Eagles have the best selling album of all time in the USA?

[King Postwhore]

You're not normal there Adami.






 

[WildRanger]

So it's not so much "real music fan", as much as how deep you are into a specific band.

For instance, i can tell you A LOT about Pain of Salvation, Dream Theater, Metallica, etc. But I only know the big hits from say....Pink Floyd.

So your language of "casual music listener" would only apply (in this case) to Pink Floyd, not in general. I think that's the issue people were having. You made it sound like it was over all, and not specific to that artist or band.

So I would just change it to "casual fan of X band" vs "big fan of X band". As Indiscipline pointed out, we are all casual fans of most things, and huge fans of some other things. It's normal.

Nope, you got me wrong. I just gave a possible example. It doesn't have to apply to any specific band.
It's absolutely true that there are a lot of people who are just listening to the radio and on the other side, many people who are buying a lot of albums and listening to them at home whenever they can and want.

[Adami]

I got you wrong? So you're saying people are either real music fans or casual music fans?

So what am I? I can only name you the top hit songs by most bands, but I can go into extreme depth with a good number as well. I listen to music all the time (though only the radio if my music is not accessible for whatever reason). Do I have to listen to new albums every day, go out and buy every single album I possibly can to be considered a real fan?

I hope I'm just misreading you, cause it's coming off as super snobby.

[King Postwhore]

I would say Satellite radio is for the casual listener. 

So what am I? I can only name you the top hit songs by most bands, but I can go into extreme depth with a good number as well.

Didn't I answer that already?

[Adami]

You're not normal there Adami.






 

I am! My mom had me tested!

[King Postwhore]

For what?  Tests are subjective!



:stiringthepot:

[OpenYourEyes311]

I once read an article in a local rag called "Top 10 albums for people who hate music"...  It was meant to be humorous, and it did make me laugh, but it kindof made this point.

There are some albums that are adored by the masses...even the ones who *by their own admission* don't like music very much.   "I've never really cared for music that much...but I like [insert song we've all heard ad nauseum]."   

I think the thought process is: If you've homogenized the music so completely, that it's literally appealing to every human being on the planet...even people who admit that they don't even like music...

Honestly I think many people today don't have a free time to buy and listen albums at home(hours and hours). It doesn't mean they dislike music, they just don't have a time for that. But they have tons of songs that are played on the radio nearly everywhere, so they can hear some music.

So... you're saying... people just don't have the time for music anymore?

[Adami]

For what?  Tests are subjective!



:stiringthepot:

Exactly! And I was the subject of many tests.

.....hmmm.....

[WildRanger]

   

What exactly is an "American casual music listener" and what exactly is a "real music fan"?    How do we determine which is which?   WHO determines which is which?   

Casual listeners are people who listen and know only hit songs played on the radio (or any media device). Real music fans are people who knows tons of deep cuts by many music artists because they sat at home and listened a ton of albums for hours and hours. There is a huge difference between a casual listener and real music fan. On this planet there are a way more casual listeners than fans.

  This is probably the most ridiculous thing I've ever read.  All people who listen to music are fans of music.  What you're describing is only a matter of degree.

No, they are not. People who listen only famous songs that are played on the radio and don't have more than 5 albums in their home collection are definitely not music FANS.

[pg1067]

For example, a man (in America) who only knows a Deep Purple hit song "Smoke on the Water" is a casual music listener, he knows that song because it is played on the radio very often. Unlike that guy, some other guy who is aware of the existence of Deep Purple song called Flight of the Rat is definitely a real music fan because he has listened the album In Rock at home (a few times at least) and he knows that song is from that album. Same with Thin Lizzy. Casual listener only knows their hit song "Boys are Back in Town", a real music fan knows "Opium Trail".
Do you get it now?

No, but let me see if I understand what you're saying.

If the only Deep Purple song a person knows is "Smoke on the Water," then he "is a casual music listener," but if he also "is aware of the existence of" "Flight of the Rat," he is "a real music fan."

Alternatively, if the only Thin Lizzy song a person knows is "Boys Are Back in Town," he is a "casual listener," but if he also knows "Opium Trail," then he is a "real music fan."

Sorry, but that's nonsense.  While I like a handful of Deep Purple songs, I wouldn't say I'm a big fan of Deep Purple, and calling me a "casual Deep Purple fan" wouldn't be inaccurate.  Until about a month ago, I'd never heard of the song "Flight of the Rat."  I'm not at all a Thin Lizzy Fan.  I know BABiT and a couple other songs, but I don't like them, and I'd never heard of "Opium Trail" until I read your post.

By your examples, I'm not a "real music fan" but, rather, am a "causal music listener," even though there are numerous other bands about whom I know virtually everything there is to know.

While I get the distinction between folks for whom music is a major interest and those who are content to listen to whatever is on the radio, I don't think your attempt to characterize the Eagles (or any other band) as only a band for "casual listeners" makes much sense.

[WildRanger]

I once read an article in a local rag called "Top 10 albums for people who hate music"...  It was meant to be humorous, and it did make me laugh, but it kindof made this point.

There are some albums that are adored by the masses...even the ones who *by their own admission* don't like music very much.   "I've never really cared for music that much...but I like [insert song we've all heard ad nauseum]."   

I think the thought process is: If you've homogenized the music so completely, that it's literally appealing to every human being on the planet...even people who admit that they don't even like music...

Honestly I think many people today don't have a free time to buy and listen albums at home(hours and hours). It doesn't mean they dislike music, they just don't have a time for that. But they have tons of songs that are played on the radio nearly everywhere, so they can hear some music.

So... you're saying... people just don't have the time for music anymore?

Yes, that's true. If a huge number of people today have many obligations in their daily lives, time passes very quickly to them and they don't have a free time to even watch an episode of their favorite series on TV, let alone buying and listening some CDs.

[King Postwhore]

I think WildRanger you have Old Colored Glasses on.

[WildRanger]

I got you wrong? So you're saying people are either real music fans or casual music fans?

Not casual music fans, but listeners. Listener is not the same as fan.

[Adami]

I got you wrong? So you're saying people are either real music fans or casual music fans?

Not casual music fans, but listeners. Listener is not the same as fan.

....and the rest of my post?

[The Walrus]

I got you wrong? So you're saying people are either real music fans or casual music fans?

Not casual music fans, but listeners. Listener is not the same as fan.

I have a relative who would fit under your definition of 'casual' music listener... but he is a fan of those few bands and has seen them live despite not keeping up with everything they release. Your logic doesn't work, my dude.

[Stadler]

   

What exactly is an "American casual music listener" and what exactly is a "real music fan"?    How do we determine which is which?   WHO determines which is which?   

Casual listeners are people who listen and know only hit songs played on the radio (or any media device). Real music fans are people who knows tons of deep cuts by many music artists because they sat at home and listened a ton of albums for hours and hours. There is a huge difference between a casual listener and real music fan. On this planet there are a way more casual listeners than fans.

I'm still not getting it.   It's still music.  It still is a subjective attraction.  It's still a matter of taste.

Like Stadler, I don't understand the distinction between "casual music fans" and "real music" fans (and the follow up explanation doesn't help, but I won't pile on). 

OK. I would make it clearer to you.
For example, a man (in America) who only knows a Deep Purple hit song "Smoke on the Water" is a casual music listener, he knows that song because it is played on the radio very often. Unlike that guy, some other guy who is aware of the existence of Deep Purple song called Flight of the Rat is definitely a real music fan because he has listened the album In Rock at home (a few times at least) and he knows that song is from that album. Same with Thin Lizzy. Casual listener only knows their hit song "Boys are Back in Town", a real music fan knows "Opium Trail".
Do you get it now?

Uh, with that explanation, I think I got it the first time, but I still disagree.  .  That distinction doesn't say anything about the relative merits of "Smoke..." versus "Flight...".   There are just some records that are ubiquitous, and along with Steve Miller's Greatest Hits, The Dead "What A Long Strange Trip...", and Zeppelin IV, The Eagles Greatest Hits is one of them. 

[Dublagent66]

   

What exactly is an "American casual music listener" and what exactly is a "real music fan"?    How do we determine which is which?   WHO determines which is which?   

Casual listeners are people who listen and know only hit songs played on the radio (or any media device). Real music fans are people who knows tons of deep cuts by many music artists because they sat at home and listened a ton of albums for hours and hours. There is a huge difference between a casual listener and real music fan. On this planet there are a way more casual listeners than fans.

  This is probably the most ridiculous thing I've ever read.  All people who listen to music are fans of music.  What you're describing is only a matter of degree.

No, they are not. People who listen only famous songs that are played on the radio and don't have more than 5 albums in their home collection are definitely not music FANS.

Even more ridiculous.  Since when is there a quantifiable criteria for being a fan of music?  You either listen to music or you don't.  If you do listen, you're a fan.  If you don't, you're not.  Simple as that.  There isn't much grey area in between if any at all.  It doesn't matter who, what, when, where, how or why.  Everyone who listens to music is a fan of something or someone.  Otherwise, why would they listen?

I got you wrong? So you're saying people are either real music fans or casual music fans?

Listener is not the same as fan.

Yes, it is.  Regardless of your definition or interpretation.

[Anguyen92]

I don't know anything about Classic Rock aside from the radio singles and even I don't care much to listen to those and have very little interest in digging deeper in the catalog.  That stated, I know plenty of history, deep cut songs, and albums from a lot of modern bands that I like and always chasing for a new album released this year to listen to if my interest piques me.  That does consider me a casual music fan?

Let's not get snobby and peg people if they are "real" music fans or not just because they only listen to a particular track or album and they are not "true" fans in the end.  It's just as bad (just an example off the top of my head.  Don't know if this is actually true or not) as the idea of old-school metal fans giving certain Metallica fans crap because they love Load or Reload over the Black album or Master of Puppets.  Or giving people crap to so-and-so celebrity that are wearing a Metallica or Iron Maiden t-shirt and that celebrity couldn't name five songs of that band off the top of their head.  You think we would be better than this.

[King Postwhore]

Well I'm the realist fan that ever was.  Real to the core. Real Real.  So real that I'm changing my middle name to Real.


You're all posers.  Don't challenge me, that's how real I am.





Don't really ask me. I'm a poser.

[TAC]

Well I'm the realist fan that ever was.  Real to the core. Real Real.  So real that I'm changing my middle name to Real.


You're all posers.  Don't challenge me, that's how real I am.





Don't really ask me. I'm a poser.

A real poser.

[King Postwhore]

You with me brotha Tim?!

[jammindude]

I once read an article in a local rag called "Top 10 albums for people who hate music"...  It was meant to be humorous, and it did make me laugh, but it kindof made this point.

There are some albums that are adored by the masses...even the ones who *by their own admission* don't like music very much.   "I've never really cared for music that much...but I like [insert song we've all heard ad nauseum]."   

I think the thought process is: If you've homogenized the music so completely, that it's literally appealing to every human being on the planet...even people who admit that they don't even like music...

Honestly I think many people today don't have a free time to buy and listen albums at home(hours and hours). It doesn't mean they dislike music, they just don't have a time for that. But they have tons of songs that are played on the radio nearly everywhere, so they can hear some music.

So... you're saying... people just don't have the time for music anymore?

Yes, that's true. If a huge number of people today have many obligations in their daily lives, time passes very quickly to them and they don't have a free time to even watch an episode of their favorite series on TV, let alone buying and listening some CDs.

BUT THIS IS THE ENTIRE POINT.

If you love something enough, you MAKE time for it.  Period.   That is truly the long, tall, height, and width.   And I'm not saying it makes any person better than any other person. 

Look, for some people it's golf.  For some it's boating.   For still others it's tennis or football.   For others it's camping etc...etc...etc...

The point is, that when you are truly passionate about something, you MAKE time for it.    You put away all the other distractions, because it means more to you than all the other things.    And I will repeat, this is not any form of elitism, because EVERYONE has something that they love to do that they've put aside all the other things that they don't do.   And they've *made* the time in their lives for that thing because they love it so much.   "Some people juggle geese!"  [Firefly reference]

If you're a boating fan...fine.  That doesn't make you better than me.  It just means you're a "boating fan" and I'm not into it as much as you are.   And there's nothing wrong with that.    But if I have taken out that time and energy and made it a priority to pursue music as my primary hobby, that does mean that I am a passionate music fan, and if all you do is turn on the radio when you're in the car and nothing else....then you haven't made it a priority.   There's nothing wrong with that, it's just that it didn't mean so much to you that you're willing to put other things aside to pursue it.

[Peter Mc]

I think we all know what the guy is trying to say although the use of “real music fan” is probably not helping his case.

I’m assuming he means that Eagles songs get played on the radio so someone who consumes music in this way and sings along to the hits on the radio may like some of those songs, go to the supermarket and buy The Eagles greatest hits. They may not be a huge fan of The Eagles and would not delve deeply into their back catalogue but they want to have the hits. You probably wouldn’t class that person as a hardcore Eagles fan, they are a casual fan. That is not a reflection on the quality of those songs or that person’s love of music, they just enjoy listening to music in their everyday life and maybe don’t sit in a darkened room with headphones on obsessing over it.

I’d describe myself as a casual fan of U2, I have some compilation albums and a few of their classic albums, I’ve even seen them live. If someone asked me though, I wouldn’t class myself as a “fan” of U2, I just like some of their stuff. Mostly the stuff everyone knows.

[King Postwhore]

Also, the older you get, the harder it becomes to digest music like you did in your youth and maybe that's where he's coming from with people not listening to music as much.   He sees today through his eyes ....

[Dream Team]

I once read an article in a local rag called "Top 10 albums for people who hate music"...  It was meant to be humorous, and it did make me laugh, but it kindof made this point.

There are some albums that are adored by the masses...even the ones who *by their own admission* don't like music very much.   "I've never really cared for music that much...but I like [insert song we've all heard ad nauseum]."   

I think the thought process is: If you've homogenized the music so completely, that it's literally appealing to every human being on the planet...even people who admit that they don't even like music...

Honestly I think many people today don't have a free time to buy and listen albums at home(hours and hours). It doesn't mean they dislike music, they just don't have a time for that. But they have tons of songs that are played on the radio nearly everywhere, so they can hear some music.

So... you're saying... people just don't have the time for music anymore?

Yes, that's true. If a huge number of people today have many obligations in their daily lives, time passes very quickly to them and they don't have a free time to even watch an episode of their favorite series on TV, let alone buying and listening some CDs.

BUT THIS IS THE ENTIRE POINT.

If you love something enough, you MAKE time for it.  Period.   That is truly the long, tall, height, and width.   And I'm not saying it makes any person better than any other person. 

Look, for some people it's golf.  For some it's boating.   For still others it's tennis or football.   For others it's camping etc...etc...etc...

The point is, that when you are truly passionate about something, you MAKE time for it.    You put away all the other distractions, because it means more to you than all the other things.    And I will repeat, this is not any form of elitism, because EVERYONE has something that they love to do that they've put aside all the other things that they don't do.   And they've *made* the time in their lives for that thing because they love it so much.   "Some people juggle geese!"  [Firefly reference]

If you're a boating fan...fine.  That doesn't make you better than me.  It just means you're a "boating fan" and I'm not into it as much as you are.   And there's nothing wrong with that.    But if I have taken out that time and energy and made it a priority to pursue music as my primary hobby, that does mean that I am a passionate music fan, and if all you do is turn on the radio when you're in the car and nothing else....then you haven't made it a priority.   There's nothing wrong with that, it's just that it didn't mean so much to you that you're willing to put other things aside to pursue it.

Thank you. The OP made some legit points and got the inevitable “there is no black and white, there is no good or bad” responses. It’s a simple concept, a person who ONLY listens to what is force-fed them on the radio by some DJs being bought off by Taylor Swift’s PR team is the definition of a casual fan. The “I guess this is popular so this is what I will listen to” type. A music fan will search and search until he finds stuff that is actually good.

[Stadler]

I once read an article in a local rag called "Top 10 albums for people who hate music"...  It was meant to be humorous, and it did make me laugh, but it kindof made this point.

There are some albums that are adored by the masses...even the ones who *by their own admission* don't like music very much.   "I've never really cared for music that much...but I like [insert song we've all heard ad nauseum]."   

I think the thought process is: If you've homogenized the music so completely, that it's literally appealing to every human being on the planet...even people who admit that they don't even like music...

Honestly I think many people today don't have a free time to buy and listen albums at home(hours and hours). It doesn't mean they dislike music, they just don't have a time for that. But they have tons of songs that are played on the radio nearly everywhere, so they can hear some music.

So... you're saying... people just don't have the time for music anymore?

Yes, that's true. If a huge number of people today have many obligations in their daily lives, time passes very quickly to them and they don't have a free time to even watch an episode of their favorite series on TV, let alone buying and listening some CDs.

BUT THIS IS THE ENTIRE POINT.

If you love something enough, you MAKE time for it.  Period.   That is truly the long, tall, height, and width.   And I'm not saying it makes any person better than any other person. 

Look, for some people it's golf.  For some it's boating.   For still others it's tennis or football.   For others it's camping etc...etc...etc...

The point is, that when you are truly passionate about something, you MAKE time for it.    You put away all the other distractions, because it means more to you than all the other things.    And I will repeat, this is not any form of elitism, because EVERYONE has something that they love to do that they've put aside all the other things that they don't do.   And they've *made* the time in their lives for that thing because they love it so much.   "Some people juggle geese!"  [Firefly reference]

If you're a boating fan...fine.  That doesn't make you better than me.  It just means you're a "boating fan" and I'm not into it as much as you are.   And there's nothing wrong with that.    But if I have taken out that time and energy and made it a priority to pursue music as my primary hobby, that does mean that I am a passionate music fan, and if all you do is turn on the radio when you're in the car and nothing else....then you haven't made it a priority.   There's nothing wrong with that, it's just that it didn't mean so much to you that you're willing to put other things aside to pursue it.

Thank you. The OP made some legit points and got the inevitable “there is no black and white, there is no good or bad” responses. It’s a simple concept, a person who ONLY listens to what is force-fed them on the radio by some DJs being bought off by Taylor Swift’s PR team is the definition of a casual fan. The “I guess this is popular so this is what I will listen to” type. A music fan will search and search until he finds stuff that is actually good.

Not to beat a dead horse, but this is exactly why I said something, because I could not disagree with that any more than I do.  180 degrees disagreement.  Trump/Clinton disagreement.   You're entitled to your opinion, I'm calling bull****.   I have never had a DJ come to my house, put a gun to my head and FORCE me to listen to ANYTHING.   As if there is this pack of zombies out there "Give me music.... I take music.... feed me music..."    Does it occur to anyone that it's the other way around?  I don't listen to the radio much anymore, because it's a f*****g nightmare to get reception where I live (plus I'm not in the same place that often) but I never once ever "oh, well, I guess this is popular so this is what I will listen to".  And you put the cherry on top with the "that is actually good".   

Here's the station that I listened to growing up (99 Rock, WPLR in New Haven) over the last couple hours (I might have missed one song, because I remember Nirvana in there somewhere):

Somebody To Love - Queen
Jump - Van Halen
Don't Fear The Reaper - BOC
Black Hole Sun - Soundgarden
The Stroke - Billy Squier
Comfortably Numb - Pink Floyd
T.N.T. - AC/DC
Don't Bring Me Down - ELO
Man In The Box - Alice In Chains
One - Metallica
Dream On - Aerosmith
Hey, Hey, What Can I Do - Led Zeppelin
No One Like You - Scorpions
Who Are You - The Who
Animal - Def Leppard
Rocky Mountain Way - Joe Walsh

Not sure which of those I should turn from to find music that is "actually good".  Oh, and in my book, Taylor Swift's "Wildest Dreams" is one of my Top Five pop songs of all time.  All time. 

(And I apologize if this sounds hot, but I really, REALLY despise musical snobbery.)

[jammindude]

I feel like Dream Team made a slightly different point than I did, and Stadler was addressing DT's point and not mine.  Maybe I'm mistaken. 

I didn't even bring up radio.  I was just simply making the point about those who MAKE the time for it (putting all other interests aside for it) vs. those who place other interests above music....allowing those interests to crowd out time otherwise spent listening to music.

EVERYONE has *something* that they put aside all other things to pursue.   It makes sense then that that's the thing that is more important to them than all the other things they gave up for it.    Even if you really love music, if you love movies more, then movies will take up more of your time that you could have used listening to music if you had made that a priority.    And the same goes vice versa.

I'm only making the delineation between those who MAKE time for it, and those who "get around to it"

[mike099]

My favorite Eagles album is 'On the Border'. This was the transition album to a more rock sound.  So much variety on this album. 'Say goodnight Dick'

[Adami]

(And I apologize if this sounds hot, but I really, REALLY despise musical snobbery.)

Oh...you're one of them. Heh. You'll get it one day.

[Cool Chris]

Getting back to the topic at hand, you know, Eagles.... I don't know much about them so I did some wiki'ing. Was amazed that other than their late 2000 album, they had 6 releases. That's it. That's an impressive legacy. Any other rock bands generally considered upper-echelon if not legendary have that few albums?

[The Walrus]

Getting back to the topic at hand, you know, Eagles.... I don't know much about them so I did some wiki'ing. Was amazed that other than their late 2000 album, they had 6 releases. That's it. That's an impressive legacy. Any other rock bands generally considered upper-echelon if not legendary have that few albums?

Boston has 6 albums even though almost everyone only cares about the debut, it seems.

[Peter Mc]

Getting back to the topic at hand, you know, Eagles.... I don't know much about them so I did some wiki'ing. Was amazed that other than their late 2000 album, they had 6 releases. That's it. That's an impressive legacy. Any other rock bands generally considered upper-echelon if not legendary have that few albums?

If you just class the Ozzy era albums as Black Sabbath, their legacy is largely built on only a few albums, all of which are around 40+ years old.  That's not to dismiss the albums made with Dio, which are great, but when most people think of legendary Black Sabbath, they think Paranoid, War Pigs, Sweet Leaf, Black Sabbath, Snow Blind, Sabbath Bloody Sabbath etc.

Guns N' Roses would be another one of course.

[Adami]

Getting back to the topic at hand, you know, Eagles.... I don't know much about them so I did some wiki'ing. Was amazed that other than their late 2000 album, they had 6 releases. That's it. That's an impressive legacy. Any other rock bands generally considered upper-echelon if not legendary have that few albums?

According to a large number of Metallica fans, they only have 3-4 albums.

[Stadler]

I feel like Dream Team made a slightly different point than I did, and Stadler was addressing DT's point and not mine.  Maybe I'm mistaken. 

I didn't even bring up radio.  I was just simply making the point about those who MAKE the time for it (putting all other interests aside for it) vs. those who place other interests above music....allowing those interests to crowd out time otherwise spent listening to music.

EVERYONE has *something* that they put aside all other things to pursue.   It makes sense then that that's the thing that is more important to them than all the other things they gave up for it.    Even if you really love music, if you love movies more, then movies will take up more of your time that you could have used listening to music if you had made that a priority.    And the same goes vice versa.

I'm only making the delineation between those who MAKE time for it, and those who "get around to it"

"10,000 hours" aside, putting time into it doesn't make you any better - necessarily - than anyone else.   There are other variables.

But as a general point, I'm not really quibbling about that, as much as I am this notion of musical snobbery.  That somehow someone who "puts in the time" and digs into Dream Theater's nearly infinite side bands - which probably have an aggregate of nine radio plays, ever - are somehow "better" than the person that likes Taylor Swift or whoever you want to use as a musical punching bag today.

I watch my daughter, who gets her music from different sources than I do (combination of age, circumstances, etc.), and she is starting to see the beauty of music.  What it can do for you, how it can bring people together, how it can influence your mood, how it can become a trigger for those memories that will mean something to you for the rest of your life, and her two favorite artists are Taylor Swift and One Direction.   Who the hell am I to think I'm somehow "better" than her because I happen to like King Crimson and Frank Zappa?   And in fact, it's become a sort of bonding thing for us, where I give her music equal time (when driving, around the house, etc.)   She came with me to Fish and Kiss, and I went with her to Harry Styles and... I forget what other one (prolly the Jonas Brothers).   Fish didn't click.  thought it was sort of weird and not in a good way (though in her defense, it wasn't Fish's best performance, and she does like "Sunsets On Empire").    I watched Harry Styles get 18,000 people to put aside their differences, put aside their problems, and just have FUN for two hours a couple weeks ago, and honestly?  They weren't better MUSICIANS, but it was a far more satisfying musical EXPERIENCE than Sons Of Apollo.   Yeah, I said that.   

[Stadler]

Getting back to the topic at hand, you know, Eagles.... I don't know much about them so I did some wiki'ing. Was amazed that other than their late 2000 album, they had 6 releases. That's it. That's an impressive legacy. Any other rock bands generally considered upper-echelon if not legendary have that few albums?

The Who.   53 years (first record released in 1965) and only 11 studio albums.  In the time that the Beatles came and went (12 albums), The Who put out four records.  In the time that Led Zeppelin came and went (9 albums), The Who put out five albums (Tommy counts in both, by the way).   

That's always fascinated me.    I will say this, though: I won an eBay auction of all the studio albums except the first one, and I was blown away how good some of them were.  I was familiar with Tommy, Who's Next and Quadrophenia, but the rest are way more solid than I imagined.