100 greatest albums of the 80's according to pitchfork - Page 3

khchris(original) · 04.15.2006, 06:37 AM

Retarded list.

John Zorn crack the top 50 with NAKED CITY???

I loved it, but refuse to put that one up there. No way can an album of mostly covers be so way up there. Not sure what Pitchfork were thinking.

Oh yeah, I forgot. Didn't Pitchfork give NYG&F a 1 out of 10??

I have to keep this in mind while the subject of Pitchfork Media comes up.

truncated · 04.15.2006, 09:02 AM

Two albums' placement that I would disagree vehemently with:

Appetite for Destruction at 59 - one must admit, objectively one of the greatest albums of all time
Computer World at 44 - deserved to up a few notches higher; where, I haven't decided yet, it's early

A few of the rest are debatable to a degree. I concur with T&B - two Pixies in the top ten? Pffft.

I hate Leonard Cohen. HATE him. Just had to share that.

Savage Clone · 04.15.2006, 09:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by truncated

Two albums' placement that I would disagree vehemently with:

Appetite for Destruction at 59 - one must admit, objectively one of the greatest albums of all time

-For me to poop on.

truncated · 04.15.2006, 09:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Savage Clone

-For me to poop on.

I like you; don't make me hurt you.

I don't want to stroke Axl's cock or anything either, but you have to admit, that album in its entirety is so flawlessly done, whether you like GnR or not, you have to give them their props.

Savage Clone · 04.15.2006, 09:13 AM

I hated it then and I hate it still.
It always mystified me that so many basically cool people liked this idiot-mullet L.A. crap rock.
I'm sorry; I like a lot of "stupid" rock music, but this stuff is just too far over the edge into spandex town.
I will cut you some slack because you were in diaper school when this LP came out; I remember it as a teenager, and I remember hating it. A lot.

There are a lot of "flawlessly done" albums with crappy songs, derivative playing and unlistenable vocals. It doesn't make them any better.

khchris(original) · 04.15.2006, 09:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by truncated

Two albums' placement that I would disagree vehemently with:

Appetite for Destruction at 59 - one must admit, objectively one of the greatest albums of all time
Computer World at 44 - deserved to up a few notches higher; where, I haven't decided yet, it's early

A few of the rest are debatable to a degree. I concur with T&B - two Pixies in the top ten? Pffft.

I hate Leonard Cohen. HATE him. Just had to share that.

LOL!

Yeah, if you were in highschool and spent your lonely Saturday nights watching Headbangers Ball!

truncated · 04.15.2006, 09:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Savage Clone

I hated it then and I hate it still.
It always mystified me that so many basically cool people liked this idiot-mullet L.A. crap rock.
I'm sorry; I like a lot of "stupid" rock music, but this stuff is just too far over the edge into spandex town.
I will cut you some slack because you were in diaper school when this LP came out; I remember it as a teenager, and I remember hating it. A lot.

There are a lot of "flawlessly done" albums with crappy songs, derivative playing and unlistenable vocals. It doesn't make them any better.

That's just it, I don't like GnR. It's only my opinion, but in spite of disliking them, I think that for their 'genre' (I'm really growing to hate that term), they made an exceptional album.

That was part of their appeal as well - their complete absurdity. You're right, they were over the top, but they knew it, and played it up for all it was worth.

Savage Clone · 04.15.2006, 09:36 AM

They were "over the top" for radio rock, but when you consider what Metallica and Slayer were doing, they still come off as pansies who didn't "push" much of anything. Bar rock.

h8kurdt · 04.15.2006, 09:37 AM

[quote=Savage Clone]I hated it then and I hate it still.
It always mystified me that so many basically cool people liked this idiot-mullet L.A. crap rock.
I'm sorry; I like a lot of "stupid" rock music, but this stuff is just too far over the edge into spandex town.
quote]

The album has such an intensity about it. You could tell they were pissed off about something. To compare it to all the 80's crap in L.A is foolish. Guns and Roses like Motley Crue and Cinderella? No. Lyrically and musically they're different they just so happened to be from L.A in the 80s.

Savage Clone · 04.15.2006, 09:43 AM

It has that L.A. rock guitar sound and tone.
It appeals in many ways to the lowest common denominator.
Lyrically, they are EASILY as stupid as anything else on 80s rock radio was at the time.
I'm sorry, but I hated this stuff back then and I still cannot stand it. The fact that Axl sported a Manson t shirt and listened to a little bit of punk doesn't make their music any better to me.

Glice · 04.15.2006, 09:47 AM

Erasure are missing as well. Tsk tsk poll making people.

truncated · 04.15.2006, 10:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Savage Clone

They were "over the top" for radio rock, but when you consider what Metallica and Slayer were doing, they still come off as pansies who didn't "push" much of anything. Bar rock.

By "over the top," I don't mean hardcore or innovative - I mean theatrical and, to an extent, absurd. They were almost a grunged-up version of glam rock.

It's almost like Madonna's Immaculate Collection (though she was much more innovative than GnR) - I'm personally not a fan of Madonna, and sure, it was mainstream, fluffy pop, and a significant portion of its appeal lay in image, but in its entirety, that album was still undeniably well done for its genre.

Toilet & Bowels · 04.15.2006, 11:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by truncated

but in its entirety, that album was still undeniably well done for its genre.

but it's a thoroughly heinous genre, and even when done well it's still god awful. i mean, what's the difference between GnR & bon jovi?

and as for erasure...

truncated · 04.15.2006, 11:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toilet & Bowels

but it's a thoroughly heinous genre, and even when done well it's still god awful. i mean, what's the difference between GnR & bon jovi?

and as for erasure...

Well sure it is, but this is where objectivity comes in. I could wipe my ass with a Thomas Kincade painting, but I also can't deny the guy's got skill.

Toilet & Bowels · 04.15.2006, 11:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by truncated

Well sure it is, but this is where objectivity comes in. I could wipe my ass with a Thomas Kincade painting, but I also can't deny the guy's got skill.

that line of approach is going to end up in malmsteen territory, and nobody needs to go there

SpectralJulianIsNotDead · 04.15.2006, 11:47 AM

What is with all the Bowie and Prince hate? They are geniouses. Purple Rain was a great album. Scary Monsters wasn't an amazing Bowie album, but still a pretty damn good one. Maybe if he stayed with Eno it would have been better and that godawful song Ashes to Ashes wouldn't be on it.

SpectralJulianIsNotDead · 04.15.2006, 11:54 AM

Pitchfork's list of best bands from the 70's is worse. Including Low, Aladdin Sane, Ziggy Stardust, and Hunky Dory in their top 100, but leaving out Bowies best 3 albums ever- Diamond Dogs, Station to Station, and Lodger. Fricking morons there Pitchfork people are.

Glice · 04.15.2006, 12:27 PM

And as for Erasure what? They produced some of the best gay anthems of the 80's. Fuck Frankie, these guys were the real deal. And they were there with the first wave of house. And they produced electronica as a side-line that stands next to Coil and the like whilst still maintaining a hegemony over decent gay pop in the charts.

Ahem. I enjoy Malmsteen, but would never say he was good. I have a wilful perversity which allows me to enjoy the very worst indulgences. It's ok, God has forgiven me, and you should too.

Toilet & Bowels · 04.15.2006, 12:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Glice

And as for Erasure what? They produced some of the best gay anthems of the 80's. Fuck Frankie, these guys were the real deal. And they were there with the first wave of house. And they produced electronica as a side-line that stands next to Coil and the like whilst still maintaining a hegemony over decent gay pop in the charts.

Ahem. I enjoy Malmsteen, but would never say he was good. I have a wilful perversity which allows me to enjoy the very worst indulgences. It's ok, God has forgiven me, and you should too.

well i always think that people pull out that "gay pop" arguement as some kind of PC validation for liking pure cheese, i don't give a damn whether they fucked men or women. and as for the house thing i'd much rather listen to cybotron or mr fingers than erasure and the petshop boys, or new order for that matter.

Savage Clone · 04.15.2006, 01:21 PM

For giving voice to gay consciousness in the 80s, Bronksi Beat had it all over Erasure anyway.

04.15.2006, 06:37 AM	#41
khchris(original) 100% Join Date: Mar 2006 Location: LA Posts: 708	Retarded list. John Zorn crack the top 50 with NAKED CITY??? I loved it, but refuse to put that one up there. No way can an album of mostly covers be so way up there. Not sure what Pitchfork were thinking. Oh yeah, I forgot. Didn't Pitchfork give NYG&F a 1 out of 10?? I have to keep this in mind while the subject of Pitchfork Media comes up.
	\|QUOTE AND REPLY\|

04.15.2006, 09:02 AM	#42
truncated invito al cielo Join Date: Mar 2006 Posts: 3,607	Two albums' placement that I would disagree vehemently with: Appetite for Destruction at 59 - one must admit, objectively one of the greatest albums of all time Computer World at 44 - deserved to up a few notches higher; where, I haven't decided yet, it's early A few of the rest are debatable to a degree. I concur with T&B - two Pixies in the top ten? Pffft. I hate Leonard Cohen. HATE him. Just had to share that.
	\|QUOTE AND REPLY\|

04.15.2006, 09:13 AM	#45
Savage Clone invito al cielo Join Date: Mar 2006 Posts: 11,290	I hated it then and I hate it still. It always mystified me that so many basically cool people liked this idiot-mullet L.A. crap rock. I'm sorry; I like a lot of "stupid" rock music, but this stuff is just too far over the edge into spandex town. I will cut you some slack because you were in diaper school when this LP came out; I remember it as a teenager, and I remember hating it. A lot. There are a lot of "flawlessly done" albums with crappy songs, derivative playing and unlistenable vocals. It doesn't make them any better.
	\|QUOTE AND REPLY\|

04.15.2006, 09:36 AM	#48
Savage Clone invito al cielo Join Date: Mar 2006 Posts: 11,290	They were "over the top" for radio rock, but when you consider what Metallica and Slayer were doing, they still come off as pansies who didn't "push" much of anything. Bar rock.
	\|QUOTE AND REPLY\|

04.15.2006, 09:37 AM	#49
h8kurdt invito al cielo Join Date: Mar 2006 Location: In Mulder's Basement room Posts: 5,459	[quote=Savage Clone]I hated it then and I hate it still. It always mystified me that so many basically cool people liked this idiot-mullet L.A. crap rock. I'm sorry; I like a lot of "stupid" rock music, but this stuff is just too far over the edge into spandex town. quote] The album has such an intensity about it. You could tell they were pissed off about something. To compare it to all the 80's crap in L.A is foolish. Guns and Roses like Motley Crue and Cinderella? No. Lyrically and musically they're different they just so happened to be from L.A in the 80s. __________________ Down with this sort of thing.
	\|QUOTE AND REPLY\|

04.15.2006, 09:43 AM	#50
Savage Clone invito al cielo Join Date: Mar 2006 Posts: 11,290	It has that L.A. rock guitar sound and tone. It appeals in many ways to the lowest common denominator. Lyrically, they are EASILY as stupid as anything else on 80s rock radio was at the time. I'm sorry, but I hated this stuff back then and I still cannot stand it. The fact that Axl sported a Manson t shirt and listened to a little bit of punk doesn't make their music any better to me.
	\|QUOTE AND REPLY\|

04.15.2006, 11:47 AM	#56
SpectralJulianIsNotDead invito al cielo Join Date: Mar 2006 Posts: 7,409	What is with all the Bowie and Prince hate? They are geniouses. Purple Rain was a great album. Scary Monsters wasn't an amazing Bowie album, but still a pretty damn good one. Maybe if he stayed with Eno it would have been better and that godawful song Ashes to Ashes wouldn't be on it.
	\|QUOTE AND REPLY\|

04.15.2006, 11:54 AM	#57
SpectralJulianIsNotDead invito al cielo Join Date: Mar 2006 Posts: 7,409	Pitchfork's list of best bands from the 70's is worse. Including Low, Aladdin Sane, Ziggy Stardust, and Hunky Dory in their top 100, but leaving out Bowies best 3 albums ever- Diamond Dogs, Station to Station, and Lodger. Fricking morons there Pitchfork people are.
	\|QUOTE AND REPLY\|

04.15.2006, 01:21 PM	#60
Savage Clone invito al cielo Join Date: Mar 2006 Posts: 11,290	For giving voice to gay consciousness in the 80s, Bronksi Beat had it all over Erasure anyway.
	\|QUOTE AND REPLY\|