Ok, now that argument is finished and everyone's kindly agreed not to waste anymore time on someone they disagree with on the internet, I felt like asking what kind of albums did they even expect to be on there in the first place? Also, perhaps more importantly, what albums could possibly be considered for these top ten places?
I'm sure everyone's got their own top ten lists of which no two are the same, but if you found yourself lumbered with the task of editing a tiresome old dinosaur rock publication, what could you possibly put up there?
Let's suppose for a moment you feel like putting up something that meant more to you because you grew up with it and you have memories of playing it on the beach with your friends as a teenager, obviously to you it's going to mean more than anything to you, but if it's something like, for instance, Screamadelica, or perhaps Tenacious D s/t, you're unlikely to get it accepted and unlikely to attract a broad audience.
It seems to me that if you are a true music fan and wish to find interesting, inspiring albums you haven't heard before or even heard of before, you don't ever head off to Rolling Stone.com. That's not it's purpose. It's really a repository of what is popularly accepted as being good. Whether or not such a site is of any use is another question.
However, I for one expected to see the same old albums up there, I saw the same old albums, forgot I'd seen them there but could still probably reel them off is asked. Whether these albums are any good is a different question, it's whatever tickles your fancy. I don't think anyone into reggae is going to like this much. I personally love Bob Dylan more than anything on this planet, and am perfectly satisfied to see Highway 61 Revisited up there. I find the Beatles shallow and uninteresting, it doesn't bother me that other people love them to bits.
If you want to see all your favourite albums written and ranked exactly as you want them, why don't you write them down and show us?
|