Best Ever Albums

Re: Aural Autism

Applerill — Mon, 4 Jan 2016 08:33:44 GMT

Author: Applerill

Posted: 01/04/2016 13:33

Umbrella wrote:

charlie dont be like grifter uncle waclaw

Okay, I won't.
/Thread

Re: Aural Autism

Anonymous — Mon, 4 Jan 2016 08:29:37 GMT

Author: Anonymous

Posted: 01/04/2016 13:29

charlie dont be like grifter uncle waclaw

Re: Aural Autism

mickilennial — Sun, 3 Jan 2016 19:20:27 GMT

Author: mickilennial

Posted: 01/04/2016 00:20

“Ethics” and “Morality” are thrown around a lot here, but for me this is more of a trust issue. This has been pretty much my only critical issue that has bothered me because it feels like blatant manipulation and deception. Honest is a paramount virtue that is important to me and I feel like this habit of yours is problematic on many levels including how I view your criticisms, opinions, and values. I’ve grown up around compulsive liars, con artists, and grifters (my uncle, Waclaw, for example) so this is a personal issue for me. If you cannot be honest about your opinions then I don’t know how I can treat you favorably or open a dialogue intellectually. I can deal with your other traits but this one is something that you need to look long and hard at if you value the dialogues we’ve had in the past before this accumulated as a big issue; and believe me, it is.

Re: Aural Autism

Romanelli — Sun, 3 Jan 2016 17:23:36 GMT

Author: Romanelli

Posted: 01/03/2016 22:23

Here's where this hit me. And why.

If he wants to have a place to kind of store things for future refining, that's cool. And his intentions may be genuine. However. The problem as I see it is that people come to sites like this in part to see what others think about music that they might potentially want to invest in. And people who have been around take what others that they interract with think about music seriously. Maybe not you...maybe not me...but there are, I'm sure, a lot of people who do.

So, if Applerill rates an album a 5, but I'm also aware that he has rated an album that it is known that he has not yet heard a 5, how seriously can I take him? And say that rating is on BEA. I look at the users on this site and see that he is a long time member with a long history of rating and reviewing and comments. And yet, he is rating music that he could not have possibly listened to yet. It's not just him...it's BEA. Because he's a long standing member, is this how the entire site is?

Integrity IS the issue here, for me. Whether it's intended or not, this is about how it looks to other users. Can I trust what I see this user says he has listened to? If I can't, then I've developed a mistrust of not only him, but of the site as a whole. And, you may think I'm being over dramatic, but I believe that we have a responsibility as the most active and most visible users of this site to show others that there IS integrity here, and that we DO take our listening, rating and reviewing seriously. Just my opinion, but it is what it is.

Maybe the answer would be having a more private way of cataloguing premature feelings about an album. Because, as shown here, the way that it is currently being done by this user apparently does cause issues.

This ties into my dislike of albums being added to the database that have not yet been leaked, therefore not yet heard. What this says to me is that a person is making an album eligible to be the best album ever that there is no possible way they have listened to. That may seem like a small thing, but it does strike a chord with me.

Re: Aural Autism

Anonymous — Sun, 3 Jan 2016 17:18:31 GMT

Author: Anonymous

Posted: 01/03/2016 22:18

Satie wrote:

I'm sure he's not ethically condemnable though

Ah alright I apologize I thought that was the implication for some reason. I disagree with a few of your points but this is definitely fair

Re: Aural Autism

Applerill — Sun, 3 Jan 2016 17:12:41 GMT

Author: Applerill

Posted: 01/03/2016 22:12

Satie wrote:

who the fuck brought up morality lol I don't think Charlie's a bad person or going to Aytch Ee Double Hockey Sticks. I think he's someone who's unreliable for a fair music discussion, though, and someone whose opinions are, by his own admission here, based more on extramusical factors than I think is appropriate. yes someone with no aesthetic outlook on music as sound, as evidenced by his interest in art criticism as some sort of meta-textual exercise, and his political and philosophical positions and musings are too uninteresting and sophomoric for that kind of writing to be pulled off.

I'm sure he's not ethically condemnable though

That's great 😄 (and very fair otherwise).

I've recently wondered why I wake up thinking that "I know nothing about music and everything about movies", and I think that's why. (You definitely need to get on that later Godard, though.)

Re: Aural Autism

Anonymous — Sun, 3 Jan 2016 17:09:08 GMT

Author: Anonymous

Posted: 01/03/2016 22:09

who the fuck brought up morality lol I don't think Charlie's a bad person or going to Aytch Ee Double Hockey Sticks. I think he's someone who's unreliable for a fair music discussion, though, and someone whose opinions are, by his own admission here, based more on extramusical factors than I think is appropriate. yes someone with no aesthetic outlook on music as sound, as evidenced by his interest in art criticism as some sort of meta-textual exercise, and his political and philosophical positions and musings are too uninteresting and sophomoric for that kind of writing to be pulled off.

I'm sure he's not ethically condemnable though

Re: Aural Autism

Applerill — Sun, 3 Jan 2016 17:07:40 GMT

Author: Applerill

Posted: 01/03/2016 22:07

Satie wrote:

I like Charlie's style actually. Since we can judge without listening to the music and Gabe and Squishy will defend us now, all I have to do is see the genre tag "indie rock" on RYM, and I can express how much I dislike the music. Saves me the time of having to form my own opinions on all the garbage I see posted here and everyone will just congratulate and defend me. What a wonderful new world to be in.

😜 I'll admit: That made me giggle. I love you, Satie.

Anyway, this is why I now like rating singles so much: They give me my rating-methadone in minutes, and I rarely need to worry about making these sorts of mistakes. With the RYM Album chart, on the other hand, it's too easy for me to go on a rate-after-ten-minute frenzy ("GIMME ALL THE ALBUMS!!!"). This isn't because I want to look cool, but because I I can't wait to experience all of them (and maybe because I have ADD).

Re: Aural Autism

Anonymous — Sun, 3 Jan 2016 17:04:37 GMT

Author: Anonymous

Posted: 01/03/2016 22:04

All I'm saying is obsessive compulsive rating habits ≠ moral dishonesty

Re: Aural Autism

Anonymous — Sun, 3 Jan 2016 17:01:52 GMT

Author: Anonymous

Posted: 01/03/2016 22:01

I like Charlie's style actually. Since we can judge without listening to the music and Gabe and Squishy will defend us now, all I have to do is see the genre tag "indie rock" on RYM, and I can express how much I dislike the music. Saves me the time of having to form my own opinions on all the garbage I see posted here and everyone will just congratulate and defend me. What a wonderful new world to be in.

Re: Aural Autism

Applerill — Sun, 3 Jan 2016 16:36:34 GMT

Author: Applerill

Posted: 01/03/2016 21:36

I guess what I'm confused about is where this becomes a moral issue of dishonesty. For the most part, I like to use my RYM database as a sort of scratch-pad. When I was listening to that Hermann Nitsch comp, I believe I went one or two discs in before realizing "Oh my goodness this is really, really cool", and feeling like it had to be in my database (I listened to another three discs after that, BTW, and even repeated the first two several times over the past six months). That way, whenever I looked up its genre tags, it'd be there with a pretty good estimate of how it moved me. I know I could just use the wishlist function or something, and that you can easily call this "overly compulsive" or even "irresponsible", but I don't think any of it was based off malice or selfishness.

I wish it were easy for me to avoid pre-rating things (as I've been trying to restrain myself on and off since around 2012 when The Avengers came out), but so often I just can't help but press that button. When I listen to a preview single or read a review or find a title funny, I really want to express that, even if the release I'm rating doesn't "exist" yet. I can continue to try my best with it, but I'm afraid that that's all I can promise. I'm really sorry if this bothers you all.

Re: Aural Autism

Anonymous — Sun, 3 Jan 2016 16:20:34 GMT

Author: Anonymous

Posted: 01/03/2016 21:20

I definitely see where the Charlie criticisms are coming from but really does one's rating system really define their sense of ethics? It sounds like Applerill is just rating shit what he thinks will end up being his eventual rating. Or at worst he's just pulling a platus and using ratings as something of a pseudo-wishlist. Idk but in any case I don't think he's nearly as concerned with his self-made "outsider" image or w/e as we seem to think. I seriously doubt there's any deliberate or malicious intent to deceive when he rates stuff, maybe just a questionable rating system. He's got a disorganized rym and weird rating habits, not a total lack of personal integrity.

Satie wrote:

Gowie

Boy wouldn't I kill for this collab. David + The Chuck Norris Experience. Instant classic for sure 😉

Re: Aural Autism

Anonymous — Sun, 3 Jan 2016 13:50:29 GMT

Author: Anonymous

Posted: 01/03/2016 18:50

you're dodging the fact that you often are not rating "as you listen" though. in the case of Blackstar, albums Gowie never released, and a 51CD box set you obviously heard less than a full disc of given the timing from talking to me to rating to rating something else, you have heard a small minority of the music contained on a release or none at all. you can't have your cake and eat it too where you tout out 12,000 (largely singles) ratings as some e-peen in some forums and in others it's just a shoddy mess of half truths and poor conceptions. that's everyone's point - we can't get to what your taste is or even what you've heard or not based on flagrant and consistent clear dishonesty, ignoring cases where dishonesty isn't immediately objectively obvious.

Re: Aural Autism

Applerill — Sun, 3 Jan 2016 12:49:09 GMT

Author: Applerill

Posted: 01/03/2016 17:49

Romanelli wrote:

Applerill wrote:

Gowi wrote:

Applerill wrote:

:P Ruh-roh. I've been caught.

I really was unimpressed by the single, and I really thought it did leak.

You probably shouldn't claim to listen to something you haven't actually heard in full.

😉 I already deleted the rating, Gowi. I deleted it nearly a month ago.

Well...the fact that you deleted the rating doesn't seem to be the real issue. And the fact that others had rated it before you doesn't really make it less than what it is. The real issue, to me anyway, would be that you knowingly rated an album, thereby declaring that you had heard it, when in fact you knew that you had not heard it. Which makes it not a matter of a mistaken rating, but of integrity. So, how are we supposed to believe that you have actually at least listened to the albums you are rating and reviewing? Which ratings and reviews are real...and which ones are not?

:-k

Look, I'm not practicing journalism (or even art criticism) when I rate something on RYM. I'm really just astrally projecting what I think of something at that state in time, and everything I rate is more than subject to change. I'll admit that I often jump on rating things too fast, but this has little to do with any need of mine to be "cool" setting a "canon" or whatever, and much more than I just feel like putting my rating down as I listen to it (even if I may have to switch to something else twenty minutes later). You can compare it to journalistic ethics (especially since I so easily giggle at the phrase "ethics in Charlie journalism"), but my ratings are really just for my own cultural bookkeeping. If I want something to be at least somewhat set in stone, then I'll actually write about it in words.

Re: Aural Autism

Romanelli — Sun, 3 Jan 2016 09:58:02 GMT

Author: Romanelli

Posted: 01/03/2016 14:58

Applerill wrote:

Gowi wrote:

Applerill wrote:

:P Ruh-roh. I've been caught.

I really was unimpressed by the single, and I really thought it did leak.

You probably shouldn't claim to listen to something you haven't actually heard in full.

😉 I already deleted the rating, Gowi. I deleted it nearly a month ago.

Re: Aural Autism

Applerill — Sun, 3 Jan 2016 09:45:11 GMT

Author: Applerill

Posted: 01/03/2016 14:45

Gowi wrote:

Applerill wrote:

:P Ruh-roh. I've been caught.

I really was unimpressed by the single, and I really thought it did leak.

You probably shouldn't claim to listen to something you haven't actually heard in full.

😉 I already deleted the rating, Gowi. I deleted it nearly a month ago.
(Though if someone's willing to get me a link to the leak, I can surely listen to it again and rate it, but I will not be able to torrent it before release).

Re: Aural Autism

mickilennial — Sat, 2 Jan 2016 23:20:32 GMT

Author: mickilennial

Posted: 01/03/2016 04:20

Applerill wrote:

:P Ruh-roh. I've been caught.

I really was unimpressed by the single, and I really thought it did leak.

You probably shouldn't claim to listen to something you haven't actually heard in full.

Re: Aural Autism

Applerill — Sat, 2 Jan 2016 22:05:26 GMT

Author: Applerill

Posted: 01/03/2016 03:05

Thumbnail. Click to enlarge.

Breakaway by Kelly Clarkson

So over the past 24 hours I've been speeding through New Yorker writer John Seabrook's The Song Machine, a great new book at the making of modern pop since the late eighties. We all know Max Martin and Dr. Luke, but what you probably didn't know is that in the early to mid 2000s, Max was tired of being thought of as a "teen-pop" producer. After meeting Dr. Luke at a NYC club and studying his synthetic-rock style he would produce with, they put together the instrumental for "Since U Been Gone". But when Clive Davis presented it to Kelly Clarkson, she absolutely hated the pop sensibilities. She wanted to write her own songs, and really share her painful upbringing with the world. Even the finished album disgusted her. (And Clive Davis's douchery didn't help, as he said a lot of not-nice things to Kelly during their confrontations)

The strange thing about that, though, is how Max and Luke's compressed, tinny production on this album makes it one of the most beautiful, immersive, heartfelt recordings of the 2000s. As crazy as it sounds, this really did make Max Martin a serious artist along with Kelly, and that production is what the all-acoustic set-up of My December was so sorely missing. I used to have this at #85 on my chart, but now I've convinced it's more than top 50 quality, a milestone in pop music history and one of the most perfect LPst the contemporary "Song Machine" has ever released.

Re: Aural Autism

Applerill — Wed, 30 Dec 2015 15:51:38 GMT

Author: Applerill

Posted: 12/30/2015 20:51

Thumbnail. Click to enlarge.

People's Choice Music by Komar, Melamid And Dave Soldier

I've obviously known about this mythical study for years because of Let's Talk About Love, but never did I realize it would be one of the most beautiful compositions I have ever heard in EP form. I really love the "Most Wanted Song", especially with those Kenny G solos, but "The Most Unwanted Song" almost is what I love about music. In all, this is a music about taste, and how, good or bad, it can be a beautiful, beautiful thing to stretch.
(And that kid choir is the greatest embodiment of children's music I've ever heard)

Re: Aural Autism

Lowkey — Tue, 29 Dec 2015 16:21:03 GMT

Author: Lowkey

Posted: 12/29/2015 21:21

blacksaintsinnerLAD wrote:

we fail em all #ripsingleboyz