Best Ever Albums

Re: Sacred New Music

Romanelli — Sat, 20 Jul 2013 14:08:20 GMT

Author: Romanelli

Posted: 07/20/2013 18:08

ppnw wrote:

And Romanelli, I didn't really 'come at' you, did I? I addressed the sentiments of at least the three previous posts, which also included Butter Thumbz and gtroda. My first post didn't quote you or mention your name in it, and was really a general address to anyone sharing those sentiments. I'm also not playing innocent. I think we would both freely say that we despise each other, as we both have previously. But this entire exchange has been me trying to wrap my head the fact you need to own a physical thing or consume music a certain way for music to be more aesthetically pleasing to you, while you call me jerk, dick, and asshole without once even trying to defend your own views. Yeah, I've got ad hominems in this exchange, but your posts are nothing but them. You're avoiding the topic entirely.

The point is simply that I made a statement that you cannot comprehend. It's okay if you don't. It doesn't have to be a big philosophical deal. I said how I feel about the subject, and you called it retarded. Your ideas and thoughts on the subject are no more or less valid than mine, and if you don't understand what I said, just live with it. You have your thing, and I have mine. And you could maybe open with something more civil than "retarded" if you really want to have a discussion about it.

You despise me? I'm sorry to hear that. I have never despised you, nor have I ever disliked you. I dislike the way you sometimes approach people here (it's so much easier to be a tough guy on the internet...I think doing that is pointless). I also dislike the way you have always talked to me. You make it really hard to be civil with you. And I think that you sometimes try for shock value a little too hard. But I do not dislike you. I don't even know you...to dislike someone with no knowledge of who they are is kind of weird to me. I dislike the way you bring up things I have said in the past whenever you're addressing me...I dislike that because that's what trolls and flamers do. Not calling you either...but that's what they do.

I'm not saying that owning the physical package makes the music better. It doesn't. I'm saying that I enjoy having the physical packaging along with the music. That's my thing. For ME, the collection itself is a serious thing. That's what works for ME. I don't expect you to understand that, and I certainly don't think that it warrants an entire wall of back and forth. I like my packaging. It's not important to you. Fine. Get over it. And understand (so you'll sleep better, I guess) that my love for any album has nothing to do with whether or not I have the packaging. But it makes it, on a seperate level, a better experience for ME. Album art. Liner notes. Lyrics. Photos. All of it.

Yes, I called you a couple of names (not like it hurts your feelings, right?). After you opened rudely. You get what you put out there. And that's what you got. Get over it.

As far as how people get their music...I do not mean to sound condescending about that. I understand that it may come across that way...I don't mean it to. I am not a fan of taking music for free, and I would not do it myself. I also understand that people have different financial situations, and I understand that it's better to get the music you love that way than to not have it at all. Please don't take what I said in a bad way. I don't always come across the way it sounds in my head. Bear with me, please.

Re: Sacred New Music

Applerill — Sun, 14 Jul 2013 10:08:37 GMT

Author: Applerill

Posted: 07/14/2013 14:08

CellarDoor wrote:

You would still have to pay television license fees / cinema tickets / museum entrance tickets...

And I would also argue that seeing a movie at the theatre is a totally different experience, as is viewing the actually painting of a famous artist (I'm always surprised by the size, textures etc...).

Of course. But it isn't those fees that make the experience. The first time I saw Satantango was on my iPad with headphones on a road trip, and that didn't keep me from realizing it was a masterpiece.

Of course, I'm all for obtaining art by legal means (I have 300 pieces of vinyl, lots of CD's, and I even BUY MY OWN MP3's!!!!! And cassettes). Each of those mediums has it's own wonderful set of qualities, and I think everyone should check them all out.

That being said, someone who pirates music and knows all these facts isn't any "less experienced" than someone who has ELO's whole discography in every format.

Re: Sacred New Music

CellarDoor — Sun, 14 Jul 2013 09:57:15 GMT

Author: CellarDoor

Posted: 07/14/2013 13:57

Applerill wrote:

The Rocky Horror Picture Show wasn't released on video until 1998, and people loved it for 20 years before that. Same with something like Bela Tarr's Satantango, which wasn't released on DVD until 14 years after release.

Is owning something on DVD any more "pure" than seeing it in the theater? Most would say the opposite.

And with regular works of visual art, should we have to pay millions of dollars for an authentic Picasso in order to "truly experience" his artistic beauty? Of course not. If you're a mature adult, you can suck in the experience at a museum, then maybe read a bunch of books on it later.

Re: Sacred New Music

Applerill — Sun, 14 Jul 2013 09:48:03 GMT

Author: Applerill

Posted: 07/14/2013 13:48

The Rocky Horror Picture Show wasn't released on video until 1998, and people loved it for 20 years before that. Same with something like Bela Tarr's Satantango, which wasn't released on DVD until 14 years after release.

Is owning something on DVD any more "pure" than seeing it in the theater? Most would say the opposite.

And with regular works of visual art, should we have to pay millions of dollars for an authentic Picasso in order to "truly experience" his artistic beauty? Of course not. If you're a mature adult, you can suck in the experience at a museum, then maybe read a bunch of books on it later.

Re: Sacred New Music

HigherThanTheSun — Sun, 14 Jul 2013 07:24:37 GMT

Author: HigherThanTheSun

Posted: 07/14/2013 11:24

There's a lot of things which can change how well I enjoy listening to music, like where I'm listening to it, who I'm listening to it with, what I'm doing at the time etc. None of this affects the quality of the music (obviously) but it does have quite an impact on how much I enjoy it. The medium through which I listen to music isn't so much of a big deal for me but I can understand it might be for some people, I don't think the idea is ridiculous. If it was then nobody would still be listening to vinyl or buying cds, yet many people still do.

One day when I'm rich I'd like to have a record player and vinyl collection and can imagine that I'd enjoy the music listening experience just slightly more for the fact that I've selected a vinyl from a physical collection and sorted out the turntable rather than just scroll through iTunes and hit play. Just a stupid sentimental thing I guess but it still exists.

Re: Sacred New Music

Anonymous — Sun, 14 Jul 2013 05:30:21 GMT

Author: Anonymous

Posted: 07/14/2013 09:30

revolver94 wrote:

I don't think that anyone was trying to assert that physically owning music was superior to a digital version, simply that they might prefer it via that medium.

Maybe the problem is trying to define music, like maybe music is the wrong term to be using here. This stuff is all subjective, ultimately. For all intents and purposes, the music doesn't exist outside of our individual perceptions, so I don't see why it's wrong that the medium can't affect how much we like music. I mean, it clearly is in Romanelli's case, and I assume he isn't lying. If that's something he enjoys, that helps to increase the quality of his music-listening experience, then good. The distinction between what should and shouldn't matter, according to you, seems pretty arbitrary, and not very useful for evaluating how we feel when listening to music.

"Everyone's interpretation of music is relevant, until it begins acknowledging release and media format as a means of enjoyment." This statement is absurd.

- Agreed.

- Anyways, to throw in some personal experience into the mix with "owning" vs. "not owning" (which, I feel this has been turned into a debate about whether one is superior cleverly disguised as being a debate/argument/conversation about music and it really turned me away from the whole thing going on here. One could argue it is that debate, though I feel this current conversation is trying to be more about how it affects the music rather than just which one is better. Even though I feel it's trying, it doesn't feel like it's succeeding and just ending up as just what I described previously) as far as affecting musical experiences go. I go out and buy album when I can and it's a pleasurable experience. I stay in the music shop for an hour or two talking to myself about what I want to buy, why I want to buy it and it just hypes me up to listen to it. I get more of a feeling of inspiration for the music when owning a physical copy because of just being able to buy it. What inspiration? Well, to continue listening to music and find out more about the music and how I feel about it. When listening to albums I don't "own", it's definitely a pleasurable experience as well, don't get me wrong. I don't own a lot of my favorite albums, but there's something different about listening to it after buying it and having repeated listens through that means. Something that makes me very cheerful inside.

- Now Purple, I get what you're saying "it's all about the music, nothing else" (sorry to paraphrase it so oddly, I understand the sentiment, but it's difficult for me to transcribe it), but I listen to music and nothing affects me in this way that physical copies have. I really don't think papers, essays, and etc. really matter in this case because the experience is personal and should be just that. If you don't feel the same way as I, then fine, it's cool and all, but I see no reason why someone would want to diminish someone's experience by saying "No, it can't be that way". That type of attitude is what music, subjectivity, personal experience, and etc. is the opposite of. On the other hand, I could be misconstruing your sentiment, feel free to correct me otherwise, but portions of this statement still stand regardless.

Re: Sacred New Music

ButterThumbz — Sun, 14 Jul 2013 03:29:42 GMT

Author: ButterThumbz

Posted: 07/14/2013 07:29

ppnw wrote:

I simply cannot see differences between how 'owning' the music and not 'owning' it would influence aesthetic interpretation, which is the key point here. Would you include the album artwork in your definition of music? I can see that album artwork has its own certain aesthetic, and I myself associate albums with their artwork, but the artwork still has no effect on my aesthetic and cerebral connection to the music. Wouldn't it be absurd to include album artwork or release format within a definition of music? Music is music is music.

I am in total agreement with this, which is why I find it strange that you regard this as challenging my opinion. What makes you think I oppose this?

Re: Sacred New Music

revolver94 — Sun, 14 Jul 2013 01:17:12 GMT

Author: revolver94

Posted: 07/14/2013 05:17

ppnw wrote:

I encourage you to PM me your email, so I can send you the musical philosophy papers I've sent other users (you may even be on the list). Simply, the line of definition of music is so tenuous already that including releases and media of consumption is simply out of the question. Ultimately, an aesthetic interpretation of music must come from the music. All other outside influences are incalculable, but asserting a certain media format is superior to another, namely one you can own, is absurd. I might as well assert my musical aesthetic pleasure is more capable because I understand structuralism or some other nonsense. And concerning Saiorse's post, it's not because I cant afford a physical copy, I most definitely can, but I don't because there's no need to enjoy music by buying a copy of it. Everyone's interpretation of music is relevant, until it begins acknowledging release and media format as a means of enjoyment. You're simply no longer talking about the music any longer.

Already on the list, never got around to reading the articles, unfortunately. I may now...

Although I feel slightly uninformed to comment given I haven't read these articles yet, I'll still try. I don't think that anyone was trying to assert that physically owning music was superior to a digital version, simply that they might prefer it via that medium.

Maybe the problem is trying to define music, like maybe music is the wrong term to be using here. This stuff is all subjective, ultimately. For all intents and purposes, the music doesn't exist outside of our individual perceptions, so I don't see why it's wrong that the medium can't affect how much we like music. I mean, it clearly is in Romanelli's case, and I assume he isn't lying. If that's something he enjoys, that helps to increase the quality of his music-listening experience, then good. The distinction between what should and shouldn't matter, according to you, seems pretty arbitrary, and not very useful for evaluating how we feel when listening to music.

"Everyone's interpretation of music is relevant, until it begins acknowledging release and media format as a means of enjoyment." This statement is absurd.

Re: Sacred New Music

Anonymous — Sun, 14 Jul 2013 00:51:23 GMT

Author: Anonymous

Posted: 07/14/2013 04:51

revolver94 wrote:

Certainly music can affect people in different ways based on their emotions going into it, so why not something like legality or the medium? Your definition just seems restrictive; the line would be tricky to draw, so why draw one?

Re: Sacred New Music

Anonymous — Sun, 14 Jul 2013 00:45:18 GMT

Author: Anonymous

Posted: 07/14/2013 04:45

I do think one elephant in the room needs to be adressed and I apologize if this opens a new can of worms/going to the comment that its kind of sad a lot of people dont own their music in physical form anymore, if I had the financial means I would gladly own all my favorite albums on vinyl or cd, but I can barely afford store brand spaghetti at this point let alone re cords of all the albums I enjoy

I dont think the post about the special personal feeling about being able to own your favorite music was an attack on those who do not own their music physically, just a statement on how they value the way they consume music but there needs to be some perspective as some music fans just dont have that option/at the end of it all the real important thing is the music itself more so than how its personally consumed even if yes that it often plays an important role in how one values they music they love- it is just not the most important thing of all

Re: Sacred New Music

revolver94 — Sun, 14 Jul 2013 00:22:22 GMT

Author: revolver94

Posted: 07/14/2013 04:22

ppnw wrote:

I can understand it not influencing how you interpret music, but it's unfair to tell people how they can or can't be affected by what they listen to. I must not have read the convo before well enough, I didn't notice the legality of the music being a factor (it isn't for me, personally), but I still think anything, from the artwork to how you happen to be feeling that day, can and should be considered part of the music/the experience if it changes how you perceive it. Certainly music can affect people in different ways based on their emotions going into it, so why not something like legality or the medium? Your definition just seems restrictive; the line would be tricky to draw, so why draw one?

Re: Sacred New Music

Anonymous — Sun, 14 Jul 2013 00:07:23 GMT

Author: Anonymous

Posted: 07/14/2013 04:07

I simply cannot see differences between how 'owning' the music and not 'owning' it would influence aesthetic interpretation, which is the key point here. Would you include the album artwork in your definition of music? I can see that album artwork has its own certain aesthetic, and I myself associate albums with their artwork, but the artwork still has no effect on my aesthetic and cerebral connection to the music. Wouldn't it be absurd to include album artwork or release format within a definition of music? Music is music is music.

Re: Sacred New Music

revolver94 — Sat, 13 Jul 2013 23:47:52 GMT

Author: revolver94

Posted: 07/14/2013 03:47

ppnw wrote:

I'm not sure what you're asking, so you'll have to expand.

EDIT: just saw your edited post, revolver. I think that first sentence from the Eno quote actually perfectly agrees with what I'm saying. He's asking people to enjoy art aesthetically, cerebrally, and not worry about its physical manifestation. And I guess you're another case for which the manifestation does matter. I still think it's ridiculous, but I'd like to hear your thoughts on why that might be. Just a better explanation than 'a nostalgic feel'.

the concert comparison was an attempt to take what you were saying to an extreme; at its core, the music is still the same, whether you here it a live show or huddled in your parents' basement. my point is there are obviously lots of differences between a concert and listening on your computer, as there are differences between a CD and a digital download. while the differences between the latter are much more subtle, and, in your case, negligible, to some people it does affect how they experience the art, notably Romanelli. I think this matches with the Eno quote. He says "all sorts of things can make it happen," which would include awareness of different media used for listening.

while i can't speak for R, owning the CD only affects my perception of the music if I'm actually playing the CD; (I couldn't care less as to whether I'm listening to a download or a CD rip). When I'm actually playing the CD, there are a lot of things that are likely different. I'm probably listening to it on a nicer stereo, or in a car with friends, etc. Plus, it's kind of fun to look at a CD case (or a vinyl sleeve, or whatever), while listening to music. There are a lot of subtle differences, and I find they can make the experience (however slightly) better. I can totally understand not giving a shit, but I think it's totally reasonable to allow the medium to affect your experience.

Re: Sacred New Music

Anonymous — Sat, 13 Jul 2013 21:00:19 GMT

Author: Anonymous

Posted: 07/14/2013 01:00

sethmadsen wrote:

There is no such thing as

Quote:

sacred

anymore

Yes there is

Re: Sacred New Music

RoundTheBend — Sat, 13 Jul 2013 20:57:25 GMT

Author: RoundTheBend

Posted: 07/14/2013 00:57

There is no such thing as sacred anymore

Re: Sacred New Music

Anonymous — Sat, 13 Jul 2013 20:23:51 GMT

Author: Anonymous

Posted: 07/14/2013 00:23

I think for the most part it is an issue of sentimentality. Most of the music I've heard I don't lawfully own, but I'd say at this point I have physical albums from around 75% of the artists in my chart, maybe a bit less but regardless. Aside from the small differences in sound quality, I find the reason that I buy records is mainly just wanting to own the albums I love . I can see where Romanelli is coming from in that there is a certain feeling to owning something in a physical medium and listening to it that way, but I agree with Purple's main point. You should be able to love something and grow attached to it no matter how you hear it. Someone who only listens to vinyl isn't inherently superior to someone who doesn't, and vice versa. All I know is that I want to hear something first before I buy it. Unless it's from a band I have faith in I won't spend money on an album that I haven't heard all the way through, and I don't want a bunch of albums I think are shit sitting in my collection.

Re: Sacred New Music

ButterThumbz — Sat, 13 Jul 2013 19:03:17 GMT

Author: ButterThumbz

Posted: 07/13/2013 23:03

ppnw wrote:

I'm not sure what you're asking, so you'll have to expand.

And Romanelli, I didn't really 'come at' you, did I? I addressed the sentiments of at least the three previous posts, which also included Butter Thumbz and gtroda. My first post didn't quote you or mention your name in it, and was really a general address to anyone sharing those sentiments. I'm also not playing innocent. I think we would both freely say that we despise each other, as we both have previously. But this entire exchange has been me trying to wrap my head the fact you need to own a physical thing or consume music a certain way for music to be more aesthetically pleasing to you, while you call me jerk, dick, and asshole without once even trying to defend your own views. Yeah, I've got ad hominems in this exchange, but your posts are nothing but them. You're avoiding the topic entirely.

EDIT: just saw your edited post, revolver. I think that first sentence from the Eno quote actually perfectly agrees with what I'm saying. He's asking people to enjoy art aesthetically, cerebrally, and not worry about its physical manifestation. And I guess you're another case for which the manifestation does matter. I still think it's ridiculous, but I'd like to hear your thoughts on why that might be. Just a better explanation than 'a nostalgic feel'.

Well, I for one certainly don't share the sentiments you seem to want to attribute to me. Far from agreeing with Romanelli I simply said I understood where he was coming from. I may have expressed nostalgia for defunct musical formats but that's hardly a point worthy of a protracted debate.

Edit: For the record, of the stuff I'm listen to at the moment, I "own" almost none of it.

Re: Sacred New Music

Anonymous — Sat, 13 Jul 2013 18:34:43 GMT

Author: Anonymous

Posted: 07/13/2013 22:34

revolver94 wrote:

keith, how would you compare concerts to other media?

Re: Sacred New Music

HoldenM — Sat, 13 Jul 2013 18:31:52 GMT

Author: HoldenM

Posted: 07/13/2013 22:31

I appreciate the internet age far more, due to the fact that, if I listen to Wire on Spotify, I won't be out $10 if I find that Pink Flag isn't that great. However, most music I've listened to has no more or less allure due to how much money I spent on it.

Re: Sacred New Music

revolver94 — Sat, 13 Jul 2013 17:52:55 GMT

Author: revolver94

Posted: 07/13/2013 21:52

keith, how would you compare concerts to other media? i realize it's a bigger stretch than CD's vs youtube, but i'm curious on your take

to be totally honest, I think your view that the medium is totally irrelevant is a little bit reductive. so much goes into how we perceive music and whether or not we like it, to say it's just the core recording that is relevant seems pretty silly. i, for one, can say that I do enjoy putting on a CD more than playing something on my itunes library, even if it is just for faux-nostalgia. it is a pretty minimal different, but it's still there. i think i read a brian eno quote that made a similar point... let me see if i can find it.

it's not exactly the same point, but still relevant, i think

“Stop thinking about art works as objects, and start thinking about them as triggers for experiences. (Roy Ascott’s phrase.) That solves a lot of problems: we don’t have to argue whether photographs are art, or whether performances are art, or whether Carl Andre’s bricks or Andrew Serranos’s piss or Little Richard’s ‘Long Tall Sally’ are art, because we say, ‘Art is something that happens, a process, not a quality, and all sorts of things can make it happen.’ … [W]hat makes a work of art ‘good’ for you is not something that is already ‘inside’ it, but something that happens inside you — so the value of the work lies in the degree to which it can help you have the kind of experience that you call art.” -Brian Eno