All Time Top 1000 Albums: The World's Most Authoritative Guide to the Perfect Record Collection

If you you're like me and you love lists that try to rank the best of anything, and you also love classic albums, this book is for you. While nobody will agree entirely with the list compiled, it's an absolutely fun read, especially for the fact that it includes 1000 albums. I've never seen a book try to rank a list of great albums that large. Warning: it is very British focused, especially in the top 100. As an American, I had never heard of a lot of the artists and albums here, especially the post-1990 ones. Bands such as Oasis and Manic Street Preachers apparently get WAY too high billing across the Ocean. Personally, I liked reading about these newer bands because I'm always curious to hear what other countries are listening to, but I can see why some poeople may be turned off by this.One other problem is that there's no alphabetical index in the back. They absolutely should have one in the next edition (due out soon I think!). Either by album title or artist would be fine, but it would make things much easier to reference.I've said my peace. Buy and enjoy.

The reader from Detroit has made a mistake in his review of this book. He explains his distress in discovering that Nirvana and John Lennon aren't listed in the 'Important Band' section. Well, if he had actually read it properly he would have discovered the the secton is named 'Top 5 Albums by 100 Key Artists', and as Nirvana and John Lennon (as a solo artist) did not record as many as 5 albums this explains their absence from the list.This book is a terrific read for anyone who is interested in popular music, especially someone who is trying to build up a collection of great music. Although the list does seem a bit odd in parts (why are four Beatles albums in the top five?, why are The Spice Girls and the Monkees in the list at all?). But overall it's a good list, and it's especially good to see a lot of great British bands from the last decade high up on the list (Charlatans, Massive Attack, Pulp, Radiohead, Stone Roses etc).

First off, the version that I was shipped features a much "lamer" cover then the one picture... Ok, your right, that doesent matter too much ;) here goes: The book is very nice, I thought it VERY complete, and agreed with many of the listings. This book would be great for someone trying to build a collection, or for someone interested about learning interesting snippits about their collection. Some of the downside of this book include its shape, the book is too skinny, so its hard to read, so its kind of a pocket book. And unlike a book such as "Beatle Songs" there is no way to look up a single band or single song. Because of this, I spent an hour looking through to see if "Magical Mystery Tour" and "Dookie" were on the list. Another maybe minor complaint I have is the list in the back entitled "important artists and their most important albums" (thats not perfect... but somthing like that. I found two absenses that I thought were horrific! First Nirvana, who have three (?) albums in the top 1,000, 1 on which is in the top 5, and arnt listed in the important band section. And second, John Lennon. This author lists Lou Reed (former member of Velvet Underground) and not John Lennon (former member of the Beatles) I found this distressing. But all in all this is a GREAT book, and well worth the $9.00 when you get it, you will be amazed at the extras the author packs into this tiny thing. (such as the top 50 Cd sets) Thanks! ~Andy

So money. It covers everything one can think of and does it with so many indexes. Examples include top 50 albums by genre and top 5 albums by the 100 greatest artists. This is an awesome collection that will guide anyone to his or her music selections.

While this list does work as a starting point from which to attempt to rank all the popular music records released during the last, say, 50 years (the oldest recordings I saw were by Robert Johnson on an album originally released in 1962), it can never hope to accomplish its goal. Musical taste is far too subjective and there simply are too many records to choose from--no one has heard everything! But, as Colin Larkin stated in his intro, it does accuratley reflect on current popular public opinion (over 100,000 votes contributed from "critics, journalists, and...the fans"--that's a pretty decent poll, wouldn't you say?) I do have a couple of complaints, though:1. There is too much emphasis on music primarily appreciated by British audiences (e.g., Primal Scream, Manic Street Preachers, Pulp, Suede, etc.). I understand that the book tries to assign equal weight to the musical tates of both countries, but if you're going to do that, why not poll Japanese people as well...that would significantly change the shape of the list also...2. Don't get me wrong--I love the Beatles--but FOUR of the top 10 slots (including 1, 2, and 3)?? It either shows that people really do love this band tons more than any other or simply that people follow trends.3. Everyone forgot about Husker Du already?One request for Mr. Larkin: please put together either your own list or one created only by the critics. Pure democracy doesn't always work best.