What are the minimum number of essential songs an album has to have to be 'great'?

Favorite new record? Favorite old record? Got a band? Post it here.
Post Reply
User avatar
stevejamsecono
PAT. # 2.972.923
PAT. # 2.972.923
Posts: 4552
Joined: Tue Oct 17, 2006 10:55 am
Location: Brooklyn, NYC
Contact:

What are the minimum number of essential songs an album has to have to be 'great'?

Post by stevejamsecono » Wed Sep 02, 2020 7:07 am

Was thinking about this while going on my yearly Police binge and realizing the the band's favorite and arguably breakthrough album -- Reggatta De Blanc -- kind of sucks?

The 11 tracks seem to break out as follows:

All-Time Bangers: (2) - Message in a Bottle, Walking on the Moon
Essential for Police Fans - (2) Bring on the Night, The Bed's Too Big Without You
Pleasantly Mediocre to Meh - (3) Does Everyone Stare, Reggatta de Blanc, Deathwish
Meaningless Crap - (4) - It's Alright For You, On Any Other Day, Contact, No Time This Time

Now granted, the all time bangers are beloved songs for a lotta people, and the two essentials are also great, but that leaves a solid MAJORITY of the album as stuff that's mediocre or worse. And yet, a top album for people. Huh.

So that begs the question, what is the minimum amount an album has to have of like "this is insanely great" vs "agreeable but mediocre to terrible"? And given that, what's an essential album for you that has some of your favorite songs on it but also has a LOT of filler or crap on it?
And you find out life isn't like that
It's so hard to understand
Why the world is your oyster but your future's a clam

Resident Yamaha Fanboy

COYS

User avatar
PorkyPrimeCut
PAT. # 2.972.923
PAT. # 2.972.923
Posts: 24464
Joined: Tue Nov 28, 2006 7:46 am
Location: Leipzig
Contact:

Re: What are the minimum number of essential songs an album has to have to be 'great'?

Post by PorkyPrimeCut » Wed Sep 02, 2020 7:24 am

Personally, 75-85% of the tracks have to be golden. That probably makes it no more than 2 duds.

This is why I have such a problem with The Beatles & The Rolling Stones. Great as singles bands, not so great when it comes to producing killer albums.
You think you can't, you wish you could, I know you can, I wish you would. Slip inside this house as you pass by.

User avatar
Jazzmastervsjaguar
PAT. # 2.972.923
PAT. # 2.972.923
Posts: 780
Joined: Mon May 28, 2012 7:37 am
Location: Silver Spring, MD (Burbs of DC)
Contact:

Re: What are the minimum number of essential songs an album has to have to be 'great'?

Post by Jazzmastervsjaguar » Wed Sep 02, 2020 8:44 am

Call me an extremist if you will but 100% of the songs have to be good, or at least 99% (Looking at you Kyuss/Sky valley/Lick Doo) If you can play the album without skipping songs then to me it's a good album. Now there also has to be some truly epic songs on the album for it to be great. But no more than 1 song can be Bad.

I've had the Beatles argument before with friends. Did they have great songs? Yep. Did they have a lot of fluff also? Yep. Went through album by album song for song with my Best Friend who was on the other side of the debate and we came up with 14 great songs that we loved and that's it. But we all think of the Beatles as one of those bands that made great albums. Of course my opinion is just that another opinion in the world.

User avatar
mgeek
PAT. # 2.972.923
PAT. # 2.972.923
Posts: 1436
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2014 1:03 pm

Re: What are the minimum number of essential songs an album has to have to be 'great'?

Post by mgeek » Wed Sep 02, 2020 9:05 am

I think its more dependent on how shit the lesser tracks are for me. If there are a couple of tracks that aren't amazing but aren't horrible, then I can cope with maybe NONE of the songs being essential, but it still being a great album if that makes sense. The first Giant Crab lp - which is an excellent, kinda, sixties horn-psych lp has a cover of Hi Ho Silver lining three tracks from the end I think, and it totally kills the flow.

Cosine on Beatles. They never made a perfect album, there's always at least one mood ruining stinker... The submarine, maxwells hammer, obladi etc. Recently made a playlist where I reversed the running order of Revolver and took Submarine off, and it was a much more solid listen imo.

User avatar
Jaguar018
PAT. # 2.972.923
PAT. # 2.972.923
Posts: 8045
Joined: Thu Nov 06, 2008 6:48 am
Location: Burbs of Washington DC

Re: What are the minimum number of essential songs an album has to have to be 'great'?

Post by Jaguar018 » Wed Sep 02, 2020 11:05 am

This is an interesting question, and I think I have a sliding scale. For 'big' bands like rock dinosaur bands Beatles, Stones, Led Zep, Police, and other bands that have sold hundred of thousands of albums... my expectations are high and my judgment is more harsh.

For smaller bands, if the album has four or five good songs I'm a happy fellow. The thing is, for this kind of "great," it's just going to be "great" for me. You can't argue with too many people about some of your favorite semi-obscure bands and their output. For example, one of my all-time-great albums is the American Analog Set's "The Golden Band" album. 100% jam-packed with great stuff to my ears, but there aren't that many AnAmSet fans, and I'm not going to be able to convince too many people that haven't heard of them to dive in.

User avatar
panoramic
PAT. # 2.972.923
PAT. # 2.972.923
Posts: 16925
Joined: Tue Aug 12, 2008 7:09 pm
Location: baltimore, md.

Re: What are the minimum number of essential songs an album has to have to be 'great'?

Post by panoramic » Wed Sep 02, 2020 11:17 am

Jazzmastervsjaguar wrote:
Wed Sep 02, 2020 8:44 am
Call me an extremist if you will but 100% of the songs have to be good, or at least 99% (Looking at you Kyuss/Sky valley/Lick Doo) If you can play the album without skipping songs then to me it's a good album. Now there also has to be some truly epic songs on the album for it to be great. But no more than 1 song can be Bad.

I've had the Beatles argument before with friends. Did they have great songs? Yep. Did they have a lot of fluff also? Yep. Went through album by album song for song with my Best Friend who was on the other side of the debate and we came up with 14 great songs that we loved and that's it. But we all think of the Beatles as one of those bands that made great albums. Of course my opinion is just that another opinion in the world.
I feel this way, Sonic Youth - Daydream Nation, Dinosaur Jr. - Bug are good examples, Swervedriver Raise comes to mind.
There aren't an awful lot of truly amazing 100% of the way thriugh records but they need to be recognized as genius
I used to be cool, now I just complain about prices.

User avatar
marqueemoon
PAT. # 2.972.923
PAT. # 2.972.923
Posts: 7343
Joined: Mon Jun 20, 2016 9:37 pm
Location: Seattle

Re: What are the minimum number of essential songs an album has to have to be 'great'?

Post by marqueemoon » Wed Sep 02, 2020 7:06 pm

A great album has no outright filler IMO.

Sometimes you need a little interlude/palate cleanser song though, you know?

User avatar
MazzyJaster
PAT. # 2.972.923
PAT. # 2.972.923
Posts: 65
Joined: Mon Jul 27, 2020 5:18 am

Re: What are the minimum number of essential songs an album has to have to be 'great'?

Post by MazzyJaster » Wed Sep 02, 2020 8:11 pm

stevejamsecono wrote:
Wed Sep 02, 2020 7:07 am
Was thinking about this while going on my yearly Police binge and realizing the the band's favorite and arguably breakthrough album -- Reggatta De Blanc -- kind of sucks?

The 11 tracks seem to break out as follows:

All-Time Bangers: (2) - Message in a Bottle, Walking on the Moon
Essential for Police Fans - (2) Bring on the Night, The Bed's Too Big Without You
Pleasantly Mediocre to Meh - (3) Does Everyone Stare, Reggatta de Blanc, Deathwish
Meaningless Crap - (4) - It's Alright For You, On Any Other Day, Contact, No Time This Time
Reggatta de Blanc is a brilliant track!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QduIzhh4M8A

dinosaurkale->
PAT. # 2.972.923
PAT. # 2.972.923
Posts: 2989
Joined: Sun Dec 12, 2010 9:07 pm
Location: illadelph halflife

Re: What are the minimum number of essential songs an album has to have to be 'great'?

Post by dinosaurkale-> » Thu Sep 03, 2020 2:20 am

one

-dopesmoker
-thursday afternoon
-paso inferior
-the dwelling
-black unity
-acid mothers temple and the melting paraiso ufo

i could probably think of some more

User avatar
soggy mittens
PAT. # 2.972.923
PAT. # 2.972.923
Posts: 2086
Joined: Fri May 02, 2014 2:08 am
Location: middle of somewhere

Re: What are the minimum number of essential songs an album has to have to be 'great'?

Post by soggy mittens » Thu Sep 03, 2020 3:04 am

Jazzmastervsjaguar wrote:
Wed Sep 02, 2020 8:44 am
[...] If you can play the album without skipping songs then to me it's a good album. [...]
^^^^This but great instead of good.

There are enough 100 percent albums in the world now that we don't need to compromise or bend the rules if we don't want to. I usually just go for the Greatest Hits albums if I want to revisit a band that is patchy, or make a mixtape/compilation of their discog.

P.s. The Police are soooooooooooooooooooooooooo patchy, great example to use. B)
If OSG has tort me anything...

Post Reply