Could the "Greatest Album Ever" be made today? (as far as rock music goes)

And before we get hopelessly off-topic, I realize that I included Kind of Blue as an example even though I'm talking about rock. You can just ignore it.

this thread is somewhat related, but nobody wanted to talk about it there either

Sorry to harp on about it, but I think it's inevitable that the greatest albums are yet to be made (barring nuclear holocaust/other device for human extinction).

Find some recent lists of best albums ever. See what the most recent entries are. If they feel out-of-place, then your answer is "no". If they don't, it's "yes".

Even that list we made up in the pub?

Especially that one.

Although this question is impossible to answer for sure, and maybe based on some flawed premises, I do think that something happened culturally between, say, the early 60s and some time in the 1980s, such that popular styles like rock, funk and disco were where the overwhelming majority of musical talent was going and where most of the energy and excitement was, and hence you have this unbelievable run of musical years. We could spend all day talking about the various cultural conditions that created this drive - the emergence of mass culture and the widest ever distribution and promotion of recordings, television, the creation of the youth market, the political climate, etc.

I don't think we can make any predictions about "quality" of future albums, but I think rock as we know it will never have the kind of drive behind it as it once had. Then again, there will always be teenagers discovering all that hormonal drive anew and finding new ways to express it, and for all we know there might be a band about to make the emo ZOSO.

Also a lot of people would probably say the next great album won't be an album at all.

It's also worth pointing out that none of the other artists or records you mention had anything LIKE Beatle-level popularity (maybe Dylan, but only for a year or two) - someone pointed out on the jazz thread that Kind Of Blue has still only moved 3 million despite endless reissues - Pet Sounds is probably well under that.

I'm not sure exactly what this means wrt your argument mind you.

What's the last album to muscle into the collective critics' Top 10 of all time and stay there? "Nevermind"? Any reason that couldn't happen again?

this does beg the question that albums are on the way out as a format anyway

"The Greatest Album" ever requires some kind of universal appeal in terms of catchiness, combined with reinvention. So, no, it cannot happen anymore. Simply because all the stuff that sounds good has already been done, and whatever sounds "interesting" and "original" today sounds like shit.

The biggest problem any modern Rock album faces in terms of classicness is the shittiness of modern production compared to the 60s and 70s.

my favourite record ever could be made today

though theres only really 45 minutes or so left, so perhaps it might be better to leave it till the morning

my favourite record ever could be made today

I doubt mine could. I was almost chocked in 1997 when I realized how great "OK Computer" was. I didn't believe it was possible for a recent album to be that great. And "OK Computer" isn't even in my all time Top 10.

Um... OK Computer was made TEN YEARS AGO.

The answer is no. Because nobody makes great (or even good) rock albums anymore.

Ten years ago is recent. Anything from the past 20 years is too recent really.

Didn't read thread, but the thing with rock is that it became compartmentalized after psychedelia. It became a genre of subgenres and specialists. That being the case, there is the inevitable sense that something made within a compartmentalized subgenre is SMALLER in scope than something like Sgt. Pepper.

the only people who would seriously consider a question like this are old people

coincidentally, old people tend to favor music that was made when they weren't quite so old

^^^

you are the lex and i claim my dolla dolla bill yall

NV 100% otm. Basically the answer to the thread is 'no', if you really like older rock music. Because 99% of all rock records today automatically count themselves out with their horrifying mall-music production values (compression, pro-tools, etc.).

What I find funny is that records that were derided as 'slick' in the 70s (like Steely Dan, Joni Mitchell, Fleetwood Mac) sound postively garage band compared to today's stuff.

to say that the "greatest album ever" cannot possibly (or barely) be made any longer is inevitably to acknowledge that you don't rate contemporary music as highly as old music, so in my opinion this is pretty much a rephrased rockism discussion. if your are a rockist of sorts (and i believe we all are) your valuation of a piece of music depends on how others react to it, its effect on its time (with regard to innovation, spread, etc.). with this mindset the "no" is a given because of all the factors mentioned earlier in this thread, mainly the disappearance of musical "events".

Everyone who partly blames today's lousy rock productions OTM. they really suck. and don't forget how much better the musicians were in the 60s/70s. ok, the last one is a guess but i'm sure i'm right. judging from their records it def sounds like they were better.

The greatest album ever could be made today. But I think it would be harder for that album to achieve the kind of critical consensus that currently exists around your Revolvers and your Pet Sounds.

nobody even fucking tries to make great albums anymore. either thay try and make interesting stuff that appeals to a minority of listeners (which is fine) or something that appeals to a lot of people for a short period of time (also fine), but no one is really trying hard to do something groundbreaking and appealing at the same time. I mean, the Battles album I think is great, but it's not the best thing ever! Neither is the Timbaland album. OK Computer, I'm going to agree wih Geir here, was the last time a band really tried hard to make a big pop statement.

and don't forget how much better the musicians were in the 60s/70s.

I think it appears that way partly because rhythm sections were more interesting back then. You had guys who were session musicans or who just had a lot of live playing experience in different situations. I think there was a higher premium placed on "groove" back then too, people wanted things to swing a bit, no matter if it was rock or r&b. Even stuff that is "robotic" for the era (like the first Neu record, or 'pleasure principle') still swings *a lot* compared to the typical rock record of today.

The greatest album ever could be made today. But I think it would be harder for that album to achieve the kind of critical consensus that currently exists around your Revolvers and your Pet Sounds.

-- St3ve Go1db3rg, Friday, May 25, 2007 3:25 AM

But here was my point - there's no way an indie rock album or something is ever going to SEEM bigger than the '60s classics, regardless of what it accomplishes musically. That's because indie rock is a small aesthetic compartment whereas rock music in the '60s seemed like it was evolving into EVERYTHING.

Right Tim, I thought that's what I was saying.

I'm just trying to explain the reason, I think, for that old critical consensus.

Yeah, that's kind of what I was starting to try to get at - in the 60s and 70s you had a bunch of critics and writers and music fans and really a whole culture that was frothing with excitement over the idea of popular music as a societal force, even as a political force. Also over the idea of some kind of new fusion of high culture and mass culture. Eventually those ideas lost their shimmer and people even became cynical about some of them.

Elvis wasn't just Elvis because he was Elvis, he was Elvis because he was the first thing like Elvis people had ever seen.

Axl is trying.

Also over the idea of some kind of new fusion of high culture and mass culture.

I think this is an interesting concept, and I think you're right that it was a significant concept back then. So is it totally gone now? Or are we just too jaded these days to look at music in those sort of terms? Because I think there's still a lot of ground to cover in terms of injecting aesthetics and concepts from art music into popular music, but I feel like the concept isn't treated too seriously anymore.

segmented markets and targeted marketing

Steve, I think that's because art music is stuck in the phase of modernism.

Jeff way off the mark. Operative word here is "rock." Late Registration is great, "great" or whatever else you want to apply to it. And no matter how much Kanye loves Jon Brion, there's no way he's gonna agree that his record is "rock."

And I doubt an album in another genre will appeal to the same wide audience that the best rock albums of the past did.

xpost

Sorry, Jeb I guess I mean.

Also, if Axl were really trying . . . oh, nevermind.

Geir has a point, depending on when you think the cutoff date is. Even Nevermind had tons of haters (God, I hate that word), as sure as Metallica did. Or Please Hammer Don't Hurt 'Em.

That Maroon 5 record might end up doing it. I dunno, who can sell records these days?

Also, where did this thread turn from "greatest" into "bestselling"? Too lazy and tired to look.

Silk Degrees (on my turntable at this moment) was at quintuple platinum vs. KOB at triple, last time I looked. What would Miles say to his Toto boys if he had the chance now?

but... you've got compartmental greatest albums of all time now. i mean ilx can happily agree on loveless or 36 chambers but there's no way that's gonna fly in q world. also i think there is a trend for newness in terms of G.O.A.T. in the british music media, maybe the word is more short sightedness. britisher mags will proclaim the arctic mumpeys album the G.O.A.T. if it sells papers y know.

Finally: Millions of James Brown 45s sold vs. Sgt. Pepper, if we're looking at sales as a measure of importance.

xpost

But Acrobat, isn't the Brit press ready to proclaim MBV or Wu the greatest ever in terms of "roots"? That's still pretty ahistorical.

roots? i'm not sure i understand.

i think the greatest album of all time question is in some ways a red herring. it often, but not always, means the album that changed one's perception most at age 16-20.

I mean in terms of how far back they're willing to go. Which may mean what hit them when they were between 16 and 20.

Like, I doubt RZA or Kevin Shields thinks the "greatest ever" = something he himself produced.

As opposed to the youngest writer/editor on Q's staff.

would bob dylan or john lennon think they had produced the greatest ever?

sure. i think i see but there surely will be proportionally more fans turned on by music happening contemporaneously than music from the past. expect to see ok computer, nevermind, the stone roses, is this it etc validated more and more as those who had eureka moments with them get higher media positions. yet of course old bands stock rises and falls, i think groke was saying about how the beatles were rather out of fashion in the '80s but had their profile massively raised in the '90s.

the wu / mbv is in reference to ilx rather than Q btw.

I get it, though at this point Wu and MBV are prolly "safe" enough to make plenty Q ink, no?

It's interesting. I saw the beginning of the Nature of the Beast episode of "Classic Albums" the other day. One dude or another was saying the same thing: He didn't walk out of the studio thinking, "I changed history."

I didn't watch much of it, because if I've heard the album, it was only once.

not in the top 50, maybe in the lower down in a long list. i think both those albums are still quite "difficult" for certain people. cf:

Taking Sides: Loveless by My Bloody Valentine Vs Lustra by Echobelly

if we're looking at sales as a measure of importance.

Sales is just one measure, but it is there and it shouldn't be ignored. Out of the most prominent 20-30 albums in the critical "canon", there is only one ("Velvet Underground and Nico") that didn't sell much when it was first released. The others combined critical acclaim with mainstream popularity, and I don't think an album is able to reach that status without achieving this combination. Just one of them isn't enough.

And btw I don't think the fragmentation of styles and genres is the only reason this is impossible nowadays. I think it also has to do with the labels' reportoire policy, where they are using blatant manufactured sellouts to finance uncompromised artistic statements, not being able to realize that if you compromise those two elements with each other (like The Beatles did, for instance), you may achieve both critical and commercial success at the same time, and possibly have a longer lasting appeal.

Subquestion (ie: hacked thread question):

Do new albums become canon because they are widely accepted by numerous individuals to be canon-worthy, or because one influential critic took up their cause until they became accepted? Like, can you point to some albums and find the genesis of their inclusion in their being championed?

Isn't a huge part of this the continuing centrality (for better or for worse) of the "boomers" to our cultural conversations? And isn't this primarily a matter of controlling the primary means of production? Not to get all Marxist on you, but that generation has the (media) power to project a "unified" voice of what the Greatest Record Is. And the rest of us react to that power, because we don't (think we) have the power to counterbalance it.

In other words, I think this is way more about power than it is about art.

And btw I don't think the fragmentation of styles and genres is the only reason this is impossible nowadays. I think it also has to do with the labels' reportoire policy, where they are using blatant manufactured sellouts to finance uncompromised artistic statements, not being able to realize that if you compromise those two elements with each other (like The Beatles did, for instance), you may achieve both critical and commercial success at the same time, and possibly have a longer lasting appeal.

-- Geir Hongro, Friday, 25 May 2007 08:47 (15 minutes ago) Bookmark Link

I (ulp) Agree.

xxpost

Ask the Arcade Fire.

No! Ask Terris! Ask Campag Velocet! Ask The Vines! etc etc

Reducing it soley to movement of power seems er reductive.

Are you saying the Arcade Fire are an example of someone championing them, and they still don't end up in the canon? Or are you suggesting that they are in/entering the canon?

All this debate ever proves is that the canon is useless. Oh, and that Geir is a dreadful troll and should be banned.

Albums become canon when enough musicians decide that they want to include ideas from a particular album into their own work. Critics cannot do anything in music. At best, they can explain the actions of the people that are actually doing the work after the fact.

This person disagrees with you. (Sorry, membership needed. But it's Ozick's recent piece about criticism in Harper's.)

http://www.harpers.org/archive/2007/04/page/0069?redirect=239763805

IOW The VU isn't cannon because of Lester Bangs, VU is canon because countless bands have turned just one of their phases into entire careers.

Count the number of Arcade Fire articles than reference the word "Pitchfork."

Also: "I have seen the future of rock and roll and it's name is . . . "

Terris!

i disagree, nick. the cannon is a useful buyers guide for beginners. i used, actually still do, it to choose between cheap albums. sometimes i have enjoyed them, sometimes i haven't. nowadays the ilx "cannon" is more useful than q or whatever obviously but still if a lot of people who like some similar things to you like something else then there's a fair chance you might too.

sorry, "its"

xpost

Also: canon canon canon!!!

Acrobat, what's in your Top 10/20/50/100/whatever?

I gotta go to bed.

i don't just approach music in that way btw. i'm just saying the canon isn't useless. my top 10/10 etc? there was this piece i read by paul morley where he said that everytime he developed a personal cannon he wanted to reject it. i get that. everytime i try a list i sort of gag and think this could be better. more eclectic, more interesting etc then i think fuck it and listen to rick springfield.

Yeah, I'm with you. I just heard the Consequence album tonight and it's my new fave. And of course the canon's not useless, but best to make and reject one for yourself, as you've already figured out. Like you need my help.

i disagree, nick. the cannon is a useful buyers guide for beginners. i used, actually still do, it to choose between cheap albums. sometimes i have enjoyed them, sometimes i haven't. nowadays the ilx "cannon" is more useful than q or whatever obviously but still if a lot of people who like some similar things to you like something else then there's a fair chance you might too.

I would agree if the publically-available canon was trustworthy / I do agree to an extent but the publically-available canon isn't trustworthy: because it has become an industry now, not a cultural consensus.

As for this; Critics cannot do anything in music. At best, they can explain the actions of the people that are actually doing the work after the fact. - well, stuff I've done this week has disproved that empirically!

Yes, I am sure that the mover and shakers of the music industry are hanging on your every word.

records would sound like shit these days if it weren't for your tireless crusade against brick wall limiting.

So it's one band and one record, or a handful of bands and a handful of records; doesn't matter. Maybe you find my 'campaigning' tiresome; doesn't matter. It's not about scale or impact; it's about being passive or being active, about the difference between saying 'all political parties are shit' and not voting, or writing a letter to an MP about an issue that affects you. Music criticism or writing or whatever doens't have to be about forming a canon or a buying guide or taking coke with bad indie bands or getting free CDs; it's a conduit, like millions of other conduits for millions of other things, to try and engage with and be a part of a culture. So you think my 'campaign' is stupid and that I'm a tedious idiot; a band I already quite liked but had nothing to do with besides writing a review once upon a time made their new record better than it would otherwise have been, because of something that I did and that they took notice of. That's a start, an achievement, and you can be prissy and anonymous about it all you want, but you can't undo it and you're not going to make me shut up.

The VU isn't cannon because of Lester Bangs, VU is canon because countless bands have turned just one of their phases into entire careers.

But how many of those bands did initially discover VU through reading critics by the likes of Lester Bangs?

As for the "power" thing, big parts of the canon were decided already by the early 70s, and while the baby boomers may have $$$$ and power by now, they didn't in 1970. So why then, if power is such an important thing, did they ever define their own canon rather than just letting their parents decide that Frank Sinatra and Dean Martin were all that mattered?

If that makes you happy, then you should do your thing.

Frankly, it has been my experience that the only people who care about what critics think are other critics. Granted some musicians follow criticism, and some musicians even write it, but by and large musicians aren't interested in critical theory or the canon. They crib from the primary texts, which are the records themselves. They study the records, not the secondary arguments about the records. You learn music from the record store and the people you play with.

Critics are the ones that give attention to more "obscure" acts. Sure, commercial-type acts may sell lots and lots of records without any kind of critical support, but for the more obscure acts, critics are needed to get attention. An obscure band that doesn't get critical attention will not have any audience at all outside their own hometown.

You learn music from the record store and the people you play with.

David Bowie, Roxy Music, Yes and Genesis also learned quite a bit of music from their art school teachers, I would guess ;)

But how many of those bands did initially discover VU through reading critics by the likes of Lester Bangs?

I would argue that Cleveland punk grew out of the VU gigs at the cave. I would also argue that Bowie had a million times more influence on making Lou Reed and The VU cool that Bangs did. Writers don't set trends, musicians do.

I would also argue that Bowie had a million times more influence on making Lou Reed and The VU cool that Bangs did.

That is true, but how did Bowie discover VU in the first place?
Obviously not through attending VU gigs at the cave, considering Bowie grew up in England.

But how many of those bands did initially discover VU through reading critics by the likes of Lester Bangs?

Fewer than you think!

xpost BY HEARING IT ON THE RADIO!

hmm so britpop wasn't something hastily made up in a pub to describe a bunch of disparate acts which then fed back into A&R land? see also grunge, punk, greebo.

Writers can set trends.

Television were broken as far as the UK was concerned, by Nick Kent's article.

Had it not been for that article, it might have taken 6 months longer.

XXP They didn't play VU records on the radio. At least not until their commercial break around "Loaded".

I would also argue that Bowie had a million times more influence on making Lou Reed and The VU cool that Bangs did. Writers don't set trends, musicians do.

I agree with the Bowie point completely, but I don't really agree that musicians set trends; trends are set by so many different influences; radio programmers, music press editors, high street fashion stores, word-of-mouth, record companies, amillion other things. If we knew what set trends the cultural landscape would be so much more predictable, but we don't. To say critics don't set trends but musicians do is disingenuously simplistic; as is to suggest that critics don't and can't have any affect. Everything has some kind of affect, however small.

Critics are the ones that give attention to more "obscure" acts. Sure, commercial-type acts may sell lots and lots of records without any kind of critical support, but for the more obscure acts, critics are needed to get attention. An obscure band that doesn't get critical attention will not have any audience at all outside their own hometown.

that is why you tour and make records. Critics cannot make you big, and they cannot sell your music. They can only comment on the moves that a band is already making. I would love to send 14 cdr's to 14 critics and make a career out of it, but that isn't how it works. You have to be operating in the industry for critics to even be aware of you. Once they are aware of you, all they can do is promote your work.

After the promotion cycle ends musicians and record nerds decide your fate, not the critics.

Mainly record nerds, I would say. Musicians may be important for some albums (particularly the ones most "radical" when originally released), but not for all.

XXP They didn't play VU records on the radio. At least not until their commercial break around "Loaded".

-- Geir Hongro, Friday, 25 May 2007 10:22 (5 minutes ago) Bookmark Link

Yeah, they did. John Peel's Perfumed Garden, for definite.

Possibly the offshore pirates and/or Kenny Everett, but I couldn't say for certain.

The boomers certainly had power by the early 1970s, at least enough cultural power to overcome their parents' Sinatra-aimed powers. More importantly, I don't think their parents CARED about cultural power. It wasn't a huge money maker until the early to mid 1970s. The boomers' greatest achievement was realizing that cultural power was a kind of political power (as has been mentioned above), and then using that power. It didn't get them very far in the 1960s and early 1970s (though some tried), but once they accrued enough capital, they fused that cultural power with standard financial power ("We Built This City" indeed). Hence the Clinton and Bush years in the US---I don't know enough to say that about the Blair years in the UK.

Oh, and the only VU album to chart in the USA was the first one, albeit in a low position.

To say critics don't set trends but musicians do is disingenuously simplistic; as is to suggest that critics don't and can't have any affect. Everything has some kind of affect, however small.

I don't believe that critics have zero input on culture. Obviously they do have an influence, especially on the people they are directly commenting on. However, they are not setting the agenda. I don't think artists(at least ones whose careers are not in serious peril) are looking to critics for influences. Writers might tip off musicians to records they weren't aware of, but I think that is different from criticism. Musicians look to their peers and they look to their predecessors for direction. Writers are just people they have to deal with for promotion.

I don't think anyone sets an agenda; I don't think there is an agenda, and I think talking as if there is is probably dangerous in terms of giving people an erroneous worldview. And I also know that musicians and PR people see music writers as publicity cogs; I only need to look at my chocka inbox to see that, and it pisses me off. I've said before and I'll say again; I'm a music fan, a record geek, who happens to write. I'm not a music journalist. I have no interest in having a career in that field, writing a dozen 80 word capsules a week to put bread on the table. But if I can write stuff that I think helps me or anyone else understand something or appreciate something or change something, then I will, and that's why I do it.

Long xpost, but:
The VU isn't cannon because of Lester Bangs, VU is canon because countless bands have turned just one of their phases into entire careers.

This is, ironically enough, a nearly direct quote of a piece of criticism: from Spin's Alt. Music Guide, if memory serves. I suppose it's possible for two different people to come to this conclusion independently, but I'm more inclined to see it as a perfect example of the way criticism shapes the way bands are perceived.

I don't think anyone sets an agenda; I don't think there is an agenda, and I think talking as if there is is probably dangerous in terms of giving people an erroneous worldview

In order to execute any creative project, you have to have some kind of creative agenda. I don't think there is one single external objective agenda that everyone must conform to. I do think that in order to be a creative person, you have to have one yourself.

This is, ironically enough, a nearly direct quote of a piece of criticism: from Spin's Alt. Music Guide, if memory serves

I think Kurt Cobain was still alive when I glanced through spin. I haven't been interested in reading about rock magazines since about 1995. When I do read about music, I am more interested in either musicans directly talking about their craft or writers that are just giving histories of the music itself. I am not interested in their opinions about music, I just want general stories so that I can investigate the records myself. Tape Op is a million times more important to me than 99% of the writing in the music mag section at your local retailer.

I came to the conclusion because Galaxie 500, Sonic Youth and JAMC all cribbed from those VU records and you can spot where they "sampled" their ideas from. I like the thread of music because of the way it sounds and what musicans have done with it in the last 40 years. The records influence me, not the writing about the records. I don't need writers to tell me where people are stealing from, I can hear it for myself.

you are i take it quite old?

55

it seems to me that this whole discussion boils down to whether the rock canon is a fair and balanced representation or simply a reactionary reflection of a single generation's collective musical experience. this question is going to be far easier to answer in 50 years time i'm sure, but my general feeling is that what could be accomplished within the rock format's narrow confines was accomplished in the genre's first 20 years or so, i.e. i think that the canon is *both* steeped in nostalgia and a representation of the best of the best. these two are hard to differentiate at the moment because the people who lived through rock's alleged "greatest age" are the same ones that have a major saying in what should constitute the canon, but things won't stay that way for long.

Jeb OTM.

Re. critics - I don't think most of the critics I know - or most of the critics I LIKE, put it that way - are writing to influence musicians.

The baby boomers haven't created the rock canon alone. They have the power as to which albums from the 60s and early 70s that are in the canon. Younger generations decide which albums from the late 70s onwards are in the canon.

However, there are certain genres with audiences that are more interested in here and now than in being part of history, and their lack of interest in the canon means their favourite genres will also be less represented in the canon.

In order to execute any creative project, you have to have some kind of creative agenda. I don't think there is one single external objective agenda that everyone must conform to. I do think that in order to be a creative person, you have to have one yourself.

This assumes that every creative endeavour is a project rather than an accident. The word 'agenda' to me suggests something a lot more codified than just hopes and dreams and pragmatism and sweat. This may just be semantics, though, and we may be coming from the same area broadly, but... I don't believe in fate and I'd identify as an existentialist but existentialism is about pragmatism in the face of chance. Chance is massively important. An agenda can help a creative person but it's not necessarily conscious or necessary, perhaps.

I also think that as a 55-year-old you have direct access to a history, through your own memory and experience, that anyone much younger, or just from a different cultural background, does not have, and I think music writing can give people other than yourself ways in to histories that you don't need or have alternatives to. I don't read much music press at all - I much prefer talking here or in person or with the Stylus guys about music and getting opinions that way, but that doens't mean it's not valuable for some people. When I was 15 or 16 NME was a link to a whole world of stuff that I could never have encountered otherwise, but it was a roadsign, not a bible.

I also think this whole question, 'what is best' whether that be album or genre or era (aside from being massively solipsistic in terms of its reaching for unattainable objectivity), also presupposes that music is something with a purpose beyond its purpose, that music is about reaching a goal be that aesthetic or cultural, that it needs to develop and change towards that goal or else arrest itself at the point when that goal was reached and not change anymore afterwards (the Geir Position, perhaps). This kind of thinking is, I think, wrong; music is communication, is creation, and both those things are infinite processes, not movements-to-end-points. It is something that humans like making and like interacting with; thinking otherwise strikes me as fatalistic and wrong. There is no end, there was no 'best point', there is no 'greatest', there's just the process and the interaction and that is great, more than enough.

DN doesn't sound a day over 54 to me.

(the Geir Position, perhaps)

DO NOT WANT BRANE IMG

i am using you all as models of how NOT to grow old

Just die young, Alex. It's the only way.

DN: I think you're either underestimating the way that criticism and texts shape public discourse and belief, or not considering music writing criticism. When the Frankfurt School wrote the Tiller Girl essays, or Adorno wrote Physiognomy of Mahler, they weren't just responding to public opinion, but they were altering the way we think about it as well. In fact, a number of critics believe Strauss never had the influence Mahler did because of Adorno's critiques of him.

That isn't to say that every music critic is Theodore Adorno. But it is to say that cultural criticism has had a greater impact on popular thinking than you give it credit. Which means you may have never read that Spin article, and yet it still likely influenced your thinking. Or possibly someone wrote something that influenced both you and that Spin article. But we grapple with ideas in the context of texts. To paraphrase Sontag, you can't naturally think about music in the context of language. So much of how we think about music has been blazed before.

Interestingly enough, The Spin Alternative Guide came out in 1995, the year DN stopped reading criticism. Possibly that's why the review of VU stuck with him so well.

That isn't to say that every music critic is Theodore Adorno.

I kind of wish one less critic had been Theodore Adorno...

I know my boring little opinion doesn't mean all that much in the grand scheme of things, but from about 1999 until probably late 2005, I praised OK Computer as the greatest record ever made, and I meant it. I still think it's more cohesive than any record the Beatles have ever released. Nevermind and In Utero are still in my top 10. I know neither of these are from this current decade, but I sort of see '91-'97 as the last occurance of one of these huge waves of great music. There has been great music since 1997, but not in such enormous quantities. '64-'71 was the biggest one of these. '77-'82 was another one.

As long as popular music continues to evolve, there will be another huge wave of great music sometime in the next 10 years. And with this wave will come a few of your "greatest albums ever." It's just that, at this point, it takes longer to reach those waves, because its evolution now gets stifled a lot more often because of fluff like American Idol. But it's coming. Just be patient.

this thread needs to get lexetrated

This assumes that every creative endeavour is a project rather than an accident. The word 'agenda' to me suggests something a lot more codified than just hopes and dreams and pragmatism and sweat. This may just be semantics, though, and we may be coming from the same area broadly, but... I don't believe in fate and I'd identify as an existentialist but existentialism is about pragmatism in the face of chance. Chance is massively important. An agenda can help a creative person but it's not necessarily conscious or necessary, perhaps.

I am not trying to be a smart ass, but do you have any idea what actually goes into making a cohesive 20 minute EP, much less a 45 minute album? Falling down the stairs is an accident, not getting pickles at the drive thru is an accident. I would even go so far as to say a good three minute single could be an accident, but the creative effort necessary to put together an album is not an accident. It is too large to chalk up to accident, you have to make way too many consecutive creative decisions in order for an album to happen. You have to have some kind of larger picture in mind in order to execute something that large.

I also think that as a 55-year-old you have direct access to a history, through your own memory and experience, that anyone much younger, or just from a different cultural background, does not have, and I think music writing can give people other than yourself ways in to histories that you don't need or have alternatives to. I don't read much music press at all - I much prefer talking here or in person or with the Stylus guys about music and getting opinions that way, but that doens't mean it's not valuable for some people. When I was 15 or 16 NME was a link to a whole world of stuff that I could never have encountered otherwise, but it was a roadsign, not a bible.

I was pulling your leg, I am 30, not 55. I think my disagreement come from the fact that once you hit a certain point(I was 18 in 1995) you don't get your info and opinions about music from writers anymore. I get my opinions from my experiences in the used record stores and hearing other DJ's play records. I think what gets played at parties while people are fucked up has more influence of musicians creatively than the writing about those records does. Us talking about records on ILM isn't criticism to me, it is either meta-criticism or it is working out histories and creative networks, or it is simple gossip. The only people who read and digest criticism are music critics and I think they exist in a separate world that runs parallel with the people that actually make the stuff.

DN: I think you're either underestimating the way that criticism and texts shape public discourse and belief, or not considering music writing criticism. When the Frankfurt School wrote the Tiller Girl essays, or Adorno wrote Physiognomy of Mahler, they weren't just responding to public opinion, but they were altering the way we think about it as well. In fact, a number of critics believe Strauss never had the influence Mahler did because of Adorno's critiques of him.

And who actually reads this stuff? Drew Daniels knows about this stuff and perhaps some indie rock dudes who have philosophy grad degrees, but not the people actually making the records, especially rock records. This stuff just flies back and forth over the top of the music, but it doesn't connect with the music. Rock music is about sound, it isn't about expansive critical discourses. This stuff matters to academic composers that have zero cultural impact outside of the academy but it means very little in popular music.

That isn't to say that every music critic is Theodore Adorno. But it is to say that cultural criticism has had a greater impact on popular thinking than you give it credit. Which means you may have never read that Spin article, and yet it still likely influenced your thinking. Or possibly someone wrote something that influenced both you and that Spin article. But we grapple with ideas in the context of texts. To paraphrase Sontag, you can't naturally think about music in the context of language. So much of how we think about music has been blazed before.

I get the idea from this paragraph that a tree can't fall in the forrest unless a music critic says that it fell. People make records, then they put them out into the world, and then later people rip those records off when they make their own. Critical discourse it a very marginal part of this process. Words are a very marginal part of the process. It is more like a few guys get get stoned in a room, decide to steal a rhythm from one record, the guitars from another, and so on, and then they get it wrong because they are different musicians in a different studio and it turns into something else. The texts musicians work from are the albums themselves, not critical opinion of those texts.

Maybe if you are ripping off Bob Dylan or The VU you cannot escape those huge obvious narratives, but when you are working from more obscure texts those huge narratives don't exist. I don't even know what my favorite producers look like or who they are. They are just names on records, or they aren't even names, just random sounds I've heard in passing. Music making is about random encounters with sound, it isn't about building huge narratives about the sound. You can't even build personality based narratives about obscure records. John Smith made record X on label Y in 1980, and that is as far as it goes.

Your final paragraph, specifically "music making is about random encounters with sound", backs up the point that you were trying to disprove with your first paragraph, seemingly. Plus I think everyone who ever listens to a record builds their own narrative of it simply by listening to it, ESPECIALLY about obscure records where there's no consensus narrative to consume.

I'm not saying everybody is engaged with criticism in a major way, and I don't think anyone is on this thread. Critics are just music fans who do a lot of their nattering about music on paper (etc) rather than outloud, as far as I'm concerned. If anything the attitudes towards criticism here go a long way to explaining why pop music discourse doens't exist the way film discourse does; those attitudes, of course, are laregly informed by the music itself. I don't think that's either a good or bad thing, particularly, just... interesting to observe. If you've managed to completely divorce yourself from opinions you consider unreal that's great but it's way beyond my ability to do so. I love communicating too much.

I also think this whole question, 'what is best' whether that be album or genre or era (aside from being massively solipsistic in terms of its reaching for unattainable objectivity), also presupposes that music is something with a purpose beyond its purpose, that music is about reaching a goal be that aesthetic or cultural, that it needs to develop and change towards that goal or else arrest itself at the point when that goal was reached and not change anymore afterwards (the Geir Position, perhaps).

Personally I don't think that music has reached the final goal. But to me, there is only one acceptable goal, and since punk, music has gone in all other directions than that acceptable one. I would have been a lot more positive if music had gone in the direction that Yes and Genesis sat out on, which would mean that today's popular music would be largely synth based, highly melodic and harmonic, and still very song-friendly, 80 minute suites with a whole lot of influence from European classical music and no more influence from jazz or R&B that the mandatory bass and drums parts at the bottom.

Sadly it wasn't to be, and it may be that John Lydon is just as much to blame for that as James Brown is.

Your final paragraph, specifically "music making is about random encounters with sound", backs up the point that you were trying to disprove with your first paragraph, seemingly. Plus I think everyone who ever listens to a record builds their own narrative of it simply by listening to it, ESPECIALLY about obscure records where there's no consensus narrative to consume.

There is a difference between writing a haiku and a novel.

you can stumble into a good haiku, you can't just accidentally write a classic novel. I guess you theoretically could, but it would be highly unlikely.

Coming across an interesting sound in daily life or an interesting sound at a club is different from writing or organizing an album.

OMG, this thread.

Critics are very important to me; the work of a critic is incredibly important in my musical upbringing, as I choose to listen to music based upon critical research. I aim to create my own music one day; criticism will have had a major bearing on my output.

Secondly, the greatest album ever could very well be made today, if a band prepares itself to go the extra mile, and fully immerse itself in sonic inclusivism. Modulators, controlled effects boxes and a wide variety of instrumentation are all key to this. 'OK Computer' is good, but there is more, far more, to be done. At the moment, I would honestly say that Mansun's 'Six' is the best album of all time, alongside Cardiacs' latest couple. Those albums attempt something nobody else has really approached, and they themselves certainly don't exhaust the reserves of possible sound we have at our disposal.

DN: I could try to explain more - I could talk about the culture of ideas and how nothing is created outside of the context of the culture. About how culture is influenced by words and ideas, and that even if you aren't reading criticism - that criticism is still having an affect on the culture you live in. It's the air you breath.

But I get the feeling you're being willfully obstinate. So I guess it doesn't matter.

At the moment, I would honestly say that Mansun's 'Six' is the best album of all time, alongside Cardiacs' latest couple

But then, you miss the public opionion factor. Which is also important to put anything into the canon.

Mansun may have topped the UK charts for a week or so with their debut, but they still only appealed to a rather limited number of people, and they are hardly ever talked about anymore by anyone other than those select few who fell in love with their music back in 1997. And "Six" was largely ignored by everybody.

Plus, really, what do you find on "Six" that isn't found on lots of albums by Yes, Genesis or ELP from the 70s?

I am not trying to be a smart ass, but do you have any idea what actually goes into making a cohesive 20 minute EP, much less a 45 minute album? Falling down the stairs is an accident, not getting pickles at the drive thru is an accident. I would even go so far as to say a good three minute single could be an accident, but the creative effort necessary to put together an album is not an accident. It is too large to chalk up to accident, you have to make way too many consecutive creative decisions in order for an album to happen. You have to have some kind of larger picture in mind in order to execute something that large.

I have a good idea of what goes into making a 45 minute album, and I disagree. Sure, there's the odd Brian Wilson who might have a total picture in his head and goes into the studio to give orders to everyone else about how to achieve that vision, but in many cases music is made by groups of people collaborating, and often it's spontaneous. People write in the studio or experiment in the studio. Certainly in rock and roll it's not the norm for parts to be written down before they're recorded, so there's a huge element of chaos and chance involved.

Making an album is of course not an accident like falling down the stairs, but I think many many people who make albums end up with something that they couldn't have quite predicted when they started.

The greatest album ever was made in 1997. I only found out about it last year. Even better I didn't realise until later I'd boozed with the drummer.

Not telling you what it is though, you'll ruin its chances of future appreciation.

Plus, really, what do you find on "Six" that isn't found on lots of albums by Yes, Genesis or ELP from the 70s?

The sound is wholly different, the changes more unpredictable, and the guitar effects are state-of-the-art. The songs, in short, display more variation.

I think Mister Craig's album might be...

Well, my own best of 1997 was SFA. I don't think he's talking about the usual standards (Radiohead/Spz). I'd say he's gone for something incredibly outre like Quickspace - Precious Falling, but I'm probably very wide of the mark as usual.

The sound is wholly different, the changes more unpredictable, and the guitar effects are state-of-the-art.

Lots of compression and Pro-tools in other words? Hardly an advantage in prog.

If Triumvirat had had Protools none of us would even be having this conversation.

i decided today, that hypermagic mountain by lightning bolt has beaten loveless for the spot of greatest album ever.

I think Mister Craig's album might be...

Well, my own best of 1997 was SFA. I don't think he's talking about the usual standards (Radiohead/Spz). I'd say he's gone for something incredibly outre like Quickspace - Precious Falling, but I'm probably very wide of the mark as usual.

-- Just got offed, Friday, 25 May 2007 22:27 (Yesterday)

American band, split up that year...

American band, split up that year...

In the Aeroplane Over the Sea didn't come out until 1998!

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/9/91/Hand_it_Over.jpg/200px-Hand_it_Over.jpg

Pavement, innit?

I reckon it might be Chavez, although their last album was released at the end of 1996.

You're all wrong...at least two of the members are still active in current bands (albums out within the last year).

Mansun may have topped the UK charts for a week or so with their debut, but they still only appealed to a rather limited number of people, and they are hardly ever talked about anymore by anyone other than those select few who fell in love with their music back in 1997. And "Six" was largely ignored by everybody.

"Wide Open Space" was the most played song on UK radio in 1997. Ahead of, you know, "Candle In The Fucking Wind".

You just made that up.

I'm willing to bet that The Verve won the 'most played song of 97' contest.

Mister Craig's band...could it be Red Red Meat?

You just made that up.

Seriously! I remember them mentioning it on The O-Zone once.

'Wide Open Space' is a good pop song, but it's nothing truly special. I can see why people knock Mansun on the strength of their early singles, but these people have very seldom heard 'Six' as well. Before you slate a band, I feel you have to hear their defining masterpiece. I mentioned The Verve above; those who judge the band on Urban Hymns alone have an unfortunate perspective, and they'd probably change their tune quite dramatically if they heard 'A Storm In Heaven' or 'A Northern Soul'.

Mister Craig's band...could it be Red Red Meat?

-- Just got offed, Saturday, 26 May 2007 12:08

Nope! This is fun though! It's probably not the best album ever anyways, I'd be insultant of other stuff to say that..

"Wide Open Space" may have been played a lot, and is obviously their biggest hit. But it wasn't from "Six".

I think the only Mansun song I'd happily hear again is probably Legacy, or maybe Stripper Vicar for comedy retro value.

GIZZA NUVVA CLUE MISTER CRAIG, oh and you are HARSH

did you even HEAR 'Six'?

I have heard "Six". Once or twice. And then partly 3-4 times more. I am a huge fan of prog and Britpop but still didn't get the grip on it or understand what's so great about it. Few other people did either.

I kind of like "Attack Of The Grey Lantern" though.

i can tell you, from bitter experience, that local radio only played 2 songs in 1997

the verve - the drugs dont work
ultra nate - free

'Nother clue... the most divine clue I could do would be vague to be fair.

Polvo - Shapes?

i have absolutely no idea what polvo have to do with anything here, but if they did, it would be this eclipse

i just remembered putting on this eclipse a couple of sundays ago after fabric at 10am or whatever when ilxes own braveclub was round. then i locked myself out of the house and had to go to bethnal green to get the spare keys