Random Music Talk CXXVIII: Cobbler's 42 Hat Sucks

[bono_212]

Aquemini in the top 50, TPAB and MBDTF in the top 25, a black artist at #1, don't get the complaints

There were 13 black artists in the top 50 before. There are now 23. For fear of coming across as racist, don't you think that is a bit reactionary of a change?

I totally get being glad Aquemini moved from #500 to top #50. Totally belongs higher. But...I don't understand how a black artist at #1 is an automatic improvement, nor do I see how adding a bunch of comps into the top 50 improves the list.

There is some dumb fucking shit in this list, and honestly way too much hip hop that doesn't belong in the top 50 albums of all time, it's ridiculous.

EDIT: To clarify, the "dumb fucking shit" would be things like "Lemonade" and the Harry Styles album. I was talking about two separate things in a same paragraph and that's dangerous.

 

[bono_212]

And by all means, I do welcome the inclusion of more women into the list. It was extremely male-dominated before (even worse in the original 2003 list).

 

[bono_212]

Triple post, but looking at the top ten again from 2012, my God, I forgot how much I hated it. LMFAO @ 4 Beatles Albums and Pet Sounds comprising 5 of the 10 greatest albums of all time.

 

[cobl04]

There were 13 black artists in the top 50 before. There are now 23. For fear of coming across as racist, don't you think that is a bit reactionary of a change?

I totally get being glad Aquemini moved from #500 to top #50. Totally belongs higher. But...I don't understand how a black artist at #1 is an automatic improvement, nor do I see how adding a bunch of comps into the top 50 improves the list.

There is some dumb fucking shit in this list, and honestly way too much hip hop that doesn't belong in the top 50 albums of all time, it's ridiculous.

EDIT: To clarify, the "dumb fucking shit" would be things like "Lemonade" and the Harry Styles album. I was talking about two separate things in a same paragraph and that's dangerous.

I don't think it's reactionary. I think these lists have, historically, been written by white men (which is why the gender ratios have always been off as well), and I think that has meant that the standing of albums by black artists has been undervalued over time. I think we're getting closer to true balance, by including more voices, and a more diverse voting panel.

I was being a touch facetious, but I do think that having Marvin Gaye at #1 (an album I've actually not heard, eek!!) opens up new conversations about art and influence, in a way that four Beatles albums, Pet Sounds and Exile on Main St for the millionth time does not.

You're right on Harry Styles, but Lemonade I think is deserving of its place, without a doubt.

 

[LemonMelon]

My complaint is that they couldn't find room for both Harry Styles albums. What a missed opportunity.

 

[LuckyNumber7]

There were 13 black artists in the top 50 before. There are now 23. For fear of coming across as racist, don't you think that is a bit reactionary of a change?

I totally get being glad Aquemini moved from #500 to top #50. Totally belongs higher. But...I don't understand how a black artist at #1 is an automatic improvement, nor do I see how adding a bunch of comps into the top 50 improves the list.

There is some dumb fucking shit in this list, and honestly way too much hip hop that doesn't belong in the top 50 albums of all time, it's ridiculous.

EDIT: To clarify, the "dumb fucking shit" would be things like "Lemonade" and the Harry Styles album. I was talking about two separate things in a same paragraph and that's dangerous.

It’s a bit silly to question if it’s racist. I understand where you’re coming from though.

I genuinely didn’t understand cobbler’s comments that a black artist was #1 and somehow that makes the list better. I would hope there’s general representation and diversity in genre. I do not think it is either positive or negative to have anything more than at least equal representation.

 

[iron yuppie]

The list strikes me as Rolling Stone joining the trend of valuing music primarily on how thoroughly it reflects the moral zeitgeist, with the highest praise being for albums that move the moral needle in a more progressive direction. Not saying that's inherently good or bad, but it does seem to be the standard most publications are using now.

 

[Hewson]

My complaint is that they couldn't find room for both Harry Styles albums. What a missed opportunity.

Should have been the top 501.

 

[lazarus]

I love Marvin Gaye. I own 6 of his albums. What's Going On is great.

It is in no way, shape, or form the greatest album of all time. Not even Top 10.

I'd be less prone to argue if they put Songs in the Key of Life in that spot, or even Sign O' The Times.

But yeah, to Ashley's point, this is really reactionary.

And I don't want to sound like a tool from The Other Place, but I would think even here more people would be surprised/mad about Shuttlecock getting done dirty. It's like the list was made by whiny millennials who are still pressed about finding SOI on their iPhones.

On a more humorous note, I saw that Reasonable Doubt was in the Top 65 or whatever and thought "ok El Mel, you win this round". But then I came across The Blueprint higher on the list and took that point back. Sorry, cuz.

 

[LemonMelon]

Interesting that an album full of jazz musicians and hip hop producers heavily inspired by jazz only yielded 6 jazz albums out of 500 slots and about 80 years to choose from.

But we got an Eric Church album though, so it's all good.

 

[cobl04]

And I don't want to sound like a tool from The Other Place, but I would think even here more people would be surprised/mad about Shuttlecock getting done dirty. It's like the list was made by whiny millennials who are still pressed about finding SOI on their iPhones.

Because it doesn't matter. No one actually gives a shit, really. Some publication's list of the best albums ever really doesn't matter.

 

[bono_212]

It’s a bit silly to question if it’s racist. I understand where you’re coming from though.

I genuinely didn’t understand cobbler’s comments that a black artist was #1 and somehow that makes the list better. I would hope there’s general representation and diversity in genre. I do not think it is either positive or negative to have anything more than at least equal representation.

Thanks, yeah, I just didn't want to be misunderstood, to say that I didn't think black artists deserved to be on there. Probably extremely unnecessary, but it's done now.

 

[GirlsAloudFan]

Because it doesn't matter. No one actually gives a shit, really. Some publication's list of the best albums ever really doesn't matter.

This is extremely true.

 

[cobl04]

Thanks, yeah, I just didn't want to be misunderstood, to say that I didn't think black artists deserved to be on there. Probably extremely unnecessary, but it's done now.

I knew what you meant, all good!

 

[namkcuR]

I have no problem with lists like this being made more diverse - it's a needed change. There are a lot of truly great artists of color who deserve the recognition.

But here's the thing. According to this list, just for one example, Drake's "Take Care" is better than the following albums(among others):

REM - Automatic For The People
Metallica - Master Of Puppets
Led Zeppelin - LZI, LZII, Physical Graffiti
U2 - JT, AB
Pink Floyd - The Wall
Queen - A Night At The Opera
Beastie Boys - Paul's Botique
The Cure - Disintegration
Elton John - Goodbye Yellow Brick Road
Lou Reed - Transformer
Television - Marquee Moon
Radiohead - In Rainbows
George Harrison - All Things Must Pass
Arcade Fire - Funeral

Full disclosure, I've never actually listened to that Drake album. Or any Drake album, because the very few Drake songs I've heard didn't make me want to listen to any more. But I can't imagine the notion of it being better than all of the above albums being one that I'd ever be on board with.

Furthermore, I feel like Tupac got shafted. If the idea is to be promoting black artists and hip-hop, why does perhaps the most legendary of all hip-hop artists get only the one album, and up at four-hundred-and-something while Kanye gets six, three in the top 150?

Speaking of Kanye, he has more albums on this list than Stevie Wonder, Prince, Zeppelin, Bruce, Bowie, Radiohead, or Floyd. Just saying.

Some other things:

I agree that compilations shouldn't have been allowed.

I found it strange that a U.S. Capitol Beatles album - "Meet The Beatles" - made the cut.

But, like others have said, who cares?

 

[bono_212]

It does matter in a sense because there is prestige around Rolling Stone magazine whether you like it or not. So now you have a lot of young people who will use this as a list of recommendations and consider some of these albums the canon. It just frustrates me to think of some of the albums no longer on the list that will get looked over now in favor of things like, yeah, Drake's....Take Care?

 

[LemonMelon]

Take Care is one of the most important and influential albums of the last 10 years. It's still on the Billboard charts almost 9 years later. You would be hard pressed to name more significant albums of the period and, sure enough, there are 2010s albums above Take Care. As with Beyoncé's albums, the placement is too high for a first appearance, but it should be there.

On the other hand, they really dropped the ball with some of the other recent picks. They picked the wrong Weeknd album - Beauty Behind the Madness is nowhere near as acclaimed or important as House of Balloons (or Trilogy). Where is Speak Now? Body Talk? E.MO.TION? Lonerism? The Suburbs? Hell, if you're going to throw Harry Styles' 9 month old album on there, at least find room for 24k Magic, which is one of the better throwback R&B albums in recent memory.

It's cool that a 2010s canon is being built, but there's a lot of great stuff missing from it here.

 

[bono_212]

^ Much better explanation for how I feel.

 

[cobl04]

It does matter in a sense because there is prestige around Rolling Stone magazine whether you like it or not. So now you have a lot of young people who will use this as a list of recommendations and consider some of these albums the canon. It just frustrates me to think of some of the albums no longer on the list that will get looked over now in favor of things like, yeah, Drake's....Take Care?

I just don't know if this is true though! The world has changed since I was a teenager and looking to get more into music, and I would think the percentage of kids turning to Rolling Stone's top 500 as a way of getting into music is fucking miniscule. And we can debate about the picks until the cows come home, but the truth of the matter is Take Care is going to appeal 100000x more to some people than Sgt Peppers or Blue or What's Going On or EMOTION, and that's how subjectivity works.

you're definitely right about the prestige, so it does 'matter', but it doesn't matter that much, yknow.

I just think it's silly to get up in arms about these sorts of lists. It's futile, and I've stopped doing it because otherwise I'll just get annoyed.

 

[cobl04]

The list strikes me as Rolling Stone joining the trend of valuing music primarily on how thoroughly it reflects the moral zeitgeist, with the highest praise being for albums that move the moral needle in a more progressive direction. Not saying that's inherently good or bad, but it does seem to be the standard most publications are using now.

I think this is a much better, and more scientific, way of valuing music, if you're going to do things like rate the 500 best albums of all time.

Otherwise it's just based on a feeling that X album is 'better' than Y album.

 

[LemonMelon]

But then how are we to judge music that fails to take a stance on matters of social import, either explicitly through its lyricism or indirectly through its popularity within larger movements? Where is the space for heralding sonic innovation that doesn't fall into line with the moral zeitgeist?

There's a great deal of meaning that we could pull from What's Going On resonating with this many people in 2020. It's an enormously relevant record nearly 50 years later and that deserves to be celebrated. What gives me pause is developing a canon based solely on 1. record sales and 2. an album's connection with an ephemeral cultural moment. So many great artists can't or won't live up to those standards and find themselves written out of history.

Underscoring this point is the lack of instrumental music on this list: jazz, IDM, modern classical, etc. Where does an album like Selected Ambient Works 85-92, Music Has the Right to Children, Another Green World, hell, even Loveless find its place in a canon built around pop stars, preachers and poets?

So yeah like, short term, of course What's Going On is going to be the album of the moment. I've been saying since like 2015 that it's one of the most relevant albums we have. But I'm not sure albums should be canonized for their similarity to What's Going On because that's what connects today, if that makes sense.

 

[iron yuppie]

I think there is also an embedded question of whether an album is great simply by virtue of taking on weighty subject matter. A prime example is A Crow Looked at Me, which was emotionally naked but also borderline unlistenable from a musical standpoint IMO. The reviews on that were extraordinarily positive. Same for Skeleton Tree, which I love dearly but still is not exactly a tuneful listen.

 

[gump]

Interesting that an album full of jazz musicians and hip hop producers heavily inspired by jazz only yielded 6 jazz albums out of 500 slots and about 80 years to choose from.

But we got an Eric Church album though, so it's all good.

They should just exclude jazz altogether, because they don't do it justice. I read this online somewhere, but the only jazz albums better than Take Care are Kind of Blue and Bitches Brew? Get out of here. I get Take Care's importance, but I can list 10 jazz records that have been deeply influential on modern music for at least half a century.

 

[namkcuR]

I don't really care about where this album or that artist places on these types of lists, that's all subjective, what bothers me more is the methodology. Like I said, of course I support more diversity, but when such a significant part of your judgement of music is based on its social relevance, what that means is that you're putting faaaaar too much weight on the lyrical content and nowhere near enough weight on the musical content.

Music before lyrics. Always. No exceptions. Anything else is wrong. Diversity is so important, social relevance too, but we can't let those become such focal points that we stop actually judging the MUSIC itself - not the words, the music.

And I cannot buy Drake being important or influential. Honestly, the reactions I've seen to Drake, both in my real life and online, have more often been that he's a joke rather than an important artist. I mean even if we're using this lyrics-first methodology, he's not more important than Tupac. No one will be talking about him in 25 years the way we still talk about Tupac.
But again, I've never really listened to him because what little I've heard suggested I wouldn't get anything out of it.

 

[GirlsAloudFan]

Music before lyrics. Always. No exceptions. Anything else is wrong.

Nah.

 

[LuckyNumber7]

Yeah i dont understand how anything else is wrong. You made the point already, it’s subjective. It’s someone’s opinion.

 

[namkcuR]

Ok, you're right, I shouldn't have said "anything else is wrong". It is subjective.

But I personally strongly disagree with that way of judging music. Not that I don't appreciate good lyrics, but I'm not going to rank something highly just based on the lyrics if the music isn't doing it for me.

But yes, I shouldn't have said it in such absolute terms. I just was in an impassioned place when I wrote that.

 

[namkcuR]

Body Talk?

Body Talk was there. Up in the 400s I think, but it was there.

 

[gump]

I don't think that popularity should be a factor in lists like this. Taste is subjective, but the whole point of criticism is to identify valuable qualities, aesthetic or otherwise, in art. How one goes about that is obviously not a clear-cut task, but I think the standard should be that one is looking for the work with the most artistic merit. And that evaluation always includes the work's ultimate meaning - I cannot think of much good criticism that has does not consider context.

There is a tendency to dismiss the inclusion of certain artists, particularly minorities, as an effort to reward popularity or simply to be inclusive, which in my view often dismisses the artistic merit of their work. Criticism has been dominated by white and male voices for so long, but it has started to become slightly more inclusive of late. Is it really far-fetched to think that those that shaped our understanding of what is or what is not valuable art were themselves biased, consciously or otherwise, in their assessment? It is natural that once more voices are included in criticism, there will be more disagreements regarding what has artistic merit.

One last pet peeve: let's not call the list reactionary. It's anything but. Reactionaries are those who oppose change and defend the status quo. That list is anything but.

 

[cobl04]

I don't think that popularity should be a factor in lists like this. Taste is subjective, but the whole point of criticism is to identify valuable qualities, aesthetic or otherwise, in art. How one goes about that is obviously not a clear-cut task, but I think the standard should be that one is looking for the work with the most artistic merit. And that evaluation always includes the work's ultimate meaning - I cannot think of much good criticism that has does not consider context.

There is a tendency to dismiss the inclusion of certain artists, particularly minorities, as an effort to reward popularity or simply to be inclusive, which in my view often dismisses the artistic merit of their work. Criticism has been dominated by white and male voices for so long, but it has started to become slightly more inclusive of late. Is it really far-fetched to think that those that shaped our understanding of what is or what is not valuable art were themselves biased, consciously or otherwise, in their assessment? It is natural that once more voices are included in criticism, there will be more disagreements regarding what has artistic merit.

One last pet peeve: let's not call the list reactionary. It's anything but. Reactionaries are those who oppose change and defend the status quo. That list is anything but.