Rolling Stone 100 Greatest Albums of the 90s

[HolidayGuy]

^That's well and good, but considering all of the less-than-stellar stuff that sells by the truckload, doesn't say much about their musical worth. I like and own some stuff that I know aren't musical wonders- I just happen to enjoy them for what they are. Best-of/greatest features are still a great gauge to determine how an act is perceived (which is separate from whether I or anyone else personally enjoys something).

grandelf, a lot of times, people don't even look at the comments for a title in lists (for those that even supply any).

[singingrulebritannia]

Oct 31, 2010 1:36:57 GMT -5 grandelf said:

Oct 30, 2010 12:06:10 GMT -5 HolidayGuy said:

grandelf, RS is hardly irrelevant. Amidst those comments, the RS rating still was 4 stars (out of 5).

That's just one reason why I said that initial reviews really don't mean much- it's the year-end features, all-time features, etc. that hold more credence.

They couldn't even check their own initial review for the book to remember it was nearly the opposite of a 'You Can Dance'. That would be quite equal to irrelevance in my book.

What? Opinions change over time; it's not a 'slip-up'. Why is this difficult for you to understand?

[Deleted]

Oct 31, 2010 1:36:57 GMT -5 grandelf said:

Cases like this should be a proof nobody pays attention at critics and their lists in the internet era.

Yeah. Nobody on the internet ever pays attention to critical lists.

Oh. Wait.

[singingrulebritannia]

Oct 31, 2010 15:16:55 GMT -5 @backintime said:

Oct 31, 2010 1:36:57 GMT -5 grandelf said:

Cases like this should be a proof nobody pays attention at critics and their lists in the internet era.

Yeah. Nobody on the internet ever pays attention to critical lists.

Oh. Wait.

Yea, the hundreds of threads about Pitchfork list rage on pretty much every music board should be proof enough that critical lists are the easiest ways to create heated discussions about music and criticism in general.

[HolidayGuy]

^Exactly- lists like this will continue to get attention. And, in essence, that's the point- that, and to expose people to music they may not give a chance or have heard otherwise.

[jumpb4uthink]

Oct 31, 2010 16:01:51 GMT -5 HolidayGuy said:

^Exactly- lists like this will continue to get attention. And, in essence, that's the point- that, and to expose people to music they may not give a chance or have heard otherwise.

So true.

[$uperb@tDuDe]

They have janet. on the list and not The Velvet Rope, scandalous.

[blue in moonlight]

Oct 31, 2010 15:16:55 GMT -5 @backintime said:

Oct 31, 2010 1:36:57 GMT -5 grandelf said:

Cases like this should be a proof nobody pays attention at critics and their lists in the internet era.

Yeah. Nobody on the internet ever pays attention to critical lists.

Oh. Wait.

[Caviar]

Oct 31, 2010 6:07:19 GMT -5 #LisaRinna said:

Oct 30, 2010 11:49:56 GMT -5 Caviar said:

I'm suprised no one is surprised Aaliyah made the list. She was considered an Urban stable during 1996 but that album was definitely one of the best R&B albums of the 90s. That album alone put Timbaland/Missy on the map.

That is why we're not surprised ;)

;)

[Ke$ha's Left Tittie]

Oct 31, 2010 16:01:51 GMT -5 HolidayGuy said:

^Exactly- lists like this will continue to get attention. And, in essence, that's the point- that, and to expose people to music they may not give a chance or have heard otherwise.

On the contrary, I think the point of these lists is just to sell magazines or rack up webpage views for a respective magazine. It's all about selling ad space and the Top 100 concept is a great way of filling space in between ads.

True, plenty of crap does sell by the truckload but so does a lot of quality. At the end of the day, commercial success is the only thing that's truly reflective of what the majority of people think is good.

Pardon my pessimism but I think the majority music critics in particular are a rather cliquey bunch and usually follow the herd mentality of lauding and criticizing the same popular artists and albums. Their opinions are largely shaped around on what's considered hip and cool rather than providing an objective view of things. For example, Chris Brown's 2009 release Graffiti was completely slaughtered by the critics. I'm not a fan of his, however, I have a hard time believing the quality of his music plummeted that bad from his 2007 album Exclusive. Rather, since he was stll a media pariah when his album was released, the majority of music critics wrote him and his project off as a failure.

[HolidayGuy]

^Chris Brown was never THAT good- hate to break it to ya. :) It's not like he did smashingly well on year-end lists or those kinds of things.

Commercial success isn't necessarily reflective of what people think are good- I've bought albums and never listened to them again or rarely. I own albums that I don't think are that great, and I'm sure others share similar experiences.

Also, if an act puts out quality music consistently, then they are rightfully lauded. If there's a consensus that that act is pretty good, then they probably are. I may not be a big fan of an act that is very revered, but I respect that they are impressive artists, do things with their music that others don't, etc. etc.

[microcuts]

Oct 28, 2010 10:24:57 GMT -5 ListenToItTwice said:

No Tori Amos? Hmm....

yeah Little Earthquakes definitely should have been included.

[jumpb4uthink]

Glad to see REM on the list and Madonna's Ray of Light - to this day is amazingly hypnotic.

[Deleted]

Oct 31, 2010 6:46:19 GMT -5 Ke$ha's Left Tittie said:

At the end of the day, a critic is just a person in a privileged position of giving his/her opinion.

I'll take the commercial success of a project any day as a true barometer of it's success.

???