Best Ever Albums

Re: Bands that everyone seems to love that you can't stand

Fischman — Mon, 19 Dec 2016 18:13:13 GMT

Author: Fischman

Posted: 12/19/2016 23:13

U2
Beatles
and in full agreement with the OP on Nirvana.

Re: Bands that everyone seems to love that you can't stand

bcmandude — Sun, 27 Mar 2016 13:45:21 GMT

Author: bcmandude

Posted: 03/27/2016 17:45

I think Kanye is a talented producer and it stops there. He isn't revolutionary, he certainly isn't a clever lyricist, and his flow is interesting at first but it becomes apparent that his rapping style doesn't have much diversity. He is the worst part of his best songs.

Re: Bands that everyone seems to love that you can't stand

Cafu86 — Mon, 7 Mar 2016 06:04:34 GMT

Author: Cafu86

Posted: 03/07/2016 11:04

Mother Nature's Son wrote:

Whoa! 😲 2/3 Danish bands. Really? How could you, especially the latter one? For those with a better definition of musical trash, listen to this one:

Link

...and tell me's it's not absolutely epic!

Btw, welcome! You are of course entitled to your own opinion even if it's wrong!

It's not absolutely epic!
Actually it's incredibly bad, almost wish I haven't played it!

Re: Bands that everyone seems to love that you can't stand

boyd94 — Sun, 6 Mar 2016 10:22:08 GMT

Author: boyd94

Posted: 03/06/2016 15:22

sethmadsen wrote:

Is this a bad thing? Why or why not?

I read this and think, shouldn't a musician make his "message" clear, or is the argument, well that's only for the stupid? You shouldn't have to shout it from a megaphone? It can and maybe should be subtle?

Is Beethoven's 9th, fourth movement, equally annoying in it's declaration of "brotherly' love and the joy of togetherness since it does so also very bluntly and agressively?

I do agree in the circus thing Satie brings up though... especially of hair metal kinda stuff (which I initially wouldn't group Led Zeppelin with... but yeah, you know you're right).

It's not necessarily good or bad, it really just comes down to your instinctive reaction.

Pixies and Wu-Tang Clan could certainly be described as assertive and blunt but they don't feel overbearing or that they're trying to lead me down the garden path or sell me anything. I think a lot of it for me comes down to how seriously the band/artist takes themselves.

Re: Bands that everyone seems to love that you can't stand

RoundTheBend — Sat, 5 Mar 2016 03:16:58 GMT

Author: RoundTheBend

Posted: 03/05/2016 08:16

boyd94 wrote:

They bluntly and aggressively broadcast their intentions

Re: Bands that everyone seems to love that you can't stand

Anonymous — Fri, 4 Mar 2016 11:14:28 GMT

Author: Anonymous

Posted: 03/04/2016 16:14

boyd94 wrote:

For the record, I also largely discard the artist's intent and agree more with these kinds of takes than not. My reading of Sartre's literary criticism - which honestly was awhile ago and not exhaustive because I think he's a poor thinker in his philosophy and politics and thus have no large interest in hearing his approach to literature either - is that he insists on creating these psychoanalytic constructs of his authors where he's examining what decisions they're making in a radically free universe. I think it's just a lazy way of slapping on the most deplorably daft metaphysics in the world onto yet another subject of study that he hasn't done "the real work" on (see also: the incredibly half-baked and unserious Existentialism Is a Humanism where he demonstrates a stunning lack of understanding of Marxism, humanism, and even possibly existentialism while insisting to have some philosophical proof of how to unite the three). It goes the opposite way of these insufferable twats who wanna talk about author's intent - instead of the author having the last say (a stupid idea), it is now the self-proclaimed expert being able to not just give an interpretation of the work but also of the author's person. It's a strange sort of criticism that seems to miss the point in the other direction of what we're analyzing - art, not artists.

boyd94 wrote:

Let's take Led Zeppelin and Pink Floyd. They're far from bubble-gum pop but I suspect Sartre (and judging from this thread, perhaps yourself) would make a valid criticism of them that they bluntly and aggressively broadcast their intentions - where people like or dislike this tendency is whether they see it as oppressive or not. Is it very obvious that they're manipulating you into feeling a certain way, does it feel predictable and forced? I like and dislike pieces from both band's discographies and it's often along these lines. I find Led Zeppelin IV and The Wall to be overwrought, bloated and pretentious, with little room for me with their inflated egos. Off the top of my head Muse are among the biggest offenders in this regard in the modern day. It's that suffocating assertion of the artist's ego and worldview that I recoil from.

I can understand this line of thinking, but it's much easier for me - though I slip into this mode of rhetoric with rock musicians because I do see them as boisterous fucking idiots who get put on this pedestal like they're artists instead of hypermasculine circus performers - to just say that at the core of my dislike of Led Zeppelin is a dislike of the sound. I think you could call Luigi Nono's early "revolutionary" (in the sense of revolutionary politics) work as equally overt, clear, and assertive. I have no problem with good music asserting itself and its ideals on me. But maybe the idiom matters, because I definitely think we have a similar view on rock music where it's embarrassing to listen to Muse put forward their harebrained politics so forcefully. Maybe the difference is that Nono appears to be a serious thinker, and Matt Bellamy is a 14 year old libertarian.

Re: Bands that everyone seems to love that you can't stand

boyd94 — Thu, 3 Mar 2016 16:38:11 GMT

Author: boyd94

Posted: 03/03/2016 21:38

Satie wrote:

so instead of bending over backwards, if you're following Sartre's literary criticism, you just insist all the authors do the bending so you can make up what their worldview is?

Not entirely. I don't follow it all the way, the artist's intention is obviously important and notable, but it certainly requires scrutiny and is far from the whole story, and if the author doesn't offer an explanation what else is there to do but go to the text and connect the dots? It doesn't necessarily have to sink to psychoanalysis and I happen to agree with you that it's an absolute load of old horseshit and I wince whenever I'm tasked with evaluating a psychoanalytic reading.

Let's take Led Zeppelin and Pink Floyd. They're far from bubble-gum pop but I suspect Sartre (and judging from this thread, perhaps yourself) would make a valid criticism of them that they bluntly and aggressively broadcast their intentions - where people like or dislike this tendency is whether they see it as oppressive or not. Is it very obvious that they're manipulating you into feeling a certain way, does it feel predictable and forced? I like and dislike pieces from both band's discographies and it's often along these lines. I find Led Zeppelin IV and The Wall to be overwrought, bloated and pretentious, with little room for me with their inflated egos. Off the top of my head Muse are among the biggest offenders in this regard in the modern day. It's that suffocating assertion of the artist's ego and worldview that I recoil from.

Re: Bands that everyone seems to love that you can't stand

Anonymous — Wed, 2 Mar 2016 17:18:43 GMT

Author: Anonymous

Posted: 03/02/2016 22:18

Skinny wrote:

boyd94 used this figure of speech, but the Plebs did not understand what he was telling them.

Therefore boyd94 said again, “As an English major I read and subscribe to a lot of literary criticism along the lines of Barthes and Sartre,

and struggle to escape the line of thought that says the more I have to bend over backwards

in service of the author (or musician, painter, sculptor) and his intentions,

the more my position as reader becomes worthless and I'm just being invited to join in a circlejerk.

This can apply equally to impenetrable self-referential avant-garde,

and bubble-gum pop that aggressively hammers you over the head with is emotional and thematic intent.

“I am the good shepherd; I know my sheep and my sheep know me—

just as the Sartre knows me and I know the Sartre—and I lay down my life for the sheep.

I have other sheep that are not of this sheep pen. I must bring them also. They too will listen to my voice, and there shall be one flock and one shepherd.

The reason my Sartre loves me is that I lay down my life—only to take it up again.

No one takes it from me, but I lay it down of my own accord. I have authority to lay it down and authority to take it up again. This command I received from my Sartre.”

ahahahahahaha

Re: Bands that everyone seems to love that you can't stand

Applerill — Wed, 2 Mar 2016 16:40:18 GMT

Author: Applerill

Posted: 03/02/2016 21:40

I've only read Nausea 😢

Re: Bands that everyone seems to love that you can't stand

Anonymous — Wed, 2 Mar 2016 12:54:23 GMT

Author: Anonymous

Posted: 03/02/2016 17:54

so instead of bending over backwards, if you're following Sartre's literary criticism, you just insist all the authors do the bending so you can make up what their worldview is? i've gotta say, pedantic literary psychoanalysis is the most disgusting cancer to ever develop in the humanities, and i can't wait for the day it fades from existence. it's the most tedious, painful, and useless mode of criticism that's ever existed.

Re: Bands that everyone seems to love that you can't stand

Skinny — Wed, 2 Mar 2016 12:48:38 GMT

Author: Skinny

Posted: 03/02/2016 17:48

boyd94 wrote:

As an English major I read and subscribe to a lot of literary criticism along the lines of Barthes and Sartre, and struggle to escape the line of thought that says the more I have to bend over backwards in service of the author (or musician, painter, sculptor) and his intentions, the more my position as reader becomes worthless and I'm just being invited to join in a circlejerk.

This can apply equally to impenetrable self-referential avant-garde, and bubble-gum pop that aggressively hammers you over the head with is emotional and thematic intent.

Re: Bands that everyone seems to love that you can't stand

boyd94 — Wed, 2 Mar 2016 12:38:27 GMT

Author: boyd94

Posted: 03/02/2016 17:38

As an English major I read and subscribe to a lot of literary criticism along the lines of Barthes and Sartre, and struggle to escape the line of thought that says the more I have to bend over backwards in service of the author (or musician, painter, sculptor) and his intentions, the more my position as reader becomes worthless and I'm just being invited to join in a circlejerk.

This can apply equally to impenetrable self-referential avant-garde, and bubble-gum pop that aggressively hammers you over the head with is emotional and thematic intent.

Re: Bands that everyone seems to love that you can't stand

Mother Nature's Son — Wed, 2 Mar 2016 12:09:16 GMT

Author: Mother Nature's Son

Posted: 03/02/2016 17:09

Januscl wrote:

Coldplay, Nephew and Dizzy Mizz Lizzy is musical trash in my opinion.

Re: Bands that everyone seems to love that you can't stand

Januscl — Wed, 2 Mar 2016 06:57:37 GMT

Author: Januscl

Posted: 03/02/2016 11:57

Coldplay, Nephew and Dizzy Mizz Lizzy is musical trash in my opinion.

Re: Bands that everyone seems to love that you can't stand

meccalecca — Sun, 7 Feb 2016 15:39:08 GMT

Author: meccalecca

Posted: 02/07/2016 20:39

Pentagonal wrote:

I agree, I just think that all music, even pop, can benefit from context. What distinguishes pop, I think, is that most people already have that context, or at least it's much more easily obtained.

Yeah exactly. And as musical vocabulary expands, the concept of what is actually unique and avant-garde evolves. If Nickelback was the first rock band I ever hear in my life, they'd likely seem incredibly original until provided the context of all of the similar rock bands that preceded them for decades.

Re: Bands that everyone seems to love that you can't stand

Anonymous — Sun, 7 Feb 2016 15:30:52 GMT

Author: Anonymous

Posted: 02/07/2016 20:30

meccalecca wrote:

Prior listening is context. The dialogue of avant-garde music is often within stylistic changes or breaking from traditional templates. Listening experience allows you to build a certain awareness of the traditional structure of musical styles, which makes it all the more incredible when you hear something that breaks away from all known ideas of structure, tone, rhythm, etc.

I agree, I just think that all music, even pop, can benefit from context. What distinguishes pop, I think, is that most people already have that context, or at least it's much more easily obtained.

Re: Bands that everyone seems to love that you can't stand

meccalecca — Sun, 7 Feb 2016 15:11:22 GMT

Author: meccalecca

Posted: 02/07/2016 20:11

Pentagonal wrote:

The vast majority of my context is sonic. I don't really know how much I'd gain from studying theory or history - I certainly enjoy a lot of the avant garde without it.

Re: Bands that everyone seems to love that you can't stand

babyBlueSedan — Sun, 7 Feb 2016 15:09:10 GMT

Author: babyBlueSedan

Posted: 02/07/2016 20:09

meccalecca wrote:

As we attempt to evaluate art (or whatever reason we even do it), it's worth exploring the intent of art. Contemporary fine art is often criticized in its abstraction and it's value of meaning over simple aesthetic pleasure.

There were a lot of good points here but this is what stands out to me. The reason I started listening to as much music as I do was because I realized it was becoming one of my main hobbies. I was spending a lot of time reading music reviews and best album lists and found myself thinking about music while in school or at work. Where other people would be playing video games or reading or knitting or what not I found that I enjoyed listening to music in my free time more than anything else. So naturally I wanted to seek out more music that would make that time more enjoyable.

Even now, as I have a much better understanding of different genres and scenes and the history of popular music in general, I still find myself sticking to that main concept. I find it very difficult to appreciate music in a way that delves deep into what the music is meant to convey if I don't enjoy it. That's probably the reason I find it difficult to get into things like Trout Mask Replica or Oneohtrix Point Never or many of Scaruffi's favorites. I tend to naturally gravitate towards albums that I enjoy without having a reason - albums that I enjoy without having to give multiple listens and "trying" to get into them. Not that I evaluate albums purely by what I think resonates well with people. If so I would listen to way more pop than I do and I would hate things like Daniel Johnston and Spiderland (two random examples of things I enjoy that the average public would perceive as avant garde).

Just wanted to say that because I think that's how some people approach music evaluation. I would never say something is worthless because I don't understand it. Even if I don't enjoy listening to Can I usually word the reasoning as "I can't connect with it" or "it's not something I enjoy" or whatnot. Honestly I wish I enjoyed some of those artists, but if I spend an hour of my time listening to an album I do want to get some enjoyment out of it (not to say people who like avant garde don't enjoy it - I just don't happen to). I find it much easier to appreciate an avant garde piece of visual art which I can consume quickly and not spend a lot of time trying to unpack.

And in my opinion it's a waste of time to evaluate how "real" a piece of art is, because anything that's been released as an album, from ...Baby One More Time to Dark Side Of The Moon to Music For Church Cleaners is art. But also keep in mind that in most cases people's journeys into music discovery start with the classics, so often Led Zeppelin or Pink Floyd are some of the first artists people see are considered "acclaimed." I used to be a le wrong generation child who scoffed at hip hop. Now Kanye West might be my favorite artist and I consider 2015 to have been one of the best years of music ever. People need time to develop; some might listen to Led Zeppelin for their entire lives while others might graduate to avant garde and others might do both. When speaking with someone about their musical tastes it's important to realize that "the things you like aren't as good as you think" or "listen to this music, it's better than what you like" aren't productive dialogues. Most of the discussion I've read in this thread hasn't been of that nature, but it's just important to remember that people are often very attached to the type of music they enjoy.

TL;DR Daniel Johnston made good music (in my opinion)

Re: Bands that everyone seems to love that you can't stand

Anonymous — Sun, 7 Feb 2016 14:57:29 GMT

Author: Anonymous

Posted: 02/07/2016 19:57

meccalecca wrote:

Thanks. Yeah. I didn't quite mean it as a being on a higher/different level so much as often requiring a certain context that popular art does not require. For example for much of the past century, fine art movements have been direct responses to prior movements. We can enjoy avant-garde works aesthetically without context, but context often provides a deeper appreciation. For example the genius of Duchamp's "Fountain" is often overlooked by those who fail to see the deep theoretical context of the work.

The vast majority of my context is sonic. I don't really know how much I'd gain from studying theory or history - I certainly enjoy a lot of the avant garde without it.

Re: Bands that everyone seems to love that you can't stand

meccalecca — Sun, 7 Feb 2016 14:43:45 GMT

Author: meccalecca

Posted: 02/07/2016 19:43

Pentagonal wrote:

I can't honestly say I read most of the discussion here, but I agree with many of the points raised by mecca in his summary. One notable exception, though, is that I don't see the avant garde as being on a different level so much as communicating in a language that most people don't speak.