What do you guys think of this list? How many have you listened to?

What do you guys think of this list? How many have you listened to?

Other urls found in this thread:

listchallenges.com/1001-albums-you-must-hear-before-you-die-2016/stats
twitter.com/SFWRedditImages

Link for those interested
listchallenges.com/1001-albums-you-must-hear-before-you-die-2016/stats

is this the same one as the one with David Bowie on it, if so, its good, if not, idk

He's on there a few times. It ends with Blackstar

From what I understand a lot of albums are included because "oh they sold a lot therefore they are important?" Which is shitty criteria since people like Webern, Wagner, JS Bach were not the most popular composers of their time despite being arguably the most important.

I meant if there was a version with David Bowie on the cover, but yeah that one has Blackstar at the end too so I guess its the same

There is literally a part where they talk about Apple Venus Volume 1 and say that nobody bought it at first but everyone should listen to it.

I have the 2013 one and I plan to listen to it all.
I'm at 1965 albums so far. It's a good list from what I've seen.

vulnicura is included but not homogenic? wtf

...

pic related is much better

It's not perfect, nothing of this sort can be, but it actually tries to be comprehensive and include all sorts of different genres (classical, jazz, world, folk, etc.) rather than whatever pop albums sold the most copies that year. Also the reviews themselves are very well written (and by an actual musician) and each entry has suggestions on what to explore next if you like that album.

piero?

Better choice

How embarrassing

Yeah some of the album choices in there are pretty questionable

Also
>CHVRCHES
I'll pass. I already listened more than 1001 albums and it was shit I liked, not stuff someone told me I must before I die because they say so.

Pretty inclusive, but needs more ween.

>tfw plen

I got to page 5, clicked ahead to see what later pages held, then stopped.

The range of choices are so narrow it's retarded.

>tfw I got 136

cool to know that album gets some love from someone, as should all the 90's XTC albums

240

I mean the idea that you could somehow pick a perfectly inclusive list of the 1001 most important albums since the middle of the 20th century is pretty impossible to achieve. I think the list is still pretty good, covers almost all of the bases of "important" music or touchstone albums in most even distantly relevant genres

Damn it is slim pickins' when you get past 2005...

kek

That Billie Holiday album is such a shit choice. Sickly sweet cheese, but it is all they can offer because she was from before the album era.

205, it's fine

This list fucking sucks.

Fucking 1989 by Taylor Swift is on there, literally her worst album.

>only 102 out of 1001

Am I a pleb, or is this list a pleb? I'm so disappointed in myself

Loveless isn't even on it but other MBV albums are, this list needs to die.

i don't love every album on this list by a long shot, but it's a really good sampler of touchstone albums of the last 60-70 years. If you listen to one The Cure album and don't like it, though, that takes about 5 albums off of the list.

I've only heard about 250 of these albums. Fact is, Sup Forumscore has super heavy bias towards the last 10 years especially, but more broadly the last 25 or so, so if this board is where you do most of your music discovery/discussion, it makes sense why you wouldn't have heard much of the list, which has a huge bias towards the 50's-70's

One good place to start is having one album per band/musician at a maximum.

There's no reason to sacrifice multiple spots each to The Rolling Stones, Led Zeppelin, Pink Floyd, and Jimi Hendrix.

how did 3 smiths albums get on but the first neu! album didn't?

yeah i think for artists like the beatles two or three is acceptable, esp because their sound changes so much album to album, but having like six Zeppelin albums on there is inexcusable imo

Been doing this for a few years and I'm currently on number 921 on the list. It's totally been worth it. The main thing about the albums included is that they're more based on significance to the world of music rather than purely how good they are. Which is why Limp Bizkit is on there. Total garbage, but hey they're a pretty significant band whether you like them or not.

Since it's chronological, the best part about going through it is you just really get a feel of how music evolved from what came before it. You can see how genres formed which is really cool. Plus I loved discovering a bunch of great albums and genres I'd never listened to before. It forces you to take albums seriously that you never would've considered, and through that, you get a better understanding of what every type of music has to offer.

The majority of the albums are pretty enjoyable to listen to; only a few I would give a failing score. However, there are a few odd choices and glaring omissions (Weezer, anyone?) that I'd love to see them fix in new editions. Typically they only update the last 20 or so albums to add more recent albums.

It's literally handjob the book. It is there to fellate you for your excellent music taste, even if you've only heard 10 of them and tells you what to buy to be even cooler.

lmao what

this doesn't have tons of "cool" albums, and does have tons of very actively uncool albums, like 1989, limp bizkit, and a lot of the older albums on there. Like do you really think society places a lot of cool value on whether or not you listen to led zeppelin?

It's there

...