Well, well… I’m surprised to see several of my nominees on the list.
Mind you, it’s NOT that the albums in question are necessarily terrible. It’s just that critics have been singing their praises for so long, people who actually LISTEN to them often wonder, “What’s all the fuss about?”
“Pet Sounds” may well have been groundbreaking in 1966. It may have been extremely influential. But there’s more weak material on this album than on any previous Beach Boys album. Some of the experimental stuff is ridiculously dated or just plain boring. In 1966, it may have been a revelation, but todday, it’s just a so-so album with 4 GREAT songs and a lot of forgettable stuff.
I could write ALMOST exactly the same thing about “Sgt. Pepper.” There’s more weak material on that album than on any Beatles album save “Magical Mystery Tour.” And, really, in many ways it’s far LESS innovative than “Revolver.”
And I’m delighted to see Nirvana and Sex Pistols on the list. Nirvana had a few great songs- but just a few. ENough to make a superb “GReatest Hits” package, but not enough to make any one album a classic.
And the Sex Pistols… well, they pretty much just bit the big one. Hey, I like the idea of a loud, crude, sloppy, amateurish, energetic rock band as much as anyone… but these guys just plain sucked. Worse still, they were utter frauds: Sid Vicious wasn’t a sloppy, amateurish musician (Glen Matlock was), he was a NON-musician.