Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/5/84; site fortune.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxj!ihnp4!fortune!strock
From: strock@fortune.UUCP (Gregory Strockbine)
Newsgroups: net.music
Subject: Re: Indispensible albums
Message-ID: <4287@fortune.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 19-Sep-84 14:34:22 EDT
Article-I.D.: fortune.4287
Posted: Wed Sep 19 14:34:22 1984
Date-Received: Tue, 25-Sep-84 09:40:13 EDT
References: <21d33f02.708@apollo.uucp>
Organization: Fortune Systems, Redwood City, CA
Lines: 19




> Either: 1) I am too old for this net; 2) Persons posting
> "classic albums" are being deliberately obscure and
> esoteric; or 3) The word "classic" is being seriously
> misused. 
> 
> W. Christensen


Good points. From some of the lists it looks like people's
record collections were solidified in the late 60s to early 70s
period. Maybe we should include our age with our lists.
As for albums being obscure or esoteric there are just too many
bands out there to keep up with. There's a ton of independent
record companies putting stuff out.
I believe the word classic as used here is up to the individual,
and rightly so.