Go to the NEW FORUM
i did post this on the most acclaimed years thread, but i'm gonna post it in a thread of its own so there can be a discussion.
Anyway, one problem i have with these critics lists is that they are too biased towards older stuff. As far as i can hear all decades are preety much as good as each other in terms of quality, but for example there are only 4 albums of this decade so far in the top 100, and only 13 from the 90s. Wheras there are 26 from the 60s and 38 from the 70s.
Is anyone else quite annoyed that older decades seem to get more acclaim??
Well, the list is just a fun collection of the more or less qualified opinions of people who earn a living writing about music. It's not like it would change the life of Steve Wynn if his 1990 solo debut was given the spot in the top 10 that it so obviously deserves :-)
But one thing I love about Henrik's work is that you can just click a button and be told what are the most acclaimed albums of e.g. the 90'es without being bothered by the fact that there's a ton of Beatles, Byrds and Beach Boys further up. Take your pick :-)
could it just be that there was alot of good music released around that time? i mean... buying albums was kinda new around then which leaves alot of room for innovations for artists around that time. so i guess it would make sense if that was the case. the other thing is that society is becoming more and more accepting so it's getting harder and harder to shock people. like... once upon a time, elvis and rock and roll was a dangerous threat to society hahaha. so yeah, i guess as time goes on, it's gonna get harder and harder to do something new, harder to shock people and therefore harder to make the top 100. which sucks for me because i'd love to release an awesome album which makes it haha. my goal in life :p
it doesn't sound very new, but it always was, always'll be a question of time and distance and cross-eyed nostalgia.
though OK Computer surely'd created some historical background until then, no one in early 1998 would've dared to go that far to list the record among the 20 best albums ever made (except for some trigger happy mags like NME who're commonly (in)famous for their timely (and partly untimely) biggest-ever-trademark enthusiasm (i bet I Get Wet's going to run the top 40 in their next poll). hilarious how many years it took the critic's doctrine to emphatize the broadly influental impacts of Daydream Nation, Surfer Rosa or Grace. twice as hilarious whenever i recall the 30 years old opinion of a rock encyclopedia i found in my old pop's bookshelf that got so crazy about the early glory days of the 1950/60's and bemoaned the decline of the tired and uninspired 70's. and now they're known as the golden age. hanky panky.
sooner or later (2, 5, 10 years?) OK Computer and It Takes A Nation will break into AM's top 10, then us old grandpas remain dreaming of the good old days when life was purely paris and simple, mtv still kicked jackass, vh1 did the most awesome lists we'd ever seen, Drawn Together actually had something to say, fighting metallica was thoroughly political, hating bono and macca was thoroughly idealistically, and moss and doherty plus the arctic monkeys did the hell of a job to mock the establishment. period.
I think your probably right netjade. In 30 years time there will be a lot more albums from nowadays. "OK Computer" should defiantly be all-time top 3 IMO. I don't think The Velvet Underground & Nico would've even made top 1000 in the 60s it was a bit of a cult album, which has gained mounting acclaim over teh years. Kinda simular to NMH's "In The Aeroplane Over The Sea" i can imagine that being very high, top 10 even, in 30 years time
Here is a breakdown of the 2500 albums that are listed in Acclaimed Music
1940s: 1 album
1950s: 172 albums
1960s: 409 albums
1970s: 647 albums
1980s: 519 albums
1990s: 489 albums
2000s: 263 albums
Even though '60s and '70s albums generally rank higher, maybe it's for a good reason. As you can see, there are more '80s and '90s titles than '60s included in the top 2500. Also, it's possible that more recent albums will over time, start moving up the list, after they stand the test of time. I remember reading somewhere that Led Zeppelin's albums were not that well-received by critics at first, and (I think it was) Brian Wilson was disappointed by the reception of Pet Sounds when it came out (which is now AM's #1 album of all time). Many teenagers these days love the Beatles, Led Zeppelin, Pink Floyd, the Stones, etc., showing that the music has stood the test of time (The Dark Side of the Moon still sells an average of over 9,000 copies a week). I think that the albums of today that continue to sell well decades down the road will probably have very high rankings in all-time lists, and on Acclaimed Music.
too biased towards 60's and 70's, its for a very good reason, the music today is tripe and is based more on financial prosperity than talent. I mean there have been great albums in recent years but mikey mate on a whole its been relatively disapointing. with our generations biggest contribution to music being the techno crap you here at nightclubs i think we are lucky to have any albums in the top 2500. its simple the music from the 60's is regarded as the best, due to the fact IT IS THE BEST. most rock music these days is derived straight from the beatles or the rolling stones alike. originality is the key and im afraid our genaration is not original and at times terrible.