UK Paper: Top 100 British albums

[MindGoneHaywire]

I'm always glad to see something a bit outside the traditional Beatles, Rolling Stones, etc... cannon get recognized. At least it creates a bit of conversation that way instead of those lists that are so predictable you just kinda read down them like....All Beatles records present, check...Everything by the Rolling Stones, pre Emotional Rescue, check...and so on and so forth...

Hey, I'm all for bucking the canon--if it makes sense. In recent years I've seen lists that achieve the former, but rarely the latter. If we want to see those sorts of lists, there's always Rolling Stone, which puts out lists that are annoyingly stuck-in-the-past, but, understanding that mentality, they make sense. This list makes a bit more sense than the idea that the Smiths were the most influential UK band of the past 50 years, but not by much--at least not at the very top.

If a bunch of people want to get together & decide that all of those Beatles & Rolling Stones records don't belong at the top, that's fine. We are so conditioned to seeing that, that it would almost make sense to exclude those two, and maybe the Who & Led Zeppelin, due to their popularity & even ubiquitousness. Maybe run a sidebar ranking the best of some combination of those acts, or whatever acts would make sense in that scenario (given that there are differences in how popular which band & which record were between the UK & the USA & the rest of the world). But if I'm going to accept a list like this, the Stone Roses is not the record I can accept at #1. Someone actually thinks this is better than the first couple of Smiths albums? The first Aztec Camera record didn't even make the list, and to my ears that's so much better than the first Stone Roses record, it isn't even funny. Where's the Soft Boys' A Can Of Bees--or anything by Robyn Hitchcock for that matter? (Actually it's the exclusion of Underwater Moonlight that surprises me more) An ABC album ranks higher than Lennon's Plastic Ono Band? Although I'm not an Astral Weeks fan, I can't complain about its placing; however, Soul II Soul at #15 while Quadrophenia's at #74...and while the first Elvis Costello album can be found at #61, that's the only one you'll find on there, while Talk Talk comes in at #33 & Massive Attack at #9. Throw me a bone here.

I have records by Echo & The Bunnymen & the Psychedelic Furs & Siouxsie & the Banshees & Joy Division that I think are much, much better than that Stone Roses record. I don't quite understand the overrating of Revolver over the past few years, but I've seen this often enough where I'm starting to think it's accepted wisdom. In any case, I'd rate the White Album higher than any album by any of those people I named, quite a bit of whose work I find superior to the Stone Roses. Outside of that I don't think the list is really all that bad, though it's not as refreshing as it might seem at first considering there have been a few of these in recent years that differ from the Rolling Stone/conventional wisdom way of looking at this stuff.

[Worf101]

is there no Queen albums represented on this list? Or did I miss it?

Da Worfster

[nobody]

Well, J, I think you look at things a bit more from a traditional academic standpoint than I do...and you think these lists mean more than I do. I don't mean anything bad by that, but I just don't really see them as having even the slightest chance of being anything near definitive or expressing some sort of mythical true standard of quality. So, to me, getting away from the cannon for variety sake is just as well and in fact better, just because it's more fun, than making sure you include all those golden moldies and making sure you pay enough attention to conventional wisdom.

Sure, my list would look very different from theirs. My list would look very different from practically any list I've ever seen. I would hope that everyone out there could make their own list and that their list would be a very different thing. Just look at the examples they took of people who listed their selections...all people with more than a passing interest in music...all coming up with very different lists...all with valid reasons why they like what they like.

And, in the end, with something like music, as much as the theorists hate to hear it, the bottom line in when answering the question, "What is good music?" is "What do you like?" So, to argue that the list is faulty is to argue that your perspective is different. Now, this may sound simplistic and silly, but if this is not the true bottom line, so to speak, what is?

Does it have to have a certain sound or a certain lyrical perspective? If proficiency with a guitar is a big factor, shouldn't the proggers get more respect than they generally do with these lists? If it is a lyrical thing, shouldn't more singer-songwriters and revolutionary types feature at the top? If it is originality, shouldn't these lists be filled with unlistenable art school experiments, using forms never played before they diligently put it on tape? If it is popularity (which could mean something in the way it express the emotions, no matter how base, of the people at large) why are pop stars pretty well universally reviled on these types of lists? Unless they were pop stars of some era that somehow gets more respect, usually because the guy in charge of hiring writers lived through it. (cheap shot at baby boomers I know, but I couldn’t' resist)

I could give many examples of inconsistency in lists like these that show just how arbitrary they are, but I think we all could. How about the way older R&B acts and old rock acts are able to get away with puerile lyrics and talking about nothing but boy meets girl and how much they'd like to get in some chick's pants, but nowadays an artist that comes out with a new, fun beat and just slaps some lovey lovey lyrics is a hack? What's the difference? Oh originality...well then why do so many 4 piece guitar bands that stick to a rather strident stylistic formula get included?

The first time I really started to grapple with an issue like this was when I was working with a team to select some works of fiction and poetry to go into an anthology. First thing we discussed was, "what do we want to include and why?" Well, as I have seen almost universally happen since in such a situation, someone piped up with the utterly meaningless comment, "I want to focus on quality...not topic...not style...just the best work gets in."

Well, quality is too dependant on personal expectations. Writing which flies in the face of your particular world view often seems to lack logic and cohesion. Yet, to someone with a more similar mindset, it's wonderful. Work that focuses on taboo subjects is seen as merely shocking for shock sake for someone whose world lacks daily bombardment with sex and violence. Yet, many who have grown up in such an environment may see the "shocks" as refreshing honesty.

So, to me, it's all perspective. And, I've babbled enough.

But, damn...Stone Roses at #1? Fucking English.