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.