Kevorkian Logic

I dunno. You can often tell if an album is amazing and is destined to become a classic or not by the 2nd listen or 3rd listen. Also, if you hear an album referenced often in conversation, it's a clue it might become a classic.

There are obvious loopholes in that statement, like how Parris Hilton's album gets referenced a lot in conversation making her album a classic, you know the point I was getting at.

__________________
"it is only through a limitless accumulation of the imperfect that a certain type of perfection can be attained"

Strummer521

I find that sometimes albums I thought were amazing seem less worthwhile to me later on...and vice-versa. I think an album needs to stand the test of time before we can call it a classic. "might become" a classic and "is" a classic are two different things.

__________________

cardboard adolescent

Also, I think even if you do end up really really liking an album part of attaining "classic" status has to do with impact and influence, which is something that definetely requires perspective to truly understand.

Kevorkian Logic

Your logic is completely accurate, so I agree with your idea of excluding post-2000.

__________________
"it is only through a limitless accumulation of the imperfect that a certain type of perfection can be attained"

Strummer521

Right definitely. And a record doesn't have influence right away. The younger generation has to grow up so their bands can be sucessful and they can start imitating it. Because the people listening to it as teenagers are most likely to be the ones that will assimilate elements of the band into their sound.

__________________

Urban Hat€monger ?

I don`t see the harm in posting albums post 2000.

Influence is one thing but it`s not everything.I don`t need a decade to tell me that something i`m listening to is totally different to anything I have ever heard before or is much better than a lot of the albums that are around at the time.

You could go the opposite way and say loads of 'classic' albums are a product of their time & sound dated or naive compared to todays music. But that doesn`t mean that people shouldn`t regard them as classics , if only because of the impact they had at the time they were released.

__________________

adidasss

The irony of your post being, you actually hate most post millennium music.

__________________
“Think of what a paradise this world would be if men were kind and wise.” - Kurt Vonnegut, Cat's Cradle.

Last.fm

Urban Hat€monger ?

Even though I wrote a list out of 30 albums I liked just from last year?

__________________

adidasss

Yeah, I chose to ignore that. :chuckles: Properly owned....and your avatar makes me laugh every time.

__________________
“Think of what a paradise this world would be if men were kind and wise.” - Kurt Vonnegut, Cat's Cradle.

Last.fm

Strummer521

But don't you think it should be given time, in case some other band comes along and does the same thing hundreds of times better before you go so far as to consider it classic.

A couple definitions of classic that support my stance:

- something noteworthy of its kind and worth remembering
- of enduring interest, quality, or style

I think the passage of time is basically essential for something to be truly classic.

__________________