i've spoken - actually, written - about this before: favourite albums & all that jazz.
last night i watched the reuslts of the 'my favourite album' poll conducted by the abc (national, non-commercial media network in australia).
there are some surprises, for myself & others, not only in the top 10 but across the whole top 100 announced. for example myself & others (including some of the show's comperes) were quite suprised to see radiohead's "ok computer" & jeff buckley's "grace" come in at numbers 3 & 2 respectively.
i was probably also a little surprised that the most popular album polled as highly as it did - but in this case it was a pleasant surprise as this album (which I have talked abouit before on this blog) is in my own personal top 5.
for the record (no pun intended!) only this and one other album from my own top 10 made the top 10 of the abc poll. the latter album, which polled at number 10, is "the joshua tree" by u2. this album was my favourtie album at the time i finished high school, and it still makes my top 10, probably at_about_number 8 or so.
the album which is in my top 5 and which was voted the most popular album by this abc poll, is "dark side of the moon" by pink floyd. 'the lunatic is on the grass ... '!
i'll talk more about such topics later. there were a couple that made this top 10 which would be in my top 20 or 25. one surprise for me was the fact that one of my top 3 albums, "sticky fingers" by the rolling stones, came in at only number 95 in this poll. actually i'm surprised there wasn't a rolling stones record in the top 10, especially when there are_four_albums by the beatles in the top 20. in fact no album by the rolling stones polled higher than number 95! this is a big suprise - particularly given that numerous other albums from the stones' "peak" era made the cut. bizarre!
~
last night i watched the reuslts of the 'my favourite album' poll conducted by the abc (national, non-commercial media network in australia).
there are some surprises, for myself & others, not only in the top 10 but across the whole top 100 announced. for example myself & others (including some of the show's comperes) were quite suprised to see radiohead's "ok computer" & jeff buckley's "grace" come in at numbers 3 & 2 respectively.
i was probably also a little surprised that the most popular album polled as highly as it did - but in this case it was a pleasant surprise as this album (which I have talked abouit before on this blog) is in my own personal top 5.
for the record (no pun intended!) only this and one other album from my own top 10 made the top 10 of the abc poll. the latter album, which polled at number 10, is "the joshua tree" by u2. this album was my favourtie album at the time i finished high school, and it still makes my top 10, probably at_about_number 8 or so.
the album which is in my top 5 and which was voted the most popular album by this abc poll, is "dark side of the moon" by pink floyd. 'the lunatic is on the grass ... '!
i'll talk more about such topics later. there were a couple that made this top 10 which would be in my top 20 or 25. one surprise for me was the fact that one of my top 3 albums, "sticky fingers" by the rolling stones, came in at only number 95 in this poll. actually i'm surprised there wasn't a rolling stones record in the top 10, especially when there are_four_albums by the beatles in the top 20. in fact no album by the rolling stones polled higher than number 95! this is a big suprise - particularly given that numerous other albums from the stones' "peak" era made the cut. bizarre!
~
posted by fergal at 5:25 PM
9 Comments:
** in fact no album by the rolling stones polled higher than number 95!
Im not surprised cos tho I love teh stones and some of their songs, Im not sure if they can beat The Beatles :)
Keshi.
hi keshi - i respect your opinion mate but i don't think i can 100% agree with u on this one. i guess it depends on the dimension(s) on which we compare the stones vs the beatles. for example, the stones were, & are, significantly better than the beatles at writing & playing quite straight-up rock derived from the chicago blues genre. not that this is the be-all & end-all! maybe the beatles were generally more innovative and/or diverse with their music? anyhow, i reckon these two bands really were very different, and they certainly evolved differently as time went on! perhaps the most they had in common was that they both were english & appeared in the same era? just a few thoughts anyhow ...
~
I watched that show as well -couldn't miss that! No All Things Must Pass -boo boo. re: Beatles and Rolling Stones-maybe depends on what mood you're in at the time? By comparison I find the Beatles quite "smooth"(of course there are a few exceptions) where the Stones are rough. Strangely enough, the album I always enjoyed of the Stones was Some Girls. I have room in my heart for both bands. I still love Keith even though he's though as guts -even at this age they are still very much rock n roll. I adore him singing the version of Slipping Away on that Stripped album.
I tended to agree with whoever it was on the panel who questioned as to whether Grace would have been in the Top 10 if Jeff Buckley hadn't died - I have that album and I enjoy it but there's no way in the world it would have been there in the top 10 if he was still around.
I agree Fergal..it's hard to compare 2 very different bands like the Stones and the Beatles :) But yeah like u said, maybe the beatles were generally more innovative and/or diverse with their music. Stones were good too but I guess it also depends on who actually votes :):)
Keshi.
keshi -what is your opinion on Jeff Buckely coming in so high?
I mean Buckley of course :).
heyy Lee!
**Jeff Buckley
Im not surprised. Cos when a good artist dies young, it adds more value to his/her work. A kind of mysterious devotion. btw Grace is a good song.
Keshi.
His dad was much better imo.
I've spoken to you about this before fergal but I think it's far too difficult to gage which band is better having not been alive at the high points of either band's career.
whilst i prefer the stones i can understand why the beatles have the top 10 recognition...those classic era beatles albums -revolver, sgt peppers, white album etc (with some help from others - notably brian wilson) redefined how people made, and still make, music. we hear them years later having already heard decades worth of music from artists/bands inspired by them so the beatles albums lose their 'wow' factor and the originality and mindblowingness that they would've had when they were realesed.
like imagine hearing pet sounds when it first came out?! (i know that it's a beach boys album btw)
it's an oversimplification but the stones, on the other hand, weren't really pushing (as) many boundaries or adding anything too new or original to what is essentially blues. although what they did they did VERY well.
and that's without getting into the beatles eastern influence etc etc
i think this is why they rank so high in these 'best of', 'greatest ever' polls.
my 10 cents anyway
cheers dan - completely agree with everything u say there.
and look forward to a beer with u very soon once u get over your jetlag!! ;-D
~
Post a Comment
<< Home