True or False: 50,000,000 Elvis Fans Can't Be Wrong

Is popular music is a manifestation of the dreams of The People?

If you hate music because of its popularity, does that mean you hate The People?

If you agree that 50,000,000 Elvis Fans Must Have Been Right, would you have to agree that 50,000,000 Hitler Fans Must Have Been Right?

50,000,000 *CAN INDEED* be wrong! Why? `Cos the majority are SHEEP who will *BUY* what they're *TOLD* to buy.

Evidence to the contrary: Lou Reed's Berlin. Which had a BIG marketing campaign.

And yes....by and large I *DO* hate the people.

popularity isn't necessarily the proof of quality. at the same time, because something is popular doesn't mean it isn't quality. moverover, popularity can sometimes change something for the worse if the person bends completely to the will of his or her popularity to fan the flames so to speak.

"50,000,000 *CAN INDEED* be wrong! Why? `Cos the majority are SHEEP who will *BUY* what they're *TOLD* to buy."

I beg to differ. More often its the more music-press attuned, snobbier types that are buying what they are told to buy, while the more casual fans are just doing whatever turns them on. However, I think that a lot of records that millions of people rush out and buy in their droves are not as durable as other, less-instant records. So, yes, 50,000,000 people can be wrong.

Killian sed: "More often its the more music-press attuned, snobbier types that are buying what they are told to buy, while the more casual fans are just doing whatever turns them on."

Fair point, Killian, but while Johnny Rock-Critic will rush out to acquire, say, the new Beaulah or Interpol albums (without having heard a single note off of them) because the hipper-than-thou congniscenti declare it "essential" for anyone in the know with their ear to the ground (for fear that he'll somehow fall out of the hip loop otherwise), "casual types" are told what to buy by the mainstream media outlets (MTV, radio, etc.) that force-feed them product via endless, hypnotic repetition.

Hahaha five minutes ago on the taste thread I said "one thing you never see on ILM is the opposite: pop-lovers making appeals to the charts and the good sense of the buying public" and now it will be put to the test!

"50,000,000 Elvis Fans Can't Be Stuffed Into A Barrel! Believe Me, I've Tried!"

Johnny Rock-Critic will rush out to ... because the hipper-than- thou congniscenti declare it "essential" ... "casual types" are told what to buy by the mainstream media outlets

that's a pretty sad and defeated point of view. people who buy music because they read about it are just trying to be cool, and people who buy music because they heard it on the radio are brainwashed... we have no free will, no ability to decide on our own what we like?

Hahaha yeah, Fritz, we're only meant to like music that we find unmediated by casually stumbling across the bands' rehearsal spaces.

"Fair point, Killian, but while Johnny Rock-Critic will rush out to acquire, say, the new Beaulah or Interpol albums (without having heard a single note off of them) because the hipper-than-thou congniscenti declare it "essential" for anyone in the know with their ear to the ground (for fear that he'll somehow fall out of the hip loop otherwise), "casual types" are told what to buy by the mainstream media outlets (MTV, radio, etc.) that force-feed them product via endless, hypnotic repetition"

So we're all sheep, then! But seriously, I don't think the mainstream public necessarily rush out to buy an album or song because they are told to like it, rather I think that the instantly accessible blandness they so often opt for does not bear up to repeated listening in the way that Low or MBV or Red House Painters would. And also, while 50 million people can be wrong, so can 5,000. I mean Galaxie 500? They can't even sing! And lots of bands beloved of ILM (and myself) sold bucketloads (Nirvana, REM, Smiths, Sonic Youth, Pixies). Success (or failure) in the charts has no bearing on your quality, either way.

is there something wrong with liking music simply because other people like it too? because the fact that other people liking it makes us feel like we know others a little better? that we are less alone and less seperate and less essentially unknowable ourselves? hasn't that been one of the most basic functions of music since the invention of the drum?

aren't 50,000,000 more likely to be right than they are to be wrong? can anyone really argue that elvis, the beatles and michael jackson were not great artists in their primes?

their greatness was inextricably linked to their popularity - they would actually not mean as much if they were less popular. their songs would be lesser works of art if they had not been as popular.

Alright, please forgive my sweeping generalizations, but you must admit there is indeed truth to it -- there is completely a faction of rock critcis who merely race to acquire (and later croon noisily about) the albums of certain artists merely to keep their heads above water in the cool department, so to speak.

My suggestion that the majority are sheep is actually targetted at the teen pop market, the product-buying demographic of whom seem to consume just any old product that rolls down the pike (so long as its packaged and marketed the right way, and bashed into their craniums ad nauseum on MTV).

Popularity is part of an artist's pallette. The Sex Pistols would have been less successful artists if "God Save The Queen" had not gone to number one on the charts. Eminem would not be as fun to listen to if he was an underground artist.

The success of releases by Eminem and Sex Pistols made them greater EVENTS, but it didn't make them greater WORKS OF ART.

seriously, what's the difference? isn't a huge part of pop music about events? doesn't a successful event become part of our collective memory, source material for other artists to draw on? a song isn't just a song - a recording or a piece of sheet music - its all the memories that stick to the song and events are part of that.

and we're talking about Eminem & the Sex Pistols here too - this is not music for music's sake, this is art about the artist's role in society, music about what popular culture will let the artist get away with - it fails as art if it doesn't get popular and critical attention

"The success of releases by Eminem and Sex Pistols made them greater EVENTS, but it didn't make them greater WORKS OF ART."

I suppose it's all relative, but I reckon quantifying each album's worth as ART involves how they stand the test of time. Are they Art, or merely Entertainment?

"in the future, art will the overturning of situations or it will be nothing"

"seriously, what's the difference?" For me, an event is a happening that occurs within a short period of time, and is more based around instant impact than lasting greatness. Being present at the time of the happening is essential for appreciation of the event. A WORK OF ART is something you have to hold and cherish for all eternity.

Note: this is just a personal view. Others may prefer the exciting rush that comes with an EVENT!

so theatre is not art?

get to #1 = they chart synchronically
stand the test of time = they chart diachronically

the principle's the same, the counting system slightly difft

can't some great art be about this moment right now? why does it have to last for all eternity? what's wrong with how you feel about something right now? isn't this moment as holy and important as the big moment?

(sorry I kind of turned into a hippy for a second there. I'll go wash my hands and face)

"so theatre is not art?" This is a good point. Maybe I should revise my definition a little. An event is something that has a great social impact, but it is not necessarily a mark of quality (whereas durability is, for me). I love the way Marilyn Manson shakes up narrow-minded Middle-America, but I don't listen to his records 'cos they're shite.

but is durability a different test of quality than popularity?

durability is just popularity over time, right?

"can't some great art be about this moment right now? why does it have to last for all eternity? what's wrong with how you feel about something right now? isn't this moment as holy and important as the big moment?"

An interesting point -- which is why I prefaced my comment with "I suppose it's all relative." This also stems back to a debate we had on the nature of Hip Hop: so much of it seems rooted strictly in "the NOW" (whether due to its topical nature, or in the slang/lingo/patois that's employed) that it doesn't age particularly well (witness the difficulty in selling used Hip Hop cd's from five to ten years ago). Does that make it any less "worthy" as "art"? I don't believe so, but surely the real test in measuring a "GREAT" work of "art" is how many people it touchs and speaks to. To use your earlier examples, to my ears, much of the Sex Pistols' music still sounds fresh, whereas Kurtis Blow's "Basketball" couldn't possibly sound more dated. This is, of course, all purely subjective -- as maybe the Pistols sound old and stale to you, and Kurtis Blow sounds cutting edge. So, once again, it's all relative -- but the point I'm attempting to get at is that the GREATEST art would be the variety that is able to speak to the most number of people regardless of the point in time of its origin. (Am I alledging that the Sex Pistols are somehow better "artists" than Kurtis Blow? Well, yes I am, but that's only my opinion).

But anyway, 50,000,000 can still be wrong -- as 50,000,000 can be gullible, misguided, misinformed and just plain stupid. Witness how many people report UFO's and spot Elvis in their supermarkets. People are dumb.

The problem with that analogy is that one is usually thought of as a matter of fact -- whether or not Elvis was there to see -- while the other is thought of as a matter of value -- whether or not there was a good song on that Elvis record. But whether or not there is a fact of the matter in questions of value is something at issue. If there were, then it would be straightforward to say that 50,000,000 Elvis fans can be wrong.

if 50 million people saw ufos, then the dumb ones wd be the ones who "couldn't" see them => in fact only a few thousand ppl AT MOST claim to have done so

a lot less than that have "seen" elvis at their supermarket (though the numbers thing is irrelevant to the elvis anecdote: my sister once saw jerry dammers at the supermarket and EVEN IF SHE WAS THE ONLY ONE EVAH TO SEE HIM IN A SUPERMARKET EVAH that doesn't make her dumb, just someone who recognises jerry dammers)

Jerry Dammers is still alive. Elivs is dead. If you claim to see Elvis in your supermarket, you're either mistaken, lying, crazy and/or spectacularly stupid

Durability is singly the most annoying thing used as a measure of quality ever.

I think you'll find it's only used against younger artifacts, Ronan. ;)

(Another great thing about popular music: it provides us with reference points that make communication easy and fun. the references in this discussion to elvis, the sex pistols, kurtis blow, and jerry dammers (among others) have allowed us to discuss this topic in almost microscopic detail. if kurtis blow and jerry dammers were more popular, we would know more about them and it would be easier to use them as more evocative symbols!)

by "in almost microscopic detail", I mean "incredibly vaguely"

alex i know, but numbers has zero to do with that example, in either direction => a handful of ppl (i bet it's not even hundred) claim to have seen elvis (= most of them are telling lies to get their name in the papers) = this says nothing abt whether 50 million ppl can be wrong

50 million ppl say elvis is still alive = 49.9 million of them DISBLIEVE what the (mainstream/manufactured) media is telling them

I can't sell my old CDs=old hip-hop sucks

Brilliant!

That Chaucer geezer, I just don't get his patois... ;)

In answer to the question, of course not.

My point, Mark, is that the sheer volume of people involved (50 Million) doesn't immediately lend the cause irrefutable legitimacy. 50 Million people *CAN* be mistaken (and dishonest and stupid).

I am actually narky as hell on ILM lately but god is durability not a quality. Some things are meant to be fleetingly enjoyed, other things just won't fuck off (sorry I'm defining this MY way). I'm close to losing all sanity and politeness these last few days on ILM. Is it cos I've been thinking about music as work? Possibly.

And the greatest art is the one that speaks to me the most, at least I think so anyway. What about the piece of art that speaks to you once in a lifetime? How romantic yes but it's true. How about lots of people hearing something in some fantastic shared context.

Jesus from aging modernists wet dream to hippy in a matter of days.

There's a bitter hatred inside me for revered artists, some of whom I'd probably like if I bothered, but jesus some day I'm going to explode. God I need stress relief therapy when I think of that "vintage dylan lyric" quote.

surely a better question would be, what is 'right', what is 'wrong', and what do 50,000,000 Elvis fans have to do with this concept?

for me, there's no such thing as 'right' and 'wrong' in terms of subjective preference. 50,000,000 Elvis Fans can like whatever the fuck they want; they're 'right' for their own tastes, but those tastes will have absolutely no effect on my own.

"what is right and what is wrong" = too trivial for ilm, we demand more challenging questions please (viz "mighty lemon drops: CoD")

But Elvis wouldn't be Elvis if he didn't have 50,000,000 fans, how can your subjective opinion of him not be affected by what he is?

Arrrrgh! The point is: NEVERMIND the 50 million sheep!!! Who gives a rolling rat fuck what they're liking!??!?! Just because they like "it" (be it Elvis or Mandy Moore or Radiohead or Whitesnake) doesn't mean (a) that you have to and (b) that "it" is necessarily good to begin with! After all, the majority is usually attacted by the lowest common denominator (i.e. most music that caters wholly to the mainstream is dumbed-down crap for dumbed-down idiots). So, maybe "wrong" is a relative term, but the collective taste of 50 Million people doesn't dictate jack didley squat.

alex stop saying "sheep": just because you read stuff like this in the media doesn't make it true, you shd try and think for yourself

Well, it all depends on what the lowest common denominator is, I guess. In the case of Elvis, I think the lowest common denominators (sex and race, perhaps) are pretty interesting. In the case of, say, Kenny G, the lowest common denominator (need for relaxing, innocuous background music, perhaps) is less interesting.

what's wrong with relaxing?

I didn't say there was anything "wrong" with it. I said it was less "interesting" ;)

I submit that art created in the now almost always has more durability than art created with an eye to history.

Mark S chided: "alex stop saying 'sheep': just because you read stuff like this in the media doesn't make it true, you shd try and think for yourself."

Ack! A hit, a very palpable hit! Alright, good one. You're dead right. "Sheep" is a cliche. But it's a cliche because it's such a true-ism. People *DO* behave like sheep in this context. Or maybe lemmings. Or quite possibly ocelots, but I don't believe they're succeptible to herd mentality (ever hear of a herd of ocelots?) so perhaps not. In any event, "sheep" is a user-friendly term in this capacity, so that's why I use it. Add it to the list next to "pabulum."

Ah, as the t-shirt says: "Fuck Art, let's dance!"

i'm sure the only thing these 50,000,000 people have in common is their love of elvis. and i'm sure they all came to love him in their own peculiar way for their own peculiar reasons. some of them are smart, some of them are dumb. they don't roam around the countryside together in a big flock.

No, popularity is not proof of quality. However, there is plenty about Elvis that I am genuinely fascinated by ("That's the Way it Was" is one of the best rock and roll documentaries/movies/concert films I have ever seen), and since that puts me in a (generalized) state of agreement with his 50,000,000 fans - ergo, no, they are not wrong, they are right. But they could still very well be wrong about a whole host of other things.

haha the lemmings story is a media myth also!! (they don't do that throwing themselves over the cliff thing: they are ordinary sensible rodents like big swedish capybaras or something)

Say what you will, that hillbilly truck driver changed more than probably all of the indie/punkrock/obscuro bands combined.

I wouldn't say popularity is a proof of quality in any facet, but with this guy you probably have to check the box marked "other".

After all, who else could have a 40+ year old greatest hits collection spark a debate?

evil corporate lemming propaganda

"Ack! A hit, a very palpable hit! Alright, good one. You're dead right. "Sheep" is a cliche. But it's a cliche because it's such a true-ism."

Alex, the problem with the phrase is that ignores the fact that fans of the "pabulum" never like all of it, or even most of it. Yes, they've decided to limit the sphere of what they hear to what is on the radio, but that does not prevent them in the least from receiving it critically.

Ultimately I think that people's enjoyment of music is going to be the same regardless of how broad their exposal to it is; the important aspect is not the "quality" or breadth of the music they listen to, but rather how psychologically attuned they are to obssessing over music as a concept. I am inclined to say that Britney is better than [X] on principle and from my own personal perspective, but in reality a Britney song has *exactly the same capacity* to provide psychological nourishment as a song by [X] does, no more and no less - because the sense of "connection" we have with the music is really entirely within ourselves.

And Alex, if I only watch a couple of games of sport a year, only go to the theatre a couple of times etc. (and then only because there's been sufficient media exposure to bring the event to my attention) am I therefore a mindless sheep in all those areas? By your definition, yes, but if so then the number of worlds of sheepdom that we move through radically reduces the urgency and keyness of your complaint.

"but in reality a Britney song has *exactly the same capacity* to provide psychological nourishment as a song by [X] does, no more and no less - because the sense of "connection" we have with the music is really entirely within ourselves."

(Picturing a gray world of undifferentiated sound, people walking around furiously manufacturing a relationship to it--why bother?)

It'd be interesting to rephrase the question to ask whether popularity implies that something is in any way more likely to be good. Actually I'd answer "yes" to that in a second, and I think we all would: even the people who complain about popularity being a sign of awfulness limit it at the edge of the radio, and surely if a whole lot of people who like stuff they like like something, they'll be slightly more interested in giving it a listen. (Which makes sheep complaints silly: they are simply sheeping to the beat of a different and more trusted shepherd.)

(NB shepherd-beat will be the next big genre when pastoral IDM ranges into sprightly 120 BPM folk territory.)

Re That's The Way It Is; more is coming on this I promise you.

Elvis is a special case. 50,000,000 Elvis fans could be wrong, but you'd need at least 50,000,000 organized Elvis-haters to prove it. He's awesome.

"50,000,000 Elvis Fans Can't Be Wrong" is manifestly false. "50,000,000 Elvis Fans Cannot Be Denied" would have been utterly correct.

This argument could be settled by us all agreeing that La Mouche by Cassius DJ falcon remix and Lazy by X Press 2 are the best songs of all time.

I wanred you btichfuckingnastypiecesofshitwhiningintellloglligisticsexpedaliousindi ekncuklesisticcrapmongerereerereres that you shouldn't mess witht he king - now look what you gone and done.

millions can of course be bang on. it's no coincicidence, for example, that the beatles are the biggest band of all time, and that the godfather was judged to be the most popular film por thereabouts in all end-of-millenium polls.

dido though ? well, who can say. there are still a lot of nupties out there.

Nitsuh said "one thing you never see on ILM is ... pop-lovers making appeals to the charts and the good sense of the buying public". Why shouldn't we give the charts some credit for recognizing quality? Of course the people are wrong about what's good sometimes, but so are critics & so are the musicians who make the music in the first place. Why should critics and musicians be given more credit than listeners? Aren't listeners really the ones best equipped to decide whether or not music works in the real world?

There's often an assumption that a song being popular is already a strike against it that needs to be explained away by saying "it's actually quite subversive" or "the production's really innovative" as if that was unusual in pop! People don't like Timbaland or Phil Spector productions despite their weirdness - they like them because of their weirdness!

there's this assumption that pop = blandified white bread suburban culture but look at how fucking ODD the people are who top the charts. I mean even queen bland Celine Dion is a complete lunatic. Creed are messianistic indie nutjobs. Madonna's kooky. Michael Jackson needs no elaboration. Millions of people buying their records means millions of fans of the weirdo aesthetic, not millions of sheep.

You gotta point, Fritz, but I suspect that the complaint (not mine) is that while the weirdo aesthetic is topping the charts, what about the actual music? Or so I could see somebody saying in suitably outraged fashion.

yeah, no question, Ned. I think I'm just trying to say that the assumption that chart music is boring ignores the fact that popular art is almost always intrinsically interesting and meaningful on some level just because it is popular - and that whether or not it's "good art" is a seperate argument. (nitsuh's point that popularity in and of itself is rarely used as a measure of anything on ILM is what started me on this whole train of thought).

I wish i hadn't left so many blind alleys in the original question, people who posted 'what is "right"? what is "quality"?' are totally otm.

Well I made that comment in the taste thread because some of ILM's rock fans make arguments that their faves are "objectively better" or "more timeless" or "critically and intellectually superior" (all of which is a way of saying "people who know a lot about music like this stuff") -- but it's rarely countered with the sort of equivalent argument for pop, which is "a plurality of people in our culture agree that this stuff is really great." I guess the implication there was that (a) both arguments are sort of equally irrelevant with regard to judging specific works (which I agree with) and that (b) hahaha the pop people are very principled for not having jumped to that easy response (which I don't think is necessarily the root of it).

(It's such a trap, though, this arguing that informed-critical- consensus favors your thing -- you're basically agreeing with the idea that popularity indicates worth, only you're making loads of distinctions about popular-with-who to be more efficient about it. Useful distinctions from your own personal-shopping standpoint, but not enough of them to avoid the fact that you're still basically using popularity as a tool to gauge something positively.)

(Which is perfectly fine, after all! I mean, if loads of people like something it's perfectly likely that they all like it because it's pretty good! And this operates whether it's "I'm like most people and most people like this Fat Joe single" or "I'm like indie kids and indie kids like this Sigur Ros record.")

that's what i sed!! diachronic counting!! kids just say no!!

RONAN: "Durability is singly the most annoying thing used as a measure of quality ever."

Not at all (for me, anyway). If someone describes a record as being durable, it means that they have played it again and again and again. They wouldn't want to do this if they did not see it as being possessed of "quality". For me, its the highest compliment.

Music is subjective, so strictly speaking, there's no right and wrong. High sales are certainly no mark of greatness, though - most people who bought "Be Here Now" would now admit to being "wrong". The record that the most people bought isn't necessarily the one people cherish the most. Even when the buying public are polled for their favourite albums of all time, the likes of "Forever Changes", "Five Leaves Left", "Loveless", "Slanted and Enchanted" and "Grace" always figure highly. While these records aren't exactly obscurities, in a list of the "best-selling" albums of all time, they would be nowhere. This shows they had a bigger impact on the "few" who actually did buy them. So while there's no right and wrong, technically, most would still be able to see that certain bands have a greater claim on greatness than others, regardless of sales figures.

I think you're referring to critics' polls or polls of the readers of certain magazines, not polls of "the buying public". but if you want to use polls as a measure of durability, what's wrong with record sales? that is the most objective "poll" of the buying public, is it not? but according to the these polls the most durable records are things like "thriller", the eagles' "greatest hits", and "dark side of the moon".

OK, I can see where this is going, you're going to say 'yes, fritz, but The record that the most people bought isn't necessarily the one people cherish the most.' which is probably true sometimes, but not all the time.

Billboard's Top 40 Best Selling Albums of All Time (USA)

1. Eagles: Their Greatest Hits Asylum 1976
2. Michael Jackson: Thriller Epic December 1982
3 Pink Floyd: The Wall Columbia 1979
4 Led Zeppelin: Untitled (IV) Atlantic 1971
5 Billy Joel: Greatest Hits Volume I & II Columbia 1985
6 AC/DC: Back in Black Atlantic 1980
7 Shania Twain: Come on Over Mercury Nashville 1997
8 The Beatles: The Beatles [White Album] Apple | 1968
9 Fleetwood Mac: Rumours Reprise 1977
10 Whitney Houston &Various Artists: The Bodyguard Arista 1992
11 Boston: Boston Epic | 1976
12 Alanis Morissette : Jagged Little Pill Maverick | 1995
13 Garth Brooks: No Fences Capitol | 1990
14 Hootie & the Blowfish: Cracked Rear View Atlantic | 1995
15 Eagles: Hotel California Asylum | 1976
16 The Beatles: 1967-70 Apple | 1973
17 Bruce Springsteen: Born in the U.S.A. Columbia | 1984
18 Pink Floyd: Dark Side of the Moon Harvest | 1973
19 Guns N' Roses: Appetite for Destruction Geffen | 1987
20 Elton John: Greatest Hits MCA | 1974
21 The Bee Gees & Various Artists: Saturday Night Fever RSO| 1977
22 Led Zeppelin: Physical Graffiti Swan Song | 1975
23 The Beatles: 1962-66 Apple | 1973
24 Garth Brooks: Ropin' the Wind Capitol | 1991
25 Santana: Supernatural Arista | 1999
26 Meat Loaf: Bat Out of Hell Cleve. Int. | 1977
27 Backstreet Boys: Backstreet Boys Jive| 1997
28 Garth Brooks: Double Live Capitol Nashville | 1998
29 Prince &the Revolution: Purple Rain Warner Bros. | 1984
30 Whitney Houston: Whitney Houston Arista | 1985
31 Britney Spears: ...Baby One More Time Jive| 1999
32 Backstreet Boys: Millenium Jive | 1999
33 Simon & Garfunkel: Simon & Garfunkel's Greatest Hits Columbia 1972
34 Bruce Springsteen & the E Street Band: Live/75-85 Columbia 1986
35 Bon Jovi: Slippery When Wet Mercury 1986
36 Boyz II Men: II Motown | 1994
37 Kenny Rogers: Greatest Hits Liberty | 1980
38 Kenny G: Breathless Arista | 1992
39 Def Leppard: Hysteria Mercury | 1987
40 Led Zeppelin: Led Zeppelin II Atlantic| 1969

no Elvis!

"I think you're referring to critics' polls or polls of the readers of certain magazines, not polls of "the buying public"."

I'm definitely not referring to critics polls. In that big Virgin Poll (which polled a LARGE number of people, and was not affiliated with any music mag, and was based on findings from both sides of the Atlantic), all the albums I mentioned fared extremely well.

"but if you want to use polls as a measure of durability, what's wrong with record sales?"

'Cos people buy albums, and then absolutely hate them. I know I have. I've already touched on "Be Here Now".

"that is the most objective "poll" of the buying public, is it not? but according to the these polls the most durable records are things like "thriller", the eagles' "greatest hits", and "dark side of the moon"."

Exactly.

"OK, I can see where this is going, you're going to say 'yes, fritz, but The record that the most people bought isn't necessarily the one people cherish the most.'"

Yes, fritz, but The record that the most people bought isn't necessarily the one people cherish the most.

"which is probably true sometimes, but not all the time."

I know. Earlier on I cited examples of great bands who sold bucket loads, and crap small-but-critically-acclaimed bands. My point is: selling records (or not selling records) is not a mark of quality, or a mark of crapness. And even Joe Public acknowledges this when he/she is polled on his/her fave album.

yeah, fair enough, Killian.

that billboard list is weirder than I expected. Not one hip hop album? that seems really odd.

aw man, i thought thriller was #1 - best alb of all time easily. god damn those eagles.

Okay, everyone has to go buy ten copies of _Purple Rain_ this weekend.

it's weird that the white album is the highest charting beatles record, maybe the manson family is bigger than we know

Not one hip hop album? that seems really odd.

Give it a few more years...but don't be surprised if the first one is by Eminem.

Nick Drake's a fantastic example of how something can become durable overnight following a series of totally random events.

So someone has listened to a record alot, that's fantastic for them but it doesn't really enhance the chances of me liking it.

I don't know if it's 50 million, but the latest Elvis single *is* headed for the top of the charts you know...

Also Hello Kilian.

Hello Ronan. Hows life in MIxmag? I'm currently in dear old blighty myself, quaffing wine with poncey Cambridge ponces.

So we're all sheep, then
baaaaaaaaa