Quote:
Originally Posted by adidasss
Should I include an album voted 493 of all time by The Rolling Stone magazine? What about the 492 that are supposedly better?
|
Are we really going to consider Rolling Stone the almighty judge of music, just because it's the most prominent one? Their typical cover subjects alone are enough to show they're all about advertising popular trends and unwaveringly embracing the "safe" opinion. You got me on the Shins reference I guess, but my point of reference for that statement was
Chutes Too Narrow, and I have to admit I was grasping for another band to make the sentence more symmetrical and I settled for what came to mind...so maybe that isn't the best example, but I stand by Fruitbats. Give their album Mouthfuls a listen if you get a chance. It's no classic, but it's incredibly pleasant and shows a lot of potential (which reminds me...I wonder what ever happened to them). I just see YHF as a bit of an indie landmark...but if you don't wanna include it, I wouldn't lose any sleep. It's not a personal fave or anything. But still I'm a little lost as to why you reference Rolling Stone's list, when from all I gather this thread is meant to get a different perspective from that of the typical magazine lists. So use them as any sort of a guide.
Also: I'm curious as to how you're compiling the list Adi. I found it interesting that you included
Marquee Moon (which I know you hate) but have so far excluded a lot of other albums for reasons that haven't been made apparent so I was wondering what your criteria is in choosing the albums or excluding those that aren't vetoed...It seems like this thread would miss the point a bit if it were to become based on your personal preferences. Maybe you count your own disapproval as a veto, which is fine, but I think it would be only fair to voice that and explain the reasoning behind it.