T'was just reading the 500 best albums and it was suggested that they questioned lots of people who "know" what a good record is.  Me, only own one of the records on the top 20 (London Calling) although I've heard many of them.  I'm still convinced that it all comes down to taste. Especially when someone compares something like "Dark Side of the Moon" to "Wish you were here" and says that one is better than the other.  What makes that so?  Tell me what y'all listen for in a record which makes it stick out.

I was just cruising through the list and I found one big problem.  They've included greatest hits records. To compare the collected singles of a supergroup with a non compilation record just isn't empirical.  I found that to be pretty foolish.

So, what makes a good record for PRH?

1.  Good sound:  US, by Peter Gabriel, and I haven't heard the remastered version yet, is an excellent example of good composition that is poorly presented.  I really like the record.  But it's hard to listen to because it is muddy at times.

2. Good arrangement:  Minimal to over the top complex, when a band/producer selects how a song will be presented it can make or break a record.  Pop records fall into the trap of using "The Latest" technology.  This tends to date a record.  You listen to any of the synth pop bands from 1983 and you'll hear Roland JX3P keyboards, Oberheims, and chorusy guitars....maybe an Alesis HR-16 drum machine(actually, that's more like 1988) .  Or an Boss 808.  These gadgets nail the record to a time period.  Having some sense and restraint about how something is produced can really improve the quality of a record. Look at Tom Wait's "Bone Machine." Wild album with some really creative arrangements that could have been recorded last week, 1965 or 2046.

3. Good Composition:  A good song retains it's power whether it is played by the LSO or some dude on a street corner with an acoustic guitar.  Many popular records are popular because of the arrangements, the people on the record or the picture on the cover. I'm afraid I saw some of that in the 500 list.  Records with bad music that got notoriety based on WHO played them.

4. Stand Alone Factor or It Crawled from Athens, Ga.:  One of the things that holds true with much of the music I listen to is how the record is marketed.  So bands like REM that reached worldwide fame through endless touring (and of course, lots of press in Spin Magazine) really get my attention because they didn't start out pimping Pepsi, or Nokia or whatever.  So, think of a record and take away all of it's corporate sponsership, product placement, cross marketing, etc. If it still is amazing and deserving then I guess it's pretty good.  That takes me back to when I first saw Boomtown.  Streetside records in Overland Park had a listening party for a new REM record.  (Life's Rich Pagaent) and I noticed that they'd made this big ol display out of Boomtown Records, Cassettes and a few C.D's.  I asked someone about it and it wasn't an A&M ordered display, the manager just liked the record so much, he really wanted to get a lot of attention for it.  I think I have one of those Boomtown "flats" (LP sized cover illustration) somewhere at my parent's home.

Well...enough of what I think.  What makes a good record to all of you?

PRH