Best Ever Albums

Re: Fair to compare?

brohio — Fri, 20 Nov 2009 00:52:08 GMT

Author: brohio

Posted: 11/20/2009 05:52

Mr. Shankly wrote:

brohio wrote:

The ultimate comparison happens when you decide to buy or not to buy. So, in that regard only music that sells wins the comparison.

OOOh... I'd be careful opening up this can of worms.

Hey I'm only playing devil's advocate here. Like I said, as far as I'm concerned, only in the 60's did we have the best music being the best selling music. Other than that, it's a pop wasteland. I haven't been part of the loop for quite some time. Thank god.

Re: Fair to compare?

Mr. Shankly — Thu, 19 Nov 2009 23:01:10 GMT

Author: Mr. Shankly

Posted: 11/20/2009 04:01

brohio wrote:

The ultimate comparison happens when you decide to buy or not to buy. So, in that regard only music that sells wins the comparison.

OOOh... I'd be careful opening up this can of worms.

Re: Fair to compare?

brohio — Thu, 19 Nov 2009 22:11:36 GMT

Author: brohio

Posted: 11/20/2009 03:11

Either there's too little passion from some of the "heavy on electronics" acts or too much passion from some shrieking punk with loads of angst that he just need to share. That whole range of acts don't get my blood boiling. I'm not saying that, some of them, aren't talented. I can appreciate and understand some of that crap but I don't buy, might listen to it at a party but still not buy it.
The ultimate comparison happens when you decide to buy or not to buy. So, in that regard only music that sells wins the comparison. Excluding the 60's, that usually produces the lamest product out there.

Re: Fair to compare?

Anonymous — Thu, 19 Nov 2009 20:32:38 GMT

Author: Anonymous

Posted: 11/20/2009 01:32

Brohio, the "yesterday was better" effect is universal. My father thinks today is shit compared to his heyday, my grandmother thinks my father's heyday is shit compared to her heyday, and I haven't seen enough time pass yet to say that the next generations heyday is shit compared to mine. I remember a quote from a roman, Seneca maybe, who addressed this alot more eloquently than I. It's kinda funny

To technology in music, only within the past year have I taken music with electronics seriously; and even then, only the big stuff like Suicide, Joy Division's Closer, New Order, later Clash, Blondie, etc. Even now though, I still have a problem with it. I don't know why, it just doesn't seem as pure as music that's heavy on strings, brass, or percussion, probably because its relatively still new and because some of its simply programming, requiring technical savvy instead of traditional musical savvy. It's kind of like the difference between 19th century art and 21st century art in that it depends on how much work you put into it; painting several strokes with a purpose or leaving a canvas blank. Both are art, but to most I think electronic music/ 21st century art are less aesthetically satisfying because people feel that "they could have done it" whether or not they are a musician or artist.

Re: Fair to compare?

Mr. Shankly — Thu, 19 Nov 2009 18:57:04 GMT

Author: Mr. Shankly

Posted: 11/19/2009 23:57

brohio wrote:

maxperenchio wrote:

Good example purple, i think its interesting how with more and more technology, the general public opinion begins to be swayed towards the new. Many younger listeners simply get bored when trying to listen to old music because of the sound quality and the sheer amount it takes to get to choruses or whatever.

Anyone else like the idea of T-Pain Pixar collaboration?

Choruses? Don't even mention the bridges! I don't think it's a sound quality issue as much as it just ain't hip to like the Beatles as much as it is to like Kanye West or Lady Gaga or whatever slut comes down the pike. Kiddies have no patience to compare half the time or no time. What would all their friends think? Also, this society isn't very loyal. What's new, what's supposed to be better? What's easier? A handshake on a deal is now your password typed in a box. I think most of us older guys, keeping in mind Mick and Paul etc are older than me and they're still sharp and reasonably hip, can easily compare society over the last 50 years or so and say it has definately gotten worse. An easy comparison. And I also think music is a reflection of this. But I still buy more music now than I did then. So I can compare the music released today very easily to the music I listened to as a teenager. Some's great, most isn't. I hope that doesn't destroy this thread.

I think you're bringing up another issue that maybe needs its own thread. Is technology necessarily a good thing for music?

Re: Fair to compare?

brohio — Thu, 19 Nov 2009 18:00:30 GMT

Author: brohio

Posted: 11/19/2009 23:00

maxperenchio wrote:

Re: Fair to compare?

maxperenchio — Thu, 19 Nov 2009 16:30:39 GMT

Author: maxperenchio

Posted: 11/19/2009 21:30

Good example purple, i think its interesting how with more and more technology, the general public opinion begins to be swayed towards the new. Newer movies look a lot better, are expected to be a more immediate bang for your buck, and usually have way more tits than older movies. I think a lot of people are similarly drawn to more recent music for the same reason. Many younger listeners simply get bored when trying to listen to old music because of the sound quality and the sheer amount it takes to get to choruses or whatever. I think you can draw a similar parallel with CGI and Autotune- at first it was an unbelievable advancement of technology, but eventually it was completely misused and perverted.

Anyone else like the idea of T-Pain Pixar collaboration?

Re: Fair to compare?

Anonymous — Thu, 19 Nov 2009 12:30:00 GMT

Author: Anonymous

Posted: 11/19/2009 17:30

Back to Harkan's comment, I ruin "Fight Club" (the movie) for a lot of people by pointing out that its just like "Taxi Driver" and "Raging Bull" made a baby that couldn't live up to its parents expectations. Don't get me wrong, I love "Fight Club," but you can't like that movie and not like "Raging Bull" and "Taxi Driver" and you also can't say that "Fight Club" did anything better than what those movies did.

Here's a perfect example of a comparison being made and the older one winning out; but this is not because the older one did it first, but actually did it better. There are certain older bands that will always be greater than a vast majority of newer bands. I don't think it's because people give them credit for doing it first (I would pick "Fight Club" over the other two if it had nearly as well played out themes, camera angles, and other shit that adds to the filmand its message), I think it's because people just can't be expected to be as incredibly creative as others are, especially within a span of 40 to 50 years for modern film and rock music. That's why directors and musicians draw so much noticeable influence from each other. Anyways, I hope that helped with something (my own rambling); basically, I think its possible to compare art forms to each other, especially ones whose real artistic history is only 50 years old, because they're all drawing from the same creative pool, more or less; their originality (even through time) just depends on what features they focus on.

As for literature and art, its alittle harder to explain...

Re: Fair to compare?

Norman Bates — Thu, 19 Nov 2009 09:28:49 GMT

Author: Norman Bates

Posted: 11/19/2009 14:28

RFNAPLES wrote:

I remember well the older generations claiming Rock was terrible, just noise that would never last. They said that especially about Elvis Presley and later The Beatles. Most of those older generations have died

Never criticize rock.

Re: Fair to compare?

telefunker — Thu, 19 Nov 2009 09:16:27 GMT

Author: telefunker

Posted: 11/19/2009 14:16

i'm hoping the ageing process will be cured within my lifetime

Re: Fair to compare?

RFNAPLES — Thu, 19 Nov 2009 09:00:29 GMT

Author: RFNAPLES

Posted: 11/19/2009 14:00

I hope it won't take 80 years.

Re: Fair to compare?

telefunker — Thu, 19 Nov 2009 08:58:23 GMT

Author: telefunker

Posted: 11/19/2009 13:58

they say it takes a full 80 years for a scientific revolution, as the a younger generation's discoveries are renounced by their predecessors, who have become stuck in their ways.. it's then left for the following generation to make a more objective analysis. i guess the same theory could be applied to music..

Re: Fair to compare?

RFNAPLES — Thu, 19 Nov 2009 08:22:42 GMT

Author: RFNAPLES

Posted: 11/19/2009 13:22

I remember well the older generations claiming Rock was terrible, just noise that would never last. They said that especially about Elvis Presley and later The Beatles. Most of those older generations have died or finally realized their errors.

But the new generation of elders seems to be less vocal, perhaps recalling the ignorance of their ancestors. Nevertheless, this new generation of elders (of which I am a reluctant part) often does seem biased against the new. Unfortunately that tendency against change is almost universal--many people hate change.

Still it is only with the passing of time and the availability of more comparative works that society can finally claim various albums great. Until then the recent releases are just neophytic candidates.

Re: Fair to compare?

videoheadcleaner — Thu, 19 Nov 2009 06:22:04 GMT

Author: videoheadcleaner

Posted: 11/19/2009 11:22

Ok, reading back on what others have said and what I rambled about at the beginning, it does seem clear that comparisons are made, consciously or sub-consciously (eg Purple's comment). I think the major point for me is that comparisons of contemporary bands or artists seem to be more destructive than positive. And it is a stigma that follows in all mediums of entertainment. In literature, the canonical texts like Austen and Shakespeare are considered untouchable and anything beyond them is unoriginal and not worth a person's time. (Sorry this part is from my teacher education in English at uni).

So, we have established that comparisons are inevitable at whatever level but I want to ask if someone used to like a band or artist but a friend or someone made a comparison which ruined that band for you? For film it happens to me all the time, and recently a friend of mine compared a band I like to the dronings of a robot. That kinda has made me think twice about the band.

Re: Fair to compare?

Anonymous — Wed, 18 Nov 2009 13:42:06 GMT

Author: Anonymous

Posted: 11/18/2009 18:42

Harkan, I'm almost completely positive you compared musicians in making your chart and ranking which albums deserve to be in front of others and that you rely on comparisons of musicians for finding alot of new music.

Re: Fair to compare?

joannajewsom — Wed, 18 Nov 2009 10:33:06 GMT

Author: joannajewsom

Posted: 11/18/2009 15:33

Pretty much what Shankly said. Although I would say it's completely impossible to appreciate something "as it is" without making some kind of subconscious comparisons to other music. On a very basic level, Western music will always be the reference point for how we perceive and define all music. Someone from the U.S. hearing Japanese music for the first time is going to form a reaction to it that is based on how it compares to Western music. Within the culture, someone getting into jazz is going to react to it based on how it compares to music they're more familiar with, whether it be rock, rap, etc. It's usually those similarities that serve as a link to making a connection with new forms of music. Not saying that comparing Coltrane to Lennon is valid. They're obviously doing two very different things.

Those comparisons probably get more specific as you dig deeper into the brain. And the closer to types of music are to each other, the more valid a conversation about comparison will be. If you're a Beatles fan and you recognize similarities to Radiohead, you're going to make that connection and compare the two. You may as well attempt to articulate those comparisons you're making.

Re: Fair to compare?

Mr. Shankly — Wed, 18 Nov 2009 09:36:07 GMT

Author: Mr. Shankly

Posted: 11/18/2009 14:36

Comparing and categorizing is a human impulse. It's one way that we make sense out of a chaotic world. It's what poet Wallace Stevens called the "rage for order" (back me up here, JJ). It's not just done with music. People do it all the time with other arts, other mediums, when they decide whether or not to buy a product, when they meet someone new or come across some rare species of animal etc. In the world of education, it's called schema theory, which is activating prior knowledge to make sense of new information or stimuli. It's a natural way of learning.

Now, is it possible to appreciate something as it is without comparing it or making historical connections? Yes, but the more knowledge and experience you acquire, it's natural that your brain is going to make those connections. It's almost unavoidable. I do think one can appreciate a piece of art for what it is while simultaneously making connections / comparisons.

Now is it fair to compare? Well in regards to the Beatles / Radiohead argument, I feel I laid out a pretty coherent explanation for the comparison. It seemed a clear comparison to me. I appreciate both for what they are, but I also appreciate the history of popular music and love to explore connections and influences.

Now here's the problem and contradiction with arguing in favor of merely appreciating something for its aesthetic value: What is the point of this forum? How boring would these discussions be if people were merely discussing if they liked something and couldn't explain why or what connection they were making? Or would we all just be talking about our emotional responses? 😕

Re: Fair to compare?

RFNAPLES — Wed, 18 Nov 2009 08:46:48 GMT

Author: RFNAPLES

Posted: 11/18/2009 13:46

It's not a matter of old vs. new. There are probably more poor old albums than new ones. It's not a matter of good vs. poor either. The problem with the compare and contrast topics is that they tend to be destructive rather than constructive. Often the most egregious are written by those with little education, training and experience.

Re: Fair to compare?

videoheadcleaner — Wed, 18 Nov 2009 08:40:43 GMT

Author: videoheadcleaner

Posted: 11/18/2009 13:40

telefunker wrote:

as for comparing muse to queen, i can't help but laugh.. i mean, when muse write a song like bohemian rhapsody and learn to sing like freddy mercury we'll have a debate on our hands

I never got the opportunity to see Queen live (besides on the small screen) so I guess that live comparison is lacking evidence. Muse's new album has tinges of Depeche Mode and Queen moments so my comment stems from that. Anyway, past midnight here in Aus. See you all tomorrow!

Re: Fair to compare?

telefunker — Wed, 18 Nov 2009 08:34:47 GMT

Author: telefunker

Posted: 11/18/2009 13:34

comparisons will always be made, as pretty much all popular artists share so many similarities.. from the mediums they release music on (cd, mp3 etc) to the format (albums, eps, singles) to the structure of the music ('songs'; usually multitextural, focused on a 'chorus' or repetetive segment, lasting an average of 4 mins in length, featuring similar tempos, rhythms and melodies, following the same 12-note scales) to the instruments used (drums, guitars, vocals etc) to the lyrics (rhyming schemes)

that is a bit reductionist, but you get the point.. you can look at popular music as a whole and notice how similar everything is, or focus on the intricate differentiating factors

and one of the reasons i think most new music sucks is because people are scraping the barrell for ideas.. and not only musically.. we've had spiritual, cultural, political, global revolutions on the back of popular music and just about every conceiveable 'fashion statement' has also been made.

as for comparing muse to queen, i can't help but laugh.. i mean, when muse write a song like bohemian rhapsody and learn to sing like freddy mercury we'll have a debate on our hands