There's another thread like this lurking around somewhere, but my favourite album of all time is Pink Floyd - Dark Side of the Moon.
Hard question, as we all have different tastes. But I have to agree Pink Floyd's Dark Side is at the top of the list, along with Led Zepplin 4 (signs), Fleetwood Mac Rumors, AC/DC Back in Black and many many others. I wont even touch on newer albums or pop music.
The more I think about it, there is one artist who, for me, stands way above anyone else. Though few will agree with me. I like all kinds of music but have mostly been into classic rock. I have heard very few albums where I have liked every single song on the album/CD. And there are even fewer artists where I have liked every single song on every single album. Pink Floyd definitly comes to mind here, but the artist I am talking about is Hank Williams, Jr. This guy is so versital it is totally unbelievable. He can do rock, country, blues, jazz, you name it. And I never skip over any song on any album. That is saying a lot. The biggest crime is the radio stations never played anything other than his redneck beer drinking songs. For me, any of Hank's albums have to be listed right at the top.
....put yourself in my unique postion If I get stoned and sing all night long It's a family tradition
Best artist? Mmmm a toughie. Metallica and Motorhead are around the best insofar as their music has held an edge regardless of their success. Slayer I love but they are MOTS-More Of The Same-each album varies little in the flavor of the sound-but it's Slayer so it's still good. Trent Reznor is a demi-diety, but he too seems to have lost some of his hunger that was on display in PHM, BRKN, and DWS. Still those three albums are among the finest musical works ever produced by the hand of man. Of course one name says it all. NIRVANA
Nirvana Nevermind was a mindblower. Metallica And Justice for All fkin rocks Rush 2112 evokes deep thought especially when Im stoned hmmm no Brittney Spears, Nsync, Backstreet Boys fans here.......Good they suck balls
pink floyd :the wall. pink floyd :dark side of the moon pink floyd :wish you were here metallica :master of puppets metallica :black theres a heap more but there probly my top ones
My best album... Just so you know... My best album is: Nephew - USA DSB WERRRRRRRRRRYYYYYYYYYYYY GOOOOOOODDDDDDD Just so you guys know...
With regards to metal I would have to say that Strapping Young Lad- City is the greatest album ever.... gggrrhrmer......Crazy Canadians
God I'm gettin old... I never heard of half these groups. And the other half I just dont get...I can remember when Motley Crue was cutting edge.
I just heard a band from Cali called Saosin. Someone sent me a video for the song 7 Years. Very cool. Anyone have the album?
Only one of you guys mention Led Zeppelin! I don't really have on particular album that is my most favorite because I like a lot of diffrent stuff: Led Zeppelin The Doors 2Pac Miles Davis Nirvana NIN Green Day Jimi Hendrix...
one who has a real good taste of music! ++++in amazing album! but i would say the hatebreeder album! (children of bodom) the dimmu borgir album enthrone darkness triumphant is ++++in awesome too!
I can't narrow it down to one album. But I can do one album per category: Avant-Garde Jazz: John Coltrane - A Love Supreme Bebop Jazz: Miles Davis - Kind of Blue Jazz Fusion: The Mahavishnu Orchestra - Birds of Fire Experimental Jazz: Frank Zappa - Make a Jazz Noise Here Funk Jazz: Cannonball Adderly - Phenix Classical Rock: The Moody Blues - Days of Future Passed Progressive Rock: Jethro Tull - Thick as a Brick Abstract Rock: Todd Rundgren - A Wizard/A True Star Rock Opera: Queen - A Night at the Opera Peace Rock: John Lennon - Imagine 80's Censor Rock: Frank Zappa - Joe's Garage Folk: Bob Dylan - Blood on the Tracks Folk Rock: David Bowie - The Rise and Fall of Ziggy Stardust and the Spiders from Mars Romantic Classical: Beethoven's 9th Symphony British Classical: Handel - Messiah Black Blues: Buddy Guy - I Was Walking Through the Woods There's more categories I could have covered, but I simply couldn't make up my mind for the rest.
Yeah, what SHARIF said. Cant stand rap and hip hop myself, but I wont take away from any form of music. What is genius to one may be trash to another. And how in hell can you say R&B is ****? Man, Dont even get me started there. Without R&B no form of music we have today would be the same...
Well, for me, it would be any of the following: Fallen - Evanescence Hybrid Theory - Linkin Park Toxicity - System of a Down American Idiot - Green Day Nymphetamine - Cradle of Filth or: 1992 to 2002 - Underworld
That's because hip hop and r&b have caused more pitfalls to the music industry than they have successes. In fact, hip hop single-handedly made the music industry too commercial, therefore allowing music to become a feaux-art, where they made more money for other companies than they did for themselves. When was the last time you saw a jazz or blues artist selling products, or starting their own clothing lines, after all? And yes, you CAN say that other genres of music are less supreme than others. It's amazing rap music has survived as long as it has, being that there is almost no music in that at all. The people who write rap music are simply angry men who have nothing better to do. They gather MIDI samples of songs and use computers to do the work for them. Then they pulse lyrics into a microphone that dictate sophmorish themes and hate -- and they're not even singing! In this "innovative" genre, people use their mouths percussively, therefore not even making their vocals anything near effective. R&B has become the same thing! Accept these people actually do attempt at singing. The problem with this is that the REAL singing voices are not found in R&B, because there's no musical instruments to work with! Computerized instruments don't allow for a very innovative tone control, after all. And, to conclude, anybody who can sing but can't even play a friggin piano (the overwhelming majority of R&B stars) shouldn't be allowed to have mouths, because if they play a tone-controlled instrument, how do they expect to manipulate their own voices to resemble anything even close to one?! Any "fans" of this so-called music are living a dream filled with sub-par multi-billion-dollar corporation garbage. Well, this shows your authenticity there. Shows that you really know what you are talking about! Obviously, you know nothing of the subject. The only genre in the last fifty years to make any substantial innovation in popular music today was of course Rock N' Roll. R&B is a branch of 'soul' music, and is only popular because the artists who perform in R&B today are attractive. Any popular R&B artists today can actually be called "pop" because they are limiting themselves to a pretty dismal, low-level audience. They aren't even shining in the R&B standards because they have to release albums with certain themes and criteria in order to make their money. And, I'd like to know how my favorite jazz saxophone players have benefited from the creation of R&B music. Oh yeah, and tell me how my favorite classical acoustic guitar players have been lathered in the indulgent abilities of R&B. Tell me how Yes was able to pull of their immense instrumental tasks, or the Mahavishnu Orchestra was able to ever perform the most complex live instrumental recording EVER -- with the help of R&B. Do you know why you can't tell me? Because most people who listen to R&B and Rap can't even look beyond their own sub-par, crappy genre! You couldn't name me your favorite jazz trio, or your favorite 70s rock band. You couldn't tell me who Steve Khan is, or what your favorite John Coltrane work is. You couldn't tell me your favorite composer, or your favorite drummer that ACTUALLY is a good drummer. You can't tell me one song by Woodie Guthrie, and you can't say which song by the Ohio Players had the most soul to you. Look at the grammar and writing capabilities such fans have. This 'Sharif123' person doesn't even know proper spelling and doesn't use intellectually-complex arguments when he tries to get his point across. Hell, he doesn't really even make much of a point! Sure, there are exceptions to this, but how can you help yourself when you have never seen a good example of somebody who likes popular music who can defend these ideas on their own? I tell you, most people who defend these issues don't even like the music for themselves, but are too politically-correct and stuck-up to see such true things go by without fair argument from the other side. Music is an art from like any other. Just like painting, however, one doesn't enjoy it unless they have some damn idea what is good and what is bad. We have to travel a far ways back to see a time where music wasn't polluted by money-crazed scoundrels who decided it was a good idea to industrialize an art form for a quick buck. Listen to 'music', or go watch pornography, because the difference between your music videos today and such stuff is drawing a thin line.
I could not specify one single album that surpasses any other as moods vary from time to time but the one album that gets played more than any other is The Final Cut by Pink Floyd. Followed closely by Rachmaninov or Tchaikovsky. God I love vinyl....
Fan of vinyl are ya? I have 3500+ of my own. I listen to exclusively vinyl records 45 RPMs collections, 10 inchers, and etc. are my favorites, but I have plenty of 180/200 gram LPs too. But I have to say that The Final Cut is by-far my least favorite Floyd record. Roger's voice is pathetically exaggerated and puny, almost a self-parody. The lyrics suck too. Meh. I would have prefered to hear just the background instrumentals, because the other two members of the group at the time (Gilmore and Mason) are actually phenominal musicians. Roger Waters was the downfall of PF
mmmm vinyl, snap, crackel and pop. Reminds me of the good old da...good old da...good old da...good old da...good old da...
I am a fan of vinyl - no where near 3500 records though. As I said moods vary and I have to agree that it is not their best album, just the one that seems to get played the most at this moment in time. 5 years ago it was Neil Young every evening.
What are you implying? Yes, if you take terrible care for your records and never clean them, they will surely snap and pop. And yes, if you don't know how to set your turntable up correctly, you will indeed get skipping. But the most devoted and dedicated audiophiles on the planet use vinyl for their main playback system. I do too. My stereo system is valued higher than my car is. Thanks to vinyl, I can achieve sound that CDs cannot touch - the realism of the midrange, the soundstage breathes new life into the air. Simply put, vinyl is a more accurate means of reproducing sound because, as an instrument itself, it is only colored by its analog principles, and not LIMITED like the CD and its principles. Music is not digital. We already have analog-to-digital converters in our brains - why add ANOTHER layer from digital CDs to analog speaker output? For somebody who really wants to hear music the way it was meant to be heard, get vinyl. Oh, and of all my 3500+ records, VERY few of them ever have any floor noise or pops. I only have one record in my collection that skips that I am aware of, and I keep it only because it is very, very rare. Don't criticize vinyl until you TRULY hear it how it was meant to be heard.
AMAN, with all due respect, you have shown us all your true colors, at least as far as music is concerned. The only reason I have not responded to your previous posts is not because you are right, but because they are not worthy of a response. To say R&B has not influenced todays music is just asinine. Without R&B you wouldn't have Elvis Presley, Buddy Holly, The Beatles, The Rolling Stones. 95% of Led Zeppelins songs are either remakes of old blues songs or heavily influenced by them. The Doors, Lynyrd Skynyrd, Tom Petty, U2, ZZ Top, Eric Clapton, CCR...It would be hard to name a rock band that is NOT influenced by R&B. Country music goes even deeper into R&B. Hank Williams, Sr. learned music by playing blues. Hank Williams, Jr. heavily explored these roots. Look at any country music today and you will see heavy R&B influence. When you claim that R&B is unimportant you are saying the same about music greats such as Ray Charles, Marvin Gaye, The Temptations, B.B. King and many many others. Any true musician will appreciate ALL forms of music. This is not to say all musicians LIKE all music, but they at least respect it for what it is. Even rap, in which I happen to agree with you, cant be denied as a heavy influence in not only todays music, but in world society in general. And as much as I hate to say it, if you think Kid Rock is not a true musician then maybe you should take a step back and seriously look at your own criteria. The difference between a musician and an audiophile is a musician will not deny any form of music, even those they dislike. An audiophile will usually be egotistical, self-centered, snobbish, boorish and foolish, discounting all music except that which they themselves enjoy. As far as vinyl records being able to reproduce sounds CDs cant, who are you trying to kid? The only sounds records reproduce that CDs dont are turntable rumble, needle hiss and worn out vinyl tracks. But it is pointless trying to argue this with an MIT grad...By all means, enjoy your record collection, heap praise on your favorite musicians and your favorite genre of music. But don't rain on everyone else's parade because in your highly opinionated world you think someone else's music is crap.
Aman's use of the term "blues" in his earlier post got me to thinking. Are we both using the term "R&B" the same way? It kept nagging at me so I did a Google search of "rythm and blues." It seems we are BOTH right, at least as far as the definition goes: At any rate, my post still stands.
JN4OldSchool: Where to begin? R&B is NOT Blues! R&B is a term used today to describe musical "sensations" such as Lauren Hill and Alicia Keys. They are people singing romance-themed songs behind an electronic instrument track. Blues, on the other hand, HAS influenced much of our contemporary music. Blues, by the likes of B.B. King, Buddy Guy, Hound Dog Taylor, among others, essentially created Rock N' Roll. There would indeed be an Elvis Prelsey without Blues music - and there would still be a Doors without Blues -- obviously you've never cared to listen to what the differences are between the varying genres. The Doors and Elvis Presley (two examples you gave - I could give plenty more) are both fundamentally based off of Jazz. Elvis Presley used the swing/big-band stylings of early big bands, and both the keyboard and bass/guitar players used JAZZ chord progressions in The Doors - and the drummer used an open-handed style of drumming, using mostly complex ride cymbal paterns and paradiddles between the kick and snare. These are not the basics of blues, but instead Jazz. In fact, Jazz has had just as much of an influence in popular music as Blues. I think you missed the big idea. Rather, you're looking for an argument. My original post was detailing why R&B and Rap have been a musical downfall. I am not disagreeing that R&B and Rap have had an impact -- they have. A good impact? DOUBTFULL. Most would consider these kinds of artists BLUES, and not R&B. The "Rythm" in "Rythm & Blues" is added because the "RYTHM" part stands for the electronic drum and keyboard rythms added to the track. Blues was a highly melodic form of music. Why are we comparing musicians to music listeners with keen ears? I am both -- how do you explain that? I have been playing piano and drums for almost fourteen years now. I am a pretty heavy musician! But yet, I also want to hear music being reproduced in the best manner possible. This shows your inexperience with the media! Have you ever considered the idea of crossing over sound signals like a CD has to? It has to digitally convert into analog, and then analog to digital once again to go to the ears/brain. Logically, your ears get the bigger picture when there is less conversion to be done. Every time we have to cross a signal over to a natural feed, or vice-versa, we are deteriorating the sound quality. Wavelength gets shortened, high frequencies are lost, and bass notes become flabby because they become less powerful. I am not going to say that all vinyl records are better than CDs. Even more important than the media you play your music on is the actual mastering. HOWEVER, if the master is good, vinyl will be the more powerful format. Why? Because vinyl is only limited by its physical deformities. I have a $3k deck, and a perfectly-aligned cartridge, and a well-weighted VTA. I clean my records with a machine and very expensive fluid. I store my records in a new sleeve each time they are cleaned. I have a magnificent phono stage and amplifier. The only thing that could go wrong with the vinyl is the caretaker's clumsiness or lack of understanding of the format. If you let your records sit in the closet for thirty years, don't clean them, and have a crappy, incorrectly-set-up table, then yes, you will hear some pretty terrible sound. HOWEVER, set up your equipment correctly, and take care of your vinyl, and you will hear a format that is at such high resolution that the brain cannot even comprehend it.
A CD is limited by obvious factors in digital rules and boundaries. No matter how well-made the CD is, the jitter, digital distortion, and etc. will always bog down a CD. It's just the true nature of the format. CDs, because they are electronic, display errors in a very hideous way - by completely veiling the sound. An error on a CD is given off approximately every 3 milliseconds, so it is almost impossible to ever hear a CD without an error. Your music is continuously flawed from the day you purchase it. A vinyl record, however, distorts in ways that are more pleasant to the ear. The light floor noise and ticks that are the "errors" sound like sounds from nature. The warm presentation is perceived in this way. And, if it could be any more obvious, vinyl records are shipped to the listener error-free. They are hot-pressed on soft, rich, perfect material with grooves that can take years of beating and abuse without trouble. The only error can come from the user, personally inflicting damage on both his media and his equipment. In addition, a well-cared-for record can outlive its owner. You can't say the same thing about a CD. And no doubt, vinyl setups are largely more expensive investments. However, somebody who truly cares about the quality and structure of their music would go with vinyl for their main medium of choice. Care, equipment, and love is all a record needs to not only outlive its owner, but also outlive its CD counterpart. If you do not believe me, go to the countless audiophile forums on the internet, like Head-Fi, Audiocircles, and SteveHoffman.tv, and see what they say. The overwhelming majority of posters will inform you that vinyl is a more superior format, and only those who stride for convenience go with a CD for their choice of playback. Obviously, this is also why the mainstream likes CDs better -- because they can be listened to in the car, on the go, and so on. They could care less about the reproduction quality of the sound. Home theatres in a box sell more per year than stereo speakers. You're very uninformed. Examine some posting from our good friend Jagpanzer: And if you still refuse to accept the facts, I can take any number of different users' postings into account. Simply put, you're wrong and you don't know enough about what you are speaking of to argue your point. Would you ever read a book by an author who had inferior writing skills to you? I want to read the book to enjoy it -- to immerse myself in the author's style and tone and diction - and to see what is unique about it - and even to learn! How is this any different than music? This is why people like Frank Zappa, Rush, and Captain Beefhart (hell, even metal artists like Megadeth and Tool) always wrote obscure music -- because it's the only way to challenge themselves and their fans equally. And this is why jazz music is so appreciated and deeply-investigated by its fans more than any other genre -- because John Coltrane, Miles Davis, and Monk always brought their playing limits to heights that have not been achieved before - it's not the same old dribble. It's not staying within the bounds of a particular mainstream product. Why do you think most jazz fans are musicians themselves? Or older in age and more wise? Or more appreciative of fine art? It's because these people are the ones that truly can appreciate the art performed by others. A large percentage of popular music like pop, r&b, and rap today are listened to because they were persuaded by not only piers but also general media pressure -- they are listening to it normally as background noise on their iPods -- because they want a song (not an album, mind you, a SONG) to be able to sing along to - and not to richly enjoy. Music isn't about merely hearing some rich guy shouting about how his life sucks - it's about seeking further and further artistic appreciation and enlightenment by means of other artists' achievements. That is why the majority of people are stuck listening to 50 Cent's newest top 10 hit, and why I'm "moving forward" in time by listening to the newly-released Monk-Coltrane at Carnegie Hall recordings from the 1960s.
Well stated AMAN. I still disagree with a lot you have to say, but you eloquently stated your points. Yes, I was using the phrase R&B in the original sense of the term. Essentially any black music which at the time was highly inspired by jazz, gospel and blues. I dont like breaking music down into genres myself. Too much of it cant really be placed in just one catagory. As far as pop, hip-hop, rap, R&B today, and even country and rock today, I also tend to agree with you. Most of this music is crap, at least to my ears. But my point is who am I to say what is good and what is bad? I have my own opinions on the matter but I wont bore anyone else with them. If someone wants to waste his money on a Snoop Dog CD it's none of my business. Each to their own. What you are saying about vinyl records also makes sense. I am NOT an expert on the subject. I do know that the masters are recorded in analog so what you are saying makes sense. I understand what you are saying about digital errors, I dont like any of the compression formats we have today for digital music for the very same reason. However, most people never had a 3K turntable. Most also wouldnt put the time into taking care of their records the way you do. So I will give this argument to you, but I will stick with my CD's. To my ear they are just as good, much cheaper, easier to care for and unless you have a multi-thousand dollar system they offer cleaner sound.
I am going to have to say AC/DC - Back in Black is the greatest album of all time. In case no one knows the background of AC/DC, Brian isn't the original singer. Their first singer, Bon Scott (RIP) died of asphixiation after a long night of drinking. They brought in the new singer and had their most successful album sales in their long career (over 18 million copies have been sold). Losing your lead singer can absolutely cripple an artist, but AC/DC got over that bump in the road and are still rocking as of 2001 (Saw their Stiff Upper Lip Tour), after about 30 years. Very few bands can be around as long as them.
hmmm AC/DC... Learn 3 chords on a guitar, beat on a drum kit and scream a lot and make millions... That said, I like AC/DC...I really do...But best album?
I love these 'best of' threads as arguments are bound to start. Chances are we will all disagree, as we each have our own personal tastes. One member likes artist A while the next likes artist B and so on. When I was a lot younger I could not understand why my parents listened to classical music - would drive me nuts. Twenty years later I can really appreciate why in my own way. As we age and mature tastes will alter in some ways while the music of our youth will remain. Roll on another twenty years and watch us start to agree more, while the next, younger generations express similiar views
