Best Ever Albums

Re: Velvet Underground Vs. The Beatles

Anonymous — Tue, 24 Apr 2012 12:42:29 GMT

Author: Anonymous

Posted: 04/24/2012 16:42

I'd have to go with The Beatles purely because of how consistently brilliant they have been spanning over so many great records.

The Beatles also sound more timeless, much of The Velvet Underground's work sounds like it was made in the 60s, whereas Revolver feels as though it could have been made in the past 20 years.

Re: Velvet Underground Vs. The Beatles

Facetious — Tue, 24 Apr 2012 05:48:04 GMT

Author: Facetious

Posted: 04/24/2012 09:48

Hayden wrote:

Who said it had to be fair?

Besides, I think it's fair. It's not like My Bloody Valentine Vs. The Beatles. Now that'd be unfair.

Not that The Beatles would not lose in that matchup either 😉

Re: Velvet Underground Vs. The Beatles

Hayden — Mon, 23 Apr 2012 17:19:24 GMT

Author: Hayden

Posted: 04/23/2012 21:19

Cafu86 wrote:

I agree with you, I don't think it's that fair either.

Who said it had to be fair?

Besides, I think it's fair. It's not like My Bloody Valentine Vs. The Beatles. Now that'd be unfair.

Re: Velvet Underground Vs. The Beatles

Cafu86 — Mon, 23 Apr 2012 10:10:39 GMT

Author: Cafu86

Posted: 04/23/2012 14:10

btener11 wrote:

I don't think this is a fair comparison. The Velvet Underground are like the anti-Beatles. Both bands are wonderful in their own way but their strengths are so different... Love 'em both -- but if only one could exist I'd have to pick the Beatles. Tough, tough question...

I agree with you, I don't think it's that fair either.

Re: Velvet Underground Vs. The Beatles

btener11 — Sun, 22 Apr 2012 15:26:33 GMT

Author: btener11

Posted: 04/22/2012 19:26

I don't think this is a fair comparison. The Velvet Underground are like the anti-Beatles. Both bands are wonderful in their own way but their strengths are so different... Love 'em both -- but if only one could exist I'd have to pick the Beatles. Tough, tough question...

Re: Velvet Underground Vs. The Beatles

TrekkiELO — Sat, 21 Apr 2012 16:57:54 GMT

Author: TrekkiELO

Posted: 04/21/2012 20:57

The Beatles

Re: Velvet Underground Vs. The Beatles

gussteivi — Thu, 19 Apr 2012 14:18:41 GMT

Author: gussteivi

Posted: 04/19/2012 18:18

Yourselfisntsteam wrote:

Its all a matter of perspective I guess.
I've enjoyed this discussion quite a bit though. 😄

lastly, its amazing what a quick google search can come up with:

Link

Go figure.

I really enjoyed discussing with you too and I would gladly do it again anytime 😄

Re: Velvet Underground Vs. The Beatles

Anonymous — Thu, 19 Apr 2012 11:12:24 GMT

Author: Anonymous

Posted: 04/19/2012 15:12

Gussteivi wrote:

I wrote that in relation to what you wrote in a previous post: "but at the same time we shouldn't reject them either, because they are what our musical language is built upon, and experimental music wouldn't be experimental if it wasn't building on or playing with these very forms".

If he doesn't know the forms, he's not "playing" with them, he's just doing a... penis improvisation?

I guess I might contradict myself a little their. ahh, see I've just always listened to a lot of punk and stuff, so the concept of someone not knowing what they are doing doesn't really bother me. But at the same time, from everything I have read about Trout Mask, Beefheart did have a concept of what he was doing/what he wanted to do, his lack of knowledge just made it difficult to communicate. He did want to make this crazy dissonant music. So in that sense he was playing with/building on/breaking down forms (mostly breaking down haha). Of course his sax solo's are total penis improvisations (can this become an official term? 🤣 ), I like them anyways, but say in his book John French criticizes them for getting in the way of the actual thought out guitar/bass/drum parts.

Its all a matter of perspective I guess.
I've enjoyed this discussion quite a bit though. 😄

lastly, its amazing what a quick google search can come up with:

Link

Re: Velvet Underground Vs. The Beatles

gussteivi — Thu, 19 Apr 2012 08:12:25 GMT

Author: gussteivi

Posted: 04/19/2012 12:12

Yourselfisntsteam wrote:

There is so much out there, the more I listen to the more I realize I don't know.

Truer words have never been spoken.
I think we can all relate to that.

[quote= "gussteivi"]
As I see it, you need to know the rules before you can break (or bend) them, and the fact that Beefheart had to have someone else write it down for him, seems to imply that he didn't at all.[/quote]

Yourselfisntsteam wrote:

Quote:

Another thing to look at in listening to Trout Mask is that that music would be tough to play I imagine. Since the instruments are in different time signatures and constantly shifting time signatures, but the songs are designed in sections, so the instruments link up before moving on to the nest riff (ie. one guitar does 3 bars of 4/4, the other does 4 bars of 3/4, they meet up and start the next section). I would say they deserves some respect for doing that even if you don't like the music (as well as respect for having to deal with the fact that Beefheart was a horrible manipulative abusive asshole during the making of the album, apparently it was like a cult, and he was the leader, he might verbally abuse one of the musicians for hours just because they went to get a snack)

Again, thanks for the insight and there is no denying that the band performing on Trout Mask Replica were a group of very capable musicians.

Quote:

I just realized that in my previous post I may have been the 1st person ever to use the phrase "penis improvisation" in a serious argument

I liked it. Imagine hairymarx doing that 🤣

Re: Velvet Underground Vs. The Beatles

Anonymous — Wed, 18 Apr 2012 23:07:10 GMT

Author: Anonymous

Posted: 04/19/2012 03:07

sethmadsen wrote:

Oh no I wasn't trying to apply that argument to the Beatles at all. My own arguments and statements in this thread are all confused and contradictory. I was speaking to some general perception I have of pop music that may or may not be accurate.

I was never trying to argue the genius of anyone or anything.

I should note many of my favourite records are often harmonically very simple/strait forward (Swans when not in soul-crushing dissonance mode, Tv on the radio, the Clash, Eels)

for the sake of argument, I don't think the Hard days Night thing is strong argument. starting the song with that weird chord strikes me as a ploy, weird chord followed by happy pop song. Keep in mind I don't despise the Beatles like Hairymarx, and I already said my failure to love them is probably more some weird personal thing where a lot of their songs irritate me (might be they aren't depressing enough, look at my chart, a lot of it veers towards horribly depressing :lol:) . At the same time at least some of the Beatles songs I have heard sound major, I don't think they could be all minor, but I don't claim to have particularly good ears! actually, don't a number of songs use middle eastern scales? Within you Without you is one of my favourite Beatles songs.

Gussteivi wrote:

I have only listened to the James Blake-album once and I didn't like it at all. But I wouldn't say it's "not very musical", because frankly, I have no idea what that means.

I'm not sure what people meen by it either! 😁 Just check out some of the records negative reviews on rate your music, apparently its not music by some people's standards.

Gussteivi wrote:

I'll give that album a listen, to see if I'm able to appreciate it in the way that you are. I'd love to hear "the most intense sound in pretty much all of popular music"

Don't get your hopes up too much! hhahaahaha My descriptions might be exagerated because I love the music. Their earlier record are actually probably even more intense, unfortuneatly I haven't heard them because no record store in toronto currently has that goddamned Cop reissue 😈

Gussteivi wrote:

But you say you don't particularily like The Beatles?
I think you need to listen to some more avantgarde music then

Perhaps thats the answer 😲 I think to put what I said more accurately is that their is something very soothing in listening to something simple after say, 2 hours of Cecil Taylor's free jazz.

Gussteivi wrote:

So who do you think defines all of the different musical sounds and ideas from the last 50 years then? Swans does that? Or Beefheart? If so, that's quite an accomplishment.

Oh no I don't think anything does. Swans over their entire career (industrial, goth, folk, post-rock, sound-collages, noisey stuff) get at a lot of what I personally like and find significant but they don't even some close, but no artist could do everything, especially considering jazz and modern classical as well. I think one could argue the Beatles do a good job at being generally representative of the pop and pop/rock music tradition, but as I said their are others I personally prefer for many reasons, some to do more with personal connection than anything. And also that tradition is only one of many traditions from our time. There is so much out there, the more I listen to the more I realize I don't know.

Gusteivi wrote:

As I see it, you need to know the rules before you can break (or bend) them, and the fact that Beefheart had to have someone else write it down for him, seems to imply that he didn't at all.

Where does that leave say "naive" or "primitivist" art or painting? Sometimes I think someone not knowing the form allows them to do things someone who did wouldn't think to, of course in the case of trout mask whether or not that is a good thing boils down to personal opinion. and yeah, its "steal softly through snow" i got it mixed up because at the end of the song Beefheart sings "steal softly through sunshine, steal softly through snow".

Another thing to look at in listening to Trout Mask is that that music would be tough to play I imagine. Since the instruments are in different time signatures and constantly shifting time signatures, but the songs are designed in sections, so the instruments link up before moving on to the nest riff (ie. one guitar does 3 bars of 4/4, the other does 4 bars of 3/4, they meet up and start the next section). I would say they deserves some respect for doing that even if you don't like the music (as well as respect for having to deal with the fact that Beefheart was a horrible manipulative abusive asshole during the making of the album, apparently it was like a cult, and he was the leader, he might verbally abuse one of the musicians for hours just because they went to get a snack)

I just realized that in my previous post I may have been the 1st person ever to use the phrase "penis improvisation" in a serious argument 🤣

My posts keep getting longer, stop giving me things to talk about! 🤣

Ps. Gusteivi, before you go referencing my comments on my chart again, I don't really like them myself, and I may get rid of them or change, I'm not sure they totally reflect my proper feelings about the records, but that just might be my mood.

Re: Velvet Underground Vs. The Beatles

RoundTheBend — Wed, 18 Apr 2012 21:05:58 GMT

Author: RoundTheBend

Posted: 04/19/2012 01:05

Yourselfisntsteam wrote:

I haven't created a stupid excel charting each song, but from what I remember it seemed like most Beatles songs were written in a minor key. Their Harmonies/Melodies were not simple either. Maybe they were simple on the ear you mean? It's been a hard days night- what's the opening chord? Not simple. I believe it is often said that true genius is when you can portray difficult to understand "things" and make them understandable.

Now if you want to flip that and have a different paradigm, as it seems our society is doing, to make simple things difficult to understand, well that too could be amazing, but I feel it is not a good aesthetic.

I think System became famous because they brought hardcore elements to a pop genre. Hardcore growls and such isn't the norm for pop radio, but the genius of System made it so.

See Goethe and the Sturm and Drang movement for a better understanding of the word genius in this context.

Re: Velvet Underground Vs. The Beatles

gussteivi — Wed, 18 Apr 2012 20:56:56 GMT

Author: gussteivi

Posted: 04/19/2012 00:56

Yourselfisntsteam wrote:

. Like, it drives me crazy when I see someone claiming something like, for example James Blake's debut not very musical, it plays with song structure yes, its a little more sophisticated in some of its songwriting yes, its built around sound effects and atmosphere yes, but in the end its just a creative album within the pop-format.

I have only listened to the James Blake-album once and I didn't like it at all. But I wouldn't say it's "not very musical", because frankly, I have no idea what that means.

Quote:

Similiarily, check this out:
Link

the guitars are semi-improvised, but certainly tonal and pretty sounding. But the vocals when they start are certainly not trained or melodic in any traditional sense. Does that make this bad, or not beautiful? Its still pop music, in the end I think the vocals give it character, instead of making it just another formula pop song.

I had no problems with the vocals on this song. Actually, I think Peter Gabriel's vocals on The Lamb Lies Down on Broadway, my current no 1 album, are in parts equally, um, unorthodox. And I have come to love them dearly.

Quote:

In the end even the more experimental music on my chart is in some way derived from western traditions/structures, they just dismiss certain elements, or redefine them, often to a lesser extent than say Schoenberg even. Take my #1 Swans for example, the ugly dissonant songs still technically have some melody (even if limited), recognizable song structure and always a simple rhythmic pulse, and the ballads are in the end just very simple folk songs. Say the track "blackmail" is just a very pretty melody over what I believe is technically a repeating IV-I chord pattern.

I'll give that album a listen, to see if I'm able to appreciate it in the way that you are. I'd love to hear "the most intense sound in pretty much all of popular music" 😄

Quote:

I just think if people took the time to learn to judge music beyond melody (say by timbre, or finding enjoyment in chaos hahaha), they could then appreciate even more music, and isnt that a good thing? If anything listening to avant garde music makes me appreciate a good melody even more than I used to.

But you say you don't particularily like The Beatles? 😕
I think you need to listen to some more avantgarde music then 😜

Quote:

To some extent I guess my argument (even if its just justifying personal preference) for not thinking the Beatles the most significant musical artists ever, is that to me they don't seem to define all the different musical sounds and ideas from the last 50 years.

So who do you think defines all of the different musical sounds and ideas from the last 50 years then?
Swans does that? Or Beefheart? If so, that's quite an accomplishment.

Quote:

I think your wrong about Trout Mask Replica. Just because your penis improvisation would be random, it would still be harmonically crazy, and actually, the music on trout mask is not random. I have read a book by Beefhearts drummer John French which covered the making of trout mask, Yes Beefheart didn't really know what he was doing, but he did have the concept of what he wanted the music to sound like, and it was John French who took Beefheart's loose piano ideas, and notated them, and organized them to fit Beefheart's concept. These pieces were composed and planned.

That's interesting to read, because had no insight whatsoever into the creative process behind TMR.
So in your own words, Beefheart didn't know what he was doing (the definition of random?) and then he had to get his drummer to write it down and make it into something that was actually playable?
Oh... ok then.
As I see it, you need to know the rules before you can break (or bend) them, and the fact that Beefheart had to have someone else write it down for him, seems to imply that he didn't at all.

Quote:

One section of the book detailed everything that goes on in the song "steal softly through Sunshine" and the layers of conflicting bass and guitar and the fact that they keep changing key and introducing new riffs every 10-20 seconds is rather amazing.

That does sound cool and it will be listened to with extra attention to the things you describe.
🤔 But I cannot find any song with that name. Do you maybe mean "Steal softly through snow?
Sorry, that was a cheap shot, I know.

Quote:

I don't understand why System of a Down are seen he way they are, they may have had mainstream success, but their music can be really weird, like the contrast between the metal bits and the absurdist pop bits, thats not normal!

I just like SOAD because their songs make me want to laugh, cry and dance, sometimes all at once.
Plus, the vocal harmonies between Serj and Daron kick ass.[/quote]

Re: Velvet Underground Vs. The Beatles

hairymarx1 — Wed, 18 Apr 2012 20:51:43 GMT

Author: hairymarx1

Posted: 04/19/2012 00:51

I miss 8-tracks wrote:

Twelve great albums compared to four great ones. No contest.

Great joke.

Re: Velvet Underground Vs. The Beatles

Detroit Rock Citizen — Wed, 18 Apr 2012 13:29:19 GMT

Author: Detroit Rock Citizen

Posted: 04/18/2012 17:29

Twelve great albums compared to four great ones. No contest.

Re: Velvet Underground Vs. The Beatles

Anonymous — Wed, 18 Apr 2012 11:38:19 GMT

Author: Anonymous

Posted: 04/18/2012 15:38

gussteivi wrote:

The big problem I had with hairymarx's postings here was that he claimed that "anyone who analyses and enjoys music objectively" must come to the conclusion that The Beatles weren't even comparable to The VU.
He now seems to completely have taken that statement back. There's still a lot that doesn't make sense in what he says, but the main issue, I feel, is now cleared out.

You are absoulutely right that my judging of music is based on it's ability to follow standard/western forms and principles. What's wrong with that, every notable composer from the renaissance era to the late 1800s did the same (not that I'm comparing myself to them). Or even later than that: Schönberg, who was brought up by sethmadsen here and paired with TMR for some reason, did abandon- or should I say dissolve-harmony, but he never strayed away from structure. Quite the contrary, he invented an entirely new one.

But I must admit, the quality of the music is also irrelevant to my listening experience.
Ultimately, the only thing that matters is how much I enjoy listening to the music. It just so happens that I've realized that what I enjoy listening to matches the western criterias of what quality in music is (which isn't completely true, the other day I added Panic at the disco to my decades chart. Like at the bottom, but anyway, if I like it, I'll put it there.)

I never said that there's anything wrong with music just based on rhythm or atmosphere without harmony or melody. I don't particularily enjoy listening to it myself (yet?), but I have no problem with people doing so.
However, if someone claims such music to be undoubtedly superior to artists like in this case The Beatles, I will debate that person.

On a side note, I took a quick look at your chart and read you comment on TMR and I must say I disagree about the harmonic complexity of the album.
I'll try to explain what I mean by way of an analogy: I could go to a piano, push down the sostenuto pedal and then slap my erected penis repeatedly on the keys to achieve the same harmonic complexity.
Wait, don't tell me you know a youtube-video with someone doing that 😲
Really like that you have MSP, Genesis, SOAD and some others mixed in with the weird stuff though :P

I think what I rail against isnt so much the standards from classical music of well written sophisticated music, often creative to, but what I perceive as more the very narrow pop-music definition of what is quality songwriting, where I feel like something is dismissed if it doesn't follow a happy major key melody and simple harmony. Like, it drives me crazy when I see someone claiming something like, for example James Blake's debut not very musical, it plays with song structure yes, its a little more sophisticated in some of its songwriting yes, its built around sound effects and atmosphere yes, but in the end its just a creative album within the pop-format.

Similiarily, check this out:
Link

the guitars are semi-improvised, but certainly tonal and pretty sounding. But the vocals when they start are certainly not trained or melodic in any traditional sense. Does that make this bad, or not beautiful? Its still pop music, in the end I think the vocals give it character, instead of making it just another formula pop song.

In the end even the more experimental music on my chart is in some way derived from western traditions/structures, they just dismiss certain elements, or redefine them, often to a lesser extent than say Schoenberg even. Take my #1 Swans for example, the ugly dissonant songs still technically have some melody (even if limited), recognizable song structure and always a simple rhythmic pulse, and the ballads are in the end just very simple folk songs. Say the track "blackmail" is just a very pretty melody over what I believe is technically a repeating IV-I chord pattern.

I just think if people took the time to learn to judge music beyond melody (say by timbre, or finding enjoyment in chaos hahaha), they could then appreciate even more music, and isnt that a good thing? If anything listening to avant garde music makes me appreciate a good melody even more than I used to.

To some extent I guess my argument (even if its just justifying personal preference) for not thinking the Beatles the most significant musical artists ever, is that to me they don't seem to define all the different musical sounds and ideas from the last 50 years, and as far as pop music goes, I personally prefer other musicians.

I think your wrong about Trout Mask Replica. Just because your penis improvisation would be random, it would still be harmonically crazy, and actually, the music on trout mask is not random. I have read a book by Beefhearts drummer John French which covered the making of trout mask, Yes Beefheart didn't really know what he was doing, but he did have the concept of what he wanted the music to sound like, and it was John French who took Beefheart's loose piano ideas, and notated them, and organized them to fit Beefheart's concept. These pieces were composed and planned. One section of the book detailed everything that goes on in the song "steal softly through Sunshine" and the layers of conflicting bass and guitar and the fact that they keep changing key and introducing new riffs every 10-20 seconds is rather amazing. The only songs on the album that are actually anything close to totally freeform are "Frownland" and "neon meate dream of an Octafish"

I don't understand why System of a Down are seen he way they are, they may have had mainstream success, but their music can be really weird, like the contrast between the metal bits and the absurdist pop bits, thats not normal!

Re: Velvet Underground Vs. The Beatles

Cafu86 — Wed, 18 Apr 2012 09:30:17 GMT

Author: Cafu86

Posted: 04/18/2012 13:30

I'm pretty surprised that this poll is so close, I thought The Beatles
would've been superior, but although I've heard "The Velvet Underground and Nico",
I wasn't aware that VU were so highly regarded.

Re: Velvet Underground Vs. The Beatles

gussteivi — Wed, 18 Apr 2012 07:06:26 GMT

Author: gussteivi

Posted: 04/18/2012 11:06

hairymarx1 wrote:

My argument is the music of the Beatles does not fit the criteria described above. If you want to start a separate thread in order that I may expand on this, then you are most welcome and I will attempt to argue my case. I just don't think this is the place to do it.

Maybe some other time. I would however be inerested in reading one of your essays that Hayden mentions.
Would you be able to provide that for me?

Re: Velvet Underground Vs. The Beatles

gussteivi — Wed, 18 Apr 2012 07:03:23 GMT

Author: gussteivi

Posted: 04/18/2012 11:03

Yourselfisntsteam wrote:

wait.....gusteivi.....so....you don't think this is the greatest artistic achievement of all time?

Link

I'm shocked, its deep intellectual metaphysical properties should be evident to anyone of any intelligence. 😁

joking aside, you bring up some good points. I think often musical worth or importance actually can come from defining or summarizing a musical movement just as much as inventing one, such as in the case of Bach (summarizing much of the baroque era, taking the fugue as far as it could go). I have been taking a music-history intro course (for non-music students, so nothing really technical) this semester in university and when looking at an era of western music, the prof would usually spend time on both composers who might have been more conservative, or of their time, as well as the forward thinking ones.

However, when hairymarx brings up structure/melody/harmony, I don't think he means completely removing them from music, he means breaking the rules of them, or using them in different ways.

Also, you skirt the fine line of that my previous posts worried about, that of presuming that musics quality can be measured solely by its ability to follow standard/western forms and principles. What defines a compositions "quality"?

and what be wrong with music just based on rhythm without harmony/melody? or without melody? or built of atmosphere from not so musical sounds? Its all been done, and well at times.

Re: Velvet Underground Vs. The Beatles

hairymarx1 — Wed, 18 Apr 2012 02:12:35 GMT

Author: hairymarx1

Posted: 04/18/2012 06:12

hairymarx1 wrote:

I think there can be no denying that music criticism is ultimately subjective. However, I would caveat that by saying the intrinsic thread linking all great art in terms of the musical experience can be best summarized thus: 'Highly original content delivered with astonishing emotional conviction'.

As I think you implied, classical music succeeds at this much more than rock music. I cannot think of a single Beatles piece that fulfills this criteria. Now, by contrast, if I were to take a few random but diverse examples from my 100 list - 'The Good Son', 'Rock Bottom', Trout Mask Replica', 'Astral Weeks', 'Yerself Is Steam' and 'Pink Moon' - it would be hard to argue that these albums were not in some way original and emotionally powerful or intense.

This criteria, I would argue, even applies, for example, to 'In The Aeroplane Over The Sea' which is an album I do not personally particularly appreciate but I can understand it's widespread appeal on the basis I've described.

For me, the Beatles appeal to emotion is tempered by overloaded sentimentality that totally lacks conviction and intensity nevermind originality.

I'll try to explain what I mean by way of an analogy. There is a difference between appealing to sentimentality with a complete absense in engaging the listener emotionally as is the case with say, a wedding (Beatles) than there is with the emotional impact equivalent to witnessing the apocalypse via black mass (Faust/Pere Ubu), becoming metaphysically unified with the sea and the cosmos whilst being continually aware of ones fragile mortality (Rock Bottom) or exploding outwards in all directions while crying the follies of humanity through the guise of a wild beast (Trout Mask Replica).

In my view, concepts of harmony, melody and structure are not necessarily a precondition for great art, but they can, and often do, play an integral role, thereby matching the criteria described above. It's when the above come together with the more unorthodox dynamics in a dialectical way, in my view, that the greatest art is produced.

Re: Velvet Underground Vs. The Beatles

hairymarx1 — Wed, 18 Apr 2012 01:44:53 GMT

Author: hairymarx1

Posted: 04/18/2012 05:44

gussteivi wrote:

This makes it all the more surprising that you like classical music. There is not a single piece ever written by Mozart, Bach, Beethoven, Haydn, Händel, Brahms, Schumann or Schubert that does not rely completely on the principles of harmony, melody and structure (of the ones that I've heard of course. I do not claim to have listened to every single piece of music written by those composers). In other words, if you would take those elements out there would be nothing left (except for rythm, I suppose).

So I take it that you're not a musician then.

I ammended the last paragraph having realized it didn't make sense with what preceded it. I typed that paragraph when I was tired. I apologize for any confusion. No, I'm not a musician. There seems to be some confusion here more generally and I'm probably not explaining my position satisfactorily.

I argued that music criticism is ultimately subjective but added the caveat that intrinsic to all great art in terms of the musical experience can be best summarized thus: 'Highly original content delivered with astonishing emotional conviction'.

My argument is the music of the Beatles does not fit the criteria described above. If you want to start a separate thread in order that I may expand on this, then you are most welcome and I will attempt to argue my case. I just don't think this is the place to do it.