Are all the "Great Albums" from the past?

[RoeDent]

Are all the "great albums" from the past? Is it actually possible for an album that you were around for its release to eventually be mentioned among the pantheon of Great Albums of All Time?

Or do the so-called Great Albums of the past have their reputation because people with rose-tinted spectacles just pass on the idea that "This album is one of the best of all time" down from one generation to the next?

I think you have a different relationship between albums you personally experienced the release of vs albums released years ago that you discover later. With older albums, you probably read about them first, that "this is one of the all-time greats", so even before you hear a note of the music, there is something there to measure against. Whereas albums released now, that YOU personally experience the pre- and immediate aftermath of release, YOU can form your own opinion without the influence (however slight) of reputation.

[rumborak]

I'm old enough to have experienced the release of albums that are now considered classics. Trust me, people knew the moment of, that they witnessed the release of an incredible album. Appetite for Destruction is an example I can think of, which surely belongs in that list.
Or SFAM, for that matter. When it came out, for a solid half year did not a day pass that I didn't play the album 3 times. That has not happened before, or after, with any other DT album. It was clear that, by the sheer staying power of SFAM of me not tiring of it after months of listening, that it would likely become a classic for the band. There is a significant difference between the initial infatuation towards a new, but eventually mediocre, album, and the knowledge that an album has lost none of its luster months later. The latter is likely to become a classic.

[RoeDent]

I've just realised I posted this in DT-side when it probably should have gone into GMD. Apologies for that.

[MirrorMask]

With older albums, you probably read about them first, that "this is one of the all-time greats", so even before you hear a note of the music, there is something there to measure against.

Well, this can work both ways. If you're too in the vast majority of people that like the classic album, you hear it for the first time and then smile, "Ah, ok, this is why everyone loves this". Same with movies, really. But on the other hand if you don't like the album (or the movie) you're in for a major letdown.

With SFAM, I agree with Rumborak - I knew it was a massively awesome album the moment I heard it. It was my first album as a DT fan actually, so maybe I was too new to it all to fully comprehend its importance, but still, it was a new album and I loved it.

And I believe many long time Judas Priest fans realized Painkiller was a masterpiece the moment they heard it in 1990, just to make another blatant example.

[Pragmaticcircus]

There is nothing objective about a "great album", it's all a combination of opinion and popularity.

[Blind Faythe]

Regarding Dream Theater, I personally don't think so. I really think some of Dream Theater's newer discography gives the older one's a run for their money.

I'm biased towards Dream Theater's, The Astonishing and think it is Dream Theater's best album up to date, but the older Dream Theater albums are also very fun to listen too.

As for Symphony X, my top 2 album are from their older side: "The Divine Wings of Tragedy" and "Twilight in Olympus."

[bosk1]

Whether we are talking about Dream Theater or not, I think there were plenty of truly great albums in the past (some WAY in the past), and there are plenty today.

[Thoughtspart3]

There is nothing objective about a "great album", it's all a combination of opinion and popularity.

I disagree.  There are objective things to point to in great albums and music in general that makes some music stand out and last for generations.  It is not just luck.

[Mosh]

Here we go again. 

On topic: I think there are still some future classics from all genres. I think The Mountain by Haken will eventually be revered by Prog fans the way a lot of the classic DT albums are now.

Outside of prog, To Pimp a Butterfly by Kendrick Lamar is without a doubt going to be considered a Hip Hop landmark.

Plenty of greats out there still.

[hefdaddy42]

I've just realised I posted this in DT-side when it probably should have gone into GMD. Apologies for that.

Well, we can fix that.

[ariich]

I'm old enough to have experienced the release of albums that are now considered classics. Trust me, people knew the moment of, that they witnessed the release of an incredible album. Appetite for Destruction is an example I can think of, which surely belongs in that list.
Or SFAM, for that matter. When it came out, for a solid half year did not a day pass that I didn't play the album 3 times. That has not happened before, or after, with any other DT album. It was clear that, by the sheer staying power of SFAM of me not tiring of it after months of listening, that it would likely become a classic for the band. There is a significant difference between the initial infatuation towards a new, but eventually mediocre, album, and the knowledge that an album has lost none of its luster months later. The latter is likely to become a classic.

From an individual's perspective, definitely.

I think the OP is more about albums that are considered great classics more widely, which is much harder to know at the time. A big part of reaching that status in the consciousness of the public/fanbase is whether it stands the test of time, and to some extent what influence it has.

In terms of whether an album is actually any good or not, I find the status pretty meaningless. I know the albums that *I* find to be great or classic, and that's all that really matters to me.

[Stadler]

I think there is a difference between a "band's catalogue" and "general culture". 

I don't think it's a rule, but I am a proponent of the idea that you generally like the albums that got you into a band more than those that came before or after, because by definition "Artists change" and if you're not changing with them (getting older, getting married, getting pregnant) you stand the risk of "losing" them.   I know for me, I got into DT in '92 with Images and Words and while I love the run up through Octavarium, I&W is still the gold standard.   I got into Kiss with Kiss Alive II, and so the first six are and will always be, iconic.  I got into Genesis with Abacab and the "In Concert" film, and so the golden age for me is The Lamb through Three Sides Live. 

As for "general culture", it's different.  I was there when Appetite was released, and it was legend from day one.  Thriller too.  You knew this was not like what came before.   Born In The USA was a landmark record from Day One, and even non-fans (like me) knew it.   But there are sleepers; Pyromania and Hysteria were both slow burners.   Hell, Lep was an opening act on the first leg of the Pyromania tour.   I saw the first leg of the Joshua Tree tour, and while that is less of a classic album than the album hat broke the band, it's still fun to watch.     

There's also the element of "album" versus "movement".   I firmly believe that in ten more years, Nirvana will be far more well known for the fate of their singer, and the idea of their genre than for the album itself. 

I think there will always be an element of "past" in order to put things in perspective.  I think we can love the new Steven Wilson album to bits, but the reality is, it's not a classic album and won't be unless and until it breaks out of the genre and survives the scrutiny of a decade or two.