Album Rating: 4.5

pleazee what people refers to as classics are actually socially constructed by social agents at the time. and yes i know that doof dude but zak's comment is kinda.. wrong.

In the end it's all definitions. How I am defining classic (impact) is just one way of looking at it. There's no right answer but, according to how I and many others assess a "classic ____," I think this is a relatively objective measure.

Album Rating: 5.0

Row when we say undisputed classic we mean that regardless of what some people may say, the legacy is solidified and will continue untarnished. There will always be dissenters - that's inevitable. But they will be the minority.

Album Rating: 5.0

Plus classic doesn't necessarily mean perfect - you may not find Abbey Road exceptional or even good, but there's no denying it's a classic album.

Album Rating: 5.0

The more interesting thing is wondering whether a commercial breakthrough for a small time band like Nirvana pushed them on to greater things or if they'd have been better off staying underground or being a moderately successful band buried by their label for the most part as would likely be the case today.



Are there a load of Lionel Messi's still playing for their tiny home town teams - recording stuff in their own small studios and releasing stuff over the Internet and small labels. Would that type of career push them to their greatest heights? Would the Beatles have been as ambitious if they'd never exploded to the same degree?



Basically is the modern environment that doesn't enable band to explode as a huge cultural phenomena the reason bands don't seem to be releasing classic discographies, often peaking in their first album then levelling out into mediocrity? Does the love of the people inspire? Does the weight of living up to their own phenomena inspire? Does the weight of history inspire? Is it these traditional pressures that are missing?

Album Rating: 5.0

Yeah I'm not a Beatles fanboy by any means but to deny that many of their albums are stone cold classics is a bit off.

Album Rating: 4.5

"I think this is a relatively objective measure"



because the majority thinks that way therefore it while substantially it was just intersubjective, shared by more than one conscious mind making it objective.

Album Rating: 5.0

And I mean no, we can't know if OK Computer or In Utero will continue to be loved 20 years on from now, but there's nothing to conclusive indicate they won't. I mean no one born in the last 40 years can appreciate the Beatles quite as much as someone alive in the 60s, just as I (having been born in 1997) will probably never appreciate OK Computer quite in the same way as someone who bought it the day it was released. All things diminish a bit with time, but that doesn't completely invalidate the stature they held in their heyday.

Album Rating: 5.0

If Nirvana released Nevermind but stayed on the same level of success as say Mudhoney would they have then recorded an album as perfect as 'In Utero'? Has big implications because no bands nowadays get to that Nirvana level of popularity



As much as Cobain disliked some of the pressures of success that must be some crazy validation of your art and a huge influence on your artistic instincts

Album Rating: 4.5

lets just hope all the votes in RYM and sputnik will be preserved for the future generations

Album Rating: 3.5

if Pink Floyd had recorded Dark Side of the Moon just a week later, would it be a completely different album? this is a rabbit hole train of thought bro

Album Rating: 4.5

i don't think anyone can answer that doof cuz yknow, 'if'

To your point Doof, I think there are bands releasing classics with relative consistency. The two main things that have prevented another Beatles, in my opinion, are the sheer volume of accessible music today and the fact that people don't seem to be interested in music as a shared cultural phenomenon anymore. Over stimulation, as we have discussed. It's not a lack of motivation but success manifests itself much differently in the 2010's than in the 1960's.

This is far from eloquent but hopefully you get what I'm getting at.

Album Rating: 4.5

great point spaceh1p, my hat's off to you.

Album Rating: 5.0

Well yeah there's no definitive answer. I guess going back to the sport analogy Christiano Ronaldo must have gone through times he felt invincible in his career, I'm sure Nirvana did, the Beatles did...I doubt anyone feels like that now and that would inform your art. It brings out the best in footballers you'd say, maybe musicians/song writers too?



Kanye West probably feels invincible though thinking about it lol

I get what you mean, that greatness pushes greatness. Certainly true in the sports analogy. To me, because art isn't inherently competitive and is often done for its own sake as much as public consumption, sports don't mirror art in this way. If anything, this kind of fame (our 2010's relative level of it) doesn't inspire the next Beatles, it inspires the next Desiigner to approach the zenith of derivation in music as a way to acquire fame.

Album Rating: 4.5

some educated discussions going on here nice

Album Rating: 3.5

Best discussion I've seen on here in some time that's for sure, time for row to pop off and watch Stranger Things though. keep the quality alive

Album Rating: 4.5

@Spacesh1p but don't forget about how Pet Sounds was made

Agreed, this is much better than work.