Best Ever Albums

Re: Artists with a PERFECT discography?

AfterHours — Wed, 19 Jul 2017 19:49:39 GMT

Author: AfterHours

Posted: 07/19/2017 23:49

sethmadsen wrote:

AfterHours wrote:

@ seth

In terms of listening to something a million times and "learning" to love it or never loving it ..
It is important to know how to quickly recognize whether a work has great depth to it or not (and so whether it would be worth spending a lot of time with). This is best learned by assimilating many of the greatest examples across many different genres. The more one assimilates, the easier such a work is to recognize even before one has fully assimilated it. The odds decrease exponentially that one will waste his/her time.

If one is not looking for works of great depth, then that is perfectly fine (Or is it? I'm not so sure and wonder if such people who might say this sort of thing aren't kidding themselves). If that is the case, one would then never end up assimilating the likes of Beethoven's 9th (or any of his dozens of masterpieces/near masterpieces), Mozart's masterpieces/near masterpieces, Bach's masterpieces/near masterpieces (etc) -- or, really, any of the most incredible works of art across history -- past maybe a "superficial" experience and recognition of their merits -- which would be a damn shame because they also wouldn't necessarily be aware of the incredible experiences and degree of awe they are likely negating for themselves.

Completely agree with your point. And whether it is perfectly fine depends on why they listen to music - is it for entertainment purposes only, some kind of almost religious catharsis (re: Killer Mike), cultural/historical understanding/learning experience, intellectual intrigue, etc. There are probably more noble reasons than entertainment only, and I agree that one is cheapening the experience if that's all they are after. But I also don't feel it necessary to look down on that behavior. I think that's a very Western thought process and there's other lenses worth seeing life through.

Not sure if you understood my point though.

If I understand you properly, your charts aren't based on what you like, rather their actual merits. Which is great. I've struggled at times putting a record on my chart strictly based on their historical influence, instead of it being my favorite. I then decided, well it is my chart, so I'm doing what is my favorite, not what mathematically=great (even if I rated mathematically, the rating was emotional and intellectual connection to the music, not emotional and intellectual strength of the music itself like you did. So my charts are based on a lens of Reader Response Theory (how I responded to the "text") vs perhaps yours is more a look at the text itself and rating it according to the merits directly (almost a Formalism approach, but not quite).

Or at least I think I've heard you say you don't put your favorite records on your charts, rather those that actually deserve to be there due to the merits of emotional and intellectual creativity. Which makes way more sense when I look at your chart, and I completely agree with it.

I suppose what I'm referring to is that sometimes people learn to love something either through nostalgia, social norm, social pressure, whatever... and not necessarily based on the music itself... this is what I mean by learning to like something.

I think this learning to like something was touched upon greatly by many other users - for Jazz and Classical, it's something you either grew up with or grew to like. I grew up with it and then learned more about it. Some don't like it all because they feel it is missing some of that mass appeal (but likely are interested at times with "the greatest hits" selections.

I actually completely missed this reply.

Re: "If I understand you properly, your charts aren't based on what you like, rather their actual merits." ... ... I've already addressed this, but just to be sure, this is very definitely not the case. My lists/charts are based on my criteria, meticulously, uniformly and logically ranked/rated by order of personal preference -- or at least a very carefully worked out, concerted attempt and effort to organize them as such.

I think we've addressed the rest either here or elsewhere, though feel free to ask if there's still anything left to take up.

Re: Artists with a PERFECT discography?

authorunknown — Wed, 19 Jul 2017 10:34:37 GMT

Author: authorunknown

Posted: 07/19/2017 14:34

Interesting topic. Yes, most artist have produced crap on the way, so it difficult to find those who really deliver at least some kind of quality on ALL their albums.

I think there is only one band who has done this over more than 3 albums. This is not a favorite band of mine, but I think they kept a very high standard, and commercial success, over all their 5 albums:

THE POLICE

Re: Artists with a PERFECT discography?

saltysurprise — Wed, 12 Jul 2017 14:15:17 GMT

Author: saltysurprise

Posted: 07/12/2017 18:15

No album is perfect, so no artist can have a perfect discography. However, there are artists who keep up a consistent standard of quality without a single poor album and even some great ones such as:

Kanye West
Frank Ocean
Eminem
The Smiths
Arcade Fire
Simon and Garfunkel
The Beatles
The Velvet Underground

and yes, even Radiohead (Pablo Honey is an above average early 90's alt rock album and Radiohead never dipped below the good quality of their first album)

Re: Artists with a PERFECT discography?

IVANSTAKE — Sat, 1 Jul 2017 18:22:55 GMT

Author: IVANSTAKE

Posted: 07/01/2017 22:22

I would say Kendrick Lamar, he had never made a bad album. And TPAB is just a piece of art...

Re: Artists with a PERFECT discography?

AfterHours — Sat, 1 Jul 2017 16:12:45 GMT

Author: AfterHours

Posted: 07/01/2017 20:12

sethmadsen wrote:

Well said - I agree.

Sometimes I get lazy with my words and just assume people know what I'm saying. Sorry for wasting that time, but at the same time, the discovery was fun and an enjoyable discussion. For me at least.

Me too. I always enjoy legit discussion about music/art 😄

Re: Artists with a PERFECT discography?

RoundTheBend — Sat, 1 Jul 2017 15:41:33 GMT

Author: RoundTheBend

Posted: 07/01/2017 19:41

AfterHours wrote:

sethmadsen wrote:

AfterHours wrote:

sethmadsen wrote:

[q uote="AfterHours"][q uote="sethmadsen"]RE : only 4 hours.

Yes - I've listened to like 3 symphonies, Hungarian dances and Requiem. There's likely a tad more - but I'm pretty sure that's enough to assess whether I like an artist or not (at least in the current mind frame - sure music changes as you age).

I mean I think it is enough to assess whether I should spend more time on it. BUT... as you showed me, perhaps I wasn't listening to the right recordings.

IDK - if I were to listen to all of VU's work, that'd likely be no more than 5 hours. 5 hours into something doesn't make you an expert, but does give you a pretty damn good idea what it's like.

But I do agree that listening to something 20 times will likely give you better perspective into something and you might actually gain appreciation for it strictly out of familiarity, even if it is terrible.

Yes, maybe to decide if one would like to continue with the work any further, I suppose. But I would also say that it is impossible to truly assimilate most of the greatest works of art with such limited familiarity, so is one really deciding about the actual work at all? Or just deciding based on a limited perception of all it has to offer that he doesn't know he's ignorant of up to that point?

This is a toughy - at first glance I completely and totally agree.

It kind of reminds me of the discussion going on in the Limp Bizkit discussion (concepts, no where near comparing the two artists). See the quote especially about interpretations of art and there's no such thing as bad art.

I think sometimes people like a work out of shear familiarity with it. They've grown to love it. And there's nothing wrong with that - it's just that sometimes the merit of it alone isn't that great. (speaking again in concept/generalities, not directly at Brahms).

For my aesthetic, I like the pop element - even if one of the greatest works of art. To me, a great work of art is required to have that element as to truly touch humanity. BUT - of course there is immense value in things that aren't immediately appealing. I'm not saying that either.

And yes, you could spend 95747 hours assimilating a piece of art and still not fully understand everything about it. And that is amazing. But you could also spend 95747 hours on a piece of art, still not fully understand everything about it, and STILL think it is garbage - and maybe it is better to say, it doesn't speak to your aesthetic/doesn't really impress anything special upon you - likely because it has no personal meaning (catharsis) to you.

I think it's dubious to say that pop music is "truly touching humanity" (if that's what you're saying).
Almost all music with a strong pop element is forgotten after a year or so, and is rarely the art or music people truly care about with the most depth of feeling/admiration.

Artists such as Beethoven and Brahms (and many others) mastered the most successful, fundamental traits that have proven to generate emotional/conceptual depth (or as close as one can call such a thing "proven" or "objective"). They were geniuses at developing ideas, through a profound, layered extension of parts into an increasingly greater, integrated whole.

With the vast majority of pop music, one is listening to music that limits its own development and generates usually far less depth in the name of gaining familiarity quickly enough to be recognizable to many listeners in the shortest amount of time so it can be sold in volume. On top of that, its expressions are usually derivative, lacking much creativity, and usually lacking personal conviction and/or a substantial degree of experiential expression. All tolled, such a combination of mitigating factors (which is true in probably 99% of cases) almost always leads to mediocre emotional/conceptual depth at best.

I agree with what you're saying but only to the extent that it has a memorable surface element to it (which you mention), but the full work and all it is doing is very far from "pop". Its astounding compositional integration of motives/parts, its density and extended development of cyclic form (in turn influencing scores of future symphonies) and its ingenius rapid-fire fluctuation with emotional duality -- is very unlikely to be digested/assimilated by the general public/average inexperienced music listener and by one listening to it as "pop".

I absolutely agree that art must be relatable. But I would also say "relating" (or "assimilating") is also an ability that is improved by an increase in knowledge/experience in music/art.

Beethoven definitely hit the jackpot between the universal and personal (simultaneously). The main reason people don't know Schoenberg is because they haven't continued their knowledge/experiential development along the course of music history past the Romantic period, in order to be able to adequately assimilate his work. This does not mean if everyone did so they would all love Schoenberg, but it does mean that they would be much more likely to if they did, and he would be much more popular. There is a certain point (approx post-Wagner) where music theories became too difficult for the general public to easily understand without being composers themselves, so to that degree I agree with what you're saying. But also, any intelligent person could learn, assimilate and appreciate Schoenberg. The learning curve is a bit steeper than what they're familiar with, so they don't usually put forth the effort.

You're revised definition I don't necessarily disagree with.

sethmadsen wrote:

I mean the dude wrote Christian music because that was what was part of his culture and, hate to say it, what "sold". I'm not saying he was a sell out by any means, and was religious himself, so he really was just a part of a web of culture and that was the end result. But if Bach wrote atonal music in his time, something tells me he would have been forgotten. Time and place - the part of the web that you are influencing is likely just as important (and is why I still believe The Beatles are much more than just a pop group due to their massive influence in that web - this time referring to the Genre... 🤣 ).

It's called New Historicism.

[/quote]

Well said - I agree.

Sometimes I get lazy with my words and just assume people know what I'm saying. Sorry for wasting that time, but at the same time, the discovery was fun and an enjoyable discussion. For me at least.

Re: Artists with a PERFECT discography?

AfterHours — Sat, 1 Jul 2017 15:36:35 GMT

Author: AfterHours

Posted: 07/01/2017 19:36

sethmadsen wrote:

AfterHours wrote:

sethmadsen wrote:

AfterHours wrote:

[q uote="sethmadsen"]RE : only 4 hours.

Yes - I've listened to like 3 symphonies, Hungarian dances and Requiem. There's likely a tad more - but I'm pretty sure that's enough to assess whether I like an artist or not (at least in the current mind frame - sure music changes as you age).

I mean I think it is enough to assess whether I should spend more time on it. BUT... as you showed me, perhaps I wasn't listening to the right recordings.

IDK - if I were to listen to all of VU's work, that'd likely be no more than 5 hours. 5 hours into something doesn't make you an expert, but does give you a pretty damn good idea what it's like.

But I do agree that listening to something 20 times will likely give you better perspective into something and you might actually gain appreciation for it strictly out of familiarity, even if it is terrible.

sethmadsen wrote:

Otherwise I agree with all your points. I'm in no way saying pop music in the form of Backstreet Boys is the greatest form of music. Not saying that at all. But what I am saying is there is a reason why like 5% of today's population even knows who Arnold Schönberg was, yet I'd wager 90% know who Beethoven was. Some of it has to do with what you've already said, but my stance is that he also wrote music (intentional or not) that appeals to the masses.

Beethoven definitely hit the jackpot between the universal and personal (simultaneously). The main reason people don't know Schoenberg is because they haven't continued their knowledge/experiential development along the course of music history past the Romantic period, in order to be able to adequately assimilate his work. This does not mean if everyone did so they would all love Schoenberg, but it does mean that they would be much more likely to if they did, and he would be much more popular. There is a certain point (approx post-Wagner) where music theories became too difficult for the general public to easily understand without being composers themselves, so to that degree I agree with what you're saying. But also, any intelligent person could learn, assimilate and appreciate Schoenberg. The learning curve is a bit steeper than what they're familiar with, so they don't usually put forth the effort.

sethmadsen wrote:

Perhaps there is a better word for it, but I've always understood pop in the more broad sense of the term, to mean exactly what I said above. Then there's the pop genre, and that's the only thing most people think of if I use the word pop, and I probably only focus on that genre like 5% of any musical discussion I have, because like it or not, it is part of our humanity - and historically back to the time of Bach.

You're revised definition I don't necessarily disagree with.

sethmadsen wrote:

Re: Artists with a PERFECT discography?

RoundTheBend — Sat, 1 Jul 2017 15:26:25 GMT

Author: RoundTheBend

Posted: 07/01/2017 19:26

AfterHours wrote:

Re: Artists with a PERFECT discography?

RoundTheBend — Sat, 1 Jul 2017 15:13:53 GMT

Author: RoundTheBend

Posted: 07/01/2017 19:13

AfterHours wrote:

sethmadsen wrote:

AfterHours wrote:

sethmadsen wrote:

RE : only 4 hours.

Yes - I've listened to like 3 symphonies, Hungarian dances and Requiem. There's likely a tad more - but I'm pretty sure that's enough to assess whether I like an artist or not (at least in the current mind frame - sure music changes as you age).

I mean I think it is enough to assess whether I should spend more time on it. BUT... as you showed me, perhaps I wasn't listening to the right recordings.

IDK - if I were to listen to all of VU's work, that'd likely be no more than 5 hours. 5 hours into something doesn't make you an expert, but does give you a pretty damn good idea what it's like.

But I do agree that listening to something 20 times will likely give you better perspective into something and you might actually gain appreciation for it strictly out of familiarity, even if it is terrible.

When I say pop element, I mean Beethoven's 5th. There's nothing more pop than that in the sense that it is a very memorable short short short long rhythm and melody. It is easy to digest. This is what I mean by pop music - music that is easy to digest and easy to relate to. Good art, in my opinion, requires catharsis, and if the "general public" can't relate to it at all, well then I consider that a loss, not a gain when reviewing music.

Otherwise I agree with all your points. I'm in no way saying pop music in the form of Backstreet Boys is the greatest form of music. Not saying that at all. But what I am saying is there is a reason why like 5% of today's population even knows who Arnold Schönberg was, yet I'd wager 90% know who Beethoven was. Some of it has to do with what you've already said, but my stance is that he also wrote music (intentional or not) that appeals to the masses.

Perhaps there is a better word for it, but I've always understood pop in the more broad sense of the term, to mean exactly what I said above. Then there's the pop genre, and that's the only thing most people think of if I use the word pop, and I probably only focus on that genre like 5% of any musical discussion I have, because like it or not, it is part of our humanity - and historically back to the time of Bach.

I mean the dude wrote Christian music because that was what was part of his culture and, hate to say it, what "sold". I'm not saying he was a sell out by any means, and was religious himself, so he really was just a part of a web of culture and that was the end result. But if Bach wrote atonal music in his time, something tells me he would have been forgotten. Time and place - the part of the web that you are influencing is likely just as important (and is why I still believe The Beatles are much more than just a pop group due to their massive influence in that web - this time referring to the Genre... 🤣 ).

It's called New Historicism.

Re: Artists with a PERFECT discography?

Lachapelle — Sat, 1 Jul 2017 00:20:45 GMT

Author: Lachapelle

Posted: 07/01/2017 04:20

As far as hip hop is concerned..

Atmosphere

Buck 65

Brother Ali

Eyedea & Abilities

Jurassic 5

The Roots

MF Doom

Run The Jewels

Kendrick Lamar

I'm sure I'm forgetting a bunch..

Lots of others I can think of but I only included artists with 3 or more albums.

Re: Artists with a PERFECT discography?

glynspsa — Fri, 30 Jun 2017 18:47:15 GMT

Author: glynspsa

Posted: 06/30/2017 22:47

Love and the talking heads are pretty impressive as well

Re: Artists with a PERFECT discography?

glynspsa — Fri, 30 Jun 2017 18:46:15 GMT

Author: glynspsa

Posted: 06/30/2017 22:46

FUNK Queen Betty Davis has a perfect though small discography

Re: Artists with a PERFECT discography?

AfterHours — Fri, 30 Jun 2017 15:25:21 GMT

Author: AfterHours

Posted: 06/30/2017 19:25

@ seth

In terms of listening to something a million times and "learning" to love it or never loving it ..
It is important to know how to quickly recognize whether a work has great depth to it or not (and so whether it would be worth spending a lot of time with). This is best learned by assimilating many of the greatest examples across many different genres. The more one assimilates, the easier such a work is to recognize even before one has fully assimilated it. The odds decrease exponentially that one will waste his/her time.

If one is not looking for works of great depth, then that is perfectly fine (Or is it? I'm not so sure and wonder if such people who might say this sort of thing aren't kidding themselves). If that is the case, one would then never end up assimilating the likes of Beethoven's 9th (or any of his dozens of masterpieces/near masterpieces), Mozart's masterpieces/near masterpieces, Bach's masterpieces/near masterpieces (etc) -- or, really, any of the most incredible works of art across history -- past maybe a "superficial" experience and recognition of their merits -- which would be a damn shame because they also wouldn't necessarily be aware of the incredible experiences and degree of awe they are likely negating for themselves.

Re: Artists with a PERFECT discography?

AfterHours — Fri, 30 Jun 2017 15:07:00 GMT

Author: AfterHours

Posted: 06/30/2017 19:07

sethmadsen wrote:

AfterHours wrote:

sethmadsen wrote:

RE: only 4 hours.

Yes - I've listened to like 3 symphonies, Hungarian dances and Requiem. There's likely a tad more - but I'm pretty sure that's enough to assess whether I like an artist or not (at least in the current mind frame - sure music changes as you age).

I mean I think it is enough to assess whether I should spend more time on it. BUT... as you showed me, perhaps I wasn't listening to the right recordings.

IDK - if I were to listen to all of VU's work, that'd likely be no more than 5 hours. 5 hours into something doesn't make you an expert, but does give you a pretty damn good idea what it's like.

But I do agree that listening to something 20 times will likely give you better perspective into something and you might actually gain appreciation for it strictly out of familiarity, even if it is terrible.

Re: Artists with a PERFECT discography?

AfterHours — Fri, 30 Jun 2017 01:54:00 GMT

Author: AfterHours

Posted: 06/30/2017 05:54

sethmadsen wrote:

AfterHours wrote:

sethmadsen wrote:

Ain't that the truth. A bad recording can suck the life out of any piece. Just started the YouTube recording you posted and it does have more life than what I sampled for a moment to remember the piece in spotify by leaps and bounds.

I suppose subtlety isn't something I adore in art (Yes, I took it too far with the carpenters... hehe, but as you can see I don't appreciate subtlety, hehe). It has it's place and sometimes I feel Brahms is very subtle.

The recording you suggested however isn't as subtle as those I've heard in the past, so I appreciate you pointing me in that direction. Taking it a step forward, classical music (well most music) is best live, and now that I think of it, I've never heard any Brahms live.

Understood. Brahms' 3rd and 4th Symphonies are especially ambiguous, applying combinations of melody, theme, tonalities (etc) (in the same conveyance) that turn its musical phrases into not just a single plane of emotion, but into enigmatic, emotional dualities (even seemingly incongruous ones). The employment of "cyclic form" throughout every part of the 3rd and 4th expands on this even more, turning into an expansive architecture of "reverberating" lyricism and multi-faceted, enigmatic expressions -- each of its movements, and all its fragments and parts inside its movements, echoing, alluding to and expanding upon all its other parts (before, during and after they've more clearly been presented in the work) from the beginning of the symphony to the end. Overall, the work becomes an intensely reflective prism.

If under-recognized/under-assimilated, this enigma can appear at first to be a lack of clear, purposeful drive and expression, but once the whole panorama starts coming to view it becomes increasingly evident how much conviction and compositional intricacy was employed by the artist, and the overall effect is quite incredible and overwhelming.

Thanks for the tip/"what to look for". Understanding something is half the battle sometimes.

Anytime 😄 Emotionally, perhaps the key for his 4th is that its pieces tend to be immersed in the continual existential query of an outcast questioning his place among others and the world, and languished in a wilting despair, though frequently juxtaposed by a titanic urge towards triumph/release from entrapment. (Or something similar to all that). Throughout, its increases in momentum and climaxes are "double-edged" in that they always seem (even if only somewhat at times) mitigated by this sense of counter-pressure/oppression. Due to this, there is a sense of suppressed emotional release and effort at every turn, an accumulating tension in every move and thrust and subdued sweep of the orchestra. So as its cyclic form keeps generating (while both regenerating its previous themes and alluding to its future ones) the culminating impact is tremendous, only adding to the incredible architectural thrust and power of the finale (which is also an assimilation, variation and combination of the previous 3 movements).

Re: Artists with a PERFECT discography?

RoundTheBend — Fri, 30 Jun 2017 00:59:13 GMT

Author: RoundTheBend

Posted: 06/30/2017 04:59

AfterHours wrote:

sethmadsen wrote:

RE: only 4 hours.

Yes - I've listened to like 3 symphonies, Hungarian dances and Requiem. There's likely a tad more - but I'm pretty sure that's enough to assess whether I like an artist or not (at least in the current mind frame - sure music changes as you age).

I mean I think it is enough to assess whether I should spend more time on it. BUT... as you showed me, perhaps I wasn't listening to the right recordings.

IDK - if I were to listen to all of VU's work, that'd likely be no more than 5 hours. 5 hours into something doesn't make you an expert, but does give you a pretty damn good idea what it's like.

But I do agree that listening to something 20 times will likely give you better perspective into something and you might actually gain appreciation for it strictly out of familiarity, even if it is terrible.

Re: Artists with a PERFECT discography?

RoundTheBend — Fri, 30 Jun 2017 00:53:18 GMT

Author: RoundTheBend

Posted: 06/30/2017 04:53

AfterHours wrote:

sethmadsen wrote:

Thanks for the tip/"what to look for". Understanding something is half the battle sometimes.

Re: Artists with a PERFECT discography?

AAL2014 — Thu, 29 Jun 2017 12:17:16 GMT

Author: AAL2014

Posted: 06/29/2017 16:17

Merely going by Perfect in this thread meaning every album is great and worth listening to, so far I can't help but say Kendrick Lamar. DAMN. was tough for me at first, but it proved to me that I will probably be able to like anything that Kendrick releases in the future. Very unlike TPAB which is one of my top 20 of all time, but I came out liking it a lot anyway. Keep going, Kendrick.

Jimi Hendrix Experience as well, mentioned before but those records don't get old.

Tool's 4 albums are all worth listening to. They all have slightly different moods.

Velvet Underground for the same reasoning as Tool.

I'll throw an honorable mention to Mastodon. H/M because I'm not saying they have a perfect disc. but I enjoy all 7 of their albums, and can be in the mood for any given one.

Re: Artists with a PERFECT discography?

AfterHours — Thu, 29 Jun 2017 00:48:21 GMT

Author: AfterHours

Posted: 06/29/2017 04:48

sethmadsen wrote:

RE: only 4 hours.

Yes - I've listened to like 3 symphonies, Hungarian dances and Requiem. There's likely a tad more - but I'm pretty sure that's enough to assess whether I like an artist or not (at least in the current mind frame - sure music changes as you age).

I mean I think it is enough to assess whether I should spend more time on it. BUT... as you showed me, perhaps I wasn't listening to the right recordings.

IDK - if I were to listen to all of VU's work, that'd likely be no more than 5 hours. 5 hours into something doesn't make you an expert, but does give you a pretty damn good idea what it's like.

But I do agree that listening to something 20 times will likely give you better perspective into something and you might actually gain appreciation for it strictly out of familiarity, even if it is terrible.

Re: Artists with a PERFECT discography?

AfterHours — Thu, 29 Jun 2017 00:44:02 GMT

Author: AfterHours

Posted: 06/29/2017 04:44

sethmadsen wrote: