Best Ever Albums

Re: "Genre" Music

meccalecca — Mon, 11 May 2015 10:17:12 GMT

Author: meccalecca

Posted: 05/11/2015 14:17

I think the mistake Applerill made with his original post was making it seem like there's a distinction between "genre" films/music and approaching the art in a more creative path.

I think the question may be more simple and easily stated as:

Do some artists create with the sole intent to fit within a certain aesthetic / genre while others create with no pre-existing aesthetic template in mind?

And the answer would have to be yes.

For example with film, there are directors who set out with it in mind that "this will be my period drama" "this will be my teen sex comedy" "this will be my slasher horror film"

In music, David Bowie often set out to specifically try different style. Mumford & Sons new album appears to be their attempt at tepid arena rock schlock.

I think there's artists who attempt to create within pre-existing guidelines, and those who intend to smash apart those "guidelines" and create something all their own. The second is generally considered more artistically novel, but that doesn't mean the final result is actually any more innovative or enjoyable.

But this is why we're far more prone to praise an original Cubist painting by Braque over some contemporary attempt at Cubism. Original ideas are hard to come by.

This is also why the words formulaic and generic are seen as negative criticism.

Re: "Genre" Music

Anonymous — Sun, 10 May 2015 21:49:27 GMT

Author: Anonymous

Posted: 05/11/2015 01:49

Maybe you mean something that works perfectly within a particular aesthetic niche, but comes off poorly to everyone else? 🤔

Re: "Genre" Music

mickilennial — Sun, 10 May 2015 21:31:42 GMT

Author: mickilennial

Posted: 05/11/2015 01:31

Happymeal wrote:

I have no clue what you're going on about. Anyway to explain it differently?

Sheer entertainment/enjoyment versus intellectual analysis and comprehension, perhaps.

Maybe "true subjectivity" is more on the money, but I don't know.

Re: "Genre" Music

Anonymous — Sun, 10 May 2015 21:29:20 GMT

Author: Anonymous

Posted: 05/11/2015 01:29

Applerill wrote:

Okay, maybe "virtuosity" isn't the right way to describe what I'm talking about. I think I'm getting at something much more sensory.

Like, think about The Raid II (no, I haven't seen it yet, but I'm sure I'll love it as soon as I get around to watching it, and it's the best example of a "great" action movie that I have at the top of my head). It's now considered one of the greatest action movies ever made, and if you have enough technical knowledge, you can very well explain how. But if you just say "It's really, really good", that almost certainly sums it up. It's not "objective" or anything (for there could be some people that think that action movies are by definition horrible or something), but the perceived greatness is one almost of divine entertainment rather than pretentious "art".

I feel like with a lot of albums (especially live rock ones), there almost is something like that. Where when you're recommended it, you normally don't have a deep analysis of why you need to get on it, yet when you finally dive in, it completely makes sense.

But then again, I guess this whole distinction is mostly important for dorks like me whose reputations revolve around stupid, pretentious explanations of "disposable" culture.

I have no clue what you're going on about. Anyway to explain it differently?

Re: "Genre" Music

Applerill — Sun, 10 May 2015 21:03:36 GMT

Author: Applerill

Posted: 05/11/2015 01:03

Okay, maybe "virtuosity" isn't the right way to describe what I'm talking about. I think I'm getting at something much more sensory.

Like, think about The Raid II (no, I haven't seen it yet, but I'm sure I'll love it as soon as I get around to watching it, and it's the best example of a "great" action movie that I have at the top of my head). It's now considered one of the greatest action movies ever made, and if you have enough technical knowledge, you can very well explain how. But if you just say "It's really, really good", that almost certainly sums it up. It's not "objective" or anything (for there could be some people that think that action movies are by definition horrible or something), but the perceived greatness is one almost of divine entertainment rather than pretentious "art".

I feel like with a lot of albums (especially live rock ones), there almost is something like that. Where when you're recommended it, you normally don't have a deep analysis of why you need to get on it, yet when you finally dive in, it completely makes sense.

But then again, I guess this whole distinction is mostly important for dorks like me whose reputations revolve around stupid, pretentious explanations of "disposable" culture.

Re: "Genre" Music

Anonymous — Sun, 10 May 2015 19:40:35 GMT

Author: Anonymous

Posted: 05/10/2015 23:40

I find it very difficult to appreciate virtuosity if the music doesn't resonate with me. I tend to think of technical proficiency as a means to an end rather than an end in of itself. While I might hang on the slightest inflections from Shirley Collins or Dusty Springfield, a similarly "skilled" performance from Celine Dion or Barbra Streisand might have me covering my ears.

That's just me, of course. I have heard people express appreciation for artists solely because of their technical abilities, so maybe that's a thing. I'm sure that's not the only way to appreciate Ted Nugent, though -- many of the people in the area I grew up gobbled that shit up like candy. I remember the DJs on our local radio station lobbying for him to be inducted into the rock and roll hall of fame.

Re: "Genre" Music

Anonymous — Sun, 10 May 2015 18:01:14 GMT

Author: Anonymous

Posted: 05/10/2015 22:01

Also if music is not good, what other reasons would someone like it? They may like for reasons like sound, length, how they felt when first heard it. Those are the reasons though

Re: "Genre" Music

karbutt — Sun, 10 May 2015 17:53:52 GMT

Author: karbutt

Posted: 05/10/2015 21:53

I don't understand "genre" music or novelty acts, but there are those who do, and there are those who enjoy them. As a result, I tend to stray away from that kinda stuff so idk if my opinion is even relevant or if i understand exactly what you're asking/trying to say, so this could potentially be a waste of both my time and yours but w/e.

It's kind of complicated and multifaceted imo. I think that technicality is only one factor that goes into judging music (or any form of art really). But even within technicality there is little technicalities that go into the technicality as a whole. So, do you judge those or technicality as a whole? But then there's things that you can't really compare to other things. A very skilled indie-rock guitarist can't be compared to the classic-metal guitarist because they're both technically skilled at different things just as you can't compare a painter to a sculptor. You can like one more than the other cuz of personal preferences but you can't really judge them together.

I also don't entirely agree that you can't judge the technicality of a thing if you don't do the thing. I don't make movies but its pretty easy to tell when a movie is shit. Its pretty easy to tell when someone isn't good at drawing. To be more specific, you can only judge some those technicalities within technicalities when you are doing the thing you are judging. So maybe only experienced artists can tell when the composition of a painting is off.

tl;dr
You can't judge music on technicality alone because that's only one factor that goes into music so you'd be judging technicality not music.

Re: "Genre" Music

Norman Bates — Sun, 10 May 2015 17:32:31 GMT

Author: Norman Bates

Posted: 05/10/2015 21:32

Applerill wrote:

But listen to any of the interviews with Ford, and he will absolutely refuse to talk about the themes in his work. And as soon as he finishes one movie, he goes back to work the next day to work on the next one.

Well, that does sound like a "theme" to me. Work as a value to cherish more than artistic pretention or self-analysis or something. "Action speaks louder than words" (possibly more of a Hawksian theme than a Fordian it would appear, but you get my point I hope).

Re: "Genre" Music

Norman Bates — Sun, 10 May 2015 17:26:14 GMT

Author: Norman Bates

Posted: 05/10/2015 21:26

My two cents.

Applerill wrote:

But then again, could there be a whole class of music that should only be judged on craft as opposed to art?

I don't think so. I think any "class of music" can be "judged" on both. The only limitation is that you have to know about the craft to judge it, which is why, for instance, I can't "judge" any album on "craft" considering I cannot play any note for shit.

Applerill wrote:

(...)directors like Mario Bava, John Ford and John Carpenter who do their job in almost a workmanlike manner, and normally don't ever talk about "themes" or anything like that in their work.

I don't think that is true.

Applerill wrote:

(...) "serious art" is (...) never what they were trying to do.

They don't have to. Personal themes naturally ooze up through a director's filmography, or even a single movie, whether the maker(s) want it or not.

Applerill wrote:

Is there such thing as "genre music"?

I think so, but I would use your term to refer to music that directly references "genre cinema", e.g. monster mash rockabilly or garage, The Cramps when they sing "Human Fly" or "I Was a Teenage Werewolf", things like that. And there's definitely a "theme" in those, you might even say a "serious" one (e.g. love for the refused, the underdogs, etc., I dunno I haven't studied this).

Applerill wrote:

Should I ignore the misogyny and dorkiness of Ted Nugent and just appreciate his guitar playing in a technical sense?

I don't know if you "should", but you certainly could, i.e. if you had the technical ability to do so. A lot of people do, I'd imagine.

Applerill wrote:

(...) it seems like there should at least be some distinction between something like this and a Radiohead album.

I don't see why. That is, if you don't mean the obvious distinction that your own taste will make, or possibly socio-economical criteria you might be aware of (e.g. condtions of production or whatever - part of the distinction between "genre" movies and "major releases" or "feature films" by the way).

Re: "Genre" Music

Applerill — Sun, 10 May 2015 17:25:44 GMT

Author: Applerill

Posted: 05/10/2015 21:25

I guess what made me bring up Ford and Carpenter and Bava is that they all come to that defense my brother Geoege gave in the beginning- "It's just good." In any other context, that seems like a vague, silly, and maybe even "objective" way to describe music you love, but if these guys just make the album in a "workmanlike" way, that means that saying so may be entirely applicable.

Pedro Costa talks about this a lot in interviews, and how even though he's normally considered to be a serious arthouse auteur, he really fetishizes the workmanlike way the guys above did their stuff. And I think you can say the same with the live albums of Ted Nugent or Iced Earth or whatever.

Re: "Genre" Music

mickilennial — Sun, 10 May 2015 17:20:03 GMT

Author: mickilennial

Posted: 05/10/2015 21:20

I enjoy b-movies, I enjoy formula music, I enjoy some young adult/pulp novels. That's about of a direct answer I can to the question.

Re: "Genre" Music

Applerill — Sun, 10 May 2015 17:17:38 GMT

Author: Applerill

Posted: 05/10/2015 21:17

Gowi wrote:

Fair enough, though on that point,

Quote:

I'm just saying that, in most critical contexts, it's hard for people to take you seriously praising them.

I never understood this; how can we as society herald musical theatre, but then go and critically pan it when it includes heavy metal guitars? This isn’t the first time I’ve heard of such an ideology and there are fine songwriters and lyricists in the genre so it isn’t entirely about technical proficiency (because that would be boring) for fans of the medium. Tolkien was highly regarded in our culture and so is/was Robert Jordan, George R.R. Martin, Terry Pratchett, Anne McCaffrey, and countless others. It makes no sense that such a hypocritical double standard exists to me.

I agree, Gowi, but I'm just speaking for the status quo.

Anyway, my point is that there are a lot of amazing genre films that you don't need a lot of analysis to love. Switchblade Sisters is one of my favorite movies, but I don't have any deep explanation for it. I just think the craft is really great. And that's what I mean by "genre music". Where we don't have to have an artistic defense to love it.

Re: "Genre" Music

Skinny — Sun, 10 May 2015 17:15:45 GMT

Author: Skinny

Posted: 05/10/2015 21:15

I get what Applerill is trying to say, even if he's going about it rather cack-handedly, and I sort of agree. As with books and films, music can also be of great worth purely as a great "genre piece". For instance, Project Pablo's album from earlier this year was a lightweight, shallow release that just happened to work fantastically as a tribute to smooth, Balearic house music, and therefore was a very impressive "genre piece", even if its aim was no higher than being just that - a sort of cheap throwback. It didn't make the album any less enjoyable or worthwhile, but it would be pointless comparing it to this year's universally acclaimed, ostensibly more "serious" releases like To Pimp a Butterfly or Carrie & Lowell when its whole raison d'être was something else entirely.

I think some people see Charlie as some elitist pseudo-philosopher and are trying to use everything he says as evidence to back up this predetermined idea of who he is, when actually he was just asking - despite what many of us argue in terms of an album only being as worthwhile as the listener believes (i.e. the "eye of the beholder" idea) - if perhaps we should (or do) consider the idea that albums could/should be judged not only on our own terms but also partly based on the intention of the creator (e.g. that Project Pablo album I mentioned above which was clearly meant as a fun tribute as opposed to some original, thought-provoking vision of what great music is or should be).

Regardless of all this though, and despite saying that I do find myself occasionally thinking of albums as great "genre pieces" (and often loving them because of that - I adore MC Eiht's We Come Strapped, because to me it works fantastically within the given parameters of g-funk), it's not something I particularly think about - i.e. I don't finish listening to an album and then attempt to classify it, or see it from the point-of-view that it does what it set out to do well; first and foremost I either enjoy something or I don't, and perhaps afterwards I might try to figure out why.

Re: "Genre" Music

mickilennial — Sun, 10 May 2015 17:14:04 GMT

Author: mickilennial

Posted: 05/10/2015 21:14

Fair enough, though on that point,

Quote:

I'm just saying that, in most critical contexts, it's hard for people to take you seriously praising them.

Re: "Genre" Music

MrFrogger — Sun, 10 May 2015 17:10:20 GMT

Author: MrFrogger

Posted: 05/10/2015 21:10

Applerill wrote:

Oh, I'm not doubting they made amazing stuff, or even that they're auteurs; I have lots of their movies ranked among my favorites. But listen to any of the interviews with Ford, and he will absolutely refuse to talk about the themes in his work. And as soon as he finishes one movie, he goes back to work the next day to work on the next one.

Yeah, so Ford disn't like discussing past projects, so what? That's not that uncommon among directors, and certainly not among those as prolific as Ford. But to completely dismiss any themes of his work is outlandish. There's entire books written on the subject. Hell, even the wikipedia article gives a general overview of the topic.

Re: "Genre" Music

Applerill — Sun, 10 May 2015 16:56:23 GMT

Author: Applerill

Posted: 05/10/2015 20:56

Oh, I'm not doubting they made amazing stuff, or even that they're auteurs; I have lots of their movies ranked among my favorites. But listen to any of the interviews with Ford, and he will absolutely refuse to talk about the themes in his work. And as soon as he finishes one movie, he goes back to work the next day to work on the next one.

I don't think there's anything wrong with being a "genre" artist; I'm just wondering if we should even complain if something isn't musically The Searchers.

Also, I love me my uncool dad-rock and power metal. For goodness sakes, I'm about to give a Ted Nugent album a 4/5z I'm just saying that, in most critical contexts, it's hard for people to take you seriously praising them.

Re: "Genre" Music

mickilennial — Sun, 10 May 2015 16:53:36 GMT

Author: mickilennial

Posted: 05/10/2015 20:53

Quote:

(or many other uncool rock and power metal bands)

This is where I stopped reading the first time due to how much pompousness and elitism it reeks of.

Re: "Genre" Music

MrFrogger — Sun, 10 May 2015 16:51:12 GMT

Author: MrFrogger

Posted: 05/10/2015 20:51

Applerill wrote:

In film criticism we throw around the word "genre film" to describe directors like Mario Bava, John Ford and John Carpenter who do their job in almost a workmanlike manner, and normally don't ever talk about "themes" or anything like that in their work. When you watch one of their movies, to ask for "serious art" is redundant, because that's never what they were trying to do.

This almost entirely false. Of course analysis's still happen on the directors work, and of course the themes of their films come up. I actually just finished writing a term paper in which a large portion is on John Ford's The Searchers. Your last sentence in particular is entirely untrue; it is dismissive and awful. The listed directors, John Ford especially, made some incredible films, and to dismiss them with the above statements makes me question whether you actually saw their films in the first place. And To say that they "never tried to make 'serious art'" is just plain wrong.

tl;dr the statement from which you expand on into the main question of the thread is complete and utter bullshit

Re: "Genre" Music

Anonymous — Sun, 10 May 2015 16:38:25 GMT

Author: Anonymous

Posted: 05/10/2015 20:38

'Good' could be put on any music which was made to somebodies hearts content 😄

I think there could be 'genre music' although some musicians may not want to admit. It's hard to say though 🤔