Best Ever Albums

Re: Low and Ziggy Stardust

hairymarx1 — Wed, 30 May 2012 05:20:58 GMT

Author: hairymarx1

Posted: 05/30/2012 09:20

I think Yourselfisn'tsteam makes some very valid and important points. Originality and innovation are to my mind an integral aspect of my appreciation of music. It's not the only criteria but I would say it's the main one - it's my ultimate benchmark.

However, I accept music appreciation is largely subjective and we all have our different ideas as to what makes great art, which is a good and healthy thing. After all, it would be boring if we all thought along the same lines.

For me when I hear other artists blatantly plagarize and/or cynically utilize influences of other artists in a kind of 'painting by numbers fashion', I don't regard it as great art. The question is recognizing when this is done which is often a value judgement.

In my opinion, Psychocandy and Screamedelica are albums that immedietely come to mind, but of course there are many others. This is not to say that these factors are not my only criteria. I mean just because something is original in and of itself doesn't necessarily mean it's any good. On the contrary its often crap.

However, when something comes together in a way that's original, innovative and simultaneously brilliant (eg, Yourself Is Steam), its often an epiphenal experience and long may it continue. Y's was probably the most recent album to fall into this category but I would say that this also applies to the vast majority of albums in my 100 list.

I'm finding that as I'm getting older I'm becoming more critical and less tolerant of the material artists produce than I would of done a decade ago. I think my tastes more generally have shifted over time and I think this happens with most people.

Nowadays I seem to be increasingly less inclined to be pleasantly surprised by the quality of what I hear by new and upcoming artists. To my ears, most of the new stuff I hear is banal and derivative at best and incompetent or plain awful at worst.

If I've heard something I've already heard a million times before I have no intention of listening to it again. But that comes with increasing knowledge as well as many years of experience of hearing thousands of artists.

Nothing can compare to the first time I heard Captain Beefheart in about 1975 or 1976. I was 13 or 14 years of age. I immedietly realized that my hitherto musical universe had been shaken to its foundations and nothing would ever be quite the same again.

Will I ever get a similar feeling about an artist again? I'd love to think so. Indeed, I live in hope for that moment. It's the reason why I love rock music so much - that possible next surprise potentially waiting on the horizon.

Re: Low and Ziggy Stardust

Anonymous — Tue, 29 May 2012 20:08:47 GMT

Author: Anonymous

Posted: 05/30/2012 00:08

Borve Baunehoj wrote:

I actually think you've lost me. What is it you must comprehend about the music?

note: sure enough I don;t think I totally agree with my previous rambling now.....but whatever.

As far as comprehending things, I dunno, I was sort of half joking, but I just like to understand things, in terms of theory, to try and figure out who innovated what, what sounds a band is influenced by/reflecting. I guess by doing so it gives me some way of articulating my opinions beyond I LIKE THIS BECAUSE I DO. It allows me to construct arguments as to actually why an album is good or bad.

I guess.

I'm kind of thinking (typing?) out loud here, same with the other posts, so my thoughts change/get incoherent. I guess I'm just trying to find a way of showing that I find the values of originality, innovation important in some way, and I don't like it when they are dismissed as pointless, because that to me seems to be dismissing creativity in general.......but at the same time its obvious my tastes are very personal and certainly not just some boring objective search for originality......lots of other things go into it as well. Shit, I'm probably just making this more confusing. Shut me up now, I'll never stop. 😠

Re: Low and Ziggy Stardust

Anonymous — Tue, 29 May 2012 18:00:44 GMT

Author: Anonymous

Posted: 05/29/2012 22:00

Yourselfisntsteam wrote:

wait, you don't want to to understand what you listen to? what? thats possible? I MUST comprehend EVERYTHING!

I actually think you've lost me. What is it you must comprehend about the music?

Re: Low and Ziggy Stardust

BlueNote — Tue, 29 May 2012 14:49:01 GMT

Author: BlueNote

Posted: 05/29/2012 18:49

Is straight spelled differently in Canada?

Re: Low and Ziggy Stardust

Anonymous — Mon, 28 May 2012 18:56:06 GMT

Author: Anonymous

Posted: 05/28/2012 22:56

Borve Baunehoj wrote:

Of course I like music being creative, and I like hearing something new. And no, those elements doesn't seperate from "fun and having a good time". But I don't care about whether it's original or not. As long as the music sounds fresh and exciting to me, I don't care whether the artist have changed people's perception of music completely or just have ripped off other artists work. It's all about personal enjoyment.

As for the importance of historical importance, I disagree. As for my favorite records, I don't care about who made them, what genre they are, when they were made, who they influenced etc. The only thing that matters to me is what they sounds like at whether I enjoy them or not. I don't necessarily want to understand the music I listen to, I just want to listen to it :)

Well, its not that I judge music by historical importance. Its really a small, if not irrelevant factor to me. I think what I mean to say is that no matter how one judges music, for example if its by say how interesting or "fresh" it sounds to you (musically or emotionally), I think that that involves a sort of indirect judgement or decision concerning an albums historical importance. If you say album A is awesome even if its an arguable rip-off of album B, you are giving album A more importance in your own personal subjective understanding of music history, for whatever reason. Or something like that. I've lost my focus now. I hope that makes sense. There are so many factors that go into how people judge music, but I think they all are so interconnected that they all matter, even if you don't explicitly use them all in judging an album.

That said, I'll probably start to disagree with myself in a couple hours, so don't take the rambling too seriously. 😄

wait, you don't want to to understand what you listen to? what? thats possible? I MUST comprehend EVERYTHING!

Re: Low and Ziggy Stardust

Anonymous — Mon, 28 May 2012 16:50:16 GMT

Author: Anonymous

Posted: 05/28/2012 20:50

Borve Baunehoj wrote:

I agree that the music that you listen to should be determined by how much you enjoy listening to it, and that's also what should determine the albums in your chart. However, an album's historical significance is also important to consider when evaluating it, even if it doesn't affect how much you enjoy the album.

Re: Low and Ziggy Stardust

Anonymous — Mon, 28 May 2012 16:45:13 GMT

Author: Anonymous

Posted: 05/28/2012 20:45

Yourselfisntsteam wrote:

Music is an art form right? And art is about creativity right? Creativity involves making something in some way original or different correct? Is that not innovation? Eventually original ideas spread and are copied correct? Giving them historical importance and influence? Hence is not thinking about historical importance, innovation ect. essential to being able to understand the meaning of and enjoying the music you listen to? Why must those values be separate from "fun and having a good time"? Are you suggesting you prefer non-creative music? I don't see much of a difference between the values you mention and music being fun, they help make it interesting, thus making it fun.

Re: Low and Ziggy Stardust

Anonymous — Mon, 28 May 2012 16:30:38 GMT

Author: Anonymous

Posted: 05/28/2012 20:30

Borve Baunehoj wrote:

I thought music was all about enjoyment and having a good time, but seems that people are more interested in its historical importance. Seriously, fuck values such as originality, influence and innovation. I want my music to be fun!

As for the albums, I've meant to check out Low for a long time, but I haven't yet. But I plan to live long, so there's no hurry. Ziggy Stardust, on the other hand, is my favorite Bowie album from what I've heard. I'll probably add it to my chart when I'm able to expand it further :)

Re: Low and Ziggy Stardust

Anonymous — Mon, 28 May 2012 16:04:15 GMT

Author: Anonymous

Posted: 05/28/2012 20:04

I thought music was all about enjoyment and having a good time, but seems that people are more interested in its historical importance. Seriously, fuck values such as originality, influence and innovation. I want my music to be fun!

As for the albums, I've meant to check out Low for a long time, but I haven't yet. But I plan to live long, so there's no hurry. Ziggy Stardust, on the other hand, is my favorite Bowie album from what I've heard. I'll probably add it to my chart when I'm able to expand it further 😄

Re: Low and Ziggy Stardust

wa23gs — Sun, 27 May 2012 23:59:56 GMT

Author: wa23gs

Posted: 05/28/2012 03:59

I actually prefer Ziggy Stardust, but I guess the was the first whole Bowie album I heard, and that's what really got me into him.

Re: Low and Ziggy Stardust

Anonymous — Sun, 27 May 2012 22:58:29 GMT

Author: Anonymous

Posted: 05/28/2012 02:58

X

Re: Low and Ziggy Stardust

Anonymous — Sun, 27 May 2012 21:58:56 GMT

Author: Anonymous

Posted: 05/28/2012 01:58

Eggman/Walrus/Taxman wrote:

The albums before Rubber Soul were mostly filled with filler. Because yes, they were only slightly more gifted than the average group. They managed to make some brilliant songs ("Twist and Shout", "It Won't Be Long", a significant portion of the album A Hard Day's Night, three or four songs from For Sale, four or five songs from Help!), but, especially on their first two, their music mostly wasn't that enjoyable or original. Which is why I never really understood why people feel as if those albums have to be included in Best Ever Albums lists too.

The albums after Rubber Soul are mostly good, though. Yellow Submarine was a low point, but compared to to some of the stuff they had made in their early days, that album rocks.

Yeah, I tend to just disregard Yellow Submarine. It wasn't even a proper "album" in some ways.

Re: Low and Ziggy Stardust

Facetious — Sun, 27 May 2012 21:46:41 GMT

Author: Facetious

Posted: 05/28/2012 01:46

swedenman wrote:

The way I see it, there were two completely different The Beatleses. One was a cheap imitation pop group that was slightly more gifted in writing catchy tunes than the average cheap imitation pop group (Rubber Soul and before), and one was vastly innovative and original both in scope and in style (Revolver and after). I may not care for every album the post-Rubber Soul Beatles put out, but I can sure as hell respect them.

Also, hairymarx, this is the first time I realized that your name isn't hairymax. Whoops.

Re: Low and Ziggy Stardust

Anonymous — Sun, 27 May 2012 14:52:49 GMT

Author: Anonymous

Posted: 05/27/2012 18:52

itsit wrote:

true true, but the reason he started out doing pop music is because well- that's mostly what he heard. I do think it's rather stupid to call them the most daring group there was because they clearly weren't. But to say they weren't innovative in the least is silly.

Re: Low and Ziggy Stardust

alelsupreme — Sun, 27 May 2012 13:54:48 GMT

Author: alelsupreme

Posted: 05/27/2012 17:54

true true, but the reason he started out doing pop music is because well- that's mostly what he heard. I do think it's rather stupid to call them the most daring group there was because they clearly weren't. But to say they weren't innovative in the least is silly.

Re: Low and Ziggy Stardust

hairymarx1 — Sun, 27 May 2012 13:52:57 GMT

Author: hairymarx1

Posted: 05/27/2012 17:52

itsit wrote:

John Lennon only cared about money, that's why he recorded three albums of avant garde garbage.

Yep, after he made shit loads of it.

Re: Low and Ziggy Stardust

alelsupreme — Sun, 27 May 2012 13:51:53 GMT

Author: alelsupreme

Posted: 05/27/2012 17:51

John Lennon only cared about money, that's why he recorded three albums of avant garde garbage.

Re: Low and Ziggy Stardust

hairymarx1 — Sun, 27 May 2012 13:50:43 GMT

Author: hairymarx1

Posted: 05/27/2012 17:50

swedenman wrote:

Well I guess we'll just have to disagree. Every aspect of Bowie's music had been done before, I'll give you that, but as far as I'm concerned, he made music that, as a whole, sounded like nothing that had ever been created. You're certainly welcome to disagree.

Yep, I respectfully disagree with your view. The expression of a variety of opinions is what this site is all about.

Re: Low and Ziggy Stardust

Anonymous — Sun, 27 May 2012 13:04:10 GMT

Author: Anonymous

Posted: 05/27/2012 17:04

hairymarx1 wrote:

Well said Yourselfisn't steam. There is a vast difference between cynically utilizing, exploiting and/or corrupting influences on the one hand (Bowie did all three) and advancing the art form on the other. The fact that many folks on here are unable to distinguish between the two is the reason why charlatans like Bowie and The Beatles laugh themselves all the way to the bank on the back of the naive nature of the ignorant general public.

Re: Low and Ziggy Stardust

hairymarx1 — Sun, 27 May 2012 12:29:39 GMT

Author: hairymarx1

Posted: 05/27/2012 16:29

Well said Yourselfisn't steam. There is a vast difference between cynically utilizing, exploiting and/or corrupting influences on the one hand (Bowie did all three) and advancing the art form on the other. The fact that many folks on here are unable to distinguish between the two is the reason why charlatans like Bowie and The Beatles laugh themselves all the way to the bank on the back of the naive nature of the ignorant general public.