Best Ever Albums

Re: Subject me to your favorite music!

AfterHours — Tue, 19 Dec 2017 19:04:38 GMT

Author: AfterHours

Posted: 12/20/2017 00:04

Rhyner wrote:

AfterHours wrote:

Thank you for sharing and being open to discussion. Here is my criteria: https://www.besteveralbums.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=15503

Feel free to discuss/request clarification as deemed necessary.

I've read your criteria page. Here are my jumbled thoughts:

I enjoy music already. I don't necessarily need to know why, or what specific properties in said music causes my enjoyment of it. I'm really only interested in consciously identifying my personal criteria if doing so will enhance my enjoyment of music enough to make the undertaking worthwhile, and I'm not so sure that's the case. I have no clue why I like what I like. It's far from clear-cut. Also, there's the risk (however small) that I could end up damaging my ability to enjoy music. "What ridiculousness!" you must be thinking. How could that be?

I'll explain.

Right now I enjoy music just fine. Let's say I go ahead and figure out why, and identify specific criteria to look for. Now, when when listening to music, I'll be looking for these criteria and judging whether I like the music based on whether I find them or not. But if this becomes a habit, and I always base my evaluation of music solely on whether it has these properties, am I really truly enjoying the experience? It's like when someone loves movies, so they get an IMDB or letterboxd account and start rating all their favorite movies, but now whenever they watch a movie all they can really think about is what score they should give it instead of simply enjoying the experience. Then the whole point of watching a movie becomes deciding on a score for it. Movie-watching becomes a chore in service of movie-rating, and all the joy that got the whole thing started in the first place has been drained out.

And what if I misidentify my criteria and look for the wrong things? Or I identify a restricted set of criteria that doesn't actually represent the totality of what I truly value in art? Either I'll realize that I've done so, in which case I'm clearly not just using the criteria I've identified to evaluate art, and so maybe it was unnecessary to identify them in the first place, or I won't realize my mistake, which has its own obvious problems.

This makes it sound like I'm totally against the attempt to objectively delineate one's art evaluation criteria. I'm really not. This is just me thinking out loud, so to speak. Honestly these aren't huge concerns. I trust myself to avoid any pitfalls like these.

One of the things you say you look for is "emotional conviction", and I think that makes sense as something to look for in art. It's probably the main thing I "look for" (albeit not consciously; I just enjoy the experience when it happens to move me). But you say it doesn't matter what the emotion is. You even mention apathy and boredom. I find that extremely odd. Do you have any examples of compelling expressions of apathy, or boredom?

And then there's "conceptual significance". I'm not sure I totally understand what you mean by that, and especially how it can be present in instrumental music. I mean, I guess there are music theory concepts. Is that what you mean?

When I think of appreciating conceptual significance, I think of philosophy, mathematics, science, logic, etc. Not art. For instance, the most compelling and awe-inspiring concept I can think of at the moment would be Gödel's incompleteness theorems. I don't know if you're familiar, so I'll summarize it as simply as I can:

Some folks were worried that math's foundations were faulty, so they decided to rebuild it from the ground up. Specifically they wanted to avoid self-reference, because of problems it caused. So they created an impressive formal system with two goals in mind: it should be able to derive every mathematical truth (completeness), and it should not be able to derive any falsehoods (consistency). The system they created was so impressively powerful and flexible that they thought they were successful. But there was no way to prove for sure that they were. Then another fellow came along (Gödel) who showed that the system's very power and flexibility made it's own completeness impossible. And not just this specific system. It's an unfixable, inherent problem. Any system that crosses a certain powerfulness threshold (that's necessary to cross if it really wants to be both complete and consistent) cannot actually be simultaneously complete and consistent. You can pick only one. This was a bizarre thing for mathematicians to discover. It went against the entire quest of their discipline. And not only that, but the way that Gödel proved it is so astoundingly clever, it's scarcely conceivable that a human mind came up with it.

Anyway, I've never encountered anything like that in music. Nothing with even close to the same conceptual significance. In fact, I don't think art is at all the appropriate place for that sort of thing. Which makes me think I just don't understand what you mean by "conceptual significance".

I don't know what to say about ingenuity. It seems to me to be an inessential ingredient, neither necessary nor sufficient for music to be good. It certainly doesn't hurt, but there's plenty of music I really like that's not particularly ingenious.

The whole idea of boiling down one's taste in art to a few relatively simple criteria seems, to me, to be a fool's errand. Clearly you've found something that works for you, so I'm wrong, admittedly, but that's how it seems to me. When I think about what it is I like about the things I like, there are a few common threads, sure, but they're far from the whole picture. Some art works for me, and some doesn't. It's complicated, and I don't pretend to understand it.

Here's my attempt to sum up what I like about music:
I tend to prefer music that's the result of a strong individual artistic vision. This means I gravitate toward singer-songwriter stuff. But I like other stuff too.
I tend to prefer more introspective, contemplative music. But I like other stuff too.
I tend not to like dancier, four-on-the-floor type stuff so much. But sometimes I do.

And... that's about it. What works, works. What doesn't, doesn't. It's a mysterious magical alchemy. The whole is greater than the sum of its parts, and all that.

So, is there any hope for me or am I a lost cause?
Either way I'd still appreciate your thoughts on Freak Out!, if you're willing to provide them.

First I find it kind of strange when someone “has no idea why they like what they like” yet makes criteria-related, comparative decisions about it (ratings, rankings and so forth). It's rather contradictory and doesn't make a lot of sense. And then criticizing someone who has this very thoroughly worked out and very thoroughly understands his/her views, as if a state of confusion and low understanding of such things would be more optimum, is rather odd (imo). Though you go back and forth on this in your response, so it’s not a big deal, but I did want to throw the idea out there because I think it’s illogical/flawed thinking.

The only times the “drained out” phenomena you’re describing occurs for people would be when they make an attempt to judge something “objectively”/according to some criteria other than their own. The “drained out” phenomena shouldn’t be a concern if your criteria is an accurate description of what YOU favor, as all you are then doing is simply “active observing/listening” for this -- actively observing/listening to the details of what work of art you’re experiencing and the things about it you like/don’t like in varying degrees. If you’re not doing this, I don’t see how one is very serious about what they’re experiencing, and I don’t see how their resulting judgement is very reliable (even for themselves).

Re: emotional conviction, examples of compelling expressions of "apathy" and "boredom"...

For instance, various songs/albums by the Velvet Underground, Lisa Germano, Leonard Cohen, Low, Red House Painters (slow-core in general) are rampant with such expressions of “apathy” or “boredom” and the like, compellingly relayed, usually with a dilated or majestic sense to them, so that they draw a thin line between apathy or boredom and ecstacy/interminable (false or drugged-induced) happiness.

Re: conceptual significance...

By “conceptual” I am referring to any concept or confluence of concepts being evoked by the artist, whether earthly or metaphysical, whether a dangerous or mysterious circumstance, a relationship torn apart or coming together, an existential crises or spiritual revelation, etc. Again, it is not so much which concept is being expressed, but how and to what degree? How strong or compelling is its expression?

Re: ingenuity...

What you've said about ingenuity appears to be contradictory and it doesn't seem like you understood what I meant.

("I don't know what to say about ingenuity. It seems to me to be an inessential ingredient, neither necessary nor sufficient for music to be good." versus “Here's my attempt to sum up what I like about music: I tend to prefer music that's the result of a strong individual artistic vision.”)

If you re-read what I say about ingenuity you will find that you’re basically repeating it in your description of what you DO like.

By ingenuity I mean, ideally, "an expression that took singular intelligence and creativity to conceive". There are reasons why there isn't another Beethoven, or Orson Welles, or John Coltrane, or Michelangelo, or Captain Beefheart. These are each artists that truly embodied singular visions and are virtually inimitable. I also want to acknowledge that, to greater or lesser degree, each and every artist could be considered "singular", as there are no two that are exactly alike. However, there are degrees of ingenuity and I am most impressed by the most extraordinary and the most singular examples.

Also, and this is key: ingenuity is important largely in proportion to its contribution to the emotional or conceptual expression of the work. Therefore, ingenuity without such a purpose is proportionally less significant to me, and also points to why I stress “singular intelligence and creativity to conceive”. There is intellect and creativity involved, not just coming up with some random innovation that serves little purpose. A less creative or purposeful application can be impressive in ways, but can only go so far. It can even get a good, possibly excellent, rating from me, but only so high before it appears lacking in relation to the most creative examples.

All art is, fundamentally: an expression of creativity/ingenuity (to greater or lesser degree). The words “creativity” or “ingenuity” are interchangeable in my descriptions.

In regards to your "fool's errand" comment, yes, I would disagree. And you are making a fundamental error in deciding that art and its evaluation has to be "complicated" and "can't be understood" or "to understand it is a pretense" (if this is infact how you feel). This is BS that has likely been propaganda from "elitist historians/critics" (and the like) across the centuries that don't want art to be understood so as to validate their own superior understanding (they are the only ones that can understand it). In this sense you are right: you will never get to the point of understanding if you are closed off to the possibility to begin with.

What you seem to be missing is that my criteria is a description of the fundamentals behind all art (including your own favorites) and is all-inclusive. So you are making an error in reading it as restrictive (and any of my lists can go some way towards demonstrating this with how varied and eclectic they are). Simply put, you will not find a single work of art (any genre/form) that is not (a) an expression of emotion(s) (to greater or lesser degree); (b) an expression of concept(s) (to greater or lesser degree); and (c) an expression of creativity/ingenuity (to greater or lesser degree). All 3 are present in all art across the entirety of human history. All 3 are the impetus behind all art, from all artists. Therefore my criteria is inclusive of every work of art of all time and takes my own experiences and knowledge with these into account in my judgments (and in that sense, subjectively, is "fool proof").

If you do not understand the fundamental impetus from the artist and their work, you are far less likely to be aligned with what they're doing while you are experiencing it. Such alignment is likely to be random and not an active, concerted observation of what is being attempted/accomplished, without which, understanding is much less likely to occur.

Furthermore, my criteria page is not meant as a detailed description of analyses, but simply the fundamentals that such analyses are based on. It is also written in general descriptors of these factors because it is describing a uniform criteria for all art forms simultaneously. In terms of seeing these fundamentals in much more detailed application, in direct relation to particular works of art, examples can be found such as with my Citizen Kane review/analysis or Nostalghia review/analysis (see Movies and TV forum), or for paintings, on my "Greatest Paintings" list (Mona Lisa, etc) (see Lounge Forum) or in various other film and album reviews that I have posted or will post here at some point in the future.

Re: Subject me to your favorite music!

Rhyner — Tue, 19 Dec 2017 11:18:30 GMT

Author: Rhyner

Posted: 12/19/2017 16:18

AfterHours wrote:

Thank you for sharing and being open to discussion. Here is my criteria: https://www.besteveralbums.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=15503

Feel free to discuss/request clarification as deemed necessary.

Re: Subject me to your favorite music!

AfterHours — Mon, 11 Dec 2017 22:49:43 GMT

Author: AfterHours

Posted: 12/12/2017 03:49

Thank you for sharing and being open to discussion. Here is my criteria: https://www.besteveralbums.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=15503

Feel free to discuss/request clarification as deemed necessary.

Re: Subject me to your favorite music!

Rhyner — Mon, 11 Dec 2017 22:05:06 GMT

Author: Rhyner

Posted: 12/12/2017 03:05

"Sound good" means just that. The experience of listening to it ("sound") is a positive one ("good"). I acknowledge it's a totally subjective thing, but honestly I don't have any deeper meaning than that.

As for whether music has to be melodic, mainstream, etc. or can be more adventurous and still "sound good", that's kind of one of the things I'm here to find out.

I don't have a strong intellectual grasp on what it is I like about the music that I like. Music, and in fact art in general, is in a big way a mystery to me. Some of it moves me, some of it doesn't, and most of the time I'm clueless as to what about it is causing these sometimes very powerful effects.

Yes, you would probably categorize the majority of the music I like and/or listen to as "within the pop/mainstream/status quo spectrum". And yes, it's probable that the further a given piece of music is from this spectrum, the less likely I would be to like it (at least on the first couple of listens). But what moves me moves me and what doesn't, doesn't. I don't have a whole lot of control over that beyond what I expose myself to, which could shape who I am and in turn affect my taste.

And that's the reason I started this thread. Well, one of three reasons. It's number two from the first post:

Rhyner wrote:

2. Discover new music, and revisit music I may have written off prematurely (most of the music I now love took many listens to grow on me).

But perhaps number three is the more pertinent one for this discussion:

Quote:

3. Become better at articulating my thoughts on the merits and flaws of music (and art generally).

Why do I like what I like? What makes music good, bad, exciting, boring, mainstream, adventurous? Is the quality of music an enigmatic alchemy of ineffable properties beyond the ken of mortal men and women, or is there some kind of scoring rubric to determine what's good and what's bad? Right now I lean toward the former, but there are plenty of people who do seem to know what they like and are able to explain why they like it. I'm hoping some of that will rub off on me if I engage with you folks about the music you like.

So...I can't exactly explain my criteria to you because I'm not sure what they are myself. Perhaps I'm just a musical simpleton. But perhaps if you explain to me your criteria and we have a discussion about that, it could help me get a sense of what my own are.

Re: Subject me to your favorite music!

AfterHours — Mon, 11 Dec 2017 20:01:20 GMT

Author: AfterHours

Posted: 12/12/2017 01:01

Rhyner wrote:

I listened to Howlin' Wolf. Specifically, I listened to Moanin' in the Moonlight twice, then his self-titled 1962 album once, and then the three individual songs you named. I will also listen to the 1997 album His Best, but not until I get to 1997. 🤣

You're right. I definitely hear the similarity to Beefheart's vocals on certain songs. I like Howlin' Wolf more, though. His songs actually sound good. The music is good and the vocals work with it, not against it.

Next up is the 1966 album Freak Out! by The Mothers of Invention. Is there anything specific to listen for with this one? I've heard it at least a couple of times, and thus far it hasn't struck me as anything particularly special, but I'll give it another go or two.

That would be great! Thanks!

It seems like you may be mistaking Beefheart's music as having a different purpose than it does if you think "the vocals work against his music". He is not attempting to make simple, standard blues songs. Also, what does "sound good" mean to you? Can it only be melodic? Does it have to be within the "pop/mainstream/status quo" spectrum or do you also like artists that are more adventurous and expand out from this?

I may say something about Freak Out! but it would be more helpful to know a bit about your criteria first.

Re: Subject me to your favorite music!

Rhyner — Mon, 11 Dec 2017 19:36:46 GMT

Author: Rhyner

Posted: 12/12/2017 00:36

I listened to Howlin' Wolf. Specifically, I listened to Moanin' in the Moonlight twice, then his self-titled 1962 album once, and then the three individual songs you named. I will also listen to the 1997 album His Best, but not until I get to 1997. 🤣

You're right. I definitely hear the similarity to Beefheart's vocals on certain songs. I like Howlin' Wolf more, though. His songs actually sound good. The music is good and the vocals work with it, not against it.

Next up is the 1966 album Freak Out! by The Mothers of Invention. Is there anything specific to listen for with this one? I've heard it at least a couple of times, and thus far it hasn't struck me as anything particularly special, but I'll give it another go or two.

AfterHours wrote:

I will probably post a listing of more specific jazz entries for you to try, perhaps later today/tonight.

That would be great! Thanks!

Re: Subject me to your favorite music!

AfterHours — Sat, 9 Dec 2017 13:01:05 GMT

Author: AfterHours

Posted: 12/09/2017 18:01

Rhyner wrote:

Okay, I can do Rock-Jazz-Classical. In that case, if I'm still going chronologically (within each genre), I guess I should start with Howlin' Wolf. Moanin' in the Moonlight covers two of the three songs you singled out and is his highest rated album on BEA, so I'll start with that.

Ok great, looking forward to it. Date order is a very logical way to go about it. I will probably post a listing of more specific jazz entries for you to try, perhaps later today/tonight.

Re: Subject me to your favorite music!

Rhyner — Sat, 9 Dec 2017 04:28:09 GMT

Author: Rhyner

Posted: 12/09/2017 09:28

Okay, I can do Rock-Jazz-Classical. In that case, if I'm still going chronologically (within each genre), I guess I should start with Howlin' Wolf. Moanin' in the Moonlight covers two of the three songs you singled out and is his highest rated album on BEA, so I'll start with that.

Re: Subject me to your favorite music!

AfterHours — Sat, 9 Dec 2017 01:54:47 GMT

Author: AfterHours

Posted: 12/09/2017 06:54

Rhyner wrote:

It's been over two weeks since I posted anything here. That doesn't mean I gave up or anything. I've actually listened to Ives's Symphony No. 4 several times in that period, and I haven't posted because I simply don't know what to say. I like parts of it. But a whole lot of it doesn't do anything for me. My least favorite aspects of the second movement, for example (since you singled it out as important, AfterHours), are the very things you say I should be paying attention to. "Stream-of-consciousness" music isn't particularly good music, to my uncultured ears. It just sounds messy. I definitely see why you recommend it as a step towards grokking Trout Mask Replica; problem is, I don't really grok it, so for me personally it's a bit of a misstep, for now at least. I'm happy to listen again if you think it will help, though.

Meanwhile, I'll be moving on. Going chronologically, the next work you recommended would be something by Bartók. You've got eight of his works on your greatest classical music thread. Six are ranked, two are in the "undecided" section. I'll go ahead and start with the earliest of the eight, String Quartet No. 3. Even if that's not the particular work you had in mind, I'm fine with over-listening to stuff. But if you do have a specific work in mind, I'll pay particular attention to it, so long as you tell me which one it is.

And I'm going to try to post more often. Even if I'm not sure what to say, I'll just say that I'm not sure what to say. I can tell already that this will take a while to get through each person's choice. Sorry if anyone further down the list was hoping to be reached sooner. But I'll get to you all eventually!

Ives is the most accessible of the composers I mentioned. It is probably too much of a leap to grapple with modern Classical. I would recommend the Rock selections first, then Jazz (or mixed), then Classical (if still necessary). The Rock and Jazz are much closer in sound and emotion. The Classical are more creative/compositional inspirations/blueprints.

Re: Subject me to your favorite music!

Rhyner — Sat, 9 Dec 2017 00:00:39 GMT

Author: Rhyner

Posted: 12/09/2017 05:00

It's been over two weeks since I posted anything here. That doesn't mean I gave up or anything. I've actually listened to Ives's Symphony No. 4 several times in that period, and I haven't posted because I simply don't know what to say. I like parts of it. But a whole lot of it doesn't do anything for me. My least favorite aspects of the second movement, for example (since you singled it out as important, AfterHours), are the very things you say I should be paying attention to. "Stream-of-consciousness" music isn't particularly good music, to my uncultured ears. It just sounds messy. I definitely see why you recommend it as a step towards grokking Trout Mask Replica; problem is, I don't really grok it, so for me personally it's a bit of a misstep, for now at least. I'm happy to listen again if you think it will help, though.

Meanwhile, I'll be moving on. Going chronologically, the next work you recommended would be something by Bartók. You've got eight of his works on your greatest classical music thread. Six are ranked, two are in the "undecided" section. I'll go ahead and start with the earliest of the eight, String Quartet No. 3. Even if that's not the particular work you had in mind, I'm fine with over-listening to stuff. But if you do have a specific work in mind, I'll pay particular attention to it, so long as you tell me which one it is.

And I'm going to try to post more often. Even if I'm not sure what to say, I'll just say that I'm not sure what to say. I can tell already that this will take a while to get through each person's choice. Sorry if anyone further down the list was hoping to be reached sooner. But I'll get to you all eventually!

Re: Subject me to your favorite music!

AfterHours — Wed, 22 Nov 2017 20:06:30 GMT

Author: AfterHours

Posted: 11/23/2017 01:06

Rhyner wrote:

I'm psyched that you're psyched about my approach. It makes me feel like I'm doing something right.

I just listened to Symphony No. 3 "The Camp Meeting" by Charles Ives, #115 on your Greatest Classical Music list. I enjoyed it very much. Not sure how it will help me better acclimate to Trout Mask Replica, or even if this is what you had in mind when you mentioned Ives, but a worthwhile listen nonetheless!

You didn't have a favorite performance listed, so I just used a YouTube result that looked good. I can listen again if you have a particular recording you prefer. I'll probably listen to another recording either way, but if you want to guide me to an especially good one I would certainly appreciate it.

The main source would be Ives' 4th Symphony (especially the 2nd movement), in which a "stream-of-consciousness" of pictures, events, memories and nostalgic tributes of American history emerge and become eviscerated in and out of an unrelenting catastrophe of apocalyptic suspense, savage rhythms and embattled orchestration.

The listed Tilson Thomas rendition (w/ Chicago Orch) is my recommendation. Litton's might be even better if you can find it.

Re: Subject me to your favorite music!

AfterHours — Wed, 22 Nov 2017 19:41:53 GMT

Author: AfterHours

Posted: 11/23/2017 00:41

Rhyner wrote:

AfterHours, I intend to respond to your Trout Mask Replica comments directly at some point, but the consensus seems to be that tackling the album right away isn't the best way to start, so I'm going to go ahead and listen to all of the recommended music first and post my thoughts on it.

Some questions though:

Are there any specific 60s Howlin' Wolf songs you recommend? If not, I'll just look for whatever seems to be the most popular.

Smokestack Lightning, Evil is Going On, Killing Floor are quite good. You could also just try a "Best of"... You should immediately hear the influence and link to Beefheart, though Beefheart took it much further, exploding the blues and voice into largely unforeseen directions, psychological and temporal expressiveness.

Rhyner wrote:

Which Cage works do you recommend? I don't see any on any of your lists.

Keep in mind that there are probably at least 100+ works I am familiar with that I could add to my list, but haven't yet, because I haven't revisited them for a long time or just haven't decided on a rating yet (there will also be many works I have yet to become familiar with that I am sure will be added too, at some point in the future. There are probably at least 500 -- minimum -- 7.8+ works in Classical, and I will probably eventually learn that rough estimate is way too low).

The thing with Cage is he may not have any 7.8+ works (that I am aware of) except possibly his Concerto for Prepared Piano and Orchestra. His ideas tended to outreach his execution, and he was hugely influential towards other (often more talented) composers. He was more influential in spirit towards Beefheart than in direct musical similarity, in that TMR can be considered a massive study on tonality much like Cage's educational pieces (though TMR is much more congested, unrelenting, "human" and expressive than any Cage works I know). The above Concerto is well worth checking out and has noisy, startling passages that do perhaps allude to some of Beefheart's wild modus operandi...

Re: Subject me to your favorite music!

Repo — Wed, 22 Nov 2017 14:51:23 GMT

Author: Repo

Posted: 11/22/2017 19:51

Rhyner wrote:

The symphony is scored for a chamber orchestra of a flute, oboe, clarinet, bassoon, two horns, trombone, bells, and strings (violins, violas, cellos, and double basses). (wikipedia)

TMR was also recorded with a chamber orchestra with a lot of same instrumentation IIRC.

This is my guess at our virtual coffee shop trivia board. lol.
.
Definitely an interesting symphony. Just listened to it for the first time. Listened to New York Philharmonic's version.

Re: Subject me to your favorite music!

Rhyner — Wed, 22 Nov 2017 13:55:45 GMT

Author: Rhyner

Posted: 11/22/2017 18:55

Tilly wrote:

I'm psyched you're approaching this so rigorously. Will be fun to see how this turns out. :D

I'm psyched that you're psyched about my approach. It makes me feel like I'm doing something right.

AfterHours wrote:

Another point in terms of listening to TMR is that it is less likely that you'll fall in love with it (though not impossible) if you...have little to no experience with modern Classical...such as Ives

I just listened to Symphony No. 3 "The Camp Meeting" by Charles Ives, #115 on your Greatest Classical Music list. I enjoyed it very much. Not sure how it will help me better acclimate to Trout Mask Replica, or even if this is what you had in mind when you mentioned Ives, but a worthwhile listen nonetheless!

You didn't have a favorite performance listed, so I just used a YouTube result that looked good. I can listen again if you have a particular recording you prefer. I'll probably listen to another recording either way, but if you want to guide me to an especially good one I would certainly appreciate it.

Re: Subject me to your favorite music!

Repo — Tue, 21 Nov 2017 18:04:50 GMT

Author: Repo

Posted: 11/21/2017 23:04

Rhyner wrote:

I'm psyched you're approaching this so rigorously. Will be fun to see how this turns out. 😁

Re: Subject me to your favorite music!

Rhyner — Tue, 21 Nov 2017 16:52:04 GMT

Author: Rhyner

Posted: 11/21/2017 21:52

AfterHours, I intend to respond to your Trout Mask Replica comments directly at some point, but the consensus seems to be that tackling the album right away isn't the best way to start, so I'm going to go ahead and listen to all of the recommended music first and post my thoughts on it.

Some questions though:

Re: Subject me to your favorite music!

Tap — Fri, 17 Nov 2017 16:32:24 GMT

Author: Tap

Posted: 11/17/2017 21:32

I don't think the point of saying that bit about emotion vs analysis was to say that this isn't an album for people looking for an emotional response, just that analysis is needed to dispel notions about the music being atonal or unstructured. but yeah this analysis is recent, the album has the status it does in very large part from the extreme emotional response it gets from people, on both ends of the spectrum. But I think the analysis shows that this is not arbitrary and is a result of some complex and well executed composition. like it's not just that it's complex, but the specific stuff with cells running at different tempos, I dunno if I fully grasped the concept but it seemed like there was a sort of phasing quality to it and so it's sort of like a thrill ride where it's designed to give you this sense of danger like it's all going to fall apart but it's all engineered to hold together.

I think when it comes to appreciating the significance of music like this, good and bad have to go out the window. I don't like it, don't want to listen to it. But I like that it's a part of the musical landscape.

Though I do have some problems with it re: abusive conditions in the recording and the whole Whiplash hypermasculine idea of the artist requiring brutality towards others to reach the greatest level of artistic achievement, but thats a whole other thing

Re: Subject me to your favorite music!

Rhyner — Fri, 17 Nov 2017 15:50:58 GMT

Author: Rhyner

Posted: 11/17/2017 20:50

Tap wrote:

Oh hey, I don't exactly like Trout Mask Replica but I respect it and will try to add a bit on that perspective. But one thing that I can add here now, I haven't actually watched this yet but I will before posting next, but I've heard this is quite good. An in-depth, 30 minute analysis of the opening track, Frownland.

Link

Here are my thoughts on this video:

The narrator says critics rely too much on emotional descriptors of the experience of listening to Trout Mask Replica and right off the bat, I'm turned off. I don't listen to music because it's technically impressive or an amazing achievement when analyzed closely. I listen for the experience and what it does to me emotionally. So maybe this just isn't an album for me.

Re: everything he says about it being harsh, "not particularly well mixed", etc.: I don't have a problem with that necessarily, as long as the final result is good. I just don't think it is in this case.

Beefheart composed the album on piano without even knowing how to play piano, and then had really good musicians transcribe and play it for the record? I'm not surprised. That's exactly what the album sounds like--incompetently composed bits of music Frankensteined together and then performed expertly. As I said before, that's interesting and it's cool that it's a thing that exists, but that doesn't make it any more enjoyable to listen to.

Re: the lyrics: meh. They're all right I guess. Some of the slightly off-kilter rhyming is pretty good, but nothing that special.

It's complex, the fruit of an enormous amount of labor, difficult to perform. I grant all of that. None of that means it's any good.

And then he goes into great detail about all the different "cells" that make up the "blocks" that make up the song. This just shows what a huge missed opportunity this was, what a colossal waste of all these people's time and skills. If they were going to do something this bizarre with all these jumbled rhythms and keys, couldn't they have made it good? That would have been cool. Instead we have this. I'm not saying it's terrible. It's just not good.

Re: Subject me to your favorite music!

Rhyner — Fri, 17 Nov 2017 14:05:25 GMT

Author: Rhyner

Posted: 11/17/2017 19:05

I asked for homework, and boy did you deliver!

I will listen to every last thing mentioned. It will take some time--there's a lot--but I will get around to all of it eventually. I'm starting with the stuff that I'm already semi-familiar with, which basically means anything in BEA's top 1000 albums (all of which I have on my phone already):

Public Image Ltd - Metal Box
Eric Dolphy - 'Out to Lunch!'
Ornette Coleman - The Shape of Jazz to Come
Frank Zappa - Hot Rats and Joe's Garage <---Neither of these are actually on any of your lists, AfterHours, so I don't know if you think they're any good, but I'll listen to them either way; I do have some Mothers albums that you've listed, though:
The Mothers of Invention - Freak Out! and We're Only in It for the Money
Captain Beefheart and His Magic Band - Safe as Milk <---I have heard this one before, and there were at least a couple of songs I quite liked. I don't remember them by name so it will be fun revisiting it and finding out which ones they are.
Pere Ubu - The Modern Dance
Minutemen - Double Nickels on the Dime
The Pop Group - Y
Tom Waits - Rain Dogs and Swordfishtrombones <---I do like Tom Waits quite a bit, and these are probably in my top four favorite albums of his. (Bone Machine is #1; the other in the top four would be Mule Variations.)

That right there is over ten hours of music. I've made a playlist of it that I'll work my way through over the next couple of days. And then I'll get to the stuff I don't already have easy access to. Meanwhile, I'll work on responding to comments in this thread. Tap, I watched that video, and I'm about to watch it again while taking notes. You can expect a response to it in an hour or so.

Re: Subject me to your favorite music!

AfterHours — Thu, 16 Nov 2017 18:22:25 GMT

Author: AfterHours

Posted: 11/16/2017 23:22

Re: Tilly's post above ^^^

Lick My Decals Off Baby isn't far off from TMR in style(s) and difficulty, but while still excellent, it is far less successful emotionally (further proof of just how carefully composed TMR really is, not to mention Zappa's production work to bring out the proper balance/heft of instruments and voice) ... so I'm not sure I'd recommend it in terms of helping you (because it is almost as difficult but with far less rewards -- even though excellent).

The rest would probably help quite a bit though. Safe as Milk is probably the best start, a superb album, much easier to assimilate -- basically freakish/outrageous, semi-experimental blues caricatures, both satirical and powerful.