What was the last record that really mattered?

[TemplePilot]

What was the last record that actually mattered? Thanks Whipstick.

And I am not asking when did some obscure band that you like release a live cd full of bizarre covers or some bullshit like that.

Where's the new Nevermind? Or Appetite for Destruction? or fucking Thriller? "Pop" music used to have an inescapable impact across broad swatches of culture. Now, albums come out and I see the posters stuck places and all I can think is who the fuck is that?

I mean, you used to be able to talk to someone about music (who wasn't a freak like us) and there could be a conversation. Now? You're either the kind of person who can debate what the best version of "Talk To Me" is from eighteen years ago or Coldplay is just fine with you.

You look at something like lollapalooza from last year... and it's all bands whose best days and music are probably behind them (Nine Inch Nails, Rage Against the Machine, etc) and Kayne West - who incidentally I couldn't identify a song of his by at fucking gunpoint.

You have bands like the Foo Fighters - who (apologies to the fans out there) haven't put out an album that wasn't at least 40% percent filler* in nine years. I saw Queens of the Stone Age before Nick Oliveri left (they were opening for Zwan, which was hilarious) and I like Queens of the Stone Age a ton, but they're not going to be the kind of band that breaks down the wall between people who are freaks about music and people who buy albums based on what's popular at that exact second. And that's about it from the post alternative genre. More mainstream rock has interchangeable awful nu metal bands like Seether and then on the other hand partially thawed out senior citizens like Bruce Springsteen or the Stones.

What it boils down to is this. If I gave you tickets to a show and the only thing that you knew was that it was going to be in a twenty thousand seat arena, and it was going to be sold out - would you really want to go? Can you imagine anyone who could sell out the Allstate Arena who'd be worth going to see? Or would you assume that it was going to be the Jonas Brothers or Hannah Montana or High School Musical some stupid awful fucking fake fucking "production"?

So what was it? What tore down the wall last and was universally embraced? Selling a boat load of units isn't enough either, but that's only half the qualification here.

[Napoleon Solo]

bwah bwah I'm getting old and out of touch bwah bwah for 8 paragraphs.

[batmannj]

An album doesn't have to sell a ton of copies to "matter."

[guiguedz]

In Rainbows.

[IWasaCamera]

What was the last record that actually mattered?
To who? Why does an album have to be significant on some grand, panoptic scale to be worth discussing?
And I am not asking when did some obscure band that you like release a live cd full of bizarre covers or some bullshit like that.
Fairly certain no one was going to nominate one.
Where's the new Nevermind? Or Appetite for Destruction? or fucking Thriller? "Pop" music used to have an inescapable impact across broad swatches of culture. Now, albums come out and I see the posters stuck places and all I can think is who the fuck is that?
The medium doesn't lend itself to such thorough pervasiveness anymore. This much should be obvious by following music in even a cursory manner. The best music of the last 35 years hasn't been all that prominent in mainstream culture so you should focus your energy on embracing art that is worthwhile rather than bemoaning a lack of ubiquitous pop albums.
Now, albums come out and I see the posters stuck places and all I can think is who the fuck is that?
If you don't follow current music all that closely (which I'm inclined to believe is the case here or your claim would not have been made), you naturally won't recognize a number of acts plastered on posters.
I mean, you used to be able to talk to someone about music (who wasn't a freak like us) and there could be a conversation. Now? You're either the kind of person who can debate what the best version of "Talk To Me" is from eighteen years ago or Coldplay is just fine with you.
Individuals still discuss music. This has not changed because no one released this generation's Appetite For Destruction. The way pop enthusiasts talk tunes is incredibly shallow anyway so I'm not sure why you would want to partake in a verbal circle jerks regarding singles and poignant videos seen on MTV. Granted, there are many who still cannot posit any real contribution to a discussion but that was likely also the case in the glory days you're alluding to. Seek out informed listeners with a decent grasp on the genres you enjoy and you can shower praise on artists in glorious unison.
You look at something like lollapalooza from last year... and it's all bands whose best days and music are probably behind them (Nine Inch Nails, Rage Against the Machine, etc) and Kayne West - who incidentally I couldn't identify a song of his by at fucking gunpoint.
This seems to reinforce my assertion that you don't follow modern music.
You have bands like the Foo Fighters - who (apologies to the fans out there) haven't put out an album that wasn't at least 40% percent filler* in nine years. I saw Queens of the Stone Age before Nick Oliveri left (they were opening for Zwan, which was hilarious) and I like Queens of the Stone Age a ton, but they're not going to be the kind of band that breaks down the wall between people who are freaks about music and people who buy albums based on what's popular at that exact second. And that's about it from the post alternative genre. More mainstream rock has interchangeable awful nu metal bands like Seether and then on the other hand partially thawed out senior citizens like Bruce Springsteen or the Stones.
This constitutes the crux of your post, and a puzzling one at that. Why do you want these walls torn down? Shouldn't you be content having found music you genuinely enjoy? Worst case scenario, head to a forum if you can't find anyone who can formulate coherent thoughts concerning music in person. Hell, odds are much higher to find someone relatively knowledgeable there than on the street. On the other hand, if you simply cannot enjoy any new releases, that's a different story entirely.
What it boils down to is this. If I gave you tickets to a show and the only thing that you knew was that it was going to be in a twenty thousand seat arena, and it was going to be sold out - would you really want to go?
I would not. However, this has splintered into a separate issue. Pure music quality was never the issue at hand, it was merely music that could break down figurative walls. Acts that sell out arena gigs are more often than not to be avoided regardless of era.
Can you imagine anyone who could sell out the Allstate Arena who'd be worth going to see?
Nope.
So what was it? What tore down the wall last and was universally embraced? Selling a boat load of units isn't enough either, but that's only half the qualification here.
There probably hasn't been one nor would I have wanted there to be.

[fake empire]

Uhh how about Radiohead?

[oddwithoutend]

To who? Why does an album have to be significant on some grand, panoptic scale to be worth discussing?

Fairly certain no one was going to nominate one.

The medium doesn't lend itself to such thorough pervasiveness anymore. This much should be obvious by following music in even a cursory manner. The best music of the last 35 years hasn't been all that prominent in mainstream culture so you should focus your energy on embracing art that is worthwhile rather than bemoaning a lack of ubiquitous pop albums.

If you don't follow current music all that closely (which I'm inclined to believe is the case here or your claim would not have been made), you naturally won't recognize a number of acts plastered on posters.

Individuals still discuss music. This has not changed because no one released this generation's Appetite For Destruction. The way pop enthusiasts talk tunes is incredibly shallow anyway so I'm not sure why you would want to partake in a verbal circle jerks regarding singles and poignant videos seen on MTV. Granted, there are many who still cannot posit any real contribution to a discussion but that was likely also the case in the glory days you're alluding to. Seek out informed listeners with a decent grasp on the genres you enjoy and you can shower praise on artists in glorious unison.

This seems to reinforce my assertion that you don't follow modern music.

This constitutes the crux of your post, and a puzzling one at that. Why do you want these walls torn down? Shouldn't you be content having found music you genuinely enjoy? Worst case scenario, head to a forum if you can't find anyone who can formulate coherent thoughts concerning music in person. Hell, odds are much higher to find someone relatively knowledgeable there than on the street. On the other hand, if you simply cannot enjoy any new releases, that's a different story entirely.

I would not. However, this has splintered into a separate issue. Pure music quality was never the issue at hand, it was merely music that could break down figurative walls. Acts that sell out arena gigs are more often than not to be avoided regardless of era.

Nope.

There probably hasn't been one nor would I have wanted there to be.

I strongly agree. Threadstarter should really let this soak in.

[x togepi x]

To who? Why does an album have to be significant on some grand, panoptic scale to be worth discussing?

Fairly certain no one was going to nominate one.

The medium doesn't lend itself to such thorough pervasiveness anymore. This much should be obvious by following music in even a cursory manner. The best music of the last 35 years hasn't been all that prominent in mainstream culture so you should focus your energy on embracing art that is worthwhile rather than bemoaning a lack of ubiquitous pop albums.

If you don't follow current music all that closely (which I'm inclined to believe is the case here or your claim would not have been made), you naturally won't recognize a number of acts plastered on posters.

Individuals still discuss music. This has not changed because no one released this generation's Appetite For Destruction. The way pop enthusiasts talk tunes is incredibly shallow anyway so I'm not sure why you would want to partake in a verbal circle jerks regarding singles and poignant videos seen on MTV. Granted, there are many who still cannot posit any real contribution to a discussion but that was likely also the case in the glory days you're alluding to. Seek out informed listeners with a decent grasp on the genres you enjoy and you can shower praise on artists in glorious unison.

This seems to reinforce my assertion that you don't follow modern music.

This constitutes the crux of your post, and a puzzling one at that. Why do you want these walls torn down? Shouldn't you be content having found music you genuinely enjoy? Worst case scenario, head to a forum if you can't find anyone who can formulate coherent thoughts concerning music in person. Hell, odds are much higher to find someone relatively knowledgeable there than on the street. On the other hand, if you simply cannot enjoy any new releases, that's a different story entirely.

I would not. However, this has splintered into a separate issue. Pure music quality was never the issue at hand, it was merely music that could break down figurative walls. Acts that sell out arena gigs are more often than not to be avoided regardless of era.

Nope.

There probably hasn't been one nor would I have wanted there to be.

well i was going to reply to this thread. kind of redundant now.

[IWasaCamera]

Uhh how about Radiohead?
While they'd be closest to fitting his criteria, I wouldn't say regular radio fans care all that much for Radiohead. That's what Coldplay is for.

[Snork]

I don't see in the OP where he said that an album has to be decade-defining to be worth discussing. He's just asking if there is ever going to be a Nevermind or Kid A of the 1990s, and I think it's pretty obvious that there never will be one of those again, just like there can never be another band like the Beatles, just because it's infinitely easier to come by quality music than it would have been in 1967 or even 1998.

[x togepi x]

I don't see in the OP where he said that an album has to be decade-defining to be worth discussing. He's just asking if there is ever going to be a Nevermind or Kid A of the 1990s, and I think it's pretty obvious that there never will be one of those again, just like there can never be another band like the Beatles, just because it's infinitely easier to come by quality music than it would have been in 1967 or even 1998.

this claim is so empirically denied it's not even funny.

[Chromefox]

I don't see in the OP where he said that an album has to be decade-defining to be worth discussing. He's just asking if there is ever going to be a Nevermind or Kid A of the 1990s, and I think it's pretty obvious that there never will be one of those again, just like there can never be another band like the Beatles, just because it's infinitely easier to come by quality music than it would have been in 1967 or even 1998.Reexamine this.

[MADSTA]

OP got schooled by Vinh.

[TemplePilot]

Christ you people are touchy and misinterpreted the entire post. No one said an album had to be a sales powerhouse to be worth discussing. There hasn't been one in a while. I was just asking what the last one was. I never once said that the only way an album is worth discussing is if it's super popular. But you elitest pricks go from six to midnight if you think you have the opportunity to jump in and tear down something mainstream.

I do follow modern music. I'd say as much as anyone here. I've spent this last month traveling Texas watching great acts like Ryan Adams, hit up SXSW and saw the Decemberists and Frank Turner.

Did any of you even read the OP?

[IWasaCamera]

I don't see in the OP where he said that an album has to be decade-defining to be worth discussing.
He specifically seeks art that bears "an inescapable impact across broad swatches of culture", art that "tore down the wall last and was universally embraced".
He's just asking if there is ever going to be a Nevermind or Kid A of the 1990s
You do realize many perceive those releases as era-defining works I hope.
just like there can never be another band like the Beatles, just because it's infinitely easier to come by quality music than it would have been in 1967 or even 1998.
Eh, don't know about that.

[x togepi x]

Christ you people are touchy and misinterpreted the entire post.

I don't think you know what you're talking about at all. You can't compartmentalize music in the way you did. Example: Nevermind. That album "matters". Why don't all the super obscure bands Cobain would dig on that obviously influenced that album "matter" to you? It's funny that you single out obscure weird cover live albums as an example of what doesn't "matter" since that's the kind of thing Cobain would have been listening to during the recording of Nevermind, and it's obvious how it effects his career as a musician. dude was obsessed with the raincoats.

i mean, to take your view is to rip those artists out of their place in music as a community and throw them in some weird mass marketed vacuum.

[TemplePilot]

I never said the obscure didn't matter. My favorite acts recording today include Local H and Frank Turner, and the last time I saw both of them it was in a room with about thirty other people.

Obscure weird cover albums was clearly a fucking joke, no I didn't literally think anyone was going to nominate one. I wasn't "ripping" on anyone. I had no idea this forum was so hyper sensitive. Peace.

[bard]

peace

lol

[IWasaCamera]

No one said an album had to be a sales powerhouse to be worth discussing. There hasn't been one in a while. I was just asking what the last one was. I never once said that the only way an album is worth discussing is if it's super popular.
You're right. You simply wish to discuss the last album that "actually mattered" and I informed you as to why there hasn't really been one. I then suggested you embrace the music you love regardless of its prominence or how conducive it is to music chats with idiots who aren't particularly insightful anyway. Seems like a waste on energy to worry about such things.
But you elitest pricks go from six to midnight if you think you have the opportunity to jump in and tear down something mainstream.
What?
.I do follow modern music. I'd say as much as anyone here. I've spent this last month traveling Texas watching great acts like Ryan Adams, hit up SXSW and saw the Decemberists and Frank Turner.
You follow modern music as much as anyone here yet couldn't recognize a Kanye West song if it started playing?
Did any of you even read the OP?
No, I arbitrarily divided it into aesthetically pleasing chunks and addressed them.

[SockMonkeyRiot]

I wouldn't call Local H obscure.

The problem with your original post was that it was very dismissive, it seemed like you were less concerned with finding out what people thought were defining albums, and more concerned with saying that there aren't any.

[Snork]

He specifically seeks art that bears "an inescapable impact across broad swatches of culture", art that "tore down the wall last and was universally embraced".

You do realize many perceive those releases as era-defining works I hope.

Eh, don't know about that.
that's not an all-exclusive statement, though
the search for such an album does not inherently mean that something that doesn't have this influence is somehow not worth discussing
it just means it's not the aim of this thread

so yes i do realize that kid a and nevermind are era-defining works, that was the point of the metaphor

[kearn1tm]

You fucking Hipsters make me vomit all over my Dad's cowboy-ish wastecoat he bought after Urban Cowboy became huge and that I wear for ironic effect. You just have to go from midnight to six. There's numbers between, you know. They count. 3:00 PM is the Local H of hours.

[x togepi x]

I never said the obscure didn't matter. My favorite acts recording today include Local H and Frank Turner, and the last time I saw both of them it was in a room with about thirty other people.

Obscure weird cover albums was clearly a fucking joke, no I didn't literally think anyone was going to nominate one. I wasn't "ripping" on anyone. I had no idea this forum was so hyper sensitive. Peace.

Your post implies, if not outright states, that obscure music doesn't matter. Obviously your joke was a joke and I read it like that, I just thought it was weird in context since that sounds like Kurt Cobain's record collection.

I don't know why you won't accept that there are other ways of looking at music than the perspective you wrote that first post from. To say everyone here is "hyper sensitive" because they look at things differently and want to post that viewpoint in your thread on a message board dedicated to musical discussion seems really misguided.

Regardless, there probably won't be another album that matters in the sense that it breaks down walls in our culture because that goes against the entire way our culture is moving. The internet's revolution means we've been abandoning the mass culture of late modernity and are now moving into a more individual based culture. We build more walls, not less. Musical artists who are "mainstream" appeal to specific demographics of that mainstream instead of appealing to everyone. Example: one who likes Nickleback and Hinder is often one who hates on mainstream rap and vice versa.

[fly_guy]

IT'S SNOWING OUTSIDE


x

[IWasaCamera]

that's not an all-exclusive statement, though
the search for such an album does not inherently mean that something that doesn't have this influence is somehow not worth discussing
it just means it's not the aim of this thread

so yes i do realize that kid a and nevermind are era-defining works, that was the point of the metaphor
You seem to have missed the point of my first reply. Despite claims of those who got into Kid A last week, there isn't a current era-defining wall-obliterating album and it is clear OP was aware of this. So why carry such disdain for the current pop landscape when you can be discussing anything else?

[x togepi x]

i'm glad i got through my radiohead is the best band ever phase in high school.

[kearn1tm]

Your post implies, if not outright states, that obscure music doesn't matter.

I think, as I touched on in another thread, that music relevance is two-fold (and this may be pretentious babble or not, but, it's just an idea):

1.) Your music must be near-ubiquitous and have had a great enough impact that time no longer applies to your work, in that, your music is still ingrained in contemporary pop culture. It has to remain timeless to an extent.

2.) Your work somehow finds a way to change, progress or evolve the artform itself. This will likely not make you relevant in a mainstream/household name way, and you're unable to find a suitable way to convey the strides you've made to the masses in a way they will willingly digest and consume, but those who acknowledge your gift to music will ultimately discover a way to make it accessible, and this is normally done by bands that fit into the number one slot.

The obscure music he's discrediting would fall into the number two slot.

[x togepi x]

I think, as I touched on in another thread, that music relevance is two-fold (and this may be pretentious babble or not, but, it's just an idea):

1.) Your music must be near-ubiquitous and have had a great enough impact that time no longer applies to your work, in that, your music is still ingrained in contemporary pop culture. It has to remain timeless to an extent.

2.) Your work somehow finds a way to change, progress or evolve the artform itself. This will likely not make you relevant in a mainstream/household name way, and you're unable to find a suitable way to convey the strides you've made to the masses in a way they will willingly digest and consume, but those who acknowledge your gift to music will ultimately discover a way to make it accessible, and this is normally done by bands that fit into the number one slot.

The obscure music he's discrediting would fall into the number two slot.

this perspective doesn't take into consideration the label's vast power in deciding what "matters" when it comes to part 1.

[kearn1tm]

i'm glad i got through my radiohead is the best band ever phase in high school.

Ha.

[IWasaCamera]

Only ever loved one Radiohead album and still do, despite how evident their influences are on it.

[x togepi x]

Ha.

yeah dude, i bought ok computer once at a young age.

[kearn1tm]

this perspective doesn't take into consideration the label's vast power in deciding what "matters" when it comes to part 1.

I can see this, but wouldn't (and I'm asking this, not arguing it because, well, I'm not as "in the know") you say that, ultimately, people have more of the power to decide what they choose to prop up from labels in that, some artists labels have attempted to make "career artists" or pop-culturally relevant have eventually been forgotten or later maligned by listeners? I'm curious. Labels do aid in marketing and establishing what is "cool" and what should be listened to, but the consumers eventually make the final decision, right? I mean, using Creed as an example, eventually they became an afterthought and a punchline to a joke. What was the girl who was big initially when Britney and Christina were rising to fame in the late '90s who, after her debut, couldn't gain traction despite heavy PR/Ad investment from her label with the second album?

Only ever loved one Radiohead album and still do, despite how evident their influences are on it.

I love two, actually. Hail to the Thief is my favorite, and it's all about when I bought it (I was 16 in 2003 and felt special because I was listening to something mainstream critics were lauding as "socially relevant music" as full-of-shit as Rolling Stone may have been/was/is and it was one of the first albums I discovered [ha, "discovered" a Radiohead album. Right. I was so underground] that, at least superficially, felt like an indictment of the Bush administration, but the songwriting was also so ambiguous I could interject alot of what I wanted into the lyrics and felt they were, on some visceral level, 'poetic.' I've seen through a lot of those teenage misconceptions, but nostalgia and songwriting still make it hold up for me).

Of course, I enjoy Kid A, but more for getting me into Warp Record artists, Brian Eno-era ambient stuff and early electronic piano stuff like Ondes Martenot's work, which is, essentially, all the stuff Radiohead aped for the record.

yeah dude, i bought ok computer once at a young age.

That's my Hail to the Thief. I got that phase out at 16.

[IWasaCamera]

I can see this, but wouldn't (and I'm asking this, not arguing it because, well, I'm not as "in the know") you say that, ultimately, people have more of the power to decide what they choose to prop up from labels in that, some artists labels have attempted to make "career artists" or pop-culturally relevant have eventually been forgotten or later maligned by listeners? I'm curious. Labels do aid in marketing and establishing what is "cool" and what should be listened to, but the consumers eventually make the final decision, right? I mean, using Creed as an example, eventually they became an afterthought and a punchline to a joke. What was the girl who was big initially when Britney and Christina were rising to fame in the late '90s who, after her debut, couldn't gain traction despite heavy PR/Ad investment from her label with the second album?
I wouldn't want to speak for him but I think he merely meant labels were to be factored into the equation as well.
I love two, actually. Hail to the Thief is my favorite, and it's all about when I bought it (I was 16 in 2003 and felt special because I was listening to something mainstream critics were lauding as "socially relevant music" as full-of-shit as Rolling Stone may have been/was/is and it was one of the first albums I discovered [ha, "discovered" a Radiohead album. Right. I was so underground] that, at least superficially, felt like an indictment of the Bush administration, but the songwriting was also so ambiguous I could interject alot of what I wanted into the lyrics and felt they were, on some visceral level, 'poetic.' I've seen through a lot of those teenage misconceptions, but nostalgia and songwriting still make it hold up for me).
This is Kid A for me. Granted, I was 3 years late to that party.
Of course, I enjoy Kid A, but more for getting me into Warp Record artists, Brian Eno-era ambient stuff and early electronic piano stuff like Ondes Martenot's work, which is, essentially, all the stuff Radiohead aped for the record.
Let's not forget all IDM and Krautrock ever.

[kearn1tm]

I wouldn't want to speak for him but I think he merely meant labels were to be factored into the equation as well.

Ah, I see.

This is Kid A for me. Granted, I was 3 years late to that party.

Had I heard Kid A in 2003, I'd have been there with you. Unfortunately, I heard it at the age of 12 or 13 and thought it was weird noise and that I'd rather be listening to Phil Collins. He was bitchin'.

Let's not forget all IDM and Krautrock ever.
Sorry, I should have clarified. The "Warp Records" comment was referring to IDM artists. Of course, the Krautrock influence can't be denied, but, on a personal level, it wasn't the album that inspired me to give artists like Kraftwerk a look).

[IWasaCamera]

Ah, I see.
Don't take my word for it, I may be way off.
Had I heard Kid A in 2003, I'd have been there with you. Unfortunately, I heard it at the age of 12 or 13 and thought it was weird noise and that I'd rather be listening to Phil Collins. He was bitchin'.
In The Air Tonight still rules.
Sorry, I should have clarified. The "Warp Records" comment was referring to IDM artists. Of course, the Krautrock influence can't be denied, but, on a personal level, it wasn't the album that inspired me to give artists like Kraftwerk a look).
Oh, I don't even know who's on Warp Records haha. I never pay attention to that.

[oddwithoutend]

In The Air Tonight still rules.

This.

[Snork]

You seem to have missed the point of my first reply. Despite claims of those who got into Kid A last week, there isn't a current era-defining wall-obliterating album and it is clear OP was aware of this. So why carry such disdain for the current pop landscape when you can be discussing anything else?
I'm assuming you're asking that last question to the OP and not to me, but my guess would be that he's curious to see if anyone thinks that there has been such a record, or has any ideas as to why not.
The OP is snarky and kind of jaded, but I don't see why this thread had to devolve into a such a hatefest so quickly. I think it's a legitimate question. The pop music landscape is very different now from twenty years ago, and our current model doesn't really lend itself to superhuge critical/commercial successes that completely change the playing field, because the playing field is way too large to be changed by just one album now.

EDIT: alright i guess it's not as much of a hatefest now nevermind

[x togepi x]

I can see this, but wouldn't (and I'm asking this, not arguing it because, well, I'm not as "in the know") you say that, ultimately, people have more of the power to decide what they choose to prop up from labels in that, some artists labels have attempted to make "career artists" or pop-culturally relevant have eventually been forgotten or later maligned by listeners? I'm curious. Labels do aid in marketing and establishing what is "cool" and what should be listened to, but the consumers eventually make the final decision, right? I mean, using Creed as an example, eventually they became an afterthought and a punchline to a joke. What was the girl who was big initially when Britney and Christina were rising to fame in the late '90s who, after her debut, couldn't gain traction despite heavy PR/Ad investment from her label with the second album?
.

I don't think it's wise to be this populist about musical trends when you consider how little time most people spend on their musical taste. seriously try talking about music with a square. they just don't care all that much. all of these so-called musical revolutions were co-opted long before they actually "changed" things. It was merely a shift from one dominant style/trend to another. Sure, the labels obviously fail from time to time at pushing an artist but nobody's 100% successful. The important factor is that they were obviously part of a label generated trend.

artists can, and do "play the game" in order to reach an iconic/classic status (i'm thinking of madonna right here) but it's still based on the label's power moreso than their talent.

[boykosaurus]

Not a good answer but I say American IV.

[IWasaCamera]

I'm assuming you're asking that last question to the OP and not to me, but my guess would be that he's curious to see if anyone thinks that there has been such a record, or has any ideas as to why not.
The OP is snarky and kind of jaded, but I don't see why this thread had to devolve into a such a hatefest so quickly. I think it's a legitimate question. The pop music landscape is very different now from twenty years ago, and our current model doesn't really lend itself to superhuge critical/commercial successes that completely change the playing field, because the playing field is way too large to be changed by just one album now.

EDIT: alright i guess it's not as much of a hatefest now nevermind
It'd be legitimate if he hadn't included a diatribe resolving the premise of the thread before any of us could chime in. A thread entirely predicated on a question he has already answered is pointless. Everyone is fully aware that pop music's predicament has soured, this topic is thoroughly beating dead horses. I might as well create a thread asking users if Highway 61 Revisited was first released this month. No? 2009 isn't 1965??! Color me astounded.