only 3 albums in the 60's were good enough albums to rival the best albums the Beatles made - Highway 61 Revisited, Pet Sounds & the much less famous first Velvet Underground album w/ Nico. If you don't own it by now, you are severely missing out on some of the best songs ever written.

I could probably agree with this. I got a bit burned out on VU but the Nico album is top 5 of the 60s, easily.

this is a ridiculous statement, almost akin to saying that the world is indeed flat.

anyways the nico album has some good songs but the only VU album i come back to anymore is the third one.

your mom is a ridiculous statement, your mom is the one who's flat.

and to say it has some good songs is one hell of an understatement.

Yeah, new guy.

I have to agree. Ridiculous indeed.

Yes, Indeed ridiculous.

Of course you could always state your argument by naming other albums in the 1960's that were that good.

Name some.

I would've gotten here sooner, but I've been busy with college & a career & working & family & ya know, that kinda bullshit.

Hopefully I'll have your respect once I've posted on this forum over 8 thousand times

Charles Mingus' The Black Saint & The Sinner Lady for one, but there's lots of great, great albums from the 60's. I'm a huge Beatles fan, by the way.

hey sweetheart, how's it goin'

Let's see, off the top of my head...

John Coltrane - A Love Supreme
Frank Zappa - Hot Rats
Ornette Coleman - Free Jazz
Thelonius Monk - Straight, No Chaser
Miles Davis - Bitches Brew

all as good or better than Abbey Road.

Uhm you're only allowed to compare VU to the Beatles in this thread I think

hey man, homeboy asked for albums as good or better!

I offered! I even left off a whole bunch of honourable mentions and went for my straight up faves.

All great albums for sure... I read Radiohead's biography & they were listening to Bitches Brew a lot during the making of OK Computer.

But the difference is, is that those (for the most part) are albums that are personal favorites to YOU - With my original post, I was talking in terms of impact, influence, relevance, lasting appeal - & despite how much you love the album, it's pretty hard to argue that an album by Thelonius Monk is on the same level as Highway 61 Revisted or Abbey Road, etc... Outside of your personal world.

In terms of pop culture, I'm correct - Most music critics would agree - There were really only 3 albums during that time that rival the best of the Beatles, & I named them - Some might argue the first Doors album is, but I don't think it's aged as well or has the same following as the albums I named. The Free Wheelin Bob Dylan may be another. But as far as the 1960's go, I'm pretty much right - Who's Next wasn't released till the 70s, the best Stones albums weren't released till the 70's, & Neil Young's best albums didn't come until the 70's.

Also the Beatles were much better than the VU, it's only on their debut that they were around the same level, if only for a little bit - Anyways that changed when Sgt Peppers was released the same yr, which is better than the first VU album. But the first Vu album is better than Revolver or Rubber Soul.

Okay, so let's alter the criteria that they have to be 'culturally significant,' which seems to make an album 'better' than another. While objectivist stances on music are always interesting, they just don't work - I'm sorry dude. You get to the realm of culturally important, and that is a construct of the culture, not the music - interesting, but not what I refer to when I say an album is better than another. Some of my favourites, and in my opinion, the best albums are ones that aren't 'significant.' That doesn't make a Christine Fellows album any 'worse' than say, a korn album that touched off a new cultural landscape in the late 90's.

But let's play your game here, your carefully constructed little world where you are right always, because you didn't define any parameters on what makes something better - musical content is not so much the defining factor as Impact (with a capital I). And no, for the record, for a record to have an impact doesn't mean it necessarily has to be a quality musical recording, so that's false reasoning to assume that. I'll cede the Monk and the Zappa for now - masterpieces no doubt, but without the impact, I'll admit that.

SO you can sit there and tell me, with a straight face, that Free Jazz, A Love Supreme, and Bitches Brew aren't complete critical, musical and cultural landmarks? Because I will call bullshit on that. Free Jazz revolutionized the jazz idiom with its double quartet format, its continuous free improvisation. Turned it on its ear. A Love Supreme is a masterpiece of avant-garde jazz. Sublime in every single way. Bitches Brew is, well, Bitches Brew. You can try and tell me this is my own personal opinion and it doesn't matter outside of my little world, but man oh man, there are literally four decades of music critics and impacted music that disagree with you. If you want to narrow your argument even more, to the world of "pop" culture only, well, you have a very myopic view of the 60's, then.

Good arguments, maybe next time we chat you could make new ones without sounding like a jerk? Such as saying I have a carefully constructed world where I'm always right, despite only talking with me a couple times. I'll agree with Bitches Brew - To a much lesser extent, A Love Supreme & Free Jazz. After that, I don't know where to begin so I'll just start going for it...

Korn have never really released a significant album, they were just trendy - What's significant is something that is still felt years & years later... All traces of Follow the Leader are pretty much dead by now, that's the difference between a trend & a movement.

Fact is though, is that a lot of people just aren't really into jazz - I like jazz, & a lot of people do.. But even more people don't, much more people dislike jazz than like it. Of course musicians are fond of jazz, so my guess is you're a musician too, like me.

Just because pop culture isn't into jazz on a massive level doesn't mean anything bad, jazz is simply too advanced for the vast majority of people to understand - Music just doesn't get more complex than jazz.

The thing about the albums I named which makes them unique from the albums you're talking about... Is their massive appeal to people of all ages - all circles - all culture.

To specify... With the albums I named, many, many musicians love all those albums, you already know that... BUT, many, many people who aren't musicians love those albums on practically the same level - They're the albums everyone can enjoy listening to, from the most advanced music theory teachers, to 12 year old kids... Both can get great enjoyment out of listening to an album like Pet Sounds & Abbey Road - THAT'S the difference... Jazz doesn't have that kind of reach. I was listening to Highway 61 Revisited & loving every second of it when I was only 13 years old... I did not like jazz or get into jazz until my early 20's.

It's much more impressive to make an album that music majors & music teachers, aswell as the pop culture public & kids can enjoy on a massive level, than is it to make an album which only appeals to one side of the group - In this way, pop music is jazz music's evil twin - They both are at opposite sides of the spectrum, but when an album can cross into both worlds, that's incredible.

That's the difference between the albums I named, & the albums you're naming. That's what makes Pet Sounds, Abbey Road, The first Vu album, & Highway 61 Revisted more impressive than A Love Supreme & Free Jazz - They have much greater reach, & that isn't arguable. It's fact because those albums have sold a lot more, & more people talk about them & reference them - Whether it's advanced musicians, or high school kids.

Those albums I named are the albums that make people WANT to become musicians... the albums you're naming are, for the most part, what people listen to after they're musicians - Which is why they aren't as popular. I would've never wanted to play music if I listened to albums like Free Jazz & A Love Supreme when I was 18.

Hard for me to agree that Korn has never released a significant album - they helped galvanise a trend which lasted a good 5 to 6 years before mutating off into something else, and unfortunately for us, is still found on the radio today. Of course it is hard to compare them in the same light with bandsthat were around 40 years ago, because a) we've had 40 years to recollect and examine impacts, and b) the music industry is way different now

I'll try to tone down the 'being a jerk' if you tone down the "I am right" I merely pointed it out because, once called on your statement, you defined the context which you were working in (in fact, you are continuing to do this - I don't mean to point this out as a point of any offense, but first the album had to be better, then it had to be more significant, and now it has to be more accessible - just calling it as I see)

I disagree with you on the level that something has to be accessible to be great (and I still think ALS is a really easy to listen to album - more so than BB or FJ, but still on its base level - it is very easy to connect with). It has to be accessible to fit into the marketing schema of popular radio/music releasing. This obviously preculdes jazz (at least since the 40's and early 50's.

While a broad appeal is an iompressive feat, I don't think it need be a cornerstone - while a kid could enjoy the beach boys, or the beatles (or anything with a lot of strong pop harmonies, which is usually the easiest thing to identify with, I find), that doesn't mean their releases are any better - Being able to make an album that appeals to kids and music teachers is not necessarily something that signifies greatness to me (although it can certainly be a symptom of it). I am content with music that is brainless as being a masterpiece, as well as something that is incredibly complex. But that is kind of tangential and I don't want to get mired up in this.

While you say that it isn;t arguable, I would postulate, that at least in the case of the Velvet undround, it is certainly arguable that it doesn't have a great reach. First off it is obtuse as hell - I couldn't see, say, an office worker hearing on the radio and tapping their foot. Secondly, it was met with rather tepid reception at the time of its release, as far as my knowledge of history goes - and I am not sure if it sold all that well either (I don't put much stock in album sales as a signifier of anything other than accessibility, as you might have inferred, but since you mentioned it as a strength I thought I'd mention it - most of its sales seem to come from its after-the-fact canonisation)

Ultimately, you are saying these albums are the pinnacle and vanguard of a certain set of criteria - in which case, I guess I can't argue with that. What I can argue with that I don't think that succeeding within this framework makes them any better, and I disagree with any notion to the contrary. Evidently, I champion a different set of ideals when it comes to how I define a great album from the time period. Musically (bereft of the impacts - which I know is part and parcel with the entire listening experience), I still feel all those albums are stronger than all the albums you listed, except for maybe Abbey Road.

(as a final note, the music that makes people want to make music is a flawed statement - it is different strokes for different folks. And if jazz didn't do that, how come we have jazz musicians continuing to pop up? I've met more than enough people who were raised on the gospel according to Coltrane)

Anyways I should probably go to bed or something. Its been fun, though! Stick around.

It's reasons like this that I hate lists and rankings - we end up with arguments like the one we have in this thread. I'm a huge Velvet Underground fan, and while I'd love to try and convince people that they were one of the top 5 bands of the 1960's, I refuse to even try. It's too subjective; sure, they were seminal. And yeah, they created one of the greatest debut albums in rock and roll history. But that doesn't mean the VU & Nico is necessarily one of the top 5 albums of the decade. Personally, it's probably in my top 5 albums of that era, but I can understand why others would refute that claim. Why aren't people content enough to just say an album is great without shoving these kind of labels and descriptions down everyone's throat? It's mind-boggling, really.

I liked jazz when I was 13, a lot in fact. I still don't like Bob Dylan that much. It's all subjective.

This thread has a lot of words. I even read some of them.