mancabdriver said:

The Cure get screwed a lot.

I'm surprised Joy Division/New Order didn't make it. Between the 2 of them, they've got about 5 classic albums and 2 classic singles comps.

SUPRMAN said:

The Eagles deserve a top 10 mention in "most overrated bands of all time".

This list is an accurate reflection of what critics have deemed to be the best music made in the past 80 years or so. The artist formula is based on the top 6 album and song positions for each artist. This does tend to favor artists who flourished before the album era took off, but that is how it goes. As such, I think it is the best such list available of its type.

Now, you can argue all you want about the bias of the critics themselves. I personally think they tend to favor white males who play rock music from the 60s and 70s, and undervalue world music, black music and music predominantly performed by female artists. But the site can't be faulted for reflecting these critics- it is called acclaimed music and not best music after all, and the site host acknowledges this.

TRON said:

Joy Division is 51 and New Order is 57.

The Cure is 70.

Meaningless.

I love how people come and just crap on a list without really looking into it. No list is going to satisfy everyone. However, this list reflects the largest amount of research into critical acclaim of music that I have ever seen, with over 1,000 critics' lists from around the world and various time periods compiled to produce it.

Moonbeam said:

Who cares what a bunch of critics think anyway? Everyone knows they just praise whatever they think is cool at the time.

I've lost count of the amount of albums which get trashed by the critics upon release and then go on to become classics (think Thriller, think New York Dolls, think There's A Riot Goin' On). It just goes to show how worthless and pretentious these opinions are.
[Edited 1/28/10 2:35am]

i find it to be a thought provoking list.


quite america-centric though.

I'm surprised to see springstein do so well.
and nirvana are very high, they only made onee big album

MattyJam said:

Thriller is ranked as the 28th greatest album of all-time on that site.

New York Dolls comes in at 131.

There's a Riot Goin' On at 48.

I'm not saying critics are always right (lots of my favorite albums aren't anywhere to be seen on that site ), but to baselessly bash them is silly, I think.

Moonbeam said:

You've missed the point. All of those albums received mixed/poor reviews from critics AT THE TIME. Rolling Stone magazine called New York Dolls the worst new band in years when they dropped their first record. They now rank the very same album quite highly in their top 500 albums of all time list.

It's all a load of shit. I can't believe anybody with a mind of their own is remotely interested in whether an artist or a band is "critically acclaimed" or not. It counts for nothing and only exists to validate the opinions of fellow music snobs.
[Edited 1/28/10 4:43am]

MattyJam said:

Well, magazines and newspapers surely care about critics. And listeners do too. It's an important job, and I'm sure that most of them do a better job of it than you or I would.

It's easy to dismiss a faceless critic as "full of shit", but they all do their jobs, most of them to the best of their abilities. Opinions and trends can change, but I've found a lot of great music through critics' lists, so I guess it matters to me.

Moonbeam said:

Exactly right. It amazes me that the original poster explained the list at least twice, and provided links, and people still post crap like "um how did they come up with this list? it stinks", LOL. Do people bother reading anymore? Seriously.

This is a huge compendium of critics from a wide spectrum of books and publications. It's as close to a definitive list as we're ever gonna get.

Moonbeam said:

People love to bash critics, but ever notice how many of the same albums end up on year end lists? By and large, critics do a good job in recognizing the best of any given year - - far better than the Grammys, for sure. There are variations in opinion for sure, which is why a combination of lists like this site provides is so useful - it provides a general critical consensus.

Folks whose personal taste doesn't jive with what is generally critically acclaimed might not like it, but so be it. I love music that I would never put on any "best of" list, and it doesn't bother me in the slightest if critics don't like it. That doesn't stop me from enjoying it. But I also am more likely to check something out if its receiving wide critical acclaim. Most of the time - as this list shows - the critics get it generally right.

these lists are always stupid, shitty and pointless, but we love looking at them and discussing them just the same. especially hardcore music fans. it gives us an outlet to focus our insanity on.

Moonbeam said:

i love it. too bad about that interface, though.

interesting list. glad to see Prince at #6. didnt think he'd rank so high. I think he deserves it and Parade, SOTT, Dirty Mind, Purple Rain, and 1999 have typically been well reviewed, so that's 5 great ablums right there. I was surprised to see Bowie so high, i know he's considered a pioneer and what not but...James and Stevie definitely should've been higher, esp. Stevie. James's influence is different from his "album impact".

i think people look at these lists with the wrong outlook....if you dont agree with the music that has been acclaimed by people who actually earn their living writing about music then thats fine....but i personally would much rather discover new music with someone else who actually KNOWS a bit about music reviewing an album and giving it praise.....thats how i discovered arcade fire's album 'funeral' ....the best album i have heard in last 10 years.....if i just watched what was in the charts ....i would be listening to cheryl feckin cole or some other crap like that.....you should view it as a list of recommended music by people who should know what they are talking about.....so if an album or an artist is high up on these lists and you have never really listened to them or whatever ...then you might discover some great music.....i have discovered some great albums and artists through acclaimedmusic.net that i probably wouldnt have otherwise.....

datdude said:

here's the thing about Stevie... I love him. I think he's phenomenally talented and has created some wonderful albums.

but sometimes I think he's a little overrated in the influence department. was he a revolutionary in the way that a James Brown or Ray Charles or a Bowie or a Beatles were? or was he just the very best of the best within his genre? he's a gifted musician. a gifted songwriter. a gifted performer. but, musically speaking, did he expand the bondaries of a sound? did he create a sound? a movement?

this is something I struggle with occasionally while listening to Stevie. sometimes I can hear it in his work. and sometimes, listening to the same work, I really can't. I often think he is underrated. I often think he is overrated. so maybe the fact that he is usually very highly rated, but never at the top is just about right.

anyway i have always thought that if you admire prince's music then you have good taste in music and recognise musical talent when you see it....

Critics are as flawed as the rest of us, meaning that I think they are often writing as much or more for peer approval than honestly working hard to find a harder and wiser truth in the art and in themselves.

But over time a lot of these short-term biases of being accepted and clever fade and a more universal truth is exposed. I think this is especially true when looking at hundreds or even thousands of considerations over many years/decades.

But there’s still plenty of imperfection, as the greatest critical minds (those that are working the hardest to better themselves and find a more universal truth) are very much in the minority. And even the greatest of work ethics and minds can’t properly consider everything, as the volume is just too grand.

This list is actually a Top 1000 and it’s quite fascinating. But I do think that this great list ultimately needs to be tweaked by those minority minds I’m talking about that can honestly see more of the flaws in the list -- both mathematically and soulfully -- rather than just partially promoting more flaws in themselves.

Timmy84 said:

Yeah, I think Frank Zappa is an example of someone who gets screwed in the other direction. He is considered one of the greatest for albums, but is out of the Top 1000 for singles.

Brendan said:

That's because Frank Zappa was never a singles artist, I think he wouldn't have cared any other way lol

Timmy84 said:

Absolutely.

errant said:

I never knew you visited that site! You should post in the forum.

Moonbeam said:

exactly, critics are professional listeners. More often I agree with their takes than average peoples', though sometimes they can be a little ridiculous in dismissing perfectly good music because that is where their fanciful pen takes them. Usually they simply don't like it, but they will use some esoteric logic to justify the feeling.

At the very least, though, their opinion means as much or as little as a normal person's

I disagree with you. I don't think Stevie's greatest ever or most revolutionary ever. But Stevie's definitely revolutionary and influential as the Beatles, James and Ray were.

Yes. he expanded boundaries of sound. His use of analog synthesizer expand the usage of synthesizer. Although he wasn't the first to use synthesizer but Stevie used synthesizers as a whole, independent instruments. Before Stevie, people usually used synthesizer as "spice" or "special effect" in popular music.
Stevie(with help from Robert Margouleff and Malcolm Cecil) developed a new way of using synthesizer. That influenced many colleague musicians. For example Marvin gaye and The Isley brothers adopted the sound several years after.
In addition, his arrangement of monophonic synthesizer is sensational too(make harmonic sound to overlap the monophonic synth).

And his clavinet playing was also influential. He played a important role in popularizing clavinet and making distinct sound of it.

But most of all, Stevie harmonica is the most important thing to refer. He raised the status of chromatic harmonica in popular music. His arrangement of harmonica and solo playing influence so many other musicians. He set up the model of playing harmonica.