Go to the NEW FORUM
I'm new to this site. I've taken a real good look at the site. The one thing that boggles my mind is that NEVERMIND is so highly placed on this site. Maybe it's just me, but I always felt like IN UTERO was vastly superior.
Another I would like to get off my chance is that I dont think older records are getting there day in the sun. It seems there are far to many publications making top 10 lists that are being recorded onto this site. They even have some mid way through the decade lists. (Best from 2000-2004) THATS NOT FAIR, no other decade has that. It also seems like every passing year bring a new magazine to the site. There are clearly more list makers now, then say 20 - 30 years ago. It would be better if someone figured out a way to seperate bad magazines, from good ones.
Spoon - GA GA GA GA GA - made 42 lists and was placed at 15 place for the year.
Ghostface Killa - Fishscale - Made 34 lists and was ranked 4th place last year.
I would say Incesticide is Nirvana's best!
With every yearly best of list that comes out there is an all-time list that vaults the classics up the list. The only albums that don't get a fair shake are the albums that just miss all-time lists but probably would be equal, probably greater, to a top 20 album from this decade.
But, I think a lot of people would take the opposite position as you saying that older bands have an advantage because their albums keep getting listed on all-time lists and it doesn't give new bands a chance!
But...The last time this site was updated. There were only 7 new entries. what happens if there are only 7 more next time when the year 2007 is added. It likely wont make the kind of difference that your suggesting. NEON BIBLE, IN RAINBOWS, SOUND OF SILVER will be very high on the top 3000 list if Im correct. Alot higher then then they probably should be.
The difference in the amount of list between 2007 and 2006 is huge and unfair. Lets say Neon Bible makes all the lists that TV ON THE RADIO did last year, but also makes 20 more lists from publications that werent even available or considered for entry last year. I think it would only be fair if they just stuck to a selct group of critics, and judge the albums merits on those grounds.
I also think the whole 2000 to 2004 thing is a big mistake. Other decades didnt have mid way mark lists. If they did, they would be alot higher.
Isnt Incesticide a best of...lol..that shouldnt count. NEVERMIND is higly over rated no matter which way you look at it. Its ahead of OK COMPUTER, and OK is a vastly superior musical statment.
Ah, I get what you are saying. You're not worried about the classics, you're more worried about the modern classics. I can see that. But where do you draw the line? There are a lot of mainstream magazines I wouldn't give a dime to for their opinion so that shouldn't be the determining factor. That's a tough line to draw with magazines folding and starting everyday.
Exactly. It is a fine line. Take KID A for Example. Its Clearly a classic. Come Decades end, it may be number 1. But on a yearly basis, there's probably about 50 plus more magazine doing there top 10 or whatever now then there was in 2000. It stands to say that if KID A were to come out this year, it would likely have a higher rating then it does now. Assuming that the same publications would later give it the same positioning in alltime lists.
I say get rid of mid decade lists. It only affects half the deacade. Even an album like Arcade Fire's funeral. It seems to come into its own shortly after most of these lists are made. If it were a 2002 or 03 album, it would likely be in the top 50 right now.
Another Idea would be to take say 50 lists total. If an album makes more then 50 lists, you take the best positioned 50. If they make under 50 (Say 36) then they only get 36 to make a score out of. Im sure theres a formula that someone can rig up for that.
It seems more fair.
However...thats only a short term solution. Obviously with more lists coming out every year, an album has a better chance at making up a better top 60 lists then the years preceeding it.
and...obviously the 1980's, 70's, 60's all have very few publications making lists. MAYBE put those yearly top ten lists in there all time slots.
Then you'd have 30 albums with #1 across the board probably. I think Henrik has come up with the best system possible.
Murray, I use a matching system where albums are compared to other albums. A new, say 2000-2004 list, would only affect the comparison between albums from 2000-2004, moving some albums up and some albums down, but on the whole the 2000-2004 albums would stay where they are in the all-time list.
That's kool. I was just wanting an explanation. Do more lists being added every year help current albums out?
Do more lists being added every year help current albums out?
What I said before works in the other direction too, i.e. an all-time list from 1999 would only affect the comparison between pre-2000 albums, moving some albums up and some albums down. The 2000-2007 albums would not suffer from this but stay roughly where they are in the all-time list.
Any info on where you think IN RAINBOWs will score when its added?
Just hold on a few more weeks...
In Henrik I trust. That's all I have to say about the list.
But I've been looking for an opening to take on Nevermind, and here it is. I have given Nevermind a couple of good listens in the past couple of weeks, having not heard it in its entirety since about a year after it first came out. My reaction now is what it was then. Hooky hard rock, but not anything all that exciting or new. I understand their import to the business of selling pop music and evangelizing rock music.
My high school years (1988-1991) were all about nothing but classic rock. Now I knew that there were strange little bands like that one that sang about "a simple tool to occupy my time." And certainly the NIN and Black Flag logos were all around me. I will admit to being unenterprising in my search for new music. (And unjustifiably dismissive of any band/artist that god forbid used synthesizers, samplers, or turntables.) But, good god, there was a ton of dross to wade through every time I turned on a radio station or MTV playing contemporary music.
So yeah, I remember when Nirvana built to be the number 1 album. I remember how refreshing and subversive it felt to see an incredibly popular band make NOISE live on MTV, singing a song called "Rape Me," and make other appearances in dresses.
But is the album taken on its own merits worhty of such acclaim that it is the #3 album of all time? For me, I just have to think about why my interest in this "special new band" intrigued me, but did not move me to actually go out and buy their album... I was in the process of discovering too much other better stuff. "Goo," and a year later "Slanted and Enchanted" and "Dry" and "Dirty." I also heard "Nevermind the Bollocks" and "London Calling" for the first time around then. (I knew of, but didn't sample the Pixies until later.) These were raw and harsh, just like "Nevermind," and just as melodic. But honestly, and I don't mean to sound elitist, they sounded more intelligent to me. (Well maybe not the Sex Pistols...)
As I've said before, the emotional tenor of the album doesn't ever depart too far from either rage or detatchment. Dig underneath, I will grant that there is humor, and some tendeness to be found (but nothing like what they would show on "Unplugged"). Musically, though, aside from the catchy songs (and I don't mean to dismiss that... they are good, cathcy songs), the sludge of guitars, and in particular Kurt's voice, failed to and continue to fail to grab me. It's become a trope to say that Nirvana stole the loud-soft-loud (or is it soft-loud-soft?) thing from the Pixies. But I hadn't really heard the Pixies at that point, and it still didn't feel all that new to me. (Didn't everyone steal that from Beethoven anyhow?)
Nevermind, while not a top-100 album for me, is assuredly a top-100 all-time album. It's historical impact does matter, and should be placed into consideration. But the #3 album of all time? You'e got to have all the goods to get that high. I don't hear all the goods in that album.
I realise it has historical significance and all that mombo jombo. I however feel that In Utero was a way better album. stronger songs, more personal. Hey! if we're going to go on historical significance. I would think people would put more stock in IN UTERo due to the fact that some songs play out like a mans last words before he kills himself. The lyrics were very personal, and given what eventually happened to Cobain, I would think that makes UTERO the album of choice. I love both albums. If I were to make a top 100, they would both be in there. NEVERMIND probably really high. In Utero maybe in the 30's, assuming I dont add Jazz records.
I used to think In Utero was a better album, but lately I've changed my mind. Pop accessibility isn't always a negative. I feel other than All Apologies, there isn't much variety in In Utero. It's very emotionally homogeneous, whereas every song on Nevermind feels a bit different.
As for the site, it is my understanding that Henrik has studied statistics and has thought of and dealt with all the issues that may make the list unfair. I'm pretty sure he also weights a list higher the farther after the album came out it was published, so in five or ten years all those 2000-2004 lists will barely count.
Your probably right. I was just looking for some info. Dude seems like a pretty smart guy. Ive been to some other sites were they just dont have a clue. I agree with alot of the top 3000. To my mind it feels very accurate (except for NEVERMIND) but it has the lists to prove its relevance at #3. The reason It suprised me so much is because OK COMPUTER was behind it. I'm sure that'll change in the coming years. I have complete faith in whatever system he operates the site under.Just wanted some clarification is all. I didnt mean it to sound like an attack against his credibility.
If it was taken as an attack then I appologise sincerely.
No offense taken, Murray.
Although I can understand some of Murray's concerns, I think Henrik's system is the best possible, and he should continue doing what he's been doing, with the same formulas.
A few weeks? I can't wait!! Not only because I want to see how new albums will fare, but also to see if any older albums which I think are underappreciated have gotten higher. I will never be totally satisfied unless 2 Amon Tobin albums (at least) make it into the top 200 all-time.
I'd like Kid A to move down into the 50 area. I'd also like to see Funeral move a fe spots. I'd alos like to see a new number 1 of all time. Maybe VU&N for a change!
Agreed completely. In Utero is a Top 25 Album to me
In Utero's placing in the AM albums list(135) is actually surprisingly high given the rough reception it recieved in 1993.
Certainly, in certain sections of the British music press at least, Cobain was regarded as an object of ridicule around this time, his obvious unease in the spotlight greeted with equal parts condescension and contempt.
Snotty early-20s music hacks didn't appreciate Cobain's implied empathy with tortured Hollywood icon Frances Farmer, even though they'd probably never heard of her before the album came out. Anguished exercises in self-analysis such as 'All Apologies', 'Pennyroyal Tea' and 'Radio Friendly Unit Shifter' were dismissed as Cobain "howling the millionaire rock star blues".
In 1993, to many, Cobain was an self-pitying whiner and In Utero an indulgent "soap opera".
I still prefer Nevermind personally, but I think In Utero will continue to move up on AM because the tragedy surrounding it has forced even the naysayers from '93 to re-assess it as a devastating (albeit sadly unsuccessful) exercise in brutal catharsis.
It makes me sad to see people pay out Nevermind... i really like it.