When making "best of" lists, SHOULD we take "time" into consideration?

[SomeGuyDude]

I got into this discussion with a friend, wanted alla your input.

If I asked "what are the best death metal albums" and got a list, it's a given that the top of the list would be largely populated with the "classics", albums like Human, Pierced from Within, Altars of Madness, etc.

Obviously these albums are all excellent, but I was wondering... if you took this giant pile of albums and gave them to someone who had no idea what order they came out in, who originated the sound versus who was following, what albums would be called "the best"?

Like, if you didn't take context into account, would the list change? Obviously bands like Darkthrone and Bathory shaped the sound, but does that mean that it never got better? Is it right to say that the first albums are always the best?

Just a dumb thought.

 

[-CC-]

I find that certain bands that try to revive the old-school sound, like Slugathor, can actually produce better records than some of the old ones. The only time I take "time" into consideration is if I still enjoy a certain album after several years of listening to it. That doesn't mean the album has to be 20 years old prior to hearing it.

 

[EternalMetal]

To answer the topic question, yes. Bands are the sum total of their influences and their creativity/ingenuity, and the ones that are able to put enough effort in and create a landmark sound are truly special. Modifying and improving an established sound has less merit than establishing one yourself.

There is a reason why most of the classics are still among the top quality, and that reason is because the bands that are able to make such a leap in creativity are inherently in the top 1%. Rehashing influences will simply result in a sub-par output that is inferior than the influences themselves; the effect will be a dilution of what came before it.

Now do I think some of the classics are overrated based on their own merits? Absolutely; I cant help but feel that some of them are only excellent for the influence they had on bands that came after them (sorry Venom fans).

Not taking time into consideration would probably change the rankings slightly, and I do admit that some recent advances (most notably in BM) in sound have pushed the boundaries and capabilities of the genre forward. There are still bands that come into existence that put out albums that can rank up with the classics themselves as far as quality goes, and I definitely dont believe that the best has already come and left. Though I have yet to hear a band that simply emulates the style of one of their influences but just so happens to do it better. Or an example of such is just eluding me; im sure a meager few have managed to do so, or take the approach a bit further. Like what some people are saying about what the new Wrathprayer is to the black/death genre. This doesnt happen too often in metal to make a significant impact on the ranking of albums regardless of time period though imo.

 

[Svetovid]

To answer the topic question, yes. Bands are the sum total of their influences and their creativity/ingenuity, and the ones that are able to put enough effort in and create a landmark sound are truly special. Modifying and improving an established sound has less merit than establishing one yourself.

There is a reason why most of the classics are still among the top quality, and that reason is because the bands that are able to make such a leap in creativity are inherently in the top 1%. Rehashing influences [.....]

I feel pretty much the same way. I don't think time itself should be taken into account when rating an album. What should be taken into account is how unique the album's sound was at the time of release. If an album comes out tomorrow that has a fresh sound to offer and is perfect in every way then it deserves full points, but if a great album is released that is only improving an already existing sound then maybe 5-10 less points (assuming a 0-100 scale). So pretty much what EternalMetal said. All I'd like to add is instead of looking at time itself, look at what was already out there at the time.

 

[Kreated]

No, not at all. "Most influential" lists of course should, but "best of" lists really should not, because how popular something was or how good other things were at the time don't affect the actual quality of music that a "best" album would have. Not even what technologies were available at the time. If it has it it has it, if it doesn't it doesn't, it's that simple for a true best-of list

 

[skeptik]

What you like the most and what are the best are two different things. If you loved Altars of Madness except for one part and somebody simply took the album and removed that part and released it as Altered Madness or something, would you like listening to it more? Of course. But it's literally entirely derivative with no artistic merit exclusive to itself. Does that mean that an album released in 2012 can't be one of the best death metal albums of all time? No, but it does mean that you'll have to make a pretty damn convincing argument as to how Nehemah is better than Darkthrone.

 

[SomeGuyDude]

I feel pretty much the same way. I don't think time itself should be taken into account when rating an album. What should be taken into account is how unique the album's sound was at the time of release. If an album comes out tomorrow that has a fresh sound to offer and is perfect in every way then it deserves full points, but if a great album is released that is only improving an already existing sound then maybe 5-10 less points (assuming a 0-100 scale). So pretty much what EternalMetal said. All I'd like to add is instead of looking at time itself, look at what was already out there at the time.

I think this is flawed, though. If you have to qualify a ranking by saying "well this was the original" or "when this album came out, no one was doing this", then that means you're contextualizing it, not simply rating it on its own merits.

If I release an album with a totally new sound, and then six months later someone takes what I did and refines it, they've made the better album. I certainly get points for creating the sound, but if you had to say which is a better album, that someone else would have it.

The reason I got into this conversation was I was asked to make a list of essential black metal albums. Obviously I put down all the Burzum, Bathory, Darkthrone, Emperor, Mayhem, Beherit and the like. But after he and I talked for a while, I kept having to point out that such and such album forged the sound, band X was pioneering the sound and band Y was just following. He asked me "so? I wasn't asking for a history lesson, just what albums sound the best."

That is a HUGE difference, IMO. Think of it like a car. If I build a car using some new technology that gives it great performance and whatnot, and a year later another guy takes my idea and refines it... are people gonna keep buying mine just because I was the "originator"? FUCK no. They're gonna want the car that did it best, and it ain't mine.

It's happened to me before, although I can't recall specifics. I'd stumble across an album, say "oh man this is awesome", and then read a review or a post on here where someone says "aw man they were just totally ripping off such and such." So I'd go back and listen to the album that the first band ripped off, and just plain not like it as much. So how can I say that album is better just because it came first? I can't.

Eternal makes a GREAT point about an intangible feeling in the originals, because they really have their blood in the sound rather than following footsteps, but that ain't always the case, and I think a LOT of newer, less original albums just straight up sound better than the guys who invented the sound that later got copied.

 

[Svetovid]

I think this is flawed, though. If you have to qualify a ranking by saying "well this was the original" or "when this album came out, no one was doing this", then that means you're contextualizing it, not simply rating it on its own merits.

If I release an album with a totally new sound, and then six months later someone takes what I did and refines it, they've made the better album. I certainly get points for creating the sound, but if you had to say which is a better album, that someone else would have it.

This is why I think it should only be worth a few points. When I review albums for sites like Metal Archives I rate them in a 100 point rating. The production of the album, content, etc makes up most of the points and what we are talking about here only affects the score a small bit. So if an album comes out with a completely new sound but the content only gets it an 80, I'll probably give it an 85. If a new album from another band comes out improving on this sound and refining it to perfection it will probably get a 90 or 95. I've never gone over 95. I'm just saying it should be considered, but it definitely shouldn't be focused on.