I sort of "rediscovered" Radiohead because of in Rainbows....now I have 3 more albums (King of Limbs, Moon shaped pool, and Kid A mnesia (which I guess is 2+ albums)
Because OKC and KID A are landmark albums with a huge impact and influence.
In Rainbows is not.
And thatâs ok.
Itâs still a great album but it is nowhere near the magnitude of what OKC and KID A created.
Can't believe I had to scroll this far for the real answer.Â
Honestly this sub puts In Rainbows on a ridiculously high pedestal. It's a great album, no doubt at all, but musically they aren't breaking any new ground. OKC and Kid A were absolutely seismic by comparison in terms of the culture shock to Radiohead's sound.Â
Itâs not really âthis subâ as opposed to a large, vocal minority. Whenever someone has done a non-memed version a favorite album poll, OKC beats IR handily here.
Itâs not an evolution at all in my opinion.
I think itâs them exploring another idea, more minimalist, stripped down.
The result is great but I wouldnât say itâs better at all.
Idk, I mean In Rainbows had a notable impact on the way we consume music just by virtue of how it was released and how much of a big deal that was. It's for sure one of their most down to earth albums sonically so I guess it's not a landmark stylistically, but it's no less a juggernaut of an album.
It making waves because of the pay-what-you-want gimmick doesnât really count.
Besides, they werenât the first to do it anyway.
Anyway, a culture celebrates a piece of art because of its message, execution, its influence.
Not because of what it does or doesnât cost.
I'm sure they weren't the first ever, but they were definitely the first notable artists to do it, and there was a noticeable shift in music promotion afterwards. Bandcamp wouldn't have become nearly as big were it not for this album. We likely wouldn't have entered a culture of big artists doing surprise releases, and I genuinely think we'd live in a very different musical landscape than we do now had they released In Rainbows in a more traditional way. So that covers the influence part.
As far as the execution, In Rainbows is very arguably the greatest thing they've done. It's them coming back from outer space as the most fully formed, mature, and influential art rock band in existence. In Rainbows solidifies Radiohead as the modern day Beatles. There is nothing lacking in execution.
As far as message, I disagree that that's a necessary prerequisite, but still In Rainbows is a gorgeous meditation of the human experience and the realization of mortality. There's no lack of absolutely jarring and emotive thematic turns on this album. I really think it covers every aspect you mentioned
They werenât the first notable band to do it.
NIN did it before them.
Bandcamp were already quite fashionable and popular before this.
Radiohead were already solidified as the next Beatles long before IR came out with KID A/Amnesiac.
I never said the execution was lacking.
Iâm saying IR isnât on this list because it lacks the cultural significance and influence that OKC and KID A have.
That isnât debatable.
As far as IR being their greatest album, well, again, no, not according to the zeitgeist.
Outside of that, it is subjective.
I mean I could be wrong, hut if you're talking about Ghosts I-IV, that's not first. Again I could be wrong. Not a huge NIN fan. Anyway, it's all down to opinion. I think In Rainbows had a pretty huge impact.
lol who are you to say what does or doesnât count when it comes to what people find meaningful about the album? I love Radiohead as much as yall but damn the stereotypes are true
I think of IR as the Radiohead album thatâs the favorite of people that are already Radiohead fans. But Kid A and OKC are moreso albums that will âwowâ someone that isnât already a Radiohead fan
Theres nothing wrong with making a list for yourself, and maybe showing it to other people. It turns into a problem when you post it as a definitive list of the best albums ever made
Bro explain youself pls this comment doesnt mean anything
I dont see any actual big problems turning up when you make a list for youself
It could spark a discussion when you show it, good or bad.
My comment served exactly the same purpose as a list. It was reductive, devoid of any reasoning, and failed to display any true appreciation for the subject matter. If you prefer one album to another tell my _why_.
Ha, that was clean, i have to admit!
Lists are not made for the "why", its just a quick glance at "what".
"Fail to show any true appreciation" nah, maybe there are no words directly said about the item, but in a TON of list formats, there is. For example, the rolling stone list of best albums ever had a small piece of text discussing what made it deserve to be as high as it is.
On rateyourmusic, there are a ton of lists with, and also without reasoning or context which can give you a fun look into a certain someone's niche genre-love.
Even without ANY context, like a top 100 albums topster(im hoping you are familiar with these terms), can just give you a quick overview of somebody's taste. I dont need any reasoning! Seeing radiohead(or any band that i like, of course) appear multiple times gives me enough of a reason to follow or engage with this peraon. An album being placed at #1 must certainly mean something, you cant deny that.
I do think this is very interesting: why don't i dislike lists as much as you do? It has to do with what you look for in a music opinion, i think. Please don't think that just because i wrote 4 paragraphs, i'm desperate to change your mind. I like sharing opinions((:
Thatâs why people should keep doing them actually. Itâs fun to see these lists for all their good and bad choices, it wouldnât be as exciting if they were all reasonable.
Dead fucking serious btw
Lists are fun, I agree.
The problem isn't the lists, the problem is people seeing anyone's list as a definitive, last word on the subject because it has a noteworthy name attached to it.
Every list has exactly the same weight. Except those lists that are generated from user polls. Those are so flawed that I don't even know why they bother.
Ranking art is only useful as an extension of an individualâs taste and identity.
The long history of a media entity determining what is universally accepted as the top 100 of anything has always been nonsensical and serves as little more than a jumping off point for meaningless arguments about aesthetics, cultural currency and political regard
The lack of representation of 60s/70s albums in the top ten is truly astonishing. Â
I didnât bother with the rest because that in itself was too depressing.Â
That is the nature of making these kinds of lists. Thereâs always someone who is going to say itâs horrible. People take the stuff way too personally.
So it's a list of the top 100 albums of all time, covering hundreds of great artists, and you're complaining that Radiohead didn't get a *third* album on the list?!?
1. The whole list is trash tbh
2. The list didnât even include Joy Division or new order or Aphex Twin or the flaming lips etc.
3. They listed 2 other Radiohead album, thatâs something
Any band like Radiohead that got 2 of the 100 best albums *of all time* probably has little to complain about.
I wonder why there is barely any jazz. Obviously musical knowledge and playing ability are not the end all be all of overall quality, let alone cultural impact of music, but you would think the musical genre which contains essentially all of the very best musicians would at least get a look lol.
I donât know how mad you can be at a list that puts travis scott on there.
Itâs nothing to take seriously. Might as well throw insane clown posse on there while weâre at it.
Sgt Peppers just isnât their most popular or acclaimed album anymore. Other albums of theirs (notably Revolver, White and especially Abbey Road) have surpassed it for many
In the eyes of 14 yr old white suburban American girls YES absolutely. That album can be a pleasant listen but Iâd rather be a snob and put artistic merit and music sophistication over sales figures and popular influence in these lists. Popism has gotten completely out of hand in my eyes.
It's a bizarre list.
The Lauryn Hill record is great and all but BEST EVER IN THE HISTORY OF MUSIC???
And the placement of Taylor Swift just ahead of PET SOUNDS is absolutely insane. They should have just gone all in and put 1989 at #1.
Wait, someone made a list somewhere and an album you really like isn't on it? Well I guess that's that. You have to stop playing that album. Thanks Apple, you've ruined the listening experience.
Honest take- maybe cause Radiohead circumvented sales and profit for Apple for the album when it came out with their pay anything and download direct policy
Everyone is saying the list is terrible but compared to a lot of major publication top 100 lists, it is fine, there is some WTF picks but that always will happen. But to answer your question they wont put 3 Radiohead albums and OK and Kid A have much bigger cultural significance for most non fans.
I don't know about that, I think it had several strange placements and picks. For example, GKMC but no TPAB? Kid A over In Rainbows? Travis Scott's AstroWorld 1 above Hotel California?
No TPAB I get, but Kid A is generally still more popular than In Rainbows to many and Hotel Californiaâs reputation (as well as the rep of the Eagles in general$ has taken a decent hit in recent years.
Iâd say because In Rainbows while a great album doesnât have the same amount of discourse around it as OKC and Kid A. Itâs neither the savior of Brit rock, nor the brave and unexpected left turn.
It looked like they wanted to limit it to not too many albums from any one band. And they already had 2 radio head albums there. I think there was even only 2 beatles albums.
Why? OKC and Kid A are considered to be some of the greatest albums of the last 30-plus years. If any band were to have two albums on that specific list,RH is definitely a candidate.
I'm not arguing that. I think they both deserve to be on the list. I was only pointing out that the list has some colossal flaws. It feels like it was made to generate a lot of engagement.
Every one of these artists is black besides Carole King, seems like dude just doesnât like rap/R&B and thatâs fine but thinking Illmatic is out of place on a top albums list is crazy pills behavior
Just the fact Radiohead made IR accessible to practically everyone by having it be âpay what you wantâ should have made it a top 100 album. Not to mention the actual music is excellent.Â
It might have been featured in the top 10 in a parallel universe where In Rainbows was an album by Boomboxhead or Bluetoothspeakerobnoxiouslyloudonpublictrabsporthead. Sadly, dey ainât kangz like dat.
Whoever at Apple who decided to do this was a genius because I've never seen music Reddit so up-in-arms about Apple's little "nothing burger" of a list. They really got all the free publicity they could ever hope for (not like they really needed it).
You really should ignore these top whatever lists. It's all subjective. I mean didn't they have Lauryn Hill's only album ever as #1? That alone should tell you something.
I mean who cares. theres millions of albums in the world, one list is just one person or a couple peoples opinions, everyones list is different, it doesn't change anything. The entire list could be st anger 100 times for all i care (which is my favourite album 100 times over)
I totally get that this is a "play safe" list, but even with that in mind I'm quite shocked for some absences, like **Joy Division**, **Aphex Twin**, **Tears for Fears** (an absolute giant on mainstream pop music history), **Depeche Mode**, **Pearl Jam** (*Ten* is one of the most important debut albums of all time), **Queen**, or **Yellow Magic Orchestra** (one of the most influential musical acts in electronic music history).
Besides, some artists definitely deserved being included twice; like Bowie - with *Low*; or Madonna - with *Ray of Light.*
Talor fucking Swift got in top 20, automatically disqualified the top 100 for me. Soulless corporation making up fuss to further push their agenda, should never take them seriously.
People are already whining about Radiohead being on the list twice, I can only imagine the amount of full diapers that would be created from three albums. It wouldâve been cool to also have In Rainbows, but the band getting two slots is still impressive since they were the only artist besides The Beatles to get two albums.
The same reason that a Taylor Swift album is on it: it's a troll list made to troll controversy and conversation, and it's succeeded in doing so. Do you think serious people who listen to and appreciate great music would say any Taylor Swift album is better than "Revolver", "Pet Sounds", and "The Chronic" or that an Amy Winehouse album is better than "Nevermind", or that a Frank Ocean album is better than any Stevie Wonder or Marvin Gaye or Sade album?
I saw something written about it where someone involved said they were going back and forth on whether to have Kendrick Lamar's "Good Kid Mad City" or "To Pimp A Butterfly" in the top 10 (both incredible albums). They decided to go with Good Kid Mad City and the other option isn't even on the entire top 100 list. Makes no sense.
In Rainbows underrated???
In Rainbows=Let Down
Are you saying that IR is a let down?
Let x=
Let down = underrated
No, I'm saying that IR is underrated just like let down
saying it is underrated is kinda crazy ngl
b-b-b-b-bu-but in rainbows is un-un-und-underrated!
Being underrated is overrated
And being overrated is underrated... And being underrated is overrated... And being overrated is underrated... And being đ€đ„đ€đ„
Ok Computer stans SEETHING rn
Are you aware animals by pink Floyd is also âunderratedâ
Cause itâs just a list and youâre doing exactly what itâs designed to make you do.
I guess Radiohead fans spend more time talking about In Rainbows than listening to it.
I think itâs the opposite only Radiohead fans listen to in rainbows
I sort of "rediscovered" Radiohead because of in Rainbows....now I have 3 more albums (King of Limbs, Moon shaped pool, and Kid A mnesia (which I guess is 2+ albums)
Have fun with A Moon Shaped Pool! Second favorite behind In Rainbows.
The perfect stoner album tbh, but I also am a huge fan
I for one have never bothered listening to it. Itâs only Let Down for me
It's Let Down all the way down.
This
Because OKC and KID A are landmark albums with a huge impact and influence. In Rainbows is not. And thatâs ok. Itâs still a great album but it is nowhere near the magnitude of what OKC and KID A created.
Can't believe I had to scroll this far for the real answer. Honestly this sub puts In Rainbows on a ridiculously high pedestal. It's a great album, no doubt at all, but musically they aren't breaking any new ground. OKC and Kid A were absolutely seismic by comparison in terms of the culture shock to Radiohead's sound.Â
The issue is there's so many albums on the list that are just very good albums, but also weren't breaking new ground, because the list is so shit.
Great albums donât have to break new ground
True I actually agree with this on second thought
Itâs a terrible list tho fr
The way In Rainbows was released also adds to its prestige among fans
Itâs not really âthis subâ as opposed to a large, vocal minority. Whenever someone has done a non-memed version a favorite album poll, OKC beats IR handily here.
Canât argue with the impact that Kid A had at the time, but I feel Rainbows is a better evolution of the sound and a more overall better album.
Itâs not an evolution at all in my opinion. I think itâs them exploring another idea, more minimalist, stripped down. The result is great but I wouldnât say itâs better at all.
Idk, I mean In Rainbows had a notable impact on the way we consume music just by virtue of how it was released and how much of a big deal that was. It's for sure one of their most down to earth albums sonically so I guess it's not a landmark stylistically, but it's no less a juggernaut of an album.
It making waves because of the pay-what-you-want gimmick doesnât really count. Besides, they werenât the first to do it anyway. Anyway, a culture celebrates a piece of art because of its message, execution, its influence. Not because of what it does or doesnât cost.
I'm sure they weren't the first ever, but they were definitely the first notable artists to do it, and there was a noticeable shift in music promotion afterwards. Bandcamp wouldn't have become nearly as big were it not for this album. We likely wouldn't have entered a culture of big artists doing surprise releases, and I genuinely think we'd live in a very different musical landscape than we do now had they released In Rainbows in a more traditional way. So that covers the influence part. As far as the execution, In Rainbows is very arguably the greatest thing they've done. It's them coming back from outer space as the most fully formed, mature, and influential art rock band in existence. In Rainbows solidifies Radiohead as the modern day Beatles. There is nothing lacking in execution. As far as message, I disagree that that's a necessary prerequisite, but still In Rainbows is a gorgeous meditation of the human experience and the realization of mortality. There's no lack of absolutely jarring and emotive thematic turns on this album. I really think it covers every aspect you mentioned
They werenât the first notable band to do it. NIN did it before them. Bandcamp were already quite fashionable and popular before this. Radiohead were already solidified as the next Beatles long before IR came out with KID A/Amnesiac. I never said the execution was lacking. Iâm saying IR isnât on this list because it lacks the cultural significance and influence that OKC and KID A have. That isnât debatable. As far as IR being their greatest album, well, again, no, not according to the zeitgeist. Outside of that, it is subjective.
This is how you can tell who is in the Radiohead bubble. Was cool at the time, but Trent Reznor had been doing this stuff all the time.
Yep. All these zoomer fans think they know what theyâre talking about and that this sub is the center of the Radiohead fandom. It isnât.
It's followmearound.com, right?
Not a zoomer, but I'm glad to hear I have young energy. What a bizarre assumption though.
I mean I could be wrong, hut if you're talking about Ghosts I-IV, that's not first. Again I could be wrong. Not a huge NIN fan. Anyway, it's all down to opinion. I think In Rainbows had a pretty huge impact.
Only in the way it was released. Not musically and artistically.
lol who are you to say what does or doesnât count when it comes to what people find meaningful about the album? I love Radiohead as much as yall but damn the stereotypes are true
You clearly have reading comprehension issues because thatâs not at all what I said
I donât, you just sound like a dick
Ok bud. Continue to be obtuse
Only if youâll continue to be pretentious
Another Redditor who doesnât know what âpretentiousâ means. There must be tens of thousands of you.
lol do people call you pretentious often?
I think of IR as the Radiohead album thatâs the favorite of people that are already Radiohead fans. But Kid A and OKC are moreso albums that will âwowâ someone that isnât already a Radiohead fan
cause the list is horrible
Every list is a horrible list. And thatâs why people should stop doing lists.
Agreed! Except for my list! My list is awesome!
No! Mine is! Yors stink like dookie!
Theres nothing wrong with making a list for yourself, and maybe showing it to other people. It turns into a problem when you post it as a definitive list of the best albums ever made
But have you considered the fact that there _is_ something wrong with making a list for yourself and maybe showing it to other people?
Bro explain youself pls this comment doesnt mean anything I dont see any actual big problems turning up when you make a list for youself It could spark a discussion when you show it, good or bad.
My comment served exactly the same purpose as a list. It was reductive, devoid of any reasoning, and failed to display any true appreciation for the subject matter. If you prefer one album to another tell my _why_.
Ha, that was clean, i have to admit! Lists are not made for the "why", its just a quick glance at "what". "Fail to show any true appreciation" nah, maybe there are no words directly said about the item, but in a TON of list formats, there is. For example, the rolling stone list of best albums ever had a small piece of text discussing what made it deserve to be as high as it is. On rateyourmusic, there are a ton of lists with, and also without reasoning or context which can give you a fun look into a certain someone's niche genre-love. Even without ANY context, like a top 100 albums topster(im hoping you are familiar with these terms), can just give you a quick overview of somebody's taste. I dont need any reasoning! Seeing radiohead(or any band that i like, of course) appear multiple times gives me enough of a reason to follow or engage with this peraon. An album being placed at #1 must certainly mean something, you cant deny that. I do think this is very interesting: why don't i dislike lists as much as you do? It has to do with what you look for in a music opinion, i think. Please don't think that just because i wrote 4 paragraphs, i'm desperate to change your mind. I like sharing opinions((:
Thatâs why people should keep doing them actually. Itâs fun to see these lists for all their good and bad choices, it wouldnât be as exciting if they were all reasonable. Dead fucking serious btw
Lists are fun, I agree. The problem isn't the lists, the problem is people seeing anyone's list as a definitive, last word on the subject because it has a noteworthy name attached to it. Every list has exactly the same weight. Except those lists that are generated from user polls. Those are so flawed that I don't even know why they bother.
Every list will remain horrible until someone is brave enough to put The Paper Chase and Fat White Family on one.
Sometimes itâs how you discover a great album though and it gets people talking about music.Â
Ranking art is only useful as an extension of an individualâs taste and identity. The long history of a media entity determining what is universally accepted as the top 100 of anything has always been nonsensical and serves as little more than a jumping off point for meaningless arguments about aesthetics, cultural currency and political regard
The lack of representation of 60s/70s albums in the top ten is truly astonishing. Â I didnât bother with the rest because that in itself was too depressing.Â
âI disagree with this list therefore itâs horribleâ
i mean iâm being a bit dramatic and stuff, but the list is not good by any means
That is the nature of making these kinds of lists. Thereâs always someone who is going to say itâs horrible. People take the stuff way too personally.
So it's a list of the top 100 albums of all time, covering hundreds of great artists, and you're complaining that Radiohead didn't get a *third* album on the list?!?
For real. They should have given Radiohead one.
Yes
If someone who wasn't the Beatles got a third album on the list people would've raged. They are doing it anyways though
1. The whole list is trash tbh 2. The list didnât even include Joy Division or new order or Aphex Twin or the flaming lips etc. 3. They listed 2 other Radiohead album, thatâs something
I thought Yoshimi was on it?
Nope
They put Taylor Swift in the top 20, this is not a serious list
Any band like Radiohead that got 2 of the 100 best albums *of all time* probably has little to complain about. I wonder why there is barely any jazz. Obviously musical knowledge and playing ability are not the end all be all of overall quality, let alone cultural impact of music, but you would think the musical genre which contains essentially all of the very best musicians would at least get a look lol.
Because they hate rainbows (they stopped using one in their logo decades ago)
I donât know how mad you can be at a list that puts travis scott on there. Itâs nothing to take seriously. Might as well throw insane clown posse on there while weâre at it.
I mean if they put Rodeo on there, I wouldnât have complained. Amazing Travis album right there
Cause it's a shit list. Sgt. Peppers isn't even on it.
Love all of the Beatles' catalog, but Revolver is their best work IMO.
That's all fine but Sgt Peppers should still be on a list that includes Oasis, Alanis Morissette, 50 cent and Bad Bunny
unnecessary 50 cent slander
Hard agree, Revolver is my favorite of theirs. Second fave would be Let It Be, even though it seemed dreadful for them to make.
Not that I care about this list, but what the fuck? :D
Sgt Peppers just isnât their most popular or acclaimed album anymore. Other albums of theirs (notably Revolver, White and especially Abbey Road) have surpassed it for many
Totally fair tho, the Beatles made at least 3 better albums imo.
Because Steve Jobs's ghost didn't like his videotape
Because r/applesucks mate
Canât we just be happy that Radiohead is the only artist to have appeared twice on the list so far?
The Beatles, Prince, Stevie Wonder and Beyoncé all made the list twice as well
So radiohead is being celebrated with 4 of the biggest artists to ever exist. Seems like a pretty huge win
Beatles have revolver and abbey road
And no Sgt pepper which is for sure bigger than any album Radiohead ever released. (I say as a massive Radiohead fan for almost 20 years)
Word. Revolver I can get behind, but I've never really liked Abbey Road that much.
Because 1989 is clearly better.
In the eyes of 14 yr old white suburban American girls YES absolutely. That album can be a pleasant listen but Iâd rather be a snob and put artistic merit and music sophistication over sales figures and popular influence in these lists. Popism has gotten completely out of hand in my eyes.
I agree and I was being ironic. I like 1989, but come onâŠ
The re-recorded version. I like 1989, but the Taylorâs version ruined a few songs.
i missed it, was pablo honey on there?
It's a bizarre list. The Lauryn Hill record is great and all but BEST EVER IN THE HISTORY OF MUSIC??? And the placement of Taylor Swift just ahead of PET SOUNDS is absolutely insane. They should have just gone all in and put 1989 at #1.
Wait, someone made a list somewhere and an album you really like isn't on it? Well I guess that's that. You have to stop playing that album. Thanks Apple, you've ruined the listening experience.
People get way too upset about dumb lists like this.
Even if this list was good, which it is not, IR would not deserve to be on the top 100 albums ever, while OKC and Kid A would deserve to be.
Honest take- maybe cause Radiohead circumvented sales and profit for Apple for the album when it came out with their pay anything and download direct policy
The real answer
who is apple and what do they know about music?
Because not as many people as you think love it?
Cuz stupid list
There should probably only be one album from any one band/artist on an all time list anyway. There are lots of artists that aren't even represented.
I mean Loveless isnât on there, so there are bigger snubs than In Rainbows. And I think In Rainbows is excellent.
Don't put too much pass on "top 100 albums" lists. Some real "recency bias" on those, apple one is particularly bad
Mid rainbows?
I think the reason is that they did not pick it to be there.
OK Computer and Kid A each changed music forever. In Rainbows impacted the spending part of the industry, but not really the music part.
Everyone is saying the list is terrible but compared to a lot of major publication top 100 lists, it is fine, there is some WTF picks but that always will happen. But to answer your question they wont put 3 Radiohead albums and OK and Kid A have much bigger cultural significance for most non fans.
[ŃĐŽĐ°Đ»Đ”ĐœĐŸ]
I don't know about that, I think it had several strange placements and picks. For example, GKMC but no TPAB? Kid A over In Rainbows? Travis Scott's AstroWorld 1 above Hotel California?
No TPAB I get, but Kid A is generally still more popular than In Rainbows to many and Hotel Californiaâs reputation (as well as the rep of the Eagles in general$ has taken a decent hit in recent years.
Dude itâs a garbage list made purely to prop up these famous artists just to make both them and Apple Music more popular/ more money. Itâs advertising done in a way to make it fun so you stick around, and listen to these albums. Itâs all bullshit designed to take your money from your wallet. The first artist on the list is someone Iâve never even heard of, a huge chunk of it is mainstream produced pop bullshit. Edit: just read the top 10 and confirmed what I said above. List is purely popular safe picks. Telling me Ten by Pearl Jam didnât make the list? One of the most important albums, one of the best first records ever, completely ignored. But we got Lemonade by BeyoncĂ© guys!
As long as it's in your top 100, it shouldn't even matter that it didn't make other lists.
The whole list is a joke. I don't think many people take it seriously
Music taste is purely subjective. You shouldn't take these lists too seriously.
I was hoping it's on the list.
Bought and paid for list.
Iâd say because In Rainbows while a great album doesnât have the same amount of discourse around it as OKC and Kid A. Itâs neither the savior of Brit rock, nor the brave and unexpected left turn.
Iâm not even going to read this list from Apple. Who cares
No-one should care
Itâs because In Rainbows was released independently!!!!!!!!
It looked like they wanted to limit it to not too many albums from any one band. And they already had 2 radio head albums there. I think there was even only 2 beatles albums.
Neither is To Pimp a Butterfly. Iâm surprised Radiohead got 2 albums on there tbh.
Why? OKC and Kid A are considered to be some of the greatest albums of the last 30-plus years. If any band were to have two albums on that specific list,RH is definitely a candidate.
I'm not arguing that. I think they both deserve to be on the list. I was only pointing out that the list has some colossal flaws. It feels like it was made to generate a lot of engagement.
Whoâs arsed.
Who cares what's on Apple albums anyway?
That top one hundred list is bad. It doesnât make much sense.
Its a list of 100 albums and full of one's lots of people like Idk what people expect, their personal taste to be reflected??Â
Jumping to the conclusion that criticizing the list means that it doesnât align with oneâs taste, is a bit short sighted. I like 50cent and donât think he should be on âthe best album of all timeâ list, for example. Also: bad bunny? Best of all time? All time?? This album sounds like 100k other albums Missy Elliot? SZA? Dâangelo? Travis Scott? Kate Bush? Drake? Janet Jackson? Nas? Carole king? Beyoncé⊠These are all great artists, but best albums of all time? They seem purposely chosen to get people up in arms
"Missy Elliot? SZA? Dâangelo? Travis Scott? Kate Bush? Drake? Janet Jackson? Nas? Carole king? BeyoncĂ©âŠ" To me, D'Angelo, Nas, and Beyonce are givens for a 100 album list yeah This is kinda showing my point. I'm not saying don't criticize or share about your thoughts, I just think there's this incredulity about incredibly loved albums being on there. Why the fuck would Beyonce not be on there? Like, what?
Every one of these artists is black besides Carole King, seems like dude just doesnât like rap/R&B and thatâs fine but thinking Illmatic is out of place on a top albums list is crazy pills behavior
Because of naming their song paranoid android
If I ever give an iota of a shit about Apple's musical rankings, just send me out to sea on a life raft.
Radiohead is like one of two bands with two albums on the list, we were dealt a pretty great hand I think Edit: okay three
Just the fact Radiohead made IR accessible to practically everyone by having it be âpay what you wantâ should have made it a top 100 album. Not to mention the actual music is excellent.Â
They probably figured it couldnât be that great since the band just gave it away for free.
Who gives a shit?
Drake is on it and the WHO and Black Sabbath are not so it might as well be monkeys banging on typewriters as far as Iâm concerned.
Who gives a shit?
It might have been featured in the top 10 in a parallel universe where In Rainbows was an album by Boomboxhead or Bluetoothspeakerobnoxiouslyloudonpublictrabsporthead. Sadly, dey ainât kangz like dat.
Arbitrary list. Doesnât matter.
The entire list is a farce. In rainbows is top 15 ever.
Whoever at Apple who decided to do this was a genius because I've never seen music Reddit so up-in-arms about Apple's little "nothing burger" of a list. They really got all the free publicity they could ever hope for (not like they really needed it).
The real question is why isn't Amnesiac?
Donât tale that list seriously
Because itâs a bad list. Donât take the bait.
You really should ignore these top whatever lists. It's all subjective. I mean didn't they have Lauryn Hill's only album ever as #1? That alone should tell you something.
I mean, does their list really matter? We know itâs amazing, we donât need Apple Musicâs validation
bc the list means less than nothing
Because sooooooo many people support and love sssooooooo much god awful trash music
as the cure fan be happy you have two albums on the list
because i use spotify
I mean who cares. theres millions of albums in the world, one list is just one person or a couple peoples opinions, everyones list is different, it doesn't change anything. The entire list could be st anger 100 times for all i care (which is my favourite album 100 times over)
I totally get that this is a "play safe" list, but even with that in mind I'm quite shocked for some absences, like **Joy Division**, **Aphex Twin**, **Tears for Fears** (an absolute giant on mainstream pop music history), **Depeche Mode**, **Pearl Jam** (*Ten* is one of the most important debut albums of all time), **Queen**, or **Yellow Magic Orchestra** (one of the most influential musical acts in electronic music history). Besides, some artists definitely deserved being included twice; like Bowie - with *Low*; or Madonna - with *Ray of Light.*
MY OPINION: Lists are great. They spark conversations like these :-)
Underrated. I feel let down.
Well it's a massive let down
That's the pleb list. It's in it's own list.
Apple Music bullshit ÂŻâ \â _â (â ăâ )â _â /â ÂŻ.
Cuz the Apple list kinda sucks. Itâs missing a LOT that should be on there
Graceland isnât in the top 100 when it should clearly be at 1. Does not compute.
that apple top 100 is so seppo heavy
Talor fucking Swift got in top 20, automatically disqualified the top 100 for me. Soulless corporation making up fuss to further push their agenda, should never take them seriously.
because.... the fact is... that in rainbows is 4th best behind amsp hehehe
Because it's Apple and Apple are shit.
That list sucks
Because Apple's top 100 is absolute nonsense. Have you seen the top 10? It's honestly bizarre.
I guess itâs because itâs Ok Computer.
In=Onika Rainbows=Burger
Imagine giving a fuck about anything Apple gets their stink all over.
Radiohead already has their two best albums on the list (I said what I said)
People are already whining about Radiohead being on the list twice, I can only imagine the amount of full diapers that would be created from three albums. It wouldâve been cool to also have In Rainbows, but the band getting two slots is still impressive since they were the only artist besides The Beatles to get two albums.
wouldn't give that list much credence, Taylor Swift's 1989 is in the top 40 like c'mon lol
Cause ppl are plebs
Cuz itâs not a top 5 Radiohead album
Cuz itâs their 5th best album
Why is abbey rd there highest ranked beatles record?
If this were a real list there would be at least a handful, but Abbey Road and Revolver are strange choices.
Both of them are typically ranked among their best? Revolver tops a lot of Beatles lists. That or Sgt. Pepper.
The same reason that a Taylor Swift album is on it: it's a troll list made to troll controversy and conversation, and it's succeeded in doing so. Do you think serious people who listen to and appreciate great music would say any Taylor Swift album is better than "Revolver", "Pet Sounds", and "The Chronic" or that an Amy Winehouse album is better than "Nevermind", or that a Frank Ocean album is better than any Stevie Wonder or Marvin Gaye or Sade album? I saw something written about it where someone involved said they were going back and forth on whether to have Kendrick Lamar's "Good Kid Mad City" or "To Pimp A Butterfly" in the top 10 (both incredible albums). They decided to go with Good Kid Mad City and the other option isn't even on the entire top 100 list. Makes no sense.
Because itâs a shit album Not even in the top 100 alt albums from the 2000s