I hate it when jazz is used like this - to make a list look cooler because it includes jazz. So, ya' know, the creators of said list are totally hip because they listen to "jazz" and they listen to Coltrane (but only the early stuff, before he got clean) and Art Blakey - oh, and did you know Herbie Hancock didn't just do Rockit and provide a bunch of samples for hip hop?
I don't know - I like the inclusion of Television, Gang of Four, Pavement and The Modern Lovers - but there's little on here that strikes me as inspired. There's a weird hipster vibe that I am not too keen on, I guess.
I think violence is always justified some of the time.
While they do spend a good deal of time explaining their eligibility criteria, they're kind of vague about what their ranking criteria are (i.e. how much weight to quality, impact, success, etc.). My list isn't supposed to be about quality or how much I like it at all; it's strictly success, impact, and influence. Also, jazz wasn't eligible for my list.
Given that their list encompasses jazz and pop as well as rock, I have to wonder why there is so much recent stuff on their list. (OK, I'm guessing I don't really have to wonder--it's because there's more sales possibility there and the labels want the newer stuff on it.) How in the world can you leave out the Byrds' first album? Where's the first Beatles album--not as important as some of the later ones, but still pretty big. I think Chicago, Traffic, and Joe Jackson's debuts stack up pretty well in importance next to those of D'Angelo, Lee Ann Womack (country also wasn't eligible for my list) and Fleet Foxes, myself.
I would (and did) put Jimi Hendrix, Pearl Jam, and Run-DMC a lot higher than they have them. OTOH, I'm going to consider Kanye West and Jay-Z for spots on my list when I revise, and I'd be interested in people's comments on that (or anything else about my list).
I should point out that a few things on their list were deemed in eligible for the one I edit. REM and Coldplay, for example, had more-than-EPs out before their albums listed here (more than four songs) which we judged to be their true debuts. Bob Marley had several albums out in Jamaica before Catch A Fire, so I didn't consider it his debut, and I didn't count things like the Lauryn Hill album where the performer was already well-known. (You could make a real case for Crosby Stills & Nash or even the Traveling Wilburys under their rules.)
Originally posted by Peter The HegemonI would (and did) put Jimi Hendrix, Pearl Jam, and Run-DMC a lot higher than they have them. OTOH, I'm going to consider Kanye West and Jay-Z for spots on my list when I revise, and I'd be interested in people's comments on that (or anything else about my list).
I love Arcade Fire. Like, LOVE them. I proposed to my fiance during their concert. We're getting married in June. We plan to play a song off of that album at the wedding. It's one of my favorite albums of all time. But, to say it's in the top ten historically is bunk. I mean, it's amazing, beautiful, and all of that, but in the grand scheme of things, it's not as historically important as Appetite for Destruction, Ten, or The Who Sings My Generation.
It makes me feel guilty and ashamed that they ranked it that high. It's weird :)
Joseph, Bjork's solo debut wouldn't be eligible for my list because she was already prominent as lead singer of the Sugarcubes. It would have to be Life's Too Good, which certainly has some importance, but I don't that it really qualifies by my list's criteria.
Previously mentioned debuts I ditto: Joe Jackson Traffic Nine Inch Nails Public Enemy (well, mentioned on Peter's list)
Actually, I wonder if Public Enemy and NIN didn't make it because you can't buy it at AmazonMP3. Heaven forbid their "editors" select something they're not selling!
I do like "Licensed to Ill" a LOT, but it's so different from the rest of the Beastie Boys ouvre...
Joseph, you're not Sean Shannon, are you?
YES, I totally blanked on DJ Shadow's Endtroducing, despite it being one of my favorites of all time and the closest I think I've heard to a "flawless" album. I keep forgetting that was his debut. Should definitely be there for quality and impact, if not for "success."
I hadn't noticed that but I bet that truly is why NIN is nowhere to be found.
No, I'm not Sean Shannon. Big Bjork fan, I presume?
ETA: Peter, gotcha, that makes sense. I totally missed that rule of yours.
Originally posted by OlFuzzyBastard"Boy" at #1 is patently absurd and renders the entire list useless.
I love U2 and think Boy is a great album, but you're right, it's definitely not the best debut of all time.
Skinner: Well, I was wrong. The lizards are a godsend.
Lisa: But isn't that a bit short-sighted? What happens when we're overrun by lizards?
Skinner: No problem. We simply release wave after wave of Chinese needle snakes. They'll wipe out the lizards.
Lisa: But aren't the snakes even worse?
Skinner: Yes, but we're prepared for that. We've lined up a fabulous type of gorilla that thrives on snake meat.
Lisa: But then we're stuck with gorillas!
Skinner: No, that's the beautiful part. When wintertime rolls around, the gorillas simply freeze to death!
As far as influential albums go, I'd put Korn by Korn on that list, if for no reason that that album was what put nu-metal on the map, for better or worse. It may not have aged particularly well, but you have to respect the fact that no-one else sounded like them at the time and they influenced a LOT of bands. Honourable mention to Adrenaline by Deftones.
Also, Burn My Eyes by Machine Head, but that's just because that album is awesome.
Insert witty and/or amusing saying or phrase here.
Has there ever been a song on your top or bottom 40 that's stuck at #1 for as long as "Ohio is for Lovers"? I can't stand the song either, and i've noticed it's been in that top spot for awhile. just curious. :)