100 Best Albums Of All Time
-
Beatles on there many times:
https://www.msn.com/en-us/music/gallery/100-best-albums-of-all-time/ss-AAvZb5M?li=BBnb7Kz
-
TWO Car albums, Huey Lewis and the News, Madonna, and no BAND ON THE RUN??? WTF!!!
-
Many questionable entries on that list (Huey Lewis & the News? Really?). And who puts Guns 'n' Roses (world's most overrated band) above the Beach Boys' masterpiece, Pet Sounds? That should be in the top 3.
And I'd definitely have Band on the Run and Ram on that list (at least). Didn't see much John on the list, maybe I missed them, but his first two albums should be there.
Pretty poor picture choices too (how about a photo of the actual Eagles?). However, I must admit I've got most of the records on that list!
-
I always find these lists interesting. This looks like one person's opinion and it was a little different than other lists I have seen. I don't take these things seriously for just this reason. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion.
The critic did have a slant to the "rock" genre although I could tell he kept "overall sales" in mind. It was definitely a "commercial list".
It was not surprising that the Beatles had their "normal" 5 greatest albums in the top 20 (actually 4 in the top 6). That is normal in practiically every top 100 list I have seen. What is surprising is 2 other groups that were "equally" as strong in the Top 20. The critic was obviously a big fan of Pink Floyd and Led Zeppelin. I can't argue with that because they were "great" and "inventive" artists. He also had artists like Bruce Springstein, Fleetwood Mac, Rollingstones, Eagles, Billy Joel rated highly (multiple listings in the Top 100) and I have no disagreement here as I generally like all of them too.
Since I'm not into "hard rock" I would not have had a group (albeit very successful) like Melallica on my list but that is just general "likes and dislikes" so I can't knock this list for exactly that reason. There were a couple of other hard rockers too that wouldn't make my list. My bias is more into the 60's and 70's so I'm not so into 80's artists like Guns and Roses and Meatloaf. The critic was apparently not into the "fok" side of popular music. How can a Top 100 list not have a Bob Dylan and Joni Mitchell album! And no Police or Genesis at all either. That was rather surprising too.
Also I'm a big fan of Soul and R&B and that is another genre that was totally missing....lack of Black artists. While the critic did have the obvious ones like Prince and Michael Jackson (with their big albums) where are great artists like Marvin Gaye, Sam Cooke, Nat King Cole, James Brown, Aretha Franklin, Etta James, Otis Redding etc.
Relative to the lack of Beatle Solo albums I wasn't surprise either. The only surprise to me was that the only Solo Beatle album listed was George Harrison's All Things Must Pass (very deserving btw). Normally John Lennon would be the "favored" Beatle especially with his tragic death. John didn't have one of his best solo albums on this list which was shocking. Solo Paul normally gets shutout on these lists so I wasn't surprised since many older critics tend to be biased against Paul. I think part of the problem is that the Beatles were so "big" and inventive that their Solo stuff gets totally overlooked. I couldn't believe that "Meet the Beatles" got on the list. To me that was more of a "sentimental" pick since that album was the Fabs first US album released.
Unfairly Paul's Post Beatles' Catalog gets put into the "light and soft" Pop category. But as a big time fan, I would have BOTR, Ram, Tug of War and Chaos on this list above many of this critic's selections including Meet the Beatles.
-
This list should be called the Best White Male Top 40 European/American Albums From 1964-2004, Especially 1969-1979 - And 1991, For Some Reason.
But I guess that title would be too long.
If it were top 10, it would be the Best Albums of All Time From 1966-1982.
