the ranking would be 10 points for firsts place, 9 for second, 8 for third etc. You can change the scale if you want to emphasize poster overlap. For example the scale could be 20 points for first, 19 for second, 18 for third. This means a choice that is ranked 9th or 10th by two posters would come in ahead of someone's number one choice if that poster was the only one to list that particular album. The higher up the scale the more overlap is represented- this prevents inexplicable crap from making it onto the list but also would mean the list is really boring and alot of interesting choices from people who post a lot would be left off.

Since Khar is doing this I imagine he won't want to use a scale thats too high but hopefully he won't be too selfish

We could also score according to different scales- do one at 10-1, one at 15-6 one at 20-11.

There are about a million other variable you can throw in: emphasize the ranking (spread out the points). Let the rankings be more subjective (posters get to list 10 albums each assigned any score so long as the scores average to the midrange) etc. None of that is too important though. The main thing is to find the right scale so lists aren't random but also allow minority opinions in. The answer sort of depends on how many people post.

This is now entering tl;dr territory so I just say score the rankings on a scale of 15-6 (or similar scale depending on how long each person's list is) and see what happens. We can always try it with a different scale.

People can include more than one album from the same band but the list will be more interesting to read if you don't (maybe keep it limited to two per band?)

Also, each persons list CAN'T be 100 albums or this will be impossible. I'd say Top 20 but its up to Khar.

Johnny C · « **Reply #22 on:** 16 Nov 2006, 06:33 »

Tommy.

Black metal is the future of music.

thepugs · « **Reply #23 on:** 16 Nov 2006, 06:56 »

I think it's funny that nobody here mentions death metal. I like it, guys! In Flames is actually not that bad!

jcknbl · « **Reply #24 on:** 16 Nov 2006, 07:14 »

Er, I was actually of the opinion that all the black metal albums would be dropped from the list. Indie still pretty much dominates this forum. Remember Battle of the Bands?

Scytale · « **Reply #25 on:** 16 Nov 2006, 10:33 »

Quote from: thepugs on 16 Nov 2006, 06:56

I think it's funny that nobody here mentions death metal. I like it, guys! In Flames is actually not that bad!

In flames play melodic death metal (old) and complete shit (new) and plenty of people here are into DM, myself included.

Storm Rider · « **Reply #26 on:** 16 Nov 2006, 10:43 »

I listen to a lot of metal and very little of it is black metal!

Basically I am trying to say that not all people who like metal are obligated to enjoy black metal!

And In Flames was great up until Reroute to Remain.

Scytale · « **Reply #27 on:** 16 Nov 2006, 10:58 »

I think "Whoracle" was their last 'good' album, "Colony" was ok and they've gone steadily down since. I started getting into In Flames just after Colony came out and it's incredible how much they've changed, they used to be one of my favorite bands. I still listen to Lunar Strain and Subterranean pretty regularly.

If you're into In Flames you'll probably like stuff like Dissection, Dark Tranquillity, At the Gates, Saccramentum, Dawn and Eucharist (Mirrorworlds is fucking amazing). Their the pick of the Gothenberg MDM bands IMO.

pat101 · « **Reply #28 on:** 16 Nov 2006, 11:15 »

not a totally shitty list actually, I mean it's not good but it's not disgustingly bad.

Storm Rider · « **Reply #29 on:** 16 Nov 2006, 11:30 »

Quote from: Scytale on 16 Nov 2006, 10:58

I think "Whoracle" was their last 'good' album, "Colony" was ok and they've gone steadily down since. I started getting into In Flames just after Colony came out and it's incredible how much they've changed, they used to be one of my favorite bands. I still listen to Lunar Strain and Subterranean pretty regularly.

If you're into In Flames you'll probably like stuff like Dissection, Dark Tranquillity, At the Gates, Saccramentum, Dawn and Eucharist (Mirrorworlds is fucking amazing). Their the pick of the Gothenberg MDM bands IMO.

I still enjoy Colony and Clayman, but I'll admit they're more uneven. I'm not much of an At the Gates fan, but I like Dark Tranquility a bunch. The others I'm not familiar with, but if I have time I'll check them out.

KharBevNor · « **Reply #30 on:** 16 Nov 2006, 20:30 »

Anyone catch The Monolith Deathcults new album?

It makes In Flames look like a kiddy band.

Thrillho · « **Reply #31 on:** 17 Nov 2006, 01:32 »

Quote from: tommydski on 15 Nov 2006, 23:30

I'm wondering if we should do one. I mean, each of us as individuals, see if there's any cross-over.

I know this is a bit Pandora's box but it might be fun.

I've already got my list of 100 favourite albums of all time. However, were I to post it, I would be collecitively raped by the forum and then banned, I suspect.

Quite apart from which I'm adding a wanky paragraph as to why each one is on there for each entry. Which is fun for me, boring as fuck for anyone else.

thepugs · « **Reply #32 on:** 17 Nov 2006, 01:35 »

Quote from: tommydski on 16 Nov 2006, 21:31

Man, there is no way In Flames are as good as Smoosh.

Of course tommy likes Smoosh. Two teen girls playing music that's surprisingly good for being created by two teen girls?

Teenage girls.

Tommy likes them.

Johnny C · « **Reply #33 on:** 17 Nov 2006, 04:25 »

Comparing Smoosh to any other band alive just isn't fair to the other band.

valley_parade · « **Reply #34 on:** 17 Nov 2006, 04:40 »

I don't really care. My favorite album ever is London Calling.

Johnny C · « **Reply #35 on:** 17 Nov 2006, 05:22 »

Quote from: Valley_Parade on 17 Nov 2006, 04:40

My favorite album ever is London Calling.

I don't think that was what Smoosh's album was called. Better check again, Shane.

jcknbl · « **Reply #36 on:** 17 Nov 2006, 07:05 »

Tommy! Have you heard Friend Opportunity?

THESE FORUMS NOW CLOSED (read only)

Author Topic: Time Top 100 Albums List (Read 11169 times)

Scytale

jcknbl

jcknbl

John Butler Train

jcknbl

thepugs

jcknbl

Scytale

Scytale

thepugs

jcknbl