Channel 4 - 100 Greatest albums

Velvet Vocals

http://www.channel4.com/entertainment/tv/microsites/G/greatest/albums/results.html

Anyone else as bitterly disappointed with this list as I am? What an absolute load of s*it! I mean, are we supposed to really believe that more people voted for OK COMPUTER, then voted for Then Bends??? Not that Radiohead should have been any where near the top ten as far as I'm concerned, never mind bloody Oasis????????? :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad:
Seriously, do people really rate this tripe that highly? I understand the argument that some albums capture a time/mood and I suppose Oasis and the like fit that mold but seriously, does that warrant them coming higher then St.Pepper? or Blue or even IV by Zeppelin! WHAT IS THE WORLD COMING TO.....
*Takes deep breath* Ok, my rant is over....ish
What do you think??? And, what would your top ten be... I'm still compiling mine

Kingsize

OASIS,G&R & THRILLER HAD NO BUSINESS IN THE TOP 10, I COULDN'T BELIEVE THE VERVE PLACED SO HIGHLY EITHER (ESPECIALLY WHEN YOU CONSIDER WHERE "DIFFERENT CLASS" BY PULP WAS PLACED ) DONT EVEN GET ME STARTED ON ALANIS MORRISETTE IN THE TOP 20????
FFS!!

WERE PEOPLE GIVEN A LIST TO CHOOSE FROM???

MrJoeSoap

Kingsize wrote:

ALANIS MORRISETTE IN THE TOP 20????
FFS!!

I actually quite like that album.

When will people realise these lists are made up by votes, not by what everyone expects YOU to like.

I only caught the top 30, so I missed out on my personal favourite at number 61.

PS - Top 100 Kids TV Shows next Sunday!

John

Saint Something wrote:

are we supposed to really believe that more people voted for OK COMPUTER, then voted for Then Bends???

Well yes because the Bends isn't all that great, for all the hero worship that Radiohead get it's not deserved for the first two albums. The Bends is a good album but not deserving of anywhere in a top 100 albums of all time. And Pablo Honey is excrement.

I can't see why you all get worked up over these lists, they are just a list of favourites of a group of people who watch channel 4, listen to music and could be bothered taking the time to vote on a stupid poll. Hardly a representative sample of the population. In any case, just because you rate an album higher it doesn't mean everyone does.

Velvet Vocals

John2 wrote:

I can't see why you all get worked up over these lists, they are just a list of favourites of a group of people who watch channel 4, listen to music and could be bothered taking the time to vote on a stupid poll.

a) These polls are supposed to provoke discussion aren't they?
b) I personally get "worked up" about these lists, because it astounds me that the general public regard such bad music so highly
c) Surely people take the time to vote because the care and are engaged in music, which leads me back to point b.

BuffyBot

it astounds me that the general public regard such bad music so highly

What makes "bad" music? Your dislike of it?

RuggieBear

Saint Something wrote:

a)
b) I personally get "worked up" about these lists, because it astounds me that the general public regard such bad music so highly

Look at the charts FFS!!!

Velvet Vocals

BuffyBot wrote:

What makes "bad" music? Your dislike of it?

Well yea... but that's just for me. In general what makes bad music, is lack of appreciation, lack of knowledge of the art that you are producing, a serious lack of talent and people who are just not good at what they are doing.... and I see all of that in the likes of Oasis and The Verve.
I only went on about Radiohead because while I don't but then in the same boat of badness as Oasis or The verve, I certainly don't put them in the same boat of greatness as The Beatles or Led Zeppelin or Queen or Joni Mitchell or Miles Davis or John Coltraine or Stevie Wonder or anyone else that should have been in that top slot instead of them.

RuggieBear wrote:

Look at the charts FFS!!!

That's the thing, I try to avoid looking at the charts at all costs. But sure, they are no real indicator of what the public like. Sure it's the promoters that influences the charts isn't it!

RuggieBear

Saint Something wrote:

That's the thing, I try to avoid looking at the charts at all costs. But sure, they are no real indicator of what the public like. Sure it's the promoters that influences the charts isn't it!

actually you are probably right

Velvet Vocals

RuggieBear wrote:

actually you are probably right

Well I don't know, I can only say what I think, and what I think is that if you look at the likes of Simon Cowel or Pete Waterman or Louis Walsh and similar types of guys, they are out for one thing and one thing only.... $MONEY$

Now, don't get me wrong, I like a bit of money, I could do with some my self, and if I could figure out a way to make some I'd be out there doing it, but there really does seem to be real exploitation of sound going on. What I mean by that is, there is no real feeling going into what is being produced, as long as it follows the formula - bass beat + big wet lips = teenagers buying CD's
As a result, young people are not being exposed to good music early on in life (Good not just defined by me liking it) I find that really annoying!!

BuffyBot

Well yea... but that's just for me. In general what makes bad music, is lack of appreciation, lack of knowledge of the art that you are producing, a serious lack of talent and people who are just not good at what they are doing.... and I see all of that in the likes of Oasis and The Verve.

Most of that is subjective though, so therefore you can say it's bad in your opionion, but the validity of that opinion is questionable!

Abdiel

I remember discussing this in a pub last time I saw a top 100 albums and eventually came to he conclusion that it was intended to spark debate as much as anything else - if that's the case then looks like they succeeded.

I do agree with all the posts about some of the entries in the top 10.

What I consider as bad music btw - is "music" that's not created for the purpose of creating music but simply as something that can be mass marketed to the gullable. I've noticed a lot of cover versions lately that are almost identical to the original - what's the point of that ? At least with say Scissor Sister's version of "Comfortably Numb" it was a different interpretation of the original, seems like too many cover versions these days amount to glorified Karaoke.

It is a matter of personal opinion ultimately though - take Syd Barrett's "Madcap Laughs" - to some it would be just drivel, maybe a step above stuff like "Star Trekkin" by the Firm, while others would see it as a living record of the mental decline of a great singer\songwriter

As for Boy\Girl bands - well I still dont think it takes 5 people to sing a song no matter how good they dance.

Velvet Vocals

Abdiel wrote:

What I consider as bad music btw - is "music" that's not created for the purpose of creating music but simply as something that can be mass marketed to the gullable. I've noticed a lot of cover versions lately that are almost identical to the original - what's the point of that ? At least with say Scissor Sister's version of "Comfortably Numb" it was a different interpretation of the original, seems like too many cover versions these days amount to glorified Karaoke.

As for Boy\Girl bands - well I still dont think it takes 5 people to sing a song no matter how good they dance.

WELL SAID!!!!

voxpop

As for Boy\Girl bands - well I still dont think it takes 5 people to sing a song no matter how good they dance.

the beatles were a boy band

Velvet Vocals

BuffyBot wrote:

Most of that is subjective though, so therefore you can say it's bad in your opionion, but the validity of that opinion is questionable!

Saint Something wrote:

what makes bad music is lack of appreciation, lack of knowledge of the art that you are producing, a serious lack of talent

I can have the opinion that the artist is lacking these things. But can it also be fact? What would make it fact.... would it be someone that you consider to be more knowable then I saying it, or what about a group of people saying it... what if it was widely said that Oasis were talentless and uninteresting but you disagreed with everyone? Would it be fact then?
The point I'm trying to make is, isn't it always subjective? and therefore my opinion is a valid one

Velvet Vocals

Angry_Penguin wrote:

the beatles were a boy band

Yea, but they never danced around with their waxed chest's showing.... at least I hope not

Wertz

Just to illustrate the complete ignorance of those polled in this list (where would C4 be without 'em?) they voted the Streets' second album in at 80-ish(?)...
I mean you may love or hate Mike Skinner, but FFS the 2nd album wasn't a patch on the debut; any true fan would know that...jaysus, anyone with a pair of ears would know that.

This is one example of many in the list where a populist streak showed straight through the apparent cool that the list tried to exude.

To me it looked like the whole sorry mess was copy/pasted from the bestseller's list at Amazon.
I really don't like Radiohead, but even if I did I'd be wondering how in the hell they got in the top5 let alone to no. 1 :rolleyes:

byte

Angry_Penguin wrote:

the beatles were a boy band

Except they had songwriting skills...

zAbbo

Just like McFly

Sangre

Why would anyone have a problem with Thriller being in the top 10, my god its only the best selling album in the world.
Secondly, why are people listing better artists? Its top 100 albums, not acts.
Don't see how you can badmouth Oasis, while I don't really like them they captured an age and had a legion of fans.

dead air

When I went to vote in this, I found a a grand total of 125 albums to choose from. So it seems that channel 4 already made the program before they started to count the votes.

Here's the list to choose from:
http://www.channel4.com/entertainment/tv/microsites/G/greatest/albums/vote.html

The Results:
http://www.channel4.com/entertainment/tv/microsites/G/greatest/albums/results.html

John

Anyone who thinks that C4 put this show together to just spark some pub debates is a tad naive, these poll shows are cheap to make and pull a lot of viewers which equals profit.

Velvet Vocals

Sangre wrote:

Don't see how you can badmouth Oasis, while I don't really like them they captured an age and had a legion of fans.

Ok, they captured a time, they have fans.... they still suck donkeys and deserve to be bad-mouthed for a long time to come. I'd go so far as to say that they deserve to be stoned (with actual stones) for subjecting us to their filth

zAbbo

Def Maybe even to this day is still one of the best Albums, as well as being one of the best debut albums of all time.

And im not a huge fan, but credit where its due

RE*AC*TOR

@Saint Something : OK Computer is far far superior to the Bends - in my opinion its Radioheads best and a work of near perfection.

As for the list as a whole - it isn't bad considering it was supposedly voted for by the British public. Glad to see, Neil Young, Bob Dylan, Jeff Buckley, Bruce Springsteen all got a mention. Also very happy with Public Enemy getting their due.

Unhappy to see Oasis and the Verve placed so highly. But I'll leave that discussion for the Oasis fanboys (above).

Anyway - mor eto the point does anybody know any obvious ommissions? By obvious, I mean the album would have to be relatively mainstream to be known by a large proportion of the Britsh public. I thought Straight Outta Compton might've been worthy, ditto Back In Black, and no Leonard Cohen?? Surely Songs From A Room was one of the defintive albums to own in the late 60s.

quarryman

i also think this list is shlt.

i've never seen like a prayer in nay other top 100 list.

a night at the opera can only be there for one song.

urban hyms at 18? maybe reverse those digits.

Bjork shouldn't be in the top 1000 imo.

Rio in the top 30?!!

Rumours struggles to make it to 62. its a top 10 album easily.

The streets? gah!

actually there's lot of 80's tripe there.

check this. its a list compiled from 45 other top album lists. much more indicative of true greats.

Benedict XVI

Back in 1997 when Ok Computer was released Q magazine stated that it was 'the best album in the universe ever', it's good to see that things have not changed and it's also good to see a great album (IMO) getting place at the top, ahead of such populist s**t as U2.
I heard that ass Tony Fenton on the radio on Monday mention 'I'm surprised the Joshua Tree was not above Radiohead in this poll'....well hard luck Tony, good to see the British public have alot more taste than you

rubadub

dead air wrote:

I found a a grand total of 125 albums to choose from. So it seems that channel 4 already made the program before they started to count the votes.

I was watching it and getting confused thinking they were only allowed one album per band or something. Then I saw the stones had 2 albums. Still didn't make sense that exile and let is bleed would be there and not beggars banquet too. Same goes for the pixies. This selection list explains the weird results.
People are pretty sick of seeing sgt pepper/revolver etc as being no.1 on many of these charts, so many would vote for something a bit different. Or they may think and album is pretty good but think nobody else would vote for it, so give it a high rating.

Dido ahead by a mile of Kate Bush says it all really. Will people really be buying that dido album in 20-40 years time?

Music magazines have "best album ever" headlines very frequently, it sells copies.

If oasis had stayed away from the media they would have sold more albums, many hate them solely for the fact they are a bunch of tossers

Creature

Saint Something wrote:

Ok, they captured a time, they have fans.... they still suck donkeys and deserve to be bad-mouthed for a long time to come. I'd go so far as to say that they deserve to be stoned (with actual stones) for subjecting us to their filth

Yes they suck....in your opinion. That's not necessarily everyone elses opinion. Get it now?


The sooner everyone realises these things are completely subjective and that everyone has different tastes and opinions the sooner we can come to the understanding that these Top 100 polls mean nothing and are mearly a source of information regarding artists opinions about their and other's work. I mean before watching that I was unaware that Michael Stipe put all the "yeah yeah yeah yeah"s in Man On The Moon in response to Kurt Cobain. Well, you learn soemthing new every day.

sleepwalker

wouldnt agree with alot of the list

BUT

thank sweet god for a top 100 that doesnt have The Beach Boys or The Beatles at number one for a change

ok computer is consistently rated better than the bends in any magazine, tv or internet review i have ever seen so why your finding that strange doesnt make any sense to any of us. its also constantly lauded as the best album of the 90s so of course its gonna be up there somewhere.

Velvet Vocals

Creature wrote:

Yes they suck....in your opinion. That's not necessarily everyone elses opinion. Get it now?


The sooner everyone realises these things are completely subjective and that everyone has different tastes and opinions the sooner we can come to the understanding that these Top 100 polls mean nothing and are mearly a source of information regarding artists opinions about their and other's work. I mean before watching that I was unaware that Michael Stipe put all the "yeah yeah yeah yeah"s in Man On The Moon in response to Kurt Cobain. Well, you learn soemthing new every day.

It is MY opinion, but boards being boards I decided to share it with others.... it's kinda the point. Get it now?