Interference's Top 100 Albums of All Time - Results Thread

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
Status
Not open for further replies.
Haha I have to agree somewhat. I think I only included AB & JT from U2. There is just too much competition from other music to include anything more... in my humblest of opinions.


Seriously Zoots? But isn't Pop your favorite album?
 
2 out of 5 ain't bad, I guess.

You should get Al Neri to take him fishing some time.

I'm thinking about it. I've about had it with people complaining about my musical tastes.

I think he said something like, "At least I don't listen to U2, David Bowie, and Explosions in the Sky constantly" one time. The first two were kind of true at the time, but at no point did I overplay EITS. I don't know how he got that one.
 
#28 - David Bowie - Station To Station

4df0225b9da062d5fc6ac010.L.jpg


Allow the Three Musketeers their moment. This is fucking awesome.

Two GREAT songs, four lame ones

I can't believe the 5 star reviews this album gets. (Well, it probably deserves it more than Yoko Ono and Syd Barrett's albums, which also get mostly 5 stars.) "Golden Years" is an excellent track, one of Bowie's best (wa-wa-wa).. The title track is pretty catchy too. But the rest of it is just depressing, dull songs with little of the originality that marked his Hunky Dory/ Ziggy / Aladdin Sane era. He just ran out of ideas I guess. I can believe he doesn't remember making this album - he sounds detached and bored with it all.

I've never considered David Bowie a GREAT vocalist, it's a testament to the quality of his Ziggy-era songs that you don't notice his vocals are a bit thin and weak, and need lots of echo and studio effects to thicken them up. And the songs on this album are more vehicles for an accomplished vocalist than a simple singer-songwriter. I'll give him credit for improving his voice and learning good singing techniques - the vocals here are certainly more accomplished than those on his earlier albums. But it's not enough to save this lot of songs. I guess it all depends on what matters more to you, the quality of the song itself, or the vocalist's ability. If you like the first, get Ziggy Stardust. If the latter matters more, get this album.

makes me long for Ziggy Stardust or Hunky Dory


I never understood why listeners love this album so much. "Station to Station" is so repetitive and way too long for nothing. It's just not a great song I think. The decadent disco "Golden Years" is nice, "Word on a Wing" is a good ballad but there is something fake in David's singing. I'm not touched. Then comes "TVC15" which sounds to me like "Golden Years" part 2 with same handclaps and decorative Doo-Wop singing. In part 1, it was "Wap-wap-wap"; in part 2, it's Ho-ho-ho-ho... After that arrives "Stay", which is almost a perfect copy of the funky remix of "John, I'm only dancing". I would maybe like this song if I could just forget the model. Finally comes "Wild Is the Wind", an interesting cover of the standard, but it doesn't erase the previous reservations...
 
Station to MOTHERFUCKING Station, ladies and gentlemen.

My all-time number one comes in at 28. Could have done a lot worse.
 
The sun has NOTHING on Kiss.

Daaaaaaayyyyyum.

I'm thinking about it. I've about had it with people complaining about my musical tastes.

I think he said something like, "At least I don't listen to U2, David Bowie, and Explosions in the Sky constantly" one time. The first two were kind of true at the time, but at no point did I overplay EITS. I don't know how he got that one.

Maybe the sounds coming from the speakers were so majestic and triumphant that he thought it was going on longer that it truly was.

Can he do things? Is he smaht?

(My film class just wrapped up watching Part I and II today, so it's been in the daily film quote rotation for a few weeks)
 
Nice to see Bowie's best album place in the top thirty, even though it missed the cut for my own list.
 
I feel the same way about all the Bowie on this list as I do about all the Zepp.

I like Bowie, but jeez. Jeez, I say!
 
There is too much Bowie in this list. I'm sure we all have the three musketeers to thank! :doh:

:wink:

I put Ziggy, Hunky Dory, and Low on mine, kind of the populist choices there, son.

To tell the truth, I like Station to Station less than The Mel, Pfan, and less than surprisingly, The 'Ver, but it's still awesome.
 
Maybe the sounds coming from the speakers were so majestic and triumphant that he thought it was going on longer that it truly was.

Can he do things? Is he smaht?

(My film class just wrapped up watching Part I and II today, so it's been in the daily film quote rotation for a few weeks)

I'd probably avoid sending him fishing for the time being. He's not like everyone says, like dumb.
 
i'd Probably Avoid Sending Him Fishing For The Time Being. He's Not Like Everyone Says, Like Dumb.

He was stepped ovah!

If I ever get a pet, I'm naming him either Herman, Fredo, Atticus, or Lando Calrissian. It's been settled.
 
That's only the third Bowie album. It's not that bad. Zep has had five placements, the Stones four.
 
#27 - Beach Boys - Pet Sounds

ac45225b9da0b09813f5c010.L.jpg


I like this album, sure. But this is, what, the #187287485744627466470274072074702740747057024052740524705470654th list it's been on?

Maybe the problem is me. This album has legendary status and is highly praised by people who show signs of knowing good music. Heck, just take a look at the list of other albums that people who bought Pet Sounds bought, and you will see taste aplenty. But I don't get it.
I have tried and tried to appreciate this album, but it just bores me. It seems shallow, artificial/insincere, cutesy and repetitive. The boys sure can harmonize and I appreciate that they were doing things that were groundbreaking in their day, but it all comes across (to me and many others) as lacking in feeling and energy - the songs remind me of commercial jingles. I suspect that the album is just massively dated. America produced a lot of incredible albums in the 1960s, but I cannot hear why this is one of them.
Get yourself some Beatles, some Bob Dylan, some Janis Joplin, some Hendrix, some Velvet Underground, some Joe Cocker...and *borrow* a copy of Pet Sounds. Spin Pet Sounds a few times and see if you think it deserves its reputation. If you like it, buy your own copy and adopt it. If you don't, smack it with a rolled up newspaper and shoo it away.

If you put a phonograph needle on Bill Brasky's nipple, this is what you get.

overrated crap.i dont understand wh people love this album so much.it sounds like crap they cant sing.its is just an all around bad album.

This is one of those '60s albums everyone says you need. This is that Beach Boys albums everyone cites as being the brainchild of Brian Wilson's genius. Then you buy it, listen, and... unless you like happen to like the Beach Boys pre-packaged sound...bores the socks off of you. What is it with Beach Boys fans that they buy into this shit that this album is some sort of rock and roll tour de force?! If you're building a collection of "essential" '60s albums, pass this one over and download the two or three important songs on this album in MP3 format. Then you can get bored of it for free then delete the files a few days later, none the poorer for it.

Blah Blah Blah. The most upbeat kill-yourself music ever.

This is an album that I can deeply appreciate (and I do) but I could only enjoy if I had the shotgun in my mouth or whatever, emos. As it is there's only three or four songs I'd really want to go back to.

Oh, yeah, obligatory Baroque and Genius
 
We haven't seen any Beatles yet, have we? Man, they are just all going to be clumped together near the top.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom