> On Apr 26, 12:53 pm, poisoned rose rmb.com> wrote:

>> I always have a difficult time with this question, because of the
>> quality vs. quantity issue. I could pull a Raja, and simply base my
>> view on "counting" how many albums I like from given years. But that
>> would duplicate Raja's usual problem of not measuring internal
>> quality. But which is better, a year with 15 great albums and 60
>> good ones, or a year with 30 great albums and 30 good ones? Beats
>> me. That's the relevant sort of question for me.
>>
>> One thing's for sure: My interests really explode in 1986, which I
>> believe is coincident with the alt-rock world breaking out as a
>> flourishing movement and giving far more acts the chance to record.
>> That's the point where I abruptly jump from being interested in 60
>> or so albums a year to well over a hundred. So, it's especially hard
>> for me to compare 1986-??? with ???-1985.

>
> How about the idea that maybe it's neither quantifiable nor
> qualifiable because at the end of the day, your personal assessment of
> great and good albums is so entirely subjective it would be like
> trying to read your fingerprints. Everybody might actually be
> defining the greatest year of music as the year in which the available
> music played an important role as the soundrack of your life. It's as
> personal as the story of your life. Don't you remember what the
> dominant music was for most of the momentous milestones in your life?
> When you hear that music again, after a long time, you can have an
> instant flashback of total recall sometimes, if the experiences were
> significant. When and where they are may have a lot to do with the
> time and place of the music that you were most receptive to, even.

> But perhaps you perceive music more intellectually, and not so
> personally? In which case you may be impervious to it's influence on
> your vantage point.