When you have so many good albums that you have no objectively best album

>when you have so many good albums that you have no objectively best album
>Another Side
>The Times They Are A Changin'
>Freewhelin'
>Bringing it All Back Home
>Highway 61 Revisited
>Blonde on Blonde
>John Wesley Harding
>Basement Tapes
>Blood on the Tracks
>Desire
>Oh Mercy
>Time Out of Mind
>Love & Theft
>Tempest
>Every single bootleg series
Does there exist an artist with as many excellent albums as Dylan? Only The Residents come to mind. Coincidentally both of their catalogs have their fair share of weak points as well, but those weak points do not take away from the excellence that is their best work.

Attached: bob-dylan-9283052-1-402.jpg (1200x1200, 115K)

Wrong.

The Beatles

>The Residents
lol wtf? and Freewheelin' is obv his objective best

Attached: dicaprio_face.jpg (249x250, 4K)

I will often tell myself 'oh Highway 61 is the best' but then a week later ill switch to Blood on the Tracks, or Bringin it All Back Home. It really could go many different ways and each album has an argument to be made for it.

>Does there exist an artist with as many excellent albums as Dylan?

John Prine. As a Dylan fan you should like him, his first album contains some of the best songwriting I have ever heard. Just listen in chronological order, he hasn’t released a single dud album.

Also you are missing Modern Times on your list, that one’s a 10/10 for me.

The Residents have probably equally as many excellent records as Dylan is what I was trying to say. Obviously their music isnt similar very much beyond the use of words to paint a picture/tell a story in a very detailed manner.

>if I like it the best, then it's objectively the best
Yikes

Not really what I meant but I guess i just phrased that all very poorly.
I still think theres no objectively best one because of the high quality on each record I listed.

>albums should only be measured by quality
kek

They should absolutely be measured by quality which has many metrics within it you dumb shit.

>historical significance = quality
Nah

Historical significance is relative to the content which is also relative to quality. If the records sucked they wouldnt have true historical significance.

>If I say everything is relative, I will always be right!
Tell me more about how you thought your personal opinion was objective?

Also
>If the records sucked they wouldnt have true historical significance.
See: The Shaggs, Trout Mask Replica, etc

I dont see you making an argument beyond "youre saying something therefore its a subjective statement" please enlighten me with your own thoughts.

Argument? No I'm showing you the problems with yours.

Trout mask doesnt suck. Cant speak for the shaggs though, still havent listened.

>Trout mask doesnt suck
How so?

Great riffs, great lyrics, interesting song dynamics/formulas. This is all subjective though, so i guess if you already think it sucks theres not much i can do to convince you otherwise, especially if you already acknowledge the records significance.

>Great
How so? Please explain without using generalities or superficial personal opinion.

Literally no one thinks anything after Desire is his best album. They’re not bad but clearly not his best.

I think they just sound good man. I dont know what else you want me to say. They are pleasing to my ears and they just flat out rock at some points. Ella Guru and Dachau Blues in particular. I really enjoy the dissonance in the riffs and in combination with the production it just sounds really dirty and heavy, especially for the time.

>It's good because it sounds good to me man
Not how it works.

You don't sound like a credible source of what is or is not good.

For the record youre asking me to explain a subjective opinion in an objective fashion and youre also a cunt.

>five mediocre albums and about ten shitty ones
Nah.

If you can't explain it, it's not true

Found the non musician

The Beatles had a good run but its only 8 albums. Im talking artists with 15+ good albums.

>With The Beatles
>A Hard Day's NIght
>Help
>Rubber Soul
>Revolver
>Sgt Pepper
>Magical Mystery Tour
>White Album
>Abbey Road
>Let It be
That's ten

The vast majority of people who listen to music are not going to be musicians, to disregard their opinions is idiotic.

As a musician it matters more to me when a member of the public tells me they like my music than a fellow musician who is often just fishing for compliments on their own stuff or trying to get me to to go their gig.

>The vast majority of people who listen to music are not going to be musicians
This is why we must disregard their opinions.

Bowie.
30+ studio albums including soundtracks, at least 10 could be considered very good to excellent, only 2 or 3 that are legitimately bad. High ratio of great to bad output.
Even someone like Neil Young, who rivals Dylan in the volume of his albums, has put out a lot of irrelevant and boring stuff. About 10 or so of his albums would reach excellent levels, including the live albums. But he's got at least 20 that are meh or bad.
Other than that, Trent Reznor.

>Bowie
Stopped reading there.

Attached: 1543101690929.jpg (960x720, 182K)

Meh, don’t be a cock. I’m a Dylan fan and I think Bowie is an artist who can be compared very fairly in many ways.

And he looks like a Jewish lesbian. Can't win em all.