Yup, that's it, I've had enough. No more am I going to try and believe that albums from the 60s and 70s are superior to those produced in the next three decades.
And you know why, cod the average age of a RS journo (and for the purposes of the Top 500) was 64.3 years old! Actually I made that up but I reckon it must be close
But accordingy to this right wing of an exclusive rock'n'roll nursing home, the breakdown of it's 500 across the decades is as follows:
1950s and earlier – 29 albums (5.8%)
1960s – 126 (25.2%) (with 7 of the top 10)
1970s – 183 (36.6%) (with 3 of the top 10)
1980s – 88 (17.6%)
1990s – 61 (12.2%)
2000s – 13 (2.6%)
So 67% of the best albums of all time - that's 388 - were made before I was 4!
I'm not denying that there was good music from my infancy and before. Arguably one of the great albums of all time, Pet Sounds, was
released the year I was born (1966). I recently
listened to it again, and tried really hard and just managed to
achieve the suspended belief that I was hearing it for the first time and it is very very good. I reckon if it were released today it would still turn heads (or ears, or whatever). It's one for the ages...... ( but if you took away "God Only Knows"..........)
It appears there are those albums that are loved because it was a soundtrack to a special time in their lives, or those of signifiance because they "
really changed the world, Man" (eg. Dylan goes electric) and then there are those that are sumply great examples of music.
I want to ask
Kingsmill what he thinks are the greatest 500? And why? is he affected by life's current events when he reviews an album? Is he objective? Can he be objective? Can anyone be objective
about music? and if they could would anyone like them or care about their views anyway.
For more anti-RS reading check this summary from
WikipediaAnd if you can argue against it being
fogey-est, can you argue that it isn't US-centric? Maybe it;s the same as
their idea of World
Series baseball - where are the
Smiths, where is
Radiohead,
Sheessh!