Yes, thats true. Damned short-sighted 1960's music critics. I think you got that one right.

I'm not so sure about Blue taking acclaim, Blue is one of my favorite albums ever, and it has massive acclaim, but I feel they tie. We're talking about two heavy weights here. Blue's influence resides mainly in it's lyrical influence and the 'woman's romance/perspective' album (though that started arguably with Arethra Franklin), while VUaN's Influence is arguably in the top 5 in all of rock. Being panned upon release is nothing to hold against things, and iirc, VUaN was only panned by a few critics, I recall the issue being it was so controversial, many refused to review it as it was being banned around the country and from radio stations. I read there are very few printed reviews, most of which were extremely positive. Meanwhile, Blue's initial acclaim was huge, but hasn't changed since then, while VUaN's acclaim has grown to astronomical levels that tie, if not surpass Blues, but both are acclaim heavy weights so I feel more comfortable giving a tie. Either way, Influence is always the biggest category, and VUaN has a huge lead there, enough to rival, if not surpass Blues popularity. I love both albums a lot, so I really don't care about one placement, and I didn't want to get into another ridiculously long debate (which I tend to do) so I didn't say anything. However, I do think VUaN has the edge, if anything, for the massive Influence you guys so garner. If I were to do my 100 breakdown it would be:

Influence:

VUaN: 100 (peak of influence)
Blue: 60-70 (it's influence in comparison. As I said, it didn't really affect songwriting, instrument playing, or any of that, it's influence was mainly in it's lyrics and girl style albums like Jagged Little Pill)

Overall Acclaim:

VUaN: 80 (at this point in time, the album has some massive acclaim to it's name, if anything, it's mainstream popularity has been made up for by the critical praise it's received from nearly all it's peers at this point)
Blue: 85 (it's extremely high for acclaim, there have been very few, if any detractors, but it's praise is not at the level of Abbey Road or LC)

Popularity:

VUaN: 40 (it's low, I admit that much)
Blue: 65-70 (it's not like Blue is also massively popular either, especially overtime, at least not to the levels of comparison to it's acclaim)

So totals if we take Blue at maximum number values:

VUaN: 220
Blue: 225

So it's really close, and the Blue number range I gave is because it's arguable to a degree. Also, VUaN has now been put in the Library of Congresses National Recording Registry for being 'culturally, historically, or aesthetically significant', if that gives it anymore credit for it's importance.

It could swing, I'm for either way, I love both, but I think due to it's overall importance in the music world, VUaN should be ahead.
Blue:

VUaN scores more like a 25 in popularity. Honestly, if popularity wasn't a criteria, VUaN would be jostling for a top 10 spot.

Here's my scoring (winner gets a hundred, loser gets a non-hundred score that's comparable; basically, it's not standardized)

Influence: VUaN = 100; Blue = 60-70
Acclaim: VUaN = 97; Blue: 100
Popularity: VUaN = 60; Blue = 100

Total: VUaN = 257; Blue = 270

As I said, alright by me. Makes sense, and if you think blue should be ahead, I totally understand why.

We can drop it if you want, and that's fine. But there's a long stretch between needed exact numbers and asking for some evidence.

I don't doubt that electronica is more popular in China and Japan than is rap. But that doesn't mean that it follows that this cancels out the huge advantage rap has elsewhere in the world. Is electronica really more popular than J-pop in Japan? Is the market for any of this all that large? If so, why don't any of those artists show up on the list of the biggest-selling artists worldwide? (There is one Japanese release, by a J-pop boy band, so the Japanese market at least is reported there.)

In then end, in any event, the English-speaking world takes priority here, both because it's easier for us to find reliable info about the US and UK, and because that's where most rock and roll came from.

Classic Rock Junkie, stop with this numerical breakdowns.

Sure, that's fine. But then how do you suppose we rate this gap in wins and losses? Since that's where this came from, because we can no longer say 'x takes influence but y takes popularity and acclaim, so y gets more wins'. Apparently it's now determined by how big the wins are, and they can trump other wins. So how should we determine by how much each of them win? Originally, people were just saying 'but this guy wins by way more', and I'd ask how much is way? So how do we measure these differences accurately? What method to you suggest? I'd love to stop with the numbers.

Rob, I posted this on the editor's page:

128. Rock Around The Clock (1956) - Bill Haley & His Comets

This is not a legitimite album. It's a collection of songs that had
all been out on singles before the album was released. It's really
just a "Best Of" collection. I'd get it off of this list, it won't be
on the "Greatest 50s Albums" list.

Every song on this Haley album had been released on a single before 1956. It's just both sides of six of their Decca singles, ands it's really just a 12 inch version (12 songs) of an earlier 10 inch album (8 songs) by the group, called "Shake, Rattle and Roll." Even the 10 inch album was a 1955 release that was just a collection of previously issued singles, mostly from 1954.



Coincidentally, aside from this Haley item that is not really an album, we agree on the top 4 albums of the 50s, and they will be on the 1950s albums list in the same order that you have them in here.

1 ¦ Elvis Presley - Elvis Presley
2 ¦ The Chirping Crickets - Crickets
3 ¦ Here's Little Richard - Little Richard
4 ¦ Bo Diddley - Bo Diddley

Although the Bo Diddley album is very iffy to be considered a legit album. It contains all tracks that were on singles with two of the songs that seem to have been released as a single around the same time as the album was released. The other ten songs were all released on singles either months, or up to two and half years, before the album came out.

Rush-Moving Pictures?

Finally realized that the old forum was dead eh?

The critics at the time were right, Velvet Underground was shit. That does not change because future musicians like the taste of shit.

You're seriously going to reference a post I made several months ago just the further push your intentionally unpopular opinions down all our throats?

Sorry, it was one of the posts on the last page of the thread. Didn't realize that there was suck little activity.

No. The Velvets were very good. That does not change because some people are too narrow-minded to accept that good music comes in different styles for different people.

Okay, then I guess every record ever made is good. If someobody went to the time, work, and expense to record it and have it manufactured, then SOMEONE thought it was good.....therefore, every record is good.

Glad we cleared that up.