Best Ever Albums

Re: Point of Discussion: Topics

RoundTheBend — Sun, 28 Feb 2016 16:55:41 GMT

Author: RoundTheBend

Posted: 02/28/2016 21:55

Satie wrote:

I'm interested in how we conceive of "experimental" music. It seems like a lot of listeners have a threshold for "compellingly experimental" and another for "wank/pretentious/etc." I'm interested in where these goal markers are, how something being labeled experimental persuades or dissuades us from giving it a listen or repeat listens. I'm also interested if there's a way to come to a consensus of what exactly it means. For me, it seems like kind of a badge of honor that rock fans add to certain albums they consider of a higher caliber as far as complexity and presentation, etc. even when an album doesn't literally experiment with the sound of the genre it's in (for example, the past two Swans albums have followed largely the same blueprint; how, then, could both be literally experimental? what does it mean that we call them experimental rock?).

I'm also interested in this topic. I am curious on why I really like Moondog and Silver Apples (groups I consider to be "experimental") I can only appreciate atonalism or 12 tome music from far far away. I think I know the answer, but I also would find it an interesting topic.

Also sorry for screwing up the thread.

Re: Point of Discussion: Topics

Anonymous — Sun, 28 Feb 2016 11:19:27 GMT

Author: Anonymous

Posted: 02/28/2016 16:19

sethmadsen wrote:

Sorry maybe I'm totaly screwing up this thread... some people have indeed responded to ideas... also why are these ideas not becoming threads? Is it just once a week or something?

This thread is for keeping topics organized. A new PoD goes up once a week so we have time to flesh out perspectives on topics that are supposed to be a bit more in depth. Otherwise this would be a useless mediating thread and people could just post a new topic. The idea is to have at least one thread a week with high activity that goes above and beyond endless lists of album covers and covers more ground than we typically get to in other discussion driven threads.

Re: Point of Discussion: Topics

RoundTheBend — Sun, 28 Feb 2016 10:56:44 GMT

Author: RoundTheBend

Posted: 02/28/2016 15:56

babyBlueSedan wrote:

Would anyone be interested in a discussion about how being musically trained influences one's enjoyment of music? Not sure of a better way to word that...I'm sure some people here play instruments and maybe even make music themselves. I on the other hand have no music knowledge outside of like five years of piano lessons. I know what 4/4 and 7/8 times mean but I would never be able to tell the difference. Basically I'm wondering if that difference makes one look for different things in music or if they enjoy/interpret it in different ways.

Maybe that's an awful idea but I think it could be a cool discussion.

Sorry maybe I'm totaly screwing up this thread... some people have indeed responded to ideas... also why are these ideas not becoming threads? Is it just once a week or something?

I know that when I listen to music sometimes I think about playing/writing instead of just enjoying the music.

Here's one thing that might be interesting to note... I'm a bassist and well for a LONG time I've had a hard time with believing The Doors didn't have a Bass Guitarist because some of their songs actually do have bass guitar in them.

I don't think I would have thought that if I didn't play bass/have an ear for bass. But you can't accomplish certain things on keyboard that you can with strings. Certain tones, sliding, etc.

Compare "When the Music's Over" (Fender Rhodes) vs People Are Strange (bass guitar), for example.

"Source": http://ultimateclassicrock.com/doors-bass-players/

Re: Point of Discussion: Topics

Applerill — Sun, 28 Feb 2016 06:48:11 GMT

Author: Applerill

Posted: 02/28/2016 11:48

I'd like to talk a bit about music's main role in the ars. I just finished reading AO Scott's new book Better Living Through Criticism (which may now be one of my favorite books ever), and at one point the following:

Quote:

It might seem promising— it has, at various points in history, seemed advisable— to plot the arts along a spectrum from most to least formal, which is almost to say from abstract to representational. At one end, closest to pure form, is instrumental music, which is thought to unfold in a space of abstraction, free of the encumbrances of meaning. A piece of music makes no obvious argument, tells no literal story, soars above politics and history in an ether where logic and feeling coexist interchangeably. When Walter Pater wrote that “All art constantly aspires towards the condition of music,” he was making a claim not only about all art but also about all criticism, whose job is to isolate those attributes of other specimens of art that bring them closest to music and are least burdened with representational duties. A piece of music is the limit case of nonmimetic art. It is not about or of anything. It says or espouses nothing. It advances no moral and presses no cause other than its own integrity. Music is to art what its cousin, mathematics, is to science.

I've been thinking about this for the past couple months: Should music be treated and "interpreted" as a Rosetta Stone to art itself, where we see only the abstract geometry of it and how it makes us feel? Moreover, I want to know where the line is between respecting this distinction (maybe even living by it) and falling into the nihilistic ideology of "art for art's sake" (which I personally am not a fan of). I don't want to make this about me, but it's especially intriguing as I've become more and more known as some deformed Armond White/Slavoj Zizek wannabe hybrid thing that seems to only care about the sociological implications of music. Anyone who knows my love of modern classical and "avant-garde" music (I'm getting ready to finish up Hijokaidan's The Noise, which may now be one of my favorite albums ever) knows that I certain do enjoy sound and music on their own terms, but it so often seems inconsequential to talk about them without those "real-world" implications.

To contrast, I'm currently reading another 2016 book on a similar topic called Every Song Ever (it was discussed this week on Pitchfork), and it embraces almost a mix between formalist and semiotic listening.

Quote:

Reasons for engagement could be articulated in a language that isn’t specifically musical, or identified with composers and players, as Copland would have wanted, but rather a language that refers to generalized human activity. Therefore, perhaps not “melody,” “harmony,” “rhythm,” “sonata form,” “oratorio.” Perhaps, instead, repetition, or speed, or slowness, or density, or discrepancy, or stubbornness, or sadness. Intentionally, these are not musical terms per se. You know what repetition is even if you’ve never had the first thought about how a song is written. You know because you experience it in your average day or week. Why is it all right to categorize music this way? Because it has to be all right. Music and life are inseparable. Music is part of our physical and intellectual formation. Music moves: it can’t do anything else. The same goes for us. Everything has a tone and a pitch, and rhythms—or pulses, at least—surround us. We build an autobiography and a self-image with music, and we know, even as we’re building them, that they’re going to change. Most human beings impose their wills on the world partly with and through music, even if they are not musicians. The way they hear—you can call it taste, if you want—is in how they move and work and dress and love.

Re: Point of Discussion: Topics

babyBlueSedan — Fri, 19 Feb 2016 14:42:29 GMT

Author: babyBlueSedan

Posted: 02/19/2016 19:42

Would anyone be interested in a discussion about how being musically trained influences one's enjoyment of music? Not sure of a better way to word that...I'm sure some people here play instruments and maybe even make music themselves. I on the other hand have no music knowledge outside of like five years of piano lessons. I know what 4/4 and 7/8 times mean but I would never be able to tell the difference. Basically I'm wondering if that difference makes one look for different things in music or if they enjoy/interpret it in different ways.

Maybe that's an awful idea but I think it could be a cool discussion.

Re: Point of Discussion: Topics

Gerard1968 — Fri, 19 Feb 2016 11:35:37 GMT

Author: Gerard1968

Posted: 02/19/2016 16:35

Satie wrote:

In scientific terms a hypothesis is proposed to answer a question thrown up by observations. Experiments are designed to test the hypothesis. For the hypothesis to be accepted, such experiments must be repeatable, and give the same result. Music works upon scientific principles, notes form scales, chords are produced by playing combinations of notes in that scale, etc. Ultimately notes in a particular scale sound 'good' together. The observation is that sometimes seemingly random notes can sound 'good' , check the piano on Aladdin Sane, or non musical noise can benefit a composition. The experiment is to play similar notes together, or create similar noises to see if they sound 'good', if they do the hypothesis is held; for it to be proved the experiment must be repeated, hence two 'experimental' albums can sound similar. This may be a load of the proverbial, I'm not a music theorist, I'm self taught on half a dozen instruments. I have studied science to degree level, but this is written without reference to anyone qualified in the field

Re: Point of Discussion: Topics

Applerill — Thu, 18 Feb 2016 23:46:05 GMT

Author: Applerill

Posted: 02/19/2016 04:46

That's the thing: It isn't a binary , and it's not about one or the other being "better". But I think we all fall into both traps often without realizing it, and that's why I think it'd make a great discussion.

Re: Point of Discussion: Topics

Anonymous — Thu, 18 Feb 2016 23:37:33 GMT

Author: Anonymous

Posted: 02/19/2016 04:37

I like t_j's RYM topics and have thought of importing a few clandestinely into this series myself. One thing I think she sort of fails at analytically, though, is presenting these discussions as broad binaries. I think the obvious best approach to music is to sample widely and try to go as deep as you can in things you enjoy, and I don't think anyone would necessarily disagree. To pretend that you have to take a strict party line is weird. Though I do think it could be interesting to see what thresholds different people have for when they feel comfortable making blanket statements about genres.

Re: Point of Discussion: Topics

mickilennial — Thu, 18 Feb 2016 23:27:00 GMT

Author: mickilennial

Posted: 02/19/2016 04:27

I'll take purism over tokenism every day, but both are absolutely moronic perspectives to take with music.

Re: Point of Discussion: Topics

Applerill — Thu, 18 Feb 2016 23:20:40 GMT

Author: Applerill

Posted: 02/19/2016 04:20

I think one important topic that BEA should talk about is that of "purism' versus "tokenism", because I think that both are traps that are really easy to fall into (and I say this for myself above anyone else).
https://rateyourmusic.com/board_message...mp;start=0

Here's an RYM thread talking about this, but here are two personalized approximations of what each is regarding music.

Purism: "'Through the Fire and Flames' doesn't fit the structural rules for power metal, and therefore shouldn't be taken seriously"- My brother George.

Tokenism: "Dur, I don't have time for all these power metal albums when I got Keeper of the Seven Keys dur hur"- Me to my brother around a year ago

Re: Point of Discussion: Topics

meccalecca — Tue, 2 Feb 2016 17:53:06 GMT

Author: meccalecca

Posted: 02/02/2016 22:53

Satie wrote:

I also like the idea of reassessing historical moments/periods in music with more hindsight.

Love this idea too

Re: Point of Discussion: Topics

Anonymous — Tue, 2 Feb 2016 16:58:02 GMT

Author: Anonymous

Posted: 02/02/2016 21:58

I also like the idea of reassessing historical moments/periods in music with more hindsight. On RYM, they currently have a thread going about whether or not grunge really killed hair metal or if it was basically a shift in which bands label executives thought would be cheap to acquire for record contracts and profitable to sell to teenagers. I think that's an interesting one, but there's also some room for analyzing just how political music in the '60s was, for example. The Beatles' "Revolution" is a vague ode to moderation with a chorus about how everything's going to be fine - hardly revolutionary, but people play it against splashes of images of MLK in all the '60s retrospective films. Other examples probably exist. There's also the question of how punk developed. This came up a bit in another thread, where we talked about the spirit of punk, but it seems pretty amorphous to me. For some people, it's working class resistance to neoliberalism in the '80s, but for others, it's right-wing racist reactionary nonsense that took advantage of economic precarity during that era. For others (like me), it's more of an attitude towards music rather than a strict genre classification and serves as the root of a host of genres that aren't particularly sloppily played or reliant on political posturing, from art rock to new wave to post-punk to noise rock and beyond.

Re: Point of Discussion: Topics

RockyRaccoon — Tue, 2 Feb 2016 12:14:04 GMT

Author: RockyRaccoon

Posted: 02/02/2016 17:14

Satie wrote:

I like it! I did a similar PoD thread on the idea of "world music"

meccalecca wrote:

I think this article I wrote a couple weeks back may be a good jumping point for another discussion about the outside factors that can directly and indirectly affect our enjoyment of art/music.
http://meccalecca.com/?p=25150

And a slight offshoot from that discussion, How does our own personality relate to the art which we enjoy? For example, I'm a very mellow person, so I've often struggled to relate to more aggressive forms of music.

I like this too! We had a similar discussion on the semiotics of music and I'd love to go more in-depth with it.

Re: Point of Discussion: Topics

meccalecca — Tue, 2 Feb 2016 12:12:15 GMT

Author: meccalecca

Posted: 02/02/2016 17:12

Satie wrote:

I'm interested in how we conceive of "experimental" music.

You read my mind. I'd also love to see this discussion. Like what makes something actually innovative? And is something avant-garde/experimental simply just because it's challenging or against the mainstream even if it's still borrowing heavily from other works preceding it? For example is all drone/noise experimental?

Re: Point of Discussion: Topics

meccalecca — Tue, 2 Feb 2016 12:07:09 GMT

Author: meccalecca

Posted: 02/02/2016 17:07

RockyRaccoon wrote:

Yes! These are good, I'll use them at some point. Plus the theft one from the other thread is good too.

Thanks Rocky. But wait, there's more..

I think this article I wrote a couple weeks back may be a good jumping point for another discussion about the outside factors that can directly and indirectly affect our enjoyment of art/music.
http://meccalecca.com/?p=25150

And a slight offshoot from that discussion, How does our own personality relate to the art which we enjoy? For example, I'm a very mellow person, so I've often struggled to relate to more aggressive forms of music.

Re: Point of Discussion: Topics

Anonymous — Tue, 2 Feb 2016 12:06:35 GMT

Author: Anonymous

Posted: 02/02/2016 17:06

I'm interested in how we conceive of "experimental" music. It seems like a lot of listeners have a threshold for "compellingly experimental" and another for "wank/pretentious/etc." I'm interested in where these goal markers are, how something being labeled experimental persuades or dissuades us from giving it a listen or repeat listens. I'm also interested if there's a way to come to a consensus of what exactly it means. For me, it seems like kind of a badge of honor that rock fans add to certain albums they consider of a higher caliber as far as complexity and presentation, etc. even when an album doesn't literally experiment with the sound of the genre it's in (for example, the past two Swans albums have followed largely the same blueprint; how, then, could both be literally experimental? what does it mean that we call them experimental rock?).

Re: Point of Discussion: Topics

RockyRaccoon — Tue, 2 Feb 2016 11:54:46 GMT

Author: RockyRaccoon

Posted: 02/02/2016 16:54

meccalecca wrote:

Let's have a discussion what gives an album staying power over repeated listens and extended periods of time, versus that fleeting pleasure of others.

I'll also suggest a discussion in regards to racial/gender/sexuality barriers within genres. Do they exist? Is it more challenging to make it for specific groups? Who's breaking these barriers? For example can white dudes with dreads actually make decent reggae? Are the walls of homophobia in rap breaking down? Is the macho world of metal still closed minded towards women?

Yes! These are good, I'll use them at some point. Plus the theft one from the other thread is good too.

Re: Point of Discussion: Topics

meccalecca — Tue, 2 Feb 2016 11:53:10 GMT

Author: meccalecca

Posted: 02/02/2016 16:53

Let's have a discussion what gives an album staying power over repeated listens and extended periods of time, versus that fleeting pleasure of others.

I'll also suggest a discussion in regards to racial/gender/sexuality barriers within genres. Do they exist? Is it more challenging to make it for specific groups? Who's breaking these barriers? For example can white dudes with dreads actually make decent reggae? Are the walls of homophobia in rap breaking down? Is the macho world of metal still closed minded towards women?

Re: Point of Discussion: Topics

Anonymous — Tue, 2 Feb 2016 03:38:29 GMT

Author: Anonymous

Posted: 02/02/2016 08:38

Mercury wrote:

"If you could marry any member of the rat pack, who would it be?"

Sammy Davis Jr. and it's not even hard

anyway, I've had some disparate thoughts on what a topic re: how technology is changing the face of music consumption and what the artistic ramifications of that might be (like how Spector Sound only came about at first out of an expedience to make shit that would come across better on jukeboxes and radios, except like whatever the modern or future equivalent of that might be).

Idk. A Power Rangers discussion would be cool too I guess

Re: Point of Discussion: Topics

FlorianJones — Tue, 2 Feb 2016 03:22:47 GMT

Author: FlorianJones

Posted: 02/02/2016 08:22

Mercury wrote:

Hmm... The title and OP bring up an interest topic. What is a topic? I've often wondered if a Topic was actually a word or simply a marginalized version of a topping (of which I'm much more familiar.) Even so if we were to look at topics at face value, I'd be hard pressed to name one which has an actual linear reason. And for many topics or toppings there's an issue I've always had about the topic's discretion in its naming. Shouldn't a topic be in agreement with what it is?

My favorite topics of discussion since I was a kid have been things like "Power Rangers", "Where in the World Is Carmen San Diego", "Spice World" (the movie), "If you could marry any member of the rat pack, who would it be?", "Where do you want to live in 10 years?", "Do you think it's true what they said about Marilyn Manson's rib?", etc. these have been topics, for better or worse, that have always interested me.

Anyway, that's my 2 cents on this topic of the day TOPICS. It's a pretty broad subject. But I appreciate the chance to mentally masturbate about it with someone else for once.