The best-selling LPs of all time: do they deserve to be?
- toomanyhatz
- Power-mad king of the WCC
- Posts: 29992
- Joined: 07 Apr 2005, 00:01
- Location: Just east of where Charlie Parker went to do some relaxin'
Re: The best-selling LPs of all time: do they deserve to be?
I voted for a grand total of three:
Rumors - "Deserve," I don't know - LB is obviously the best songwriter AND best musician AND best producer in the band (possibly the best singer too, though CMcV has some claim there). If anything it's a good thing that somebody who's got some quirks was on a huge release like that. I also think it's at least that particular band's best album. I don't like all of it by a longshot, but Buckingham and Nicks are the kind of weirdos I want for rock stars.
Saturday Night Fever - The Bee Gees are craftsmen. I prefer the first album (which isn't really the first), but this is the one where they put it all together. I've long said that they were always about copying whatever sound was on the charts at the time - here's where they did it most successfully. I think the people who called this a "sell out" were really not paying attention.
Peppers - As I've said here more than once, it's probably my 5th or 6th favorite Beatles album - and frankly, it surprises me that it's outsold Abbey Road - but I'm obviously not ready to take my Beatle Goggles off yet.
Some that mystify me to some degree:
Thriller and Bad - Off the Wall is far better than either. Can't deal with the sappy ballads on any of the above, though. I guess I "get" why it was Thriller, but I don't have to like it.
Zep IV - Just 'cause of "Stairway?" Really? Physical Graffiti is about a gazillion times better. At least it's not I or II.
DSotM - Nope. Still don't get it. Never will. "Money" is a decent single. The rest of the album is no better or worse conceptually than any of his other "concept" albums. Maybe 'cause it was first? I mean, I don't like the Eagles either, but at least can see how they captured a moment. This still bewilders me.
I'm also surprised to not see Frampton Comes Alive there. New houses came issued with it, and waterbeds, in the 70s. I guess it's stuck there. Can't think of another album that huge that's had such a comedown.
Rumors - "Deserve," I don't know - LB is obviously the best songwriter AND best musician AND best producer in the band (possibly the best singer too, though CMcV has some claim there). If anything it's a good thing that somebody who's got some quirks was on a huge release like that. I also think it's at least that particular band's best album. I don't like all of it by a longshot, but Buckingham and Nicks are the kind of weirdos I want for rock stars.
Saturday Night Fever - The Bee Gees are craftsmen. I prefer the first album (which isn't really the first), but this is the one where they put it all together. I've long said that they were always about copying whatever sound was on the charts at the time - here's where they did it most successfully. I think the people who called this a "sell out" were really not paying attention.
Peppers - As I've said here more than once, it's probably my 5th or 6th favorite Beatles album - and frankly, it surprises me that it's outsold Abbey Road - but I'm obviously not ready to take my Beatle Goggles off yet.
Some that mystify me to some degree:
Thriller and Bad - Off the Wall is far better than either. Can't deal with the sappy ballads on any of the above, though. I guess I "get" why it was Thriller, but I don't have to like it.
Zep IV - Just 'cause of "Stairway?" Really? Physical Graffiti is about a gazillion times better. At least it's not I or II.
DSotM - Nope. Still don't get it. Never will. "Money" is a decent single. The rest of the album is no better or worse conceptually than any of his other "concept" albums. Maybe 'cause it was first? I mean, I don't like the Eagles either, but at least can see how they captured a moment. This still bewilders me.
I'm also surprised to not see Frampton Comes Alive there. New houses came issued with it, and waterbeds, in the 70s. I guess it's stuck there. Can't think of another album that huge that's had such a comedown.
Footy wrote:
The Who / Jimi Hendrix Experience Saville Theatre, London Jan '67
. Got Jimi's autograph after the show and went on to see him several times that year
1959 1963 1965 1966 1974 1977 1978 1981 1988 2017* 2018 2020!! 2023?
-
- Posts: 63924
- Joined: 03 Jun 2004, 20:12
Re: The best-selling LPs of all time: do they deserve to be?
toomanyhatz wrote:DSotM - Nope. Still don't get it. Never will. "Money" is a decent single. The rest of the album is no better or worse conceptually than any of his other "concept" albums. Maybe 'cause it was first? I mean, I don't like the Eagles either, but at least can see how they captured a moment. This still bewilders me.
I almost wrote something like this. I don't get it either and haven't since I bought it when I was 14. I'm surprised anyone can listen to this all the way through not being stoned to the gills.
Don't fake the funk on a nasty dunk!
- Walk In My Shadow
- Hello Laydeez
- Posts: 38713
- Joined: 23 Jul 2003, 20:02
- Location: The Good, the Bad, both ugly
- Contact:
Re: The best-selling LPs of all time: do they deserve to be?
I wonder if any serious fan of any of these artists needs a 'Best of'? Unless that contains unreleased stuff.
Otherwise, throw their best bits together release it around Christmas and - hey presto - best selling album!
Otherwise, throw their best bits together release it around Christmas and - hey presto - best selling album!
Beneluxfunkmeisterlurvegod
-
- Posts: 63924
- Joined: 03 Jun 2004, 20:12
Re: The best-selling LPs of all time: do they deserve to be?
Walk In My Shadow wrote:I wonder if any serious fan of any of these artists needs a 'Best of'?
But don't you think Best Ofs aren't for serious fans? I know lots of people who might have just one or two Beatles albums, at most, and the No. 1 hits is enough. They wouldn't even have the interest to dive into the red and blue albums.
And I agree, having worked at a bunch of record stores, I bet half the sales were quick Xmas purchases for cousin Jimmy.
Don't fake the funk on a nasty dunk!
- naughty boy
- hounds people off the board
- Posts: 20248
- Joined: 24 Apr 2007, 23:21
Re: The best-selling LPs of all time: do they deserve to be?
sloopjohnc wrote:Count Machuki wrote:"Off the Wall is better than Thriller" has become one of the most tedious music nerd tropes ever. It's probably true, but nobody needs to say it any more. Thriller is a great LP.
Bad is pretty good, too, for that matter.
I agree with this 100%
Bad is awful, mostly because of the production - the worst kind of tinny, soulless, plasticky 80s shit that made MJ something of an enemy to many at the time.
Matt 'interesting' Wilson wrote:So I went from looking at the "I'm a Man" riff, to showing how the rave up was popular for awhile.
- algroth
- Posts: 5714
- Joined: 04 Apr 2010, 03:12
Re: The best-selling LPs of all time: do they deserve to be?
I'm confused at why anyone would debate the 'worth' of IV, Thriller or Dark Side of the Moon in a list that includes Jagged Little Pill, Come on Over and the fucking Bodyguard soundtrack of all things. I'm not a fan of the former examples I cited for one, but I can recognize their impact and lasting adoration through the generations, it would make sense for albums like those to continue selling copies well beyond their heyday.
- toomanyhatz
- Power-mad king of the WCC
- Posts: 29992
- Joined: 07 Apr 2005, 00:01
- Location: Just east of where Charlie Parker went to do some relaxin'
Re: The best-selling LPs of all time: do they deserve to be?
"Girlfriend" sucks and "She's Out of My Life" is sappy as all get out, but is not without charm for the sincere reading he gives it. Other than that OtW is pretty much all golden. With Thriller you get all those Rod Temperton songs AND "The GIrl is Mine." The big hits are great, but it's all a step down, and some of it's a pretty huge one.
I do think Bad is underrated in a way, in that it's of a piece with the other two - but it is even a further step down, and I agree with JC about the production (which isn't a deal-breaker for me, but it mostly makes me want to listen to OtW again).
I do think Bad is underrated in a way, in that it's of a piece with the other two - but it is even a further step down, and I agree with JC about the production (which isn't a deal-breaker for me, but it mostly makes me want to listen to OtW again).
Footy wrote:
The Who / Jimi Hendrix Experience Saville Theatre, London Jan '67
. Got Jimi's autograph after the show and went on to see him several times that year
1959 1963 1965 1966 1974 1977 1978 1981 1988 2017* 2018 2020!! 2023?
- Rayge
- Posts: 15285
- Joined: 14 Aug 2013, 11:37
- Location: Zummerzet
- Contact:
Re: The best-selling LPs of all time: do they deserve to be?
sloopjohnc wrote:toomanyhatz wrote:DSotM - Nope. Still don't get it. Never will. "Money" is a decent single. The rest of the album is no better or worse conceptually than any of his other "concept" albums. Maybe 'cause it was first? I mean, I don't like the Eagles either, but at least can see how they captured a moment. This still bewilders me.
I almost wrote something like this. I don't get it either and haven't since I bought it when I was 14. I'm surprised anyone can listen to this all the way through not being stoned to the gills.
I've been stoned to the gills since before it was released and to this day I've never actually sat and listened to it. In the same way, never heard anything off The Wall except the unavoidable single, anything off the Alanis Morissette or Celine Dion, never listened to LZ4 (or 1, 2, 3 either), etc. I did have a copy of Thriller, and Off the Wall, but I threw them away.
In timeless moments we live forever
You can't play a tune on an absolute
Negative Capability...when a man is capable of being in uncertainties, Mysteries, doubts, without any irritable reaching after fact & reason”
- The Modernist
- 2018 BCB Cup Champ!
- Posts: 13843
- Joined: 13 Apr 2014, 20:42
Re: The best-selling LPs of all time: do they deserve to be?
sloopjohnc wrote:toomanyhatz wrote:DSotM - Nope. Still don't get it. Never will. "Money" is a decent single. The rest of the album is no better or worse conceptually than any of his other "concept" albums. Maybe 'cause it was first? I mean, I don't like the Eagles either, but at least can see how they captured a moment. This still bewilders me.
I almost wrote something like this. I don't get it either and haven't since I bought it when I was 14. I'm surprised anyone can listen to this all the way through not being stoned to the gills.
I've come round to it more in the last few years, although I still find it all a bit self-important. But I find it's success far easier to understand than "The Wall".
- the masked man
- Schadenfreude
- Posts: 27074
- Joined: 21 Jul 2003, 12:29
- Location: Peterborough
Re: The best-selling LPs of all time: do they deserve to be?
Regarding the Metallica album, which has been discussed on this thread, I just think it was marketed better than any other metal album in history. The reason that it is not regarded higher than their earlier discs is that it made a break from the thrash sound that the band made their name with. It was deliberately aimed to break Metallica as a major name. The songs were slower, more purposeful and it was produced with ruthless efficiency by Bob Rock, who had already had success with commercial hard rock acts like Motley Crue and The Cult. Also, the singles were very carefully chosen. First, the driving, gothic-tinged rock of Enter Sandman was a perfect calling card - it still sounds epic! Then, the more proggy track The Unforgiven suggested new depths to their music. This was followed by the surprisingly tender balladry of Nothing Else Matters, a track made for radio.
Hell, I bought it at the time and I wasn't even into metal at the time - aside from a Motorhead comp and a couple of Anthrax singles, I owned almost nothing of the genre. But those singles seduced and I even enjoyed heavier deep cuts like Sad But True and The God That Failed. Moddie asked earlier why it was them and not Megadeth. Well, Megadeth had some strong singles like Sweating Bullets and Symphony Of Destruction, but ultimately I think Dave Mustaine was less interested in global stardom than Lars Ulrich was. They didn't have an album like this in their armoury and were content with just being huge within the context of their genre. By comparison, like Black Sabbath and Iron Maiden before them, Metallica transcended metal.
Hell, I bought it at the time and I wasn't even into metal at the time - aside from a Motorhead comp and a couple of Anthrax singles, I owned almost nothing of the genre. But those singles seduced and I even enjoyed heavier deep cuts like Sad But True and The God That Failed. Moddie asked earlier why it was them and not Megadeth. Well, Megadeth had some strong singles like Sweating Bullets and Symphony Of Destruction, but ultimately I think Dave Mustaine was less interested in global stardom than Lars Ulrich was. They didn't have an album like this in their armoury and were content with just being huge within the context of their genre. By comparison, like Black Sabbath and Iron Maiden before them, Metallica transcended metal.
-
- Posts: 2340
- Joined: 05 Jul 2017, 23:05
Re: The best-selling LPs of all time: do they deserve to be?
Walk In My Shadow wrote:I wonder if any serious fan of any of these artists needs a 'Best of'? Unless that contains unreleased stuff.
Otherwise, throw their best bits together release it around Christmas and - hey presto - best selling album!
You buy the best of to put in the car. At least that's what I did with Abba Gold.
-
- Posts: 2340
- Joined: 05 Jul 2017, 23:05
Re: The best-selling LPs of all time: do they deserve to be?
And where is Brothers in Arms?
-
- Posts: 63924
- Joined: 03 Jun 2004, 20:12
Re: The best-selling LPs of all time: do they deserve to be?
The Modernist wrote:sloopjohnc wrote:toomanyhatz wrote:DSotM - Nope. Still don't get it. Never will. "Money" is a decent single. The rest of the album is no better or worse conceptually than any of his other "concept" albums. Maybe 'cause it was first? I mean, I don't like the Eagles either, but at least can see how they captured a moment. This still bewilders me.
I almost wrote something like this. I don't get it either and haven't since I bought it when I was 14. I'm surprised anyone can listen to this all the way through not being stoned to the gills.
I've come round to it more in the last few years, although I still find it all a bit self-important. But I find it's success far easier to understand than "The Wall".
The Wall, I can't stand. I only heard the singles on the radio and that was more than enough.
Don't fake the funk on a nasty dunk!
-
- Posts: 63924
- Joined: 03 Jun 2004, 20:12
Re: The best-selling LPs of all time: do they deserve to be?
the masked man wrote:Moddie asked earlier why it was them and not Megadeth. Well, Megadeth had some strong singles like Sweating Bullets and Symphony Of Destruction, but ultimately I think Dave Mustaine was less interested in global stardom than Lars Ulrich was.
And they were shittier and way more inconsistent. Dave Mustaine was a fixture on MTV at a certain point and certainly had the exposure.
Don't fake the funk on a nasty dunk!
- naughty boy
- hounds people off the board
- Posts: 20248
- Joined: 24 Apr 2007, 23:21
Re: The best-selling LPs of all time: do they deserve to be?
algroth wrote:I'm confused at why anyone would debate the 'worth' of IV, Thriller or Dark Side of the Moon in a list that includes Jagged Little Pill, Come on Over and the fucking Bodyguard soundtrack of all things. I'm not a fan of the former examples I cited for one, but I can recognize their impact and lasting adoration through the generations, it would make sense for albums like those to continue selling copies well beyond their heyday.
Something like the Adele album 'deserves' its success a damned sight more than that boring Floyd effort - for all sorts of reasons.
Matt 'interesting' Wilson wrote:So I went from looking at the "I'm a Man" riff, to showing how the rave up was popular for awhile.
- The Red Heifer
- Fucking Crackers
- Posts: 15048
- Joined: 31 Aug 2003, 01:28
- Location: South Penriff
- Contact:
Re: The best-selling LPs of all time: do they deserve to be?
Count Machuki wrote:trans-chigley express wrote:The Bodyguard soundtrack (I have no idea what's even on this album and don't know anyone that bought it)
That's the one with Whitney Houston's 'I Will Always Love You' on it...inescapable in its day. I wonder if it was also released as a single...if not that'd account why so many millions of people bought the soundtrack for a damn Kevin Costner movie.
Its one of the biggest selling singles of all time actually. Deserved or not I guess we'll decide on another one of fange's threads. Not to mention The Bodyguard soundtrack was essentially half a new Whitney Houston album at the time which had at least two more big hits on it besides the REALLY big one, which would explain a lot of it
Wadesmith wrote:Why is it that when there's a 'What do you think of this?' post, it's always absolute cobblers?
- bobzilla77
- Posts: 16280
- Joined: 23 Jun 2006, 02:56
- Location: Dilute! Dilute! OK!
Re: The best-selling LPs of all time: do they deserve to be?
I would say all those albums probably sold enough copies to get on a list of "albums that sold the most copies." Did they deserve it based on art merit? I wouldn't presume to know.
The Wall was a big deal in it's time, the last gasp of 70s rock. A stadium level band releases a conceptual double album that produces a number one single. As a result it sells a lot. What's your problem?
The Wall was a big deal in it's time, the last gasp of 70s rock. A stadium level band releases a conceptual double album that produces a number one single. As a result it sells a lot. What's your problem?
Jimbo wrote:I guess I am over Graham Nash's politics. Hopelessly naive by the standards I've molded for myself these days.
- The Red Heifer
- Fucking Crackers
- Posts: 15048
- Joined: 31 Aug 2003, 01:28
- Location: South Penriff
- Contact:
Re: The best-selling LPs of all time: do they deserve to be?
I know that Santana one seems inexplicable, but it was just the tried and true formula of getting current popular stars to sing while you play the guitar. It sucked everyone in from the old Santana fans of the 70s to the Matchbox Twenty fans of the day. I still hear "Smooth" at least three times a week.
Wadesmith wrote:Why is it that when there's a 'What do you think of this?' post, it's always absolute cobblers?
- Walk In My Shadow
- Hello Laydeez
- Posts: 38713
- Joined: 23 Jul 2003, 20:02
- Location: The Good, the Bad, both ugly
- Contact:
Re: The best-selling LPs of all time: do they deserve to be?
Positive Passion wrote:Walk In My Shadow wrote:I wonder if any serious fan of any of these artists needs a 'Best of'? Unless that contains unreleased stuff.
Otherwise, throw their best bits together release it around Christmas and - hey presto - best selling album!
You buy the best of to put in the car. At least that's what I did with Abba Gold.
I don't need to put the best in the car; i put their normale output in the car otherwise you expext jus to have teen good songs from a band while whole albums never gets mentioned
Beneluxfunkmeisterlurvegod
- Count Machuki
- BCB Cup Champion 2013
- Posts: 39534
- Joined: 11 Jun 2005, 15:28
- Location: HAIL, ATLANTA!
Re: The best-selling LPs of all time: do they deserve to be?
The Red Heifer wrote:Count Machuki wrote:trans-chigley express wrote:The Bodyguard soundtrack (I have no idea what's even on this album and don't know anyone that bought it)
That's the one with Whitney Houston's 'I Will Always Love You' on it...inescapable in its day. I wonder if it was also released as a single...if not that'd account why so many millions of people bought the soundtrack for a damn Kevin Costner movie.
Its one of the biggest selling singles of all time actually. Deserved or not I guess we'll decide on another one of fange's threads. Not to mention The Bodyguard soundtrack was essentially half a new Whitney Houston album at the time which had at least two more big hits on it besides the REALLY big one, which would explain a lot of it
Yeah, I looked it up after. Apparently it was Costner who suggested Whitney do the Dolly Parton cover!
Let U be the set of all united sets, K be the set of the kids and D be the set of things divided.
Then it follows that ∀ k ∈ K: K ∈ U ⇒ k ∉ D
Then it follows that ∀ k ∈ K: K ∈ U ⇒ k ∉ D