[MusicFirst]

Not one single Pink Floyd album on the list. LOL. I guess Floyd was completely irrelevant because no one bought the band's records...wait...

...Pink sounds just like every band of its time...wait...no...

I can't wait until CNET compiles the list of the best DACs in the world,
When Car & Driver lists the best computers ever made,
And when ESPN lists the best video games every created.

Maybe Illiterate TV Monthly will tell us the best 100 books of the last century;
surely their list would be less ludicrous than Random House's anyway ;P

 

[Aman]

Quote:

Originally Posted by MusicFirst /img/forum/go_quote.gif No one single Pink Floyd album on the list. LOL. I guess Floyd was completely irrelevant because no one bought the band's records...wait...

The 100 greatest albums from the present time to the 1950s? It's not unlikely that PF wouldn't make the list from anybody who really knew what he/she was talking about - and this Time list sucks!

 

[ywd]

****** list.
A bunch of the albums on there aren't half as good as DSoTM, Wish You Were Here, or any other of PF's better albums.
EDIT: Just noticed the lack of Doors.

Also, "Mos Def and Talib Kweli are Black Star" or "It takes a nation of millions to hold us back" Should have replaced Eminem and Kanye.

 

[hudsong]

DJ Shadow isn't rock or jazz... Neither is Kanye? (near the top of the list)
Why do you say this list is just rock and jazz?

 

[Coltrane]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Aman /img/forum/go_quote.gif The 100 greatest albums from the present time to the 1950s? It's not unlikely that PF wouldn't make the list from anybody who really knew what he/she was talking about

Actually, that would be supremely unlikely. You are in fact the only person I know that discounts their musical skills or their contributions to music. They are universally regarded as an essential band for a reason, and their is absolutely no doubt to their importance in the history of music.

 

[elrod-tom]

Revisiting this thread: I see I have 55 of the top 100 at this point, having owned a handful of others. I'd be interested in owning about 10 or so more of what's on the list, but that's it.

I think that they really screwed the pooch with the selections of the 2000 stuff. I think by definition, that stuff has to stand the test of time. If one were to look forward 20 years in time, see the answer to "Who is Kanye West"
as "uh...dunno".

As for the rest of the stuff, it's not a TERRIBLE list, but (like anything) I suspect that what's on the list has more to do with the personal likes and dislikes of the two goofs who wrote the article than anything.

BTW - Anyone know who these two guys are? Never heard of them. Who are they, I wonder, to make such a list??

 

[asmox]

Quote:

Originally Posted by elrod-tom /img/forum/go_quote.gif BTW - Anyone know who these two guys are? Never heard of them. Who are they, I wonder, to make such a list??

You don't have to be anybody special to make such a list. I could make a top 100 album list and plaster it all over every message board and blog site that I can find. It's going to mean as much as anybody else's because these lists are all opinionated to one extent or another... and most of the ones relayed via popular media (i.e. Time Magazine) are fashion shows with little objective significance, further lessening the need for "qualified" authors.

As for the list itself - I only own four of those albums, and I only really enjoy one of those four.

 

[Aman]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Coltrane /img/forum/go_quote.gif Actually, that would be supremely unlikely. You are in fact the only person I know that discounts their musical skills or their contributions to music. They are universally regarded as an essential band for a reason, and their is absolutely no doubt to their importance in the history of music.

As much as I enjoy Pink Floyd's releases, I cannot say that they make up the "most important" of the last 50 years. That's a LOT of music, and you have many important genres to account for within that time. I am going to be so bold as to suggest that the rock genre has not released the predominant amount of 'best albums' over the last 50 years.

 

[ken36]

I love it when Time tells me what to think.

 

[MusicFirst]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Coltrane /img/forum/go_quote.gif Actually, that would be supremely unlikely. You are in fact the only person I know that discounts their musical skills or their contributions to music. They are universally regarded as an essential band for a reason, and their is absolutely no doubt to their importance in the history of music.

Not to mention my post never even suggests that Pink is the most important musicians in the last century, only that the group should at least make one single entry on any informed person's top 100 list.

If Eminem is important to rap (and I actually agree that he is), then Pink isn't to '70s rock?

People shouldn't allow their biases to blind them so much. For instance, I don't like the Rolling Stones at all, but for me to deny that they are a vital band to rock history would be ignorant and foolish.

P.S. The only thing prior to 1960 that I like is classical.

 

[jilgiljongiljing]

wheres britney spears??? what nonsense. This list sucks.

 

[Aman]

Quote:

Originally Posted by MusicFirst /img/forum/go_quote.gif Not to mention my post never even suggests that Pink is the most important musicians in the last century, only that the group should at least make one single entry on any informed person's top 100 list. If Eminem is important to rap (and I actually agree that he is), then Pink isn't to '70s rock? People shouldn't allow their biases to blind them so much. For instance, I don't like the Rolling Stones at all, but for me to deny that they are a vital band to rock history would be ignorant and foolish. P.S. The only thing prior to 1960 that I like is classical.

If you take the Time list as anything near credible, then yes, you would be correct.

Unfortunately, it may be one of the most idiotic I've ever seen (and they all suck in one strong way or another). You cannot defend such things with the incorrect logic and thinking of Time Magazine. Think about it without the context of the list - do you REALLY think that, in 50 years' worth of recorded music, with many thousands of albums released EVERY WEEK, Pink Floyd would stand a chance against so many other musicians with better albums (some who are just as known as Floyd, and some who are the epitome of obscurity)? Floyd was indeed important to music, and, while I really love most of Floyd's releases (just not a fan of the late Waters-controlled nonsense), I cannot see their importance and their "goodness" being that parallel. Of course, it's only an opinion... BUT, when you take into account all of the jazz music, the electronic music, the innumerable "must have" classical recordings, and the little-known blues and folk musicians (not to mention COUNTRY!), the numbers become statistically huge and increasingly difficult for survival in terms of Floyd's output.