|
Post by qnx100 on Mar 16, 2007 22:51:02 GMT -5
Well, you were on Wheel of Fortune. That has nothing to do with spelling Yes, it does. You'd make a fool of yourself on Wheel of Fortune if you knew the word was "own", and called out an "H."
|
|
|
Post by Courage on Mar 17, 2007 1:51:53 GMT -5
That has nothing to do with spelling Yes, it does. You'd make a fool of yourself on Wheel of Fortune if you knew the word was "own", and called out an "H." Well I wouldn't do that.
|
|
MIKEB
The King Of Rationality
Posts: 4,536
|
Post by MIKEB on Mar 17, 2007 12:05:40 GMT -5
You did it here.
|
|
|
Post by qnx100 on Mar 17, 2007 19:39:33 GMT -5
You did it here. Precisely.
|
|
plannine
I said I’d be honest, I never said I’d be consistent - Grace Slick
Posts: 2,039
|
Post by plannine on Mar 18, 2007 15:25:25 GMT -5
Any list is very subjective, and this one seems to value 'sales' over 'creativity'. Another creative list is: www.infoplease.com/ipea/A0150519.html (Must Have Recordings). While I only have a few from the classical section, i have about half of the Jazz/Blues section, and a 8 from each of the Country/Folk and World sections. I own all but 7 of the Rock/Pop section. I always find coming up with a best of list very hard. Even coming up with my favorite artists is a major challenge. 40 years of listening has created a long list of songs & artists that have shaped & reflected my life. And it would be hard for any recent artist to push out someone who has played a major part of my musical enjoyment. Frank Zappa is my Stravinsky Todd Rundgren, Bach. The Beatles my Beethoven, and The Beach Boys my Brahms as Frank (Zappa) would (and did) say: Information is not knowledge, Knowledge is not wisdom, Wisdom is not truth, Truth is not beauty, Beauty is not love, Love is not music and Music is the Best.
|
|
MIKEB
The King Of Rationality
Posts: 4,536
|
Post by MIKEB on Mar 18, 2007 22:25:43 GMT -5
Yeah, I made a list of my favourite CDs of all time (in my collection), which pretty much ranges from about 1994 to 2005. I plan on updating it on a yearly basis so I'm going to update it this summer. It was hard to make and looking at it now, I can pick out a ton of inaccuracies. It's tough to do though because there are a lot of CDs that I did quite like at one point but for whatever reason, I haven't listened to in years, whereas there are others that I've listened to off and on for years and then others that I LOVED but now rarely listen to because I'm burnt out on them. Comparing them all is difficult because I don't know if I should extend my tastes back to when I wasn't burnt out on a CD or base it more on how I feel right now, which will almost always give an edge to newer CDs.
|
|
|
Post by qnx100 on Mar 19, 2007 14:44:09 GMT -5
Albums from before 1980 make up an overwhelming majority of that list, so I disagree with their selections on the whole. I can never seem to understand why "the critics" never seem to appreciate any music from the past decade (or, in this case, past two and a half decades), when compiling these all-time lists. Frank Zappa is my Stravinsky Todd Rundgren, Bach. The Beatles my Beethoven, and The Beach Boys my Brahms That was clever, I must say.
|
|
|
Post by banet2001 on Mar 19, 2007 17:59:29 GMT -5
Any list is very subjective, and this one seems to value 'sales' over 'creativity'. I noticed that as well. Whoever made this list seemed to take a list of the best selling albums of all time and simply rearrange them. There are at least 100-150 (if not more) of the best albums of all time which are not on that list.
|
|
MIKEB
The King Of Rationality
Posts: 4,536
|
Post by MIKEB on Mar 19, 2007 20:38:42 GMT -5
I think the list was based on albums that had an impact on the mainstream culture itself as opposed to on creative music or artistic music. A lot of the albums aren't really creatively genius but they did have a significant impact on pop culture. I think that's mostly what the list is made of.
I agree with QSeb on the fact that so many of the Greatest Albums of all Time always pretty much limit themselves to albums from the 70s, 60s and sometimes the 80s. If they do venture into the 90s, it's always for something like Nirvana or whatever. On one hand, I understand but on the other hand, it annoys me that newer music is always ignored in favour of older music. What makes the old music better than the new aside from the fact that the old has stood the test of time. I don't think time should be an indicator of how good a CD is. I assume that there should be a list of criteria for the people that make the lists to follow and then go by that.
That ties into my annoyance in general with people that will pretty much dismiss new music off the bat because it's new unless it *sounds* like music from the 70s. A clear example I can think of was from a few nights ago when a friend of mine who LOVES 70s and 80s music. Current music she likes are pretty much limited to rock bands that have sounds reminiscent of the old music she likes. So, we were talking and the topic of Imogen Heap comes up. My friend commented on her outfit at the Grammys and said something like "that imogen heap chick always wears such weird clothes" as if it was the dumbest thing in the world. My quick response: "this coming from Bowie's biggest fan!" My point is is that most of the music she likes are by bands that centre themselves around an "image" before the music. David Bowie might make great music but for a lot of his career, his image came first and he had a lot of "weird" outfits too. She understood what I meant and took back her comment but it still annoyed me because if it were 1975, it would be okay for a musician to have a very left-field image but if it happens today, it's stupid. No wonder mainstream music is as crappy as it is.
|
|
|
Post by M! on Mar 19, 2007 22:35:11 GMT -5
Keep this statement in mind when you look at this list. Just because an album is creative/artistic does not mean it was influential or popular and vice versa could apply. Usually, I don't pay much attention to these lists. All lists are subjective anyway.
|
|
plannine
I said I’d be honest, I never said I’d be consistent - Grace Slick
Posts: 2,039
|
Post by plannine on Mar 20, 2007 8:38:22 GMT -5
My point is is that most of the music she likes are by bands that centre themselves around an "image" before the music. David Bowie might make great music but for a lot of his career, his image came first and he had a lot of "weird" outfits too. She understood what I meant and took back her comment but it still annoyed me because if it were 1975, it would be okay for a musician to have a very left-field image but if it happens today, it's stupid. No wonder mainstream music is as crappy as it is. Bowie was not a mainstream artist in the US until the mid 70's, and that was past his ziggy stardust days. Even then, Top 40 radio rarely played him - as he only had a couple of top 10 hits in the US. It wasn't until the 80's and the advent of The MTV hyped New British Invasion did he get put in the mainstream. ( en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Bowie_discography) Well some of us feel that today's 'artists' place image before the music. When you have as many 'maufactured artists', always looking for headlines, and spending more time being seen, then making music, and getting credit where none is deserved you tend to judge all the new acts as bad. The future looks bad for the album, (not beacuse of lack of sales, but more from lack of support) as downloads is turning back the clock to the early years of music, where you'd get to hear everything in small pieces. Back in the days of 78 rpm records, the artist would record a dozen tracks, and the record company would release one every week or two. They even gave holders to keep your collection of a artist's 78's......which was the 'album'. While people who buy from i-tunes and other download sites feel that they are getting the best of the recording industry, it's actually (even with all their crying) the recording industry getting the best of the audience.
|
|
plannine
I said I’d be honest, I never said I’d be consistent - Grace Slick
Posts: 2,039
|
Post by plannine on Mar 20, 2007 9:02:03 GMT -5
I assume that there should be a list of criteria for the people that make the lists to follow and then go by that. A few factors to consider: 1. Light listeners will have little insight on anything but the most played. 2. Young listeners will usually not have a 'long' history to pick from - so recent will take higher prioirty. 3. Many older listeners will have forgotten what they listened to or why and have to pick what has survived. 4. Some serious 'critics' will not like anything popular. 5. Many (those who listen to one type of music - all heavy metal or only rap for example) may not be able to fairly compare all types of music. 6.Most list do not 'backtrack' to artist influences or the history of a song or style, so credit for being creative may not center around the correct person/group. 7.With out real sales, today's hits may not be. Airplay is marketing not popularity.(but it sounds good) im sure there are a few more.............. (hopefully a few more will join this discussion - a good topic)
|
|
MIKEB
The King Of Rationality
Posts: 4,536
|
Post by MIKEB on Mar 20, 2007 13:32:36 GMT -5
What I meant is that artists that are as creative as Bowie was considered to be back in the day with pretty much every aspect of his image and music, AND were able to get mainstream success, music would be so much more interesting. However, it seems that whenever someone is creative in music and/or image-wise, they are dismissed just because they are new or they are thought to be trying too hard or are considered pretensious. Even bands and singers that were VERY mainstream back in the 70s and such are very well respected whereas their present day counterparts aren't because they are "manufactured". What is manufactured anyway? Lots of old music was manufactured. I'm just very annoyed at how new music is treated by "respected critics" who always favour old music as if good music stopped being made in 1981.
|
|
MIKEB
The King Of Rationality
Posts: 4,536
|
Post by MIKEB on Mar 20, 2007 13:37:34 GMT -5
Agreed, there's making an image and there's making an original or interesting image. Most of the images created today I would definately say are manufactured as much as the music supposedly is. I'm talking creativity in both image and music. I definately think someone like Imogen Heap is creative in both the music and image side of it and I certainly don't think any of it is fake to any degree. I think she's the real deal and I think she could stand up against some of the best music made in the last 30 years just fine.
I know, it sucks. The "album" lasted about 40 years from the mid-60s when the idea came around to have complete albums full of consistant songs and the idea of concept albums. Before then people just made pretty much compilations of songs without any flow. It seems we're going back to that idea now as we enter the digital age. It's not about making complete albums anymore but just a bunch of songs.
|
|
|
Post by Courage on Mar 20, 2007 15:24:19 GMT -5
You did it here. Precisely. You don't type on Wheel.
|
|