about that top 100 70s punk lps list:
is it really that satisfying to arrive at a number divisible by 5? far too many records are listed for reasons amounting to “i can’t stand this but a lot of people seem to think it’s good” or “a good example of run of the mill dole queue punk rock” ( he actually says this!) this makes it a somewhat dry passionless read (as opposed, say, to ned’s wonderfully biased top 136 albums of the 90s list). it fails to make me at all interested in hearing a fall album (and why else list one?) if the most he can say about it is that a lot of people like it. anyone who’s reading a list like this probably already has an idea of what the most acclaimed records are.
how often are canons perpetuated just because albums (or books or films . . .) are supposed to be good? does anyone actually like dickens? i’ve heard of it, maybe met one or two people who did (and many more who made excuses for him) but by and large even the teachers and professors who were teaching the stuff put it down.
wasn’t punk supposed to be opposed to this mentality?