The Crane Pool Forum

Apple is causing a stir with its ballyhooed list of the top 100 albums of all time. The entire point is likely to make people say "WTF" and recognize that Apple Music exists. I fell for it. Wall Street Journal has an article comparing it to the Rolling Stone list. https://www.wsj.com/arts-culture/music/ ... eatst_pos3 I thought the Rolling Stone was bad, but this is even worse.

Here is the top 30. https://100best.music.apple.com/us

1) The Miseducation of Lauryn Hill, Lauryn Hill.
2) Thriller, Michael Jackson
3) Abbey Road, Beatles
4) Purple Rain, Prince
5) Blond, Frank Ocean
6) Songs in the Key of Life, Stevie Wonder
7) good kid, m.A.A.d city (Deluxe Version), Kendrick Lamar
8) Back to Black, Amy Winehouse
9) Nevermind, Nirvana
10) Lemonade, Beyoncé
11) Rumors, Fleetwood Mac
12) OK Computer, Radiohead
13) The Blueprint, Jay-Z
14) Highway 61 Revisited, Bob Dylan
15) 21, Adele
16) Blue, Joni Mitchell
17) What's Going On, Marvin Gaye
18) 1989 (Taylor's Version), Taylor Swift
19) The Chronic, Dr. Dre
20) Pet Sounds, Beach Boys
21) Revolver, The Beatles
22) Born to Run, Bruce Springsteen
23) Discovery, Daft Punk
24) Rise and Fall of Ziggy Stardust, David Bowie
25) Kind of Blue, Miles Davis
26) My Dark and Twisted Fantasy, Kanye West
27) Led Zeppelin II, Led Zeppelin
28) Dark Side of the Moon, Pink Floyd
29) The Low End Theory, A Tribe Called Quest
30) When We All Fall Asleep, Where do We Go, Billie Ellish


The Rolling Stones (Exile) don't appear until No. 53. Elton John (Goodbye Yellow Brick Road) is No. 78, Back in Black checks in at No. 90, Hotel California squeaks in at 99. The Who? Apple's never heard of them.

Rush’s Moving Pictures, my personal fave, is nowhere to be found, along with Zeppelin’s untitled album and the Ramones.

The 1980s are practically ignored.

Amy Winehouse in the top 10?

Aren't they coming out with (or re-releasing) an Any Winehouse movie? That may be why she scored so highly, because she is in the consciousness of the voters.
As I say with all of these music lists, I'd like to see the demographics of the voters.
Later

I've come around to the idea that these lists are, in many ways, total bullshit. Not just Apple's list. All of them. And that if no one ever created a list up until now and never even thought of creating a list or discussing a list with anybody else, and then you took 200 so called music critics and experts and asked each of them to create a top 100 list of the best pop music albums, and put them in isolation booths so that they couldn't collaborate, you'd end up with about 200 wildly different lists, most of the lists unrecognizable from the other lists.

Marshmallowmilkshake wrote: ↑Fri May 24, 2024 6:23 pm I thought the Rolling Stone was bad, but this is even worse.

Everyone's got different tastes. I'm not much of a Switchfoot fan. What is that crap? Up with People with fuzz pedals? Like I said, we'd all have wildly different lists if we each made our own. Everyone's entitled to their opinions and tastes.

Marshmallowmilkshake wrote: ↑Fri May 24, 2024 6:23 pmBack in Black checks in at No. 90

Sounds like you're complaining. Pop music artists have been making albums that evolved into something more than simply a collection of their most recent '45RPM's and hastily arranged and recorded filler material for about 60, 65, maybe 70 years now. If you took the two best albums from each of the last 65 years and ranked them in order, 30 of those albums wouldn't make the top 100. It's a tremendous honor to be ranked 90th all-time. What's the problem? Where do you think Back in Black belongs? Me, I could come up with 100 better albums in my sleep in about as long as it would take me to name them and I like Back in Black.

Marshmallowmilkshake wrote: ↑Fri May 24, 2024 6:23 pmThe Rolling Stones (Exile) don't appear until No. 53

Maybe because Exile was mixed as if the mixer was on heroin and meth when he was mixing. Keith I think, so no surprise. It's sludge and mud and a real struggle to listen to. Still, it's ranked 53rd. All-time. That's some real respect.

Marshmallowmilkshake wrote: ↑Fri May 24, 2024 6:23 pmThe 1980s are practically ignored.

That shows impeccable taste, if you ask me. Do you have an affinity for digital elevator music fills and synth-pop drumming?

Marshmallowmilkshake wrote: ↑Fri May 24, 2024 6:23 pmAmy Winehouse in the top 10?

I don't know what compelled me to buy her Back to Black CD. I knew little about her and what little I knew turned out to be all wrong. She had already passed away and I thought she was a corporate manufactured teeny-bopper artist for the teen-girl crowd. I listened to that album and for the next three or four months, couldn't stop playing it. That's was pretty much the only thing I listened to for a few months. Winehouse, I discovered, was a tremendous generational talent. Her loss was a real tragedy. Her signature album is one of my all-time favorites.

Marshmallowmilkshake wrote: ↑Fri May 24, 2024 6:23 pmRush’s Moving Pictures, my personal fave, is nowhere to be found, along with Zeppelin’s untitled album [27) Led Zeppelin II, Led Zeppelin]]and the Ramones.

I have zero interest in Rush and find them to be unlistenable all on account of the lead singer's annoying, grating voice. I wouldn't be surprised if I'm this forum's biggest LZ fan and LZ II is likely the LZ album I've listened to the most. (If it's not LZII, it's LZI). And I wouldn't place any Ramones album in my top 100. But see above, because if the Ramones placed in the top 200 or 300, that would be a tremendous honor. I'd think.

List covers almost 60 years and doesn't limit by genre or style.

Any list that completely ignores the Who and puts some Schmendrick named Kendrick in its top 10 can, rightfully, fuck itself with a sharpened stick.

Yeah, but it's the deluxe version!

From the story:

This week, Apple Music unveiled a provocative ranking of the 100 best albums ever made, as determined not by streaming data, record sales or the algorithms that rule our lives, but by a metric of quality that sounds almost radical these days: human judgment.

Apple enlisted about 250 employees, artists and industry executives to vote on the albums, and they came up with a list unlike the many others that already existed.

Those lists tend to reward music that has been revered for decades. The idea behind this one was to recognize more contemporary albums that Apple’s voters argue have already earned their place in the music canon. They may not be as old as the classic records, but Apple believes they will be remembered as classics decades from now.

Seems like, with a handful of exceptions, artists were limited to a representative album. Country and dance were not included. If the idea is to be more inclusive and raise awareness of some small releases that might have flown under the radar, I get that. But you could reverse the positions of Back to Black and Back in Black.

Well, if raising awareness of some small releases that have flown under the radar gives us 1989, then I'm guessing we have a miss.

We have a very, very messed-up musical economy rightish aboutish nowish, and it damages us culturally.

Radiohead is the only group to make the list twice, for OK Computer (12) and Kid A (33). I'm guessing that was unintentional.

These lists are generally wacky, and this one wackier than most. I get that you can't make it purely rock, or you wind up with 99 white boy bands plus Jimi. But once you bring in jazz, why stop at Miles Davis, John Coltrane, and Nina Simone? Why not bring in Billie Holiday, Duke Ellington, Buddy Guy, and any number of other musicians that released infinitely better music than Taylor Swift?

"Albums" restrict things to some degree. I guess studio albums existed in the 1950s, but nobody ever bought them. I'm guessing we could all name ten Chuck Berry singles without thinking too hard, but I doubt anyone could name a Chuck Berry album without googling. So Chuck Berry doesn't get into the top 100, and neither do Elvis, Bill Haley, Buddy Holly, or any number of other deserving artists from the 50s.

Speaking of Elvis...no spot for "This Year's Model" or "Armed Forces" or "My Aim is True", huh?

One could have done a lot worse than "Miseducation" at #1.

Well, if raising awareness of some small releases that have flown under the radar gives us 1989, then I'm guessing we have a miss.

Yeah. You can't pass the test of time until time passes.

I have zero interest in Rush and find them to be unlistenable all on account of the lead singer's annoying, grating voice

I think I could put "YYZ" on continuous loop for two hours and be perfectly happy. But when Geddy opens his mouth, I reach for the earplugs.

Chad ochoseis wrote: ↑Sat May 25, 2024 12:29 pm You can't pass the test of time until time passes.

That is worth saving for plagiarizing at a later time.
Later

Steve Jobs must be rolling in his grave

Jobs was a Dylan fan.

Fman99 wrote: ↑Sat May 25, 2024 6:56 am Any list that completely ignores the Who and puts some Schmendrick named Kendrick in its top 10 can, rightfully, fuck itself with a sharpened stick.

Tommy should be on there

And yeah, Quadrophenia. That album sucked.

I demand that Kendrick Lamar's next album be titled Some Schmendrick Named Kendrick.

Chad ochoseis wrote: ↑Sat May 25, 2024 12:29 pm Radiohead is the only group to make the list twice, for OK Computer (12) and Kid A (33). I'm guessing that was unintentional.

Also Stevie Wonder - Songs in the Key of Life (#6) and Innervisions (#44), The Beatles - Abbey Road (#3) and Revolver (#21), Prince - Sign o' the Times (#51) and Purple Rain (#4) and Beyonce - Lemonade (#10) and Beyonce (#36).

Marshmallowmilkshake wrote: ↑Fri May 24, 2024 6:23 pm The 1980s are practically ignored.

Hardly.

Albums broken down by decade of release:

1950s - 1
1960s - 10
1970s - 18
1980s - 17
1990s - 23
2000s - 11
2010s - 17
2020s - 3

whippoorwill wrote: ↑Sat May 25, 2024 7:46 pm

Fman99 wrote: ↑Sat May 25, 2024 6:56 am Any list that completely ignores the Who and puts some Schmendrick named Kendrick in its top 10 can, rightfully, fuck itself with a sharpened stick.

Tommy should be on there

Whaddyayouse gonna do? The times they are a changin'. Wanna know who else's music today's kids aren't listening to anymore? Mozart. Mozart's music.

whippoorwill wrote: ↑Sat May 25, 2024 7:46 pm

Fman99 wrote: ↑Sat May 25, 2024 6:56 am Any list that completely ignores the Who and puts some Schmendrick named Kendrick in its top 10 can, rightfully, fuck itself with a sharpened stick.

Tommy should be on there

If someone made a list like this Apple list 50 years ago, your parents would"ve griped about the lack of any Doris Day, Tony Bennett or Benny Goodman on that list. Your dad might"ve wondered how the hell Mr. Clearwater could've named his son "Creedence ". "What kind of a name is Creedence"?

I was thinking about The Who yesterday, and how Townsend was so conscious of the temporary status of this "of all time" reputation that he wrote not one, but two songs about the mortality of his music — "Music Must Change" in 1978 and "All This Music Must Fade" in 2011.

In both cases, it's notable that the title line includes "Must." The erosion of time and memory and the urgency of the moment is that relentless. And if this music indeed has impact, it's not in the songs and album continuing to resound across time, but in the hope that whatever they put into the world in their own time triggered a reaction that continues to invisibly reverberate in society and culture.

"All This Music Must Fade" even seems to surrender to the anarchy of sampling and re-use through post-modern scraping (he perhaps even anticipates his music being reworked and repurposed by AI), and the last line of the song is "Who gives a fuck?"

Of course, with the word games he has always played with his band's name, one can certainly hear that as "THE WHO gives a fuck."

That feels like more than a stretch as I type it, though.

I said the last time a list like this popped up that The Miseducation of Lauryn Hill doesn't hold up anywhere near as well as The Fugees' The Score, and I'm sticking to it.

Has she followed that album up yet?

In fairness, I felt Lauryn Hill had a high level of talent and think it's very sad that she has done literally nothing else.

I do like Radiohead, but the best song on OK Computer took its chord progression from the seventeenth best song on the White Album.

And no one will convince me that Revolver or Abbey Road is better than Sgt. Pepper's.

batmagadanleadoff wrote: ↑Sun May 26, 2024 9:23 am

whippoorwill wrote: ↑Sat May 25, 2024 7:46 pm

Fman99 wrote: ↑Sat May 25, 2024 6:56 am Any list that completely ignores the Who and puts some Schmendrick named Kendrick in its top 10 can, rightfully, fuck itself with a sharpened stick.

Tommy should be on there

If someone made a list like this Apple list 50 years ago, your parents would"ve griped about the lack of any Doris Day, Tony Bennett or Benny Goodman on that list. Your dad might"ve wondered how the hell Mr. Clearwater could've named his son "Creedence ". "What kind of a name is Creedence"?

I should clarify.
I like Tommy but I don’t think it’s one of the top 100 records. I just brought it up because we were talking about the Who and it’s my favorite of theirs.

I would put it on there, though, in place of many, many of the ones that are there.

1001 Albums You Must Hear Before You Die is a list that works for me. It's actually a book. It was first published about 20 years ago and as the title states, lists what its editors and contributors believe are the 1,001 best albums ever. I've been meaning to grab myself a copy but never actually got around to it. If I ever do, I'm not sure whether I'd prefer the first edition or the newest one. If I was 25 or 30 years younger, I guess I'd want the newest one but I'm not 25 or 30 years younger.

Although the albums are ranked, the rankings aren't disclosed. The albums appear in chronological order by date of release, oldest to newest. The book is updated every few years and I think that by now there are about six or seven editions. With each succeeding edition, new albums are added, and so an equal number of albums are necessarily pruned from the previous list to make room for the newer additions. By tracking each new edition's changes, one can at least figure out which albums were at the bottom of the previious edition's rankings. I like the secrecy of the rankings. I mean, how the hell does someone determine that this album should be #91 and not #44 or #444? Is there a formula for that? Do they divide octaves by beats per measure and then multiply all of that by how many groupies the lead singer fucked? One man's Buffalo Springfield is another man's Rush.

I have the headphones/sky version of this book (which is about 20 years old) and concur that chronological is superior to ranked.

The churn from year to year is what fascinated me about the World Series of Classic Rock, back when that used to be the highlight of everyone's Thanksgiving. Even more interesting in that the time frame making up the genre doesn't really change other than the Foo Fighters and pearl Jam releasing a new album every so often.

Alphabetical would be a good was to present best albums

Albums are less fun without Seawolf to proclaim the genius of hair metal, Old Mole to uncover the alchemy of jazz combos, or Vic sage to proclaim the treasures hidden in Broadway soundtracks, but if anybody wants to declare a great album, while staying away from selections that have already been seen on these lists, please go for it.

Instead of starting with A, first give me a great, off-the-list-of-ususal-suspects album that starts with a number.

Any period, any genre, as along as you are a true believer.