Now this is how it started: THE ILX 1980s ALBUM POLL RESULTS!!

Also, for the record, Tuomas has created the nicest, most organized and well-structured poll out of all of them. Good job!

why so many "white" indie rock in 80s?

http://i274.photobucket.com/albums/jj242/donaldparsley/80sMilhouse.jpg

he's more yellow i guess

For whatever reason, '80s r&b seems preserved in some kind of impenetrable amber that is nostalgic for some and cringe-inducing for others.

I'm no booster of 80s R&B (and don't know much about it), but to point out the obvious, the same could be said of much of the music in this poll. ABC?

agree. i don't think the emphasis on white music here is an artifact of 80s r&b and rap being a singles game. maybe true of r&b, not of rap. retrospectively, "classic" rap is now seen in album terms in much the same fashion as rock.

tons of worthy rap contenders will go unmentioned in this list due only to the vagaries of ilm's taste. which does seem to skew white & indie (much like mine), not that there's anything wrong with that. metal and mainstream hard rock will get the short end of the stick for similar reasons.

hey, wait. on second thought, let's not have this discussion again...

Glad to see Sandinista! got three #1 votes; I thought I was the only one on here who loved it so completely. It'll be interesting to see if anything places higher with fewer ballots.

Sandinista! was my number 2. Like others, I'm surprised that Disintegration and Dare are as low as they are. Anyway, great list, and am hoping to track down E2-E4 based on the thread talk.

sort of hilarious and indicative that london calling wasn't even on the nominations list. (not tuomas' fault, but i don't like the whole nominations system for these polls -- i think if you want to survey a particular period, people should just be able to vote for whatever came out during that period. otherwise you end up with these weird lists where people nominate strategically and some major, obvious stuff gets left off. otoh maybe the restrictions make for more interesting results.)

although i guess it's debatable whether london calling is '79 or '80, it depends on what side of the ocean you're on.

London Calling was definitely 1979 - it's always there-or-thereabouts in 70s polls

it also shows up on '80s lists. but yeah, maybe not the best example. it's just that the nominations list in general ended up looking very restrictive to me. (no i didn't nominate anything, i wasn't really paying attention. i just think a survey of an era should be a survey of an era.)

holy hell that 70's poll is awful

I sort of agree with what tm is saying, but I can't really think of anything much that got excluded that would definitely have placed. The Go-Betweens' Liberty Belle and the Black Diamond Express maybe, that was joint winner in the Go-Betweens album poll after all.

probably true that it doesn't affect the top 100 that much.

I first heard of e2-e4 on a number of ambient music mailing lists in the mid-90s. Ie, krautelectronica fans postulating roots for Aphex etc.

It got its mainstream dance press props too in 90s UK, or at least the sample would be mentioned whenever "Sueno Latino" got dug up for Acknowledge Yr Classicks Of Bygone (Balearic/Chillout/Trance/whatever current genre we can fit it into this week) nostalgia pieces. V glad to see it place so well though.

And, of course, the fact that for the better part of the decade rap and dance music were single-oriented rather than album-oriented genres doesn't help them in an album poll.

Yeah, I'd wanted to nominate some house/techno/rave albums cz obviously it was an important time for those, but couldn't think of any full-length albums (only Inner City - "Big Fun" which to be honest I don't much care for) or found that they'd been released just into the 90s. So I was glad that somebody nominated an early techno compilation, one I hadn't previously heard but knew the tracks from so I felt justified in voting for it. Bit late for that to place now, though.

I was hoping Voivod would make it into the 70-somethings of this chart and Cardiacs might scrape in, but alas. Still, considering I keep seeing stuff I love and going "shit, I didn't vote for that and it's awesome" I can't be too surprised.

The Soft Boys Underwater Moonlight was one of the oversights; of course, I didn't pay any attention to the nominating process so can only blame myself.

Yeah as I mentioned in an earlier post I voted for Liberty Belle just assuming it was in the list of four Go-Betweens albums nominated, easily their strongest album for me.

This Heat are going top 5, right guys? Right? Anyone?

holy hell that 70's poll is awful

I think the thing that strikes me about the 70s poll is that the albums seem to have been chosen through an 80s (college radio?) prism, but of course, if true, that makes sense given that so many ILMers weren't around in the 70s. My own picks for the 70s (and only for the 70s) might actually turn out more pop than ILM's.

from that 70s poll

ILM's kinda boring now. I miss the days when we'd vote Britney's "...Baby One More Time" the best single of all time or whatever. Those were better times. Now we vote for Radiohead.

― Atnevon (Atnevon), Sunday, 8 May 2005 22:46 (4 years ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

holy hell that 70's poll is awful

A little baffled by that, as I'm not sure what you were expecting.

If the 70s poll were done now, who would be the big winners and losers?

sort of hilarious and indicative that london calling wasn't even on the nominations list

London Calling aleady placed second on the 1970s album poll.

Apparently it was "released 14 December 1979, on CBS Records in the UK and in January 1980 on Epic Records in the United States".

The 70s are so damn big I'd like to see separate 1970-1974 and 1975-1979 polls.

I think '71-'75 and '76-'80, but your actual cutoff point is 26 november '76

nb 1970 was part of 'the 60s'

I would take the bonkers backwards logic of that 70's poll over the homogenous NME-think of this one every day of the week.

London Calling aleady placed second on the 1970s album poll.

i think i missed that poll entirely, but fair enough. i think of it as a 1980 album i guess, because that's the copyright that was on my vinyl copy.

('70s poll seems no more or less predictable than this one, tbh.)

I think maybe it would be prudent to wait to see what appears in the top half of this poll before drawing any conclusions.

Haha, I'd totally forgotten about it, but looks like I was complaining about the same things in the 70s poll too:

Dammit, the seventies was arguably the greatest decade of African-American music, so I'm a bit disappointed by all this proto-indie stuff that's filling the list. But I guess a couple of albums are still to come up ("What's Going On", "There's a Riot Going On"), and the singles list is where, for obvious reasons, we should see a lot more black music.

Anyway, I'm a bit surprised too there's no Fela Kuti on the list at all (was anyhthing besides "Zombie" even nominated?). I guess he could still make it, but I'm kinda doubtful...

― Tuomas (Tuomas), 24. huhtikuuta 2005 14:11

xpost

('70s poll seems no more or less predictable than this one, tbh.)

Oh yeah?

There's a Riot > London Calling
Blue > Low
Parallel Lines > Ziggy Stardust
Off the Wall > Call Me > Ramones
On the Corner > Bitches Brew
65 albums > IV
Everything > Dark Side of the Moon, Who's Next, Electric Warrior
Plus, actual music made by actual non-white artists!

I'd say, in terms of being unpredictable, the 70's poll takes it.

although i guess it's debatable whether london calling is '79 or '80, it depends on what side of the ocean you're on.

I remember Q magazine voting London Calling #1 in their albums of the decade poll in 1990.

Also, I was about to write a longer post comparing the results of this poll to the 70s and 90s polls, but then I remembered I'm the only one who actually knows the full results. So better finish the countdown before making that post.

22. My Bloody Valentine - Isn't Anything [1988] (229 points, 19 votes, 2 first place votes)

http://img.imeem.com/ai/VAD7DJUOA2GRLCMHBBNAVRWH6YOF7UT3.jpg

ISN'T ANYTHING in a hearbeat. The sounds/production are much more vaired, the songs are stronger and more interestingly constructed. The only reason there was so much hype for LOVELESS was because ISN'T ANYTHING was so amazing. LOVELESS turned out great, so people said that's the one to get. Another case of music people patting themselves on the shoulder because they predicted something would be good and it was. I love both records but there is no question which one is better. I probablly listen to ISN'T ANYTHING 10 times for every 1 LOVELESS listen.

Sueisfine.

― Tim Baier, 2. toukokuuta 2001 3:00

I adore both records, and for me they're among the most significant of their era. I've often thought in the past that I wouldn't be able to choose between them: they're both so wonderful, yet so different. But I came to think that isn't anything had to get the prize.

I agree with everyone who has said, in different ways, that Loveless is an astonishing sonic bath: a galazy of colour: an immersion in the music of the spheres or the mysteries of the heart. It is a magnificent, staggering achievement, and has a more *transformative* effect on me than most other records I can think of.

Yet isn't anything has more energy - is more diverse - seems to trying out many ideas, rather than perfecting one. It's almost equally strange and moving, in different ways. If I flip through the CD of ia I am repeatedly amazed by how distinctive, how memorable, how striking the mere opening seconds of each track are. Maybe 'All I Need' is best of all. But then there's the instrumental section of 'Feed Me With Your Kiss' (I think - I tend to mix up these songs; perhaps it's another title). Just one astounding musical adventure after another. It's hard to choose, but I think isn't anything just wins out.

― the pinefox, 3. toukokuuta 2001 3:00

It's a hard one to call, to be honest. Both had a very big effect on me at the first time of hearing, and I've played them both equally over the years but I'd have to push in the direction of "Isn't anything".

"IA" is just one of the most perfect albums ever made. The size and shape of it is quite unlike anything else. Let me explain (and I'm going to sound silly very soon). It's got twelve songs on it, and they arrive in perfect batches of three as far as I'm concerned, and each threesome is related to each other. Oh that sounds stupid. But that's just how it seems to me. As for 'is it electronic or not?' I read an interview recently which was saying that Kevin wanted all the guitars taken off a lot of the tracks on "IA" but to have the reverse reverb of the guitars instead, hence partly the swooning sound (also to do with the tremelo arms on the guitars). So it was ALL processed anyway. Anyway, back to my theory... Like all great albums, it gets darker towards the end, from "Sueisfine" onwards. It's just an album which begs to have the volume pumped up, and if I go deaf early it'll be down to having "IA" played at ear splitting volume on my walkman going to and from work. The last three songs are utterly sublime.

I f***ing love "IA", right?

And I f***ing love "Loveless" too, it's more of the same, more processed, less drunken (in a human way), and the songs are just as good, if not better, but I always felt it got a bit samey towards the end, after "Sometimes" it was a bit 'more of the same', and yes as someone has said "Soon" just doesn't fit in really. But I still love 'em both and play them (both would be amongst my ten most played albums of all time).

Hey, whatever happened to the Swirlies? Their rather spiffing "Blondertongueautobaton" LP was the logical followup to "Isn't anything"....

― Rob M, 5. toukokuuta 2001 3:00

Partly because MBV're so highly regarded here, I bought 'Isn't Anything' the other day. I'd never heard them before.

I've only listened to it a couple of times so far. And I'm underwhelmed. But I'm thinking I'm underwhelmed because of my assumptions about what I was gonna get, which I suppose, include guitars used madly and avant-garde beauty. I thought that the point of MBV was to astonish, in a way. And what I seem to have got is an album that sounds like it was recorded on a four-track, pretty basic songs, effects used in a way I can hear done better elsewhere, and that's it.

Which could still be pretty good. I'm not making a stupid claim that MBV are shit based on the couple of times I've listened to this one record. What I'm saying is that I'd got the impresssion that the way they sounded was essentially the point. And I've heard enough to know that the sound of them isn't gonna be enough for me. Far from it. I will play this record lots more times, in the hope that these songs (which I've certainly not heard enough to judge) are great. Are they? Is that what you all love about them? If so, I'm surprised only because I had presumed that the traditional songwriting side of this band was the least of their appeal.

― Eyeball Kicks (Eyeball Kicks), 8. marraskuuta 2002 2:48

xpost

I think maybe it would be prudent to wait to see what appears in the top half of this poll before drawing any conclusions.

Fair point. Show me Business as Usual, Radio and Run DMC! Oh that's right, they weren't even nominated.

Okay, show me Reign in Blood, Master of Puppets, 1984, Back in Black, Saturday Night!, Duck Rock, Critical Beatdown, Yo! Bum Rush the Show, Madonna, Kano, Control, The Number of the Beast, Follow the Leader, Come Away With ESG, Real People, Bad Brains, Guitar, The Cactus Album, and Bleach!

OR, do you think it's going to look more like this: The Queen is Dead, The Smiths, Meat is Murder, Daydream Nation, Surfer Rosa, Doolittle, Low-Life, Technique, Murmur, Sign O' the Times, Purple Rain, Thriller, Hounds of Love, Staring at the Sea, The Head on the Door, Psychocandy, Double Nickels on the Dime, Isn't Anything, Closer, Substance, and maaaaaaybe Graceland, if we're lucky.

That was my number one (MBV- Isn't Anything)

SPIRIT OF EDEN AND RIO FFS xp

Need to listen to IA a bit more. I have it. It's ok. Haven't given it too much of a chance. Adore Loveless.

maaaaaaybe Graceland, if we're lucky

Graceland is a lock, dude. possibly a dark horse candidate for top 5 imo.

Surely not even ILM could have a list with def leppard in it but not metallica and slayer.

― pfunkboy (Herman G. Neuname), Monday, 30 November 2009 02:30 (13 hours ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

it boggo the mind

― a dimension that can only be accessed through self-immolation (contenderizer), Monday, 30 November 2009 02:31 (13 hours ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

Infact I'm changing it to Surely not even ILM could have a list with def leppard in it but not metallica and slayer AND AC/DC.

― pfunkboy (Herman G. Neuname), Monday, 30 November 2009 02:34 (13 hours ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

I'm now changing it to
"Infact I'm changing it to Surely not even ILM could have a list with def leppard in it but not metallica and slayer AND AC/DC AND IRON MAIDEN."

But I cant really complain as I think I didn't vote for any of them cuz I assumed others would. But clearly even if I had them all in my top 5 it wouldn't have got them in the top 100 anyway (unless they're actually gonna be in the top 20, which I have my doubts)

am REALLY hoping that Psychocandy turns out to be a surprise omission.

it better not be

I think we'll see Psychocandy fairly soon, I don't think it will trouble the top 5.

This Heat are going top 5, right guys? Right? Anyone?

They had my vote.

I voted for This Heat but I think they got edged down pretty low in my ballot by the final version.

In other first-album-70s-second-album-80s post-punk news, I gave a nice high vote for Swell Maps and I guess it's way too late for them. I can dream though.

Graceland is a lock, dude. possibly a dark horse candidate for top 5 imo.

I hope you're right. Without giving too much away, it was way high on my list. But next to all of that other stuff, it feels like a pretty milquetoast choice.

don't forget Paul's Boutique. Would not be surprised to see it top 10 or even top 5.

21. Paul Simon - Graceland [1986] (237 points, 17 votes, 1 first place vote)

http://i35.tinypic.com/1zee9ty.jpg

he took basic tracks belonging to musicians from an entirely different country and culture then without altering the music itself (as in the case of at least gumboots),
and put his own usual autobiographical noo-yawk lyrical spiel over the top and claim all credit on the sleeve. it's paul simon : graceland to the naked eye after all. that's the gist of it isn't it ?

obviously ladysmith black mambazo would have had a very different, way less succesful career without him. it did much to put 'world music' on the cd players and coffee tables of homes across middle engerland.

i dont like that record as a whole much, the one before (hearts and bones) and the one after (rhythm of the saints) especially are like waaaaaaay under-rated and fantastic. it has it's moments.

i was made to study graceland for GCSE music 4 years after it had been released which can't have helped.

― piscesboy, 25. syyskuuta 2003 17:23

such outrage over authorship. none of you clever rock critics seem confused over the collaborative process behind the record. are you simply being outraged on behalf of those people who are being 'misled' by Simon's name on the cover?

Nearly 20 years later on, Ladysmith Black Mambazo's gotten a fair share of props. Clarify the problem with the album that got the spotlight shining in their direction beyond snarky one-liners, I'm interested.

― (Jon L), 26. syyskuuta 2003 0:49

Couple thoughts:

At this distance, the album is both a classic and overrated. There is an awful lot of filler on the second side. But the first six songs are among the best Simon has ever written, musically and lyrically. Boy and Graceland, especially, have fabulous lyrics, and Diamonds remains stunningly pretty. Nothing on Rhythm of the Saints or Hearts and Bones -- both of which I like a lot -- really comes close to those.

The colonialism charge is completely misplaced. This was totally different than, say, Joni Mitchell's Jungle Line, where she recorded over loops of field recordings of African drums, and used those sounds as a metaphor for mystery, darkness, man's primitive nature, primal truth, etc. Simon was inspired by a new kind of music he heard, but he was never using it in an objectified way. His use of township jive for hipster New York narratives emphasized the sophistication and (gulp) universality of the music, not its exoticism. He was using African music much the way Kurt Weill used blues in Mahagonny, or Mahler used Chinese music in Das Lied von der Erde, or Cheb Khaled used Irish music in Abdul Qadr, or David Byrne uses Brazilian music all the time, or, for that matter, all of alt-country: acts of cross-cultural engagement and respect, not appropriation.

And, just to make things clear to those who were not around then, Simon bent over backwards to credit his African collaborators at the time. Not just Ladysmith Black Mambazo, but also especially Ray Phiri (guitar) and Baghiti Khumalo (bass), both of whom also contributed to Rhythm of the Saints and toured with Simon for years. But there was never any question that these were Paul Simon songs (except for the one song that was recorded over a pre-existing track). That is part of what gave the project its strangeness and excitement.

― Vornado (Vornado), 8. helmikuuta 2005 17:08

I was raised on this album and I think it's fantastic. It inspired me to buy straight township jive records are even better.

― Squirrel_Police (Squirrel_Police), 6. lokakuuta 2006 0:19

Lol.

ha i knew i was overshooting with the top 5 speculation but it was definitely always gonna be here