London Calling vs. Abbey Road

Influence: Tie/Abbey Road. Neither were especially influential.
Popularity: Abbey Road by quite a bit
Musical Impact: Tie, probably.

Abbey Road wins, I guess.

Abbey Road would also take NoM without a doubt, since it clearly wins popularity and musical impact, though loses in Influence. Once more a 2:1 win with loser having influence. I think we just have it lower because we don't want that many Beatles albums THAT high. However, I'd be fine with Abbey Road at 15, LC 16 and NoM 17. A greatest sub-genre album in top 20 greatest of all time is nothing to scoff at. I mean, Rubber Soul could take Highway 51 for all I know, definitely Night at the Apollo. But I feel having 3 Beatles albums in the top 5, although fine, might seem to many like overkill so I'm not gonna push it. Same with Abbey Road. I'm pretty sure Rubber Soul take Influence and Popularity from NatA, and probably acclaim. Highway 51 might just tie Influence, since I'm sure Rubber Soul takes popularity, and probably tie in acclaim, it would beat it, but I really don't care, just saying it's really easy to push up Bealtes albums since they're Beatles albums.

You should read the discussion we had regarding NoM vs. London Calling. It turns out NoM has tons of musical impact. And, I really don't think these albums are where they are just to not overload the Beatles or to be accomadating to sub-genres.

Abbey Road wasnt that influential?

I did read them. If musical impact equates to acclaim, LC takes it by quite a bit. Having a massive amount of acclaim doesn't mean there aren't albums with more acclaim. NoM has tons of acclaim, Londond Calling visibly has more. And a certain group of the industries bias against hip-hop doesn't help it either.

That's why I said it lost Influence both times?

Dude, it's Highway 61 and Live at the Apollo.

Also, I think your understating NoM's influence. London Calling has virtually zero influence since it was a punk album that went against everything punk stood for (short, uncomplicated, simple), while every aspect it incorporated was already introduced in rock at the time. Abbey Road, meanwhile, is similar, since it didn't really innovate anything aside from the medley, which I think is doubtful because other bands have done medleys before, but not at the grandiose scale that AR's medley reached. Most of the Beatles' influence stems from the early, circa-Please Please Me records (kickstarted the British Invasion) and the Rubber Soul - Revolver - Sgt. Pepper trilogy (speaks for itself).

Nation..., meanwhile, influenced EVERY SINGLE HIP-HOP ARTIST AFTER THEM! Wrap your head around that. Rap isn't just some run-of-the-mill subgenre (reggae, punk, et al), but the most popular, most widespread, most culturally impactful, and all in all greatest subgenre of rock of the past 25 years. The entire notion of hip-hop from the Nineties to today is at least indirectly influenced by Nation.

Also, I don't think RS could definitely take Apollo. They're both about equally acclaimed, and Live at the Apollo had huge initial popularity. Influence is a given for Rubber Soul, but Apollo did have a great influence on live albums and how they were recorded and structured, so it's pretty close. A good debate, all in all.

For RS vs. Highway, meanwhile, influence is a tie, definitely too close to call. Acclaim, I'd give to Highway; and popularity, I'd give to RS. Actually, if influence doesn't tie, I would lean towards H61R, since it introduced a whole new concept of lyrics, helped introduce folk-rock, and redefined the single ("Like A Rolling Stone"), while Rubber Soul wasn't really the first instance of an "album-album", on which claim most of the album's influence lies.



Now you're just punishing Nation for being made in the wrong genre. Rap's the biggest subgenre of rock, but it doesn't make up more than half of the genre, so of course the non-rap portion would praise London Calling more than Nation, since LC is much more "traditional" rock. The bias against rap is crucial, because most critics and musicians really don't count rap as rock; thus, they stray from voicing their opinions.

I really don't think Rubber Soul should get credit for introducing "the album" at all. Highway 61 was released before it and it never gets credit for changing what an album can be.

This is extremely subjective, and saying punk is a run-of-the-mill subgenre is ignorant, you'd be surprised how many punk bands are around and arising in the indie scene. I think you guys are seriously over dramatizing rap. Saying it's the most popular and prolific subgenre of the last 25 years and the largest subgenre in rock I beg to differ. Being the most cultural impactual sure. Critically acclaimed and popular of the last 25 years? Arguable, as it's popularity resides mainly to the west, specifically US. I could argue Metal, with its humongous amount of sub-subgenres, and mass popularity not just in the US and UK, but you have power metal and death metal bands in Sweden, Finland, France, and pretty much all over Europe. Not to mention how many massive amounts of fans exist that cannot be determined by sheer album purchases, as Metallica and Megadeth for example had a HUGE following and mass underground popularity of thousands prior to the release of either bands first album (these fans were garnered from tons of live playing and travelling before album production, this is shown in nearly any documentary on the bands and biographies). It's also become quite popular in parts of Asia, and South America. I feel techno/dance/electronica is the largest subgenre of the last 25 years, being popular among millions of teens in America and older, and being extremely popular and prolific in every continent, arguably every country, with a HUGE following in Asia which accounts for more than nearly every rap fan in the West, as well as huge popularity in Europe with hundreds of sub sub-genres and hundreds, if not thousands (think internationally) more artists than Rap, as well as being extremely cultural impactual spawning tons of huge conventions, events, shows, and of course, raves and dances. It's also the music used now in nearly every nightclub worldwide. Regardless, LC vs. NoM, I said NoM got Influence, but lost Acclaim and Popularity, which it nearly unarguably does, yet you keep bringing up Influence.

Also, people are giving way too much credit for being the most influential album on x subgenre. So you're the most influential album on the biggest subgenre, so what? It's ONE sub genre, and has small cross over influence, where as you have albums like Who's Next and Led Zeppelin 2 which have influenced not only main stream rock and roll AND pop, but has cross over influence into nearly every sub-genre, if not all, same with Beatles albums. Yet an album has the maxmimum influence in one sub genre and all of a sudden it's influence is incomparable, even with albums that have more influence on more sub genres. Take Velvet Underground and Nico for example, arguably the most influential rock album ever. It has influenced an absurd amount of mainstream rock artists, and was a huge influence on punk, alternative, glam, metal, hair, grunge, goth, new wave, and arguably more. However, NoM has influence in ONE sub genre and has a bit of cross over and I'm sure in comparison you'd say NoM beats VUGaN based on "It is the biggest rap album dude. Do you know how big rap IS?". It's seriously getting annoying. Alternatively, why isn't Trans-euro express/autobahn in the top 20? It's the most influential album in the whole genre of electronica, which as stated before, is a WAY larger, more popular, and more prolific genre than rap. It is also highly acclaimed. And yet people are like 'NoM man, it's so influential! It has to trump all other wins'. I'm not saying NoM is not one of the most influential albums ever, but this is just being described as way overboard.

This is just getting ridiculous. I'm beginning to think people are seriously overrating rap, as if it's sub-genre is as large and important as all the other sub-genres and mainstream rock combined. I'd also argue The Rise and Fall of Ziggy Stardust, being an album with not only huge mainstream rock and pop influence, but having arguably some of the largest cross over influence of any album and largest influence on tons of sub-genres. Yet I'm sure NoM, with it's influence on one sub-genre, trumps Ziggy as well, right?

Also there is a lot of recentism in the argument of raps prowess. Rap is a genre that only truly got big in the early 90's, and peaked mid/late 90's - early 00's. It's been dwindling a lot recently, and although still extremely popular, the artists evolution and widespread appeal has been significantly less than previous years. Justin Bieber, Lady Gaga, and Taylor Swift have been more successful in these last 2 years than any rap artist I know of by sheer overall concert/show sales and overall popularity/cultural impact. Since when have Kanye and Jay-Z released a hugely popular influential album that has been anywhere near acclaimed as a decade ago? Outkast has been keeping rap going for a bit longer, but it's definitely dying down. People say it's been strong for 25 years, but the seeds were only planted in the early 80's with Run DMC and Grandmaster Flash, and fully established in 88. It's only been popular in mainstream music for 20 years, of which it had it's growth, peak, and is starting to decline. Saying this isn't true look at all these other rap artists is the same as how I could tell you about the hundreds of punk and metal artists emerging not just worldwide but in the indie scene with a larger emergence of actual album productions than new rap artists. In the mid-late 70's and 80's, glam and hair was HUGE, at the end of the 80's I could have said the same you are saying about rap and claim it's been around for 15 years, with the seeds planted earlier on, and at the start of it's decline (88), claimed the same you have about rap. Yet we've established hair as a small sub genre that essentially nearly killed rock and collapsed upon itself. Who's to say 5-10 years from now rap would have died out as a major genre and we consider it the genre that nearly killed rock as we know it? Afterall, people are already saying it's not really rock and it's been detracting from what makes rock rock, which is driving instruments and a powerful beat (which at the time, Elvis, Berry, and the Beatles definitely were). Also, saying how popular it is sales-wise, people need to grasp how much the market has evolved. Album sales and marketing from online to mass production, CD's, digital copies, and itunes has changed everything and the availability of albums. Sales numbers I think should be compared to peers sales at the time. Movies being similar, comparing ticket sales and DVD/VHS purchases in comparison, look at the sales numbers of any modern day movies, even bad ones (Transformers cough cough) in comparison to anything from 30-40 years ago. The fact that artists like The beatles, Elvis, and Madonna still hold groundbreaking sales records from up to 60 years ago just shows how unbelievably ahead of everyone else they were. Comparing rap artists sales to that of punk artists in the 70's and mainstream rock artists of the 60's and 70's needs major adjustment to even compare due to the change in marketing practices. There is so much recentism in the rap argument it's ridiculous. The other genres I mention from previous years have shown that they have survived, thrived, declined, and arose again, some have stayed true throughout the whole evolution of rock. Yet we see rap is already on the decline, we've seen it's major detractors as well as benefactors, and similarly to any sub-genre at it's peak, we take it for more than it is. Look at punk at the release of London Calling and even earlier, Nevermind the Bulloks, which quickly rose to number 1 in Britain with international acclaim. We see rap is already going down, even slightly, and yet it seems like all the other sub-genres, just in a newer time, a newer age, where it's easier to be prolific and garner national and international acclaim and sales. That's all.

That was hard on the eyes...

Anyway, I can tell from your writing style that you are not inclined to hip-hop, so this is pretty much going to be a pointless discussion, but I'll try:

Bold=CRJ's points; Unbolded=my answer

Rap is not the greatest genre of rock of the last 25 years: Yes, yes it is. By this site's criteria at least. It beats all other subgenres in cultural impact and popularity, though rap vs. Dance in popularity is pretty close. Rap is also pretty acclaimed, though admittedly, not as much as indie. Rap's already won 2 of 4 traditional criteria, so, at least in the DDD universe, it is the greatest subgenre of the last 25 years.

Why do you keep bringing up influence?: Because NoM essentially owns there. It's not about how many criteria you win, it's by how much you win each criterion. Abbey Road and London Calling have almost zip influence, while NoM's is monstrous. Think of every single rap record in the world: that's how much NoM's influence is, directly or otherwise. Abbey Road and London Calling may win the other two, but acclaim is very, very arguable and the popularity wins aren't enough to make up for the influence losses.

Also, just a side point, I do believe TVUGaN beats NoM in influence. I can be reasonable. You can't just assume that I'm biased just because I support something you don't.

Rap is only popular in the West: I live in the Philippines, and I've been all over China. Rap is extremely popular here, culturally. J-Pop and K-Pop also draw some influence from hip-hop, and the dance music around here? It's essentially hip-hop + electro.

First post, last paragraph: I never said rap was more important than all the other subgenres and mainstream rock combined. I even acknowledged that rap made up less than a quarter of rock. Stop pulling accusations from thin air. On Ziggy, I doubt it influenced anything as much as NoM did, but it does have a sizable popularity lead, and musical impact/acclaim is close.

Second Post: Every single subgenre declined: Rockabilly, then the British Invasion, then Psychedelia, then Disco, then Punk, then New Wave, then Hair Metal, then Grunge: they all had their time in the spotlight, then they faded. Who's to say that rap doesn't end up like punk is today: below-the-radar, but still alive? You're making way too many assumptions. I was off by two years on the "25 years" thing, and you actually use that? That's just grasping for straws. Jay-Z released The Blueprint, and Kanye had The College Dropout and Late Registration. All three have stayed consistently acclaimed over the years. Aside from Gaga, neither of those artists count as rock (Bieber is pop; Swift is country), so their popularity shares do not take much from rock's popularity pie.

Also, as was explained before, I'm sure, rap is much closer to rock's roots than some guitar-driven rock subgenres. You keep talking about "recentism" when you've actually been "elitist" (your username pretty much says it all) this whole time, which is not much better. Hair lasted less than a decade; rap has been going strong for 23 years (according to your numbers). I'm pretty sure if there was something wrong with it, the people would have caught on by now. You're rash, unproved assumption that rap could be the next hair just proves you're biased against hip-hop. It's too early in time to say anything about that.

I also don't think rap will go down like you think. Again, it is a long runner (Punk lasted four to five years; Rap's been on for 20 and still counting). Bieber, Swift, and Gaga are like every other pop star: they'll burn out. They may be obscenely popular now, but it takes a special ingenuity to stay popular. Rap has proven that it can stay at the top: it's survived grunge and every pop fad since 1990. I'm not saying it won't eventually go down: everything does, but it's certainly not going to be as soon as you think.

Back on topic:

Influence: NoM>>>AR>LC
Popularity: AR>LC>NoM
Acclaim: NoM = LC = AR

So, basically:
NoM>AR>>LC

Great posts, Deany.

gigantic gigantic sampson style length post, I'll make it my last huge post but I need to get this out and I don't want to triple post

I currently live in China, and have spent 3 years in Europe, and a year in Japan, and rap is nowhere near as comparable as to the West. J-pop and K-pop borrow more heavily from dance than rap by a gigantic margin, and J-rock, even the ones with a rap vocal style, borrow more heavily from pure unadulterated 80's/90's rock and pop style than any rap other than vocals. J-pop in the 90's developed with heavy jazz and pop elements more than anything else, and grew from the traditional elements of older J/K-pop, whose style can also be linked to more blues style music if anything, and even arguably 50's style soul (hard to believe right? Though it's true, Elvis and Beatles were huge in Japan, you can see the influence on it's pop music's development). Also, Just because it exists in China and the Phillipines (which I have not visited unfortunately though I'd love to go, I have some friends there) doesn't mean it garners major popularity or influence, at least compared to rock, dance, metal, and more traditional genres and singing styles of those nations. trying to tell me that rap has anywhere near the popularity or impact of dance and plain old rock on J-pop/K-pop or J-rock is equally false, as it's impact, though noticeable, is very small in comparison.



Elitist? Not at all. My username is just because it's my favorite genre, I rarely have bias posts without info to back it up, and I don't think Classic Rock is the end all genre. My favorite genres are actual Jazz, Classical music, J-pop, J-rock, K-pop, techno, and then Classic Rock. It doesn't mean that I don't put aside my favorite genres and IMO the most musically gifted and innovative genres are Classical, Jazz, and Classic Rock. However those forums here are pretty dead so I joined with a username representing my favorite rock period, that doesn't mean I'm elitist or bias. The fact that more than 70% of the top 100 artists list has, and still does exist with bands before the 80's. Saying I'm elitist is just wrong, because I'm not.

Saying punk only existed in the spotlight for 5 years? If there's been a more false statement on this forum, I haven't seen it except from Echoes, Taro, or Patrick. Also, the tracing of rap to the roots of rock is honestly not that great an argument, I never thought it was. Rap is defined by it's vocal style, which if anything was more related to spoken poetry and those types of events and standup that eventually became extremely popular among african american culture as well. The additional instrumnentals behind the vocals has been anything from Reggae, to hard rock, to jazz, to pure techno. Rap, and hip-hop, if it's actual roots are traced, go back to pure african music or jazz if anything, and were taken from West African griots and vocal styles, and were adapted directly from them to african and hispanic culture around the east coast, and was eventually just 'thrown' ontop of other music on the scene, more commonly dance and reggae. It's traces to rock that people talk about on this site are arguable if anything. Just because it skips the traditional evolution of rock and is 'closer' to original 60's style rock doesn't make it 'more rock'. If anything it makes it less, the reason it sounds so similar is it originated from the same roots rock did, except rap garnered them separately with some influence from early funk and R&B and just threw it in with tons of popular genres already around. Rock is an offspring of blues, so why is rock not a sub-genre of blues? Because blues exists longer and further down in history? And rap is a sub-genre of rock while rock has been around much longer and rap is quite different, so why is rap not a different genre? Because it's roots are traceable in rock? The same way rock's are in blues? I'm just looking for some consistency here. If I lost my point, it's that rap is more rock than metal and has a more directly traceable evolution, which is blatantly false if people know anything about it's origins through MC'ing, DJ'ing, down to hip-hop, and arguably further to funk and jazz and their black and african origins. Rap also has quite some hispanic influences as well from spoken rhythmic style with no relation to rock. I've taken quite a few classes on music history, and I've studied the origin of rap, and it's tracability to rock is significantly less than metal and grunge as you say. The reason it's similar to older rock is they developed from similar, non-rock influences, rap just grew along the way much later down the line. Regardless, this is off topic and another long message sorry.

I'd like to see definitive proof of LC's acclaim being equated to that of NoM. LC has pretty much the greatest reviews possible from every source that's praised NoM, however I know NoM has many detractors as well, LC has much fewer, if any noticeable ones. Saying they are equal in acclaim is just taking assumptions. Same with Abbey Road, I find it extremely hard to believe that NoM is more acclaimed than AR, which is not just one of the Beatles most acclaimed albums, but one of the most positively reviewed albums in history, with nearly not a single major detractor. Once more, NoM has quite a few detractors, so what if they are bias? It's still people from the music industry and still acclaim.



Also, just want to say, I have nothing against rap, I like rap and hip-hop, I like Public Enemy and Grandmaster Flash, and I love Tupac and Eminem. I'm not bias against it, if anything, you and a lot of this forum are extremely bias towards it due to how many people are against it, you have to take an extremely one way view to fight for it. I honestly think a lot of arguments about it on this forum are either skewed or twisted in a way that seems logically correct to blow up the overall power and influence garnered from this genre, and to suite their arguments trace it to rock in the most common comparison to metal, which they say is much more distant for sake of promoting rap and it's prowess in rock. Remember, if argued correctly, nearly any side of an arguable argument can be made to seem true. Rap is huge, and definitely is one of the 2 biggest sub-genres. However, it seems rap in comparison due to it's recent height overtakes all sub-genres combined and influence from genres developed over 60 years now pale to a recently, arguably independently developed genre of rock music that for some reason trumps everything else and everyone who disagrees is immediately bias or purist because detractors commonly think it's because rap is 'different'. Rap had the same breaking down of doors and mass appeal by sheer shock value and something so new, so wild, so brave, that it developed complaints around the country of the foul language and sex and just down right dirty style and life while kids, teens, and young adults just ate it up. Wait a minute, doesn't this sound familiar? Elvis and Sex Pistols did this before, it happens, it's a cycle of music development through history, yet this one is so vastly different and more potent than the others? I beg to differ. Also, it's audience, though large is solidified much more in a younger audience, there are definitely adults who listen to it, but it is a mainly among teens and young adults. There are plenty of other powerful genres whose popularity resides in much more widespread appeal but is overlooked due to album sales, which as I've said before, do not accurately determine popularity. And about Justin Bieber being 'pop' so it doesn't count, it's as different from rock as rap IMO. Besides, we have Mariah Carrey on our top 100 greatest ROCK artists and she was clearly pop, was she not? And modern country has taken more from rock than rap ever has, Taylor Swift has songs that are more pop and more rock than anything most rap artists have produced. The only thing modern country retains that's different from rock is the vocal line and lyrics. Wait a minute, isn't that the only thing that truly differentiates rap from the rest of rock...hmm...

21. Who’s Next (1971) - The Who
22. Led Zeppelin II (1969) - Led Zeppelin

32. Tommy (1969) - The Who
33. Led Zeppelin IV (1971) - Led Zeppelin

I love this list.