The best ever albums

[yovargas]

This site lists "the overall rankings for the best albums in history as determined by their aggregate positions in over 1,800 different greatest album charts":

http://www.besteveralbums.com/overall.php

Here's their top 20 all-time (they also break it down by decade, which has some fascinating results IMO):


1. Radiohead OK Computer (1997)
2. The Beatles Revolver (1966)
3. Pink Floyd The Dark Side of the Moon (1973)
4. The Beatles Sgt Pepper's Lonely Hearts... (1967)
5. The Beatles Abbey Road (1969)
6. The Beatles White Album (1968)
7. Led Zeppelin Led Zeppelin IV (1971)
8. The Clash London Calling (1979)
9. Nirvana Nevermind (1991)
10. The Velvet Underground The Velvet Underground And Nico (1967)
11. The Beach Boys Pet Sounds (1966)
12. Radiohead The Bends (1995)
13. Radiohead Kid A (2000)
14. Bob Dylan Highway 61 Revisited (1965)
15. Arcade Fire Funeral (2004)
16. Pink Floyd Wish You Were Here (1975)
17. Radiohead In Rainbows (2007)
18. U2 The Joshua Tree (1987)
19. The Beatles Rubber Soul (1965)
20. The Who Who's Next (1971)


Of special note to me: my beloved Radiohead have finally dethroned The Beatles perenial #1 spot on these lists.

[Holbytla]

The fact that Radiohead has 4 top spots on any list, is in my opinion cause for immediate dismissal. But that is the case with just about all lists imo, so....

[yovargas]

The fact that Radiohead having 4 top spots on the list is, in your opinion, cause for immediate dismissal is, in my opinion, cause for your immediate dismissal.

Seriously, though. Radiohead have come to be very arguably the best band to never have written Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band. That's right, folks, great music has happened since the 70s!

Plus, you can't argue against a list made by machines.

[Holbytla]

They don't belong on the same list with those other bands.
Good or bad makes no difference. The eras are too far stretched apart and it is rather like comparing Babe Ruth to Barry Bonds.
They played the same game, but not really.

I'm going to make a definitive list one of these days, and all will swear by it or perish.

And there will be little allowance for bands beyond the 70's (barring maybe Green Day) as music pretty much ceased to exist beyond 1979.
Whining copycats and wannabeeeeeees.

[yovargas]

The eras are too far stretched apart and it is rather like comparing Babe Ruth to Barry Bonds.

I'd say it's more like "comparing" Monet vs Picasso. I don't have a problem with that.

Whining copycats and wannabeeeeeees.

Whatever you say, grandpa. I'll try not to play my scary new music too loud for you.

[axordil]

That's a very strange list, about a third no-brainers, a third serious outliers, and the rest somewhere in between.

I think the methodology relies too heavily on the "50 million Frenchman can't be wrong" fallacy. Nothing from the Stones? The overrated LZ IV instead of LZ III?

You can get some telling results by twiddling with the settings. The maximum number of albums allowed by a single artist on charts used to compile the list makes a big difference. Set it to 3, and OK Computer is number one. But set it to 4 or 5, and Nevermind is on top. Set it to any number higher than 6 and Revolver beats them both. Conclusion: a lot of people have 6 or more Beatles albums on their best album lists.

*ponders*

That would probably be the four listed in the original post plus A Hard Day's Night and With the Beatles.

I'm not sure how they got that "overall" result. If I use their defaults I get Revolver...so they made some statistical decisions.

[Alatar]

A Night at the Opera doesn't even break the top 50? I call shenanigans!

[yovargas]

That's a very strange list, about a third no-brainers, a third serious outliers, and the rest somewhere in between.

Like what? Aside from a band finally managing to get enough critical steam to compete with your standard "A bunch of artists whose careers started in the 60s" heavy-hitters, nothing on that list surprised me.

Interesting about the settings options, though.


Al, A Night at the Opera is well regarded but it's not that well regarded, which is what this list is really about. It's only #14 on the 70s list so it's not surprising it drops low on the all-time list. (If Queen's career had started in the 60s, I'm sure it would be higher. )

[axordil]

I would call the Beatles big four, Nevermind, Dark Side of the Moon, London Calling and Who's Next no-brainers. I'll even grant you OK Computer based on the numbers.

I guess that's more than a third, but not quite half. Anyway, Wish you Were Here was great for having sex to in the 70s but not otherwise that memorable. Bob Dylan may or may not belong on a Rock Album list...I'll have to think about that. LZ IV has some great songs on it, but as I noted, isn't as good as LV III and shows the beginning of Arena Bloat. And I couldn't pick Arcade Fire out of a lineup, so screw'em.

The others, including the rest of Radiohead's offering, are somewhere in between. Velvet Underground was a critical darling, but never broke out, for example. Pet Sounds was important primarily because it made Paul McCartney want to make Sgt. Pepper's (and drove Brian Wilson insane).

[yovargas]

Well, this being a compilation of most well-regarded albums and not any particular individual's/group's "best of" I'd be pretty stunned if LZ IV, Pet Sounds, and something from Dylan weren't in the top 20. And it's not a "rock" list (technically) - there's some jazz and whatnot further down the list.

And Wish you Were Here is my favorite Floyd album so yay.
And Arcade Fire's was spectacular so yay.

[axordil]

I promise to give Arcade Fire a listen. Worst that happens is I have to delete the Pandora station later.


ETA: Fourth song on the Arcade Fire/Radiohead station I built: For No One, from Revolver.

[yovargas]

[Holbytla]

I'm sorry I just can't find much credibility in this list.

For instance:

Elton John is ranked number 107 in the overall band rankings with a total rank score of 4,222.

The best album by Elton John is Goodbye Yellow Brick Road which is ranked number 181 in the overall greatest album chart with a total rank score of 2,346.

If that album can't at least crack the top 100, then something is wrong.

This one just makes me laugh:

Bob Seger is ranked number 907 in the overall band rankings with a total rank score of 219.

The best album by Bob Seger is Night Moves which is ranked number 2,199 in the overall greatest album chart with a total rank score of 122.

[N.E. Brigand]

In the list of 20 above, the leaders are The Beatles with five albums and Radiohead with four albums. The Beatles had twenty singles reach #1 on the U.S. pop charts; Radiohead has had none. What does that mean? Does Radiohead's music not lend itself to being heard as individual songs? Does the band not release its songs as singles? Has the music industry somehow prevented Radiohead from making songs known to the public? (And why would they do that?) Or does the public just not like their songs? (And why not?)

[vison]

These lists are meant to show that the guy making the list has much better taste than the fools who buy enough albums to send that album to Number One for 18 weeks in a row. IF you had better taste, you'd know that!

[axordil]

In the list of 20 above, the leaders are The Beatles with five albums and Radiohead with four albums. The Beatles had twenty singles reach #1 on the U.S. pop charts; Radiohead has had none. What does that mean? Does Radiohead's music not lend itself to being heard as individual songs? Does the band not release its songs as singles? Has the music industry somehow prevented Radiohead from making songs known to the public? (And why would they do that?) Or does the public just not like their songs? (And why not?)

One thing I have seen observed--here, among other places--is that, for much of The Beatles' career, what was obviously the most popular group in pop music was also arguably the best. That hasn't happened since.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

Any thoughts about why that is?

[tinwë]

I would guess that it is due in part to the diversification and fragmentation of popular music. There is no longer a homogeneous and monolithic form of "pop" music. There is, instead, a countless number a sub-genres that compete for space at the top of the charts. So, Eminem may be the most popular rap musician today, but that doesn't make him the best musician. The Toasted Fairy Clocks may be the best Emo-Techno-Dance-Sub-Pop-Who-Play-Their-Instruments-Underwater band, but that doesn't make them ... you know.

As for this list, it seems to be more of a "critics choice" sort of thing, which only goes to show how wrong critics can be.

[Holbytla]

In the list of 20 above, the leaders are The Beatles with five albums and Radiohead with four albums. The Beatles had twenty singles reach #1 on the U.S. pop charts; Radiohead has had none. What does that mean? Does Radiohead's music not lend itself to being heard as individual songs? Does the band not release its songs as singles? Has the music industry somehow prevented Radiohead from making songs known to the public? (And why would they do that?) Or does the public just not like their songs? (And why not?)

To be fair, the industry has changed significantly since the Beatles had their heyday. Back in the day, 45's ruled and hit singles were a benchmark. Later on, albums became more of a benchmark and the single all but disappeared.
Radio play in both formats had a large impact on sales.

Today, there are a myriad of ways to listen to music. Downloads, cd's etc.
People are fed music in different ways and the impact of that is reflected in a number of ways including sales and chart listings.

Music has evolved quite a bit since the early days of rock, and there are a number of hybrid sounds out there and I think more variety. Some strains have come and gone, but there are still a good amount of sounds out there. More choices mean a more diluted rating.

Still to compare anyone to the uniqueness of the Beatles is unfair. They and the hysteria that surrounded them were a one in a billion thing. They managed to alter the course of pop music while maintaining a popularity that spread across a large section of the populace. Radiohead has I think a narrower following in that they generally don't crossover as well.

edit:crossposted with Tinwë who said what I said essentially, only more concise.

[yovargas]

These lists are meant to show that the guy making the list has much better taste than the fools who buy enough albums to send that album to Number One for 18 weeks in a row.

To be fair, the only reason I posted this list is because it is unique in not being just some guy(s)'s opinion and why their taste is better then yours (or Holby's ). It's an accumulation of the opinions of many hundreds of such lists. It is the closest thing I can think of to an objective way to gauge how much any particular album is respected. If your album of choice doesn't make it very high, I don't see any way around arguing that it's just not as respected as you thought/want.


Oh, and I primarily blame MTV for the eventual suckification of popular music. When your image became more important then your music, the music eventually suffered. Video killed the radio star.

And then in the last 5-10 years, the internet has fragmented music tastes to the point where there is too little common ground. (Similar to the effect of having 500 TV channels instead of 4.) But it has also made the music more interesting if you're willing to look for it (again not unlike TV).