Lol, I love me some Elliott but his discography is not a 10/10. I'd go with Tom Waits.
What constitutes a 10/10 discography? Cuz like if it's about consistency yeah I would probably give it to Elliott he hasn't had a single bad release. But if it's about the sheer number of great releases then I would probably give it to Swans or if I am allowed to bring in non-popular music stuff, Miles Davis.
not being ironic all of his songs, albums, and dj sets are bangin'
>having a shitload of free time to hear all his releases
These and probably Eno
With or without comps included
Absolutley not. 10/10 Discographies mean that they don't have a single song that's even less than great. Every single one of these artists have put out a mediocre album, so they're not even close to 10/10.
Only other artist other than pic related would be Blind Willie Johnson or >>61827907 if you don't count EPs and unreleased stuff.
They're seriously one of two artists that are 10/10 imo. It's really only because they have a discography under 45 minutes that this is even possible. Same with Blind Willie Johnson. I'll bet if they released even a few more songs it would probably move down to a 9/10.
I love Elliott Smith, but how someone can say his discography is a 10/10 is beyond me. Maybe they're still in high school?
There isn't a artist with a 10/10, the ones that get near it are Unwound, This Heat and maybe Portishead. But really, Minor Threat? REALLY? They are mediocre as fuck and every other Ian MacKaye project was better.
None of those artists have even released a 7/10, my guy.
I don't even like the Smiths that much but I can admit they have a 10/10 discography. Only weak link would be oscillating wildly.
I'd also say Bedhead, definitely. Slint as well. And maybe Shabazz Palaces and Iceage so far but who knows.
Did you get mad because someone said that Minor Threat was shit?
Embrace was 10 times better
Fugazi was 100 times better
Can't you discuss with arguments? Or you only have dank memes?
This Heat and Unwound had a streak of almost perfect albums, experimental but enjoyable. Portishead had a lot of good releases (the self-titled was a bit mediocre) but the quality remained high, while Minor Threat was just derivative overrated hardcore punk.
Turn off your trip until you graduate from high school, senpai.
This anger. It fuels me.
Unwound is ass. Their first and last albums are their only salvageable ones. This Heat is alright as well, but nothing really amazing. Portishead has nothing that's good.
>Says I'm in high school
>Gets filtered for saying "senpai"
Agreed, my guy.
>Calls someone angry
>While typing in all capital letters on an Anime forum on the Internet
I don't like Minor Threat either, but none of those bands are special at all.
It's a 7/10 band versus 3 5/10s.
>say someone knows nothing about music because they dislike a very popular album album
Bjork never released a mediocre album, also the way i see it is that the discography as a whole is a incredible, not necessarily that every song is perfect just like how when I rate an album 10/10 I still have songs that I think are better than others, if I am to go by your criteria then there is absolutely no 10/10 discographies especially not minor threats
>The shit version of shit
So I'm gr8? Thanks!
>because I don't like it means it's not a good album
Yes. How much I enjoy an album is how I determine if it's good. What else would I base it on? If Rolling Stone or Fantano likes it? Figures.
Okay, I'm going to ask this again because I am legitimately curious about this:
If I'm not supposed to judge an album's quality on how much I like it, then what am I supposed to base it on? Is there an objective "goodness" found in music, and how does one find this? Do you just copy your opinions from p4k and Fantano? Do you dislike good albums?
Please respond. I'm really not trying to be an ass, I am just super curious about this statement.
Even their first ep was pretty good, all their albums are 8 or higher imo
I like Selling England by the Pound and the sick drums on In the Air Tonight, but otherwise, not really.
I listened to So once or twice, but wasn't really captivated by it. Maybe I'll pick it up again some day.
I recognize the influence of a lot of popular "indie" acts like Wilco and Pavement, but think they suck. Same with a lot of influencial acts like Chuck Berry, Stones, Led Zeppelin, and Bruce Springsteen, but I still think they suck.
Are you saying if I hate an artist's music, I still have to like them because a lot of people like them? Would you call this delusion?
I wasn't really clear there. What I'm saying is
Goodness of album = How much you like album
And nothing else at all. An album is not good by being influential.
Maybe this, actually.
I can understand that. Try Peter's first 4 albums then. They have some good, strong work in them. Especially his third and fourth albums "Melt" and "Security"
No you dont have to like them but you should be able to understand why other people do but it basically comes down to what is "good" is what you think is good
An album is not good by being influential, youre not wrong but they are important is what im trying to get at
LOL at how all of you think music is something more than perception. Your opinions on music are as credible as goddamn Brian Williams