Taking yesterday’s discussion down another route, I’m now interested in the psychology of a completist’s nature especially if an album was marginally interesting.  The listings were fascinating.  But it didn’t stop me from thinking, “what if an album was horrible”?

I am a big, BIG, Wishbone Ash, especially of the Mark I version with Ted Turner.  I find Wishbone Four to be an extraordinary album, highly under appreciated.  It is unfairly blasted for being a mile away from its predecessor, Argus, when everyone wanted Argus II.  But Wishbone Ash did eventually sour for me.  While I did enjoy Number The Brave, it was not a favorite.  But even it was classic in comparison to Twin Engines Burning, or even Raw To The Bone, both which I could not listen to, they were so awful.  Today?  Easy. Those albums are NOT in my collection.  Nor do they ever tempt me to say, “what the hell.  Wishbone Ash”, then pick them up for the sake of completion.

On the opposite side, there isn’t a Pink Floyd album I don’t have because they are all excellent (I’m talking Waters era).  Even The Final Cut, another under appreciated album.  King Crimson.  If they created a bad album, then it needs to be pointed out to me.  Talking Heads.  Joni Mitchell.  Hundreds  more.  Many that are just simply great works of varying degrees, but completely desireable.

Sometimes I find early albums leading to a favored period unlistenable.  The Beatles (for me) fall into this category.  (Sorry Beatles fans.)  Sometimes its the insufferable latter stage of a band, or artist’s life.  Bruce Springsteen falls into this category for me.

Lots to discuss here but now, after naming loved bands, do you have orders of preference, or does every album do it fairly easily, listenable at any time, and in any order?  Or are there albums, while acquired, just really suck and never get played?

It’s ok to let it out.  Maybe even therapeutic!