by nujet2002 » Jun 10th, '11, 23:28
I don't believe comparing the two this way is a fair way to do it at all. In fact its the completely wrong way to do it. When comparing albums you should be comparing the average song on one compared to the average song on another. Is an album with 12 great songs and 5 horrible songs as good as an album with just 12 great songs? Definitely not. Thats why a lot of classic albums don't have a lot of songs on them because "fillers" lower the overall quality of the album. Look at Illmatic for example.
Anyways, how I think they should be compared would be taking your 1st, 2nd, 4th, 6th, 8th, 10th, 11th, 13th, 15th, 17th, 19th songs from Recovery including bonus tracks and pair those up with the 11 songs from Hell - The Sequel. I know this seems like a lot more work but doing it this way gives a much better idea of the overall "quality" of the album versus just disregarding the lesser songs on Recovery. Also you have to take into account how the songs coexist together and not just individual songs but for the fun of it I'll do it the way I listed.
Doing it this way my list would be starting with my top song from Recovery verse top song from Hell.
(1) 25 to Life < The Reunion
(2) Almost Famous > Above the Law
(4) Untitled < Welcome 2 Hell
(6) Seduction < Echo
(8) Cinderella Man = A Kiss
(10) On Fire < Fast Lane
(11) Space Bound = Take From Me
(13) Session 1 = Living Proof
(15) Talking 2 Myself > Lighters
(17) Won't Back Down < Loud Noises
(19) W.T.P. = I'm on Everything
Using that I'd say the quality of Hell: The Sequel was a bit better but I do like both. Recovery has also been a bit overplayed for me.