Best Ever Albums

Re: 100 Ratings

AfterHours — Sun, 24 Dec 2017 01:32:29 GMT

Author: AfterHours

Posted: 12/24/2017 06:32

creator wrote:

I don't have anything meaningful to add to the discussion, but has anyone read Scaruffi's conscious-centric approach to quantum mechanics and relativity? It feels like he read a few summaries of the subjects and then wrote a book report on them with his own interpretations. It's all very bizarre and frequently misleading.

I haven't. I generally don't pay attention to his views outside of art.

Re: 100 Ratings

creator — Sun, 24 Dec 2017 00:40:33 GMT

Author: creator

Posted: 12/24/2017 05:40

I don't have anything meaningful to add to the discussion, but has anyone read Scaruffi's conscious-centric approach to quantum mechanics and relativity? It feels like he read a few summaries of the subjects and then wrote a book report on them with his own interpretations. It's all very bizarre and frequently misleading.

Re: 100 Ratings

AfterHours — Sat, 23 Dec 2017 20:32:35 GMT

Author: AfterHours

Posted: 12/24/2017 01:32

AfterHours wrote:

babyBlueSedan wrote:

Is it possible that this is just what appeals to you (and other who like him) about Scaruffi? When I read his reviews I can definitely see the patterns in the things that he likes. But his writing just bores me, as he focuses so much more on composition and uniqueness than the emotional impact he gets from the music. Which is fine for some people, but I don't search for albums with certain song structures or textures or whatnot. I'm sure if I paid more attention to Christgau or Fantano or anyone I could gather similar patterns in their tastes even if they describe them in ways that don't necessarily adhere to strict guidelines.

My opinion on this comes from the fact that the only reason I listen to music is because it's fun and I form an emotional connection to what I listen to. I look for things that I find relatable based on my own experiences and well as things that keep my interest. I can't explain why I like the guitar tones Modest Mouse used on their early albums, or why the sound of the drums on Slanted and Enchanted always draw me in, or why Kanye saying "uh" at the start of "Good Morning" will cheer me up no matter what mood I'm in. And part of me doesn't want to know why - if I start approaching music from a more analytical angle I think I would stop enjoying it. Sure, I'll check out highly rated releases and I strive to become more well versed in different genres and artists, but it's not because I simply want to learn more about music or become a better reviewer. I'm just always on the prowl for new music that I really enjoy and can be passionate about.

I don't want to bring up objectivity vs subjectivity again but I think it's important to remember that everyone approaches music with different experiences viewpoints. Some people heard Father John Misty's latest album and heard an incisive take down of modern trends and human vices. I heard a boring slog of an album with a bunch of vague sloganeering without any particularly fresh criticisms. No amount of debate is going to determine who is right, and I don't think either opinion necessarily is right. But both opinions are valuable - they can help others who usually agree with the holder of each opinion figure out whether the album might be worth their time. But a debate about the album where one party is simply trying to convince the other that they listened to the album wrong or evaluated it incorrectly isn't going to go anywhere. No amount of debate is going to convince me that the FJM album isn't terrible, the only thing that can do that is the music - if I listen again I might form a different opinion on it. But even then, I'm not going to listen to an album I don't like over and over just because it got good reviews and I might end up liking it. I listen to music for fun, and listening to things I don't like because others are encouraging me to is not fun.

So I guess to sum up, I don't find it terribly necessary for anyone to defend why they like the Beatles, or any artist for that matter. I love reading gushing reviews of albums because it shows the true passion that some listeners have for music. But any explanation that comes from someone being asked to explain why they like something is probably going to be a bit defensive and not straight from the heart. And I would question why anyone would care that a large group of people enjoy an artist that they don't really care for - it doesn't stop you from listening to the music you enjoy. I agree theirs a bit of elitism in this and it almost feels like trying to make others better music listeners but I digress...

To answer the original question, I've rated around 30 of 1700 albums a 100. I like keeping this number fairly low but also high enough so that others can see what albums really epitomize my taste in music.

I don't know if I'm right or wrong about the sustained appeal/disdain of Scaruffi, it's just a general hunch about the whole thing. Maybe something worth discussing (doubtful), but if so, on another thread...

I think, in general, I agree with you about the rest, but regardless, the gist of it has already been replied to in various posts/ways (if I'm not mistaken), so forgive me for not doing so again...

Re: Scaruffi ... Thinking about it a little more, certainly his views on the Beatles and some of the more obscure acts he champions gained him notoriety and made him semi-famous. So that's a factor in the sustained disdain and/or interest...

It is interesting to note that the older his choices go (such as his Classical, painting or literature selections), the less obscure they tend to get, and the more critical consensus seems to agree with him. So it will be interesting to see (if it happens in our lifetime) if his more recent obscure choices eventually gain a lot of acclaim too -- not that this would necessarily render them any more or less valid...

Re: 100 Ratings

AfterHours — Sat, 23 Dec 2017 15:43:16 GMT

Author: AfterHours

Posted: 12/23/2017 20:43

babyBlueSedan wrote:

Re: 100 Ratings

Anonymous — Sat, 23 Dec 2017 15:40:24 GMT

Author: Anonymous

Posted: 12/23/2017 20:40

AAL2014 wrote:

RockyRaccoon wrote:

If I were a prospective new member of this forum, I’d read this thread and run as fast as I can.

I’m starting to see a bit of truth in Romanelli’s frequent complaint of a sense of elitism in these forums.

You must not have been here for the Nevermind thread then.

I personally didn't feel there was any elitism on this thread but Ive not read everything so might have missed something. People don't always like it when someone disagrees with them but surely this is fair game on a forum like this as long as this is conveyed respectfully. Seemed like that was the case but as I said I didn't read everything.

Re: 100 Ratings

babyBlueSedan — Sat, 23 Dec 2017 15:20:50 GMT

Author: babyBlueSedan

Posted: 12/23/2017 20:20

AfterHours wrote:

Probably because his views and ratings (discounting exaggerations in certain points on his Beatles page), tend to follow a consistent flow of applied and uniform logic (whether one agrees with his logic or not) plus the obvious conviction and persistence in the scope of his work, and so is difficult to discount entirely, and this probably strikes a nerve or sustains interest (depending on one's opinion of him/his views).

Re: 100 Ratings

AfterHours — Sat, 23 Dec 2017 14:40:47 GMT

Author: AfterHours

Posted: 12/23/2017 19:40

AAL2014 wrote:

I guess my main quarrel in this whole thread boils down to one thing. I haven't read every single word of this thread so pardon me if it has already been answered...

...but why are we giving such a big fuck about one music critic's opinion. Scaruffi might be a notable name, but his are the opinions of one man. Just the same as Christigau or Wagner or Fricke or Fantano. Just one person's opinion. It was bound to be that one of them famously didn't like The Beatles or who ever. This is no different than DAMN GOT A 7 LOL.

Re: 100 Ratings

AfterHours — Sat, 23 Dec 2017 14:31:44 GMT

Author: AfterHours

Posted: 12/23/2017 19:31

Antonio-Pedro wrote:

We all knew this was coming

Thumbnail. Click to enlarge.

Um, yeah, of course 🤣

Re: 100 Ratings

AAL2014 — Sat, 23 Dec 2017 14:25:33 GMT

Author: AAL2014

Posted: 12/23/2017 19:25

I guess my main quarrel in this whole thread boils down to one thing. I haven't read every single word of this thread so pardon me if it has already been answered...

...but why are we giving such a big fuck about one music critic's opinion. Scaruffi might be a notable name, but his are the opinions of one man. Just the same as Christigau or Wagner or Fricke or Fantano. Just one person's opinion. It was bound to be that one of them famously didn't like The Beatles or who ever. This is no different than DAMN GOT A 7 LOL.

Re: 100 Ratings

AAL2014 — Sat, 23 Dec 2017 14:17:02 GMT

Author: AAL2014

Posted: 12/23/2017 19:17

RockyRaccoon wrote:

You must not have been here for the Nevermind thread then.

Re: 100 Ratings

AfterHours — Sat, 23 Dec 2017 13:59:09 GMT

Author: AfterHours

Posted: 12/23/2017 18:59

AppleOfDiscord wrote:

AfterHours wrote:

SquishypuffDave wrote:

If I'm understanding you right, you think that there are certain pieces of music with objective emotional depth, and that if people aren't emotionally moved by them, their emotions are incorrect?
That there's a right and wrong way to respond to certain music? Consensus and objectivity aren't the same thing; if there are certain musical techniques that lots of people enjoy, all it means is that there are certain musical techniques that lots of people enjoy.

If I'm asked why I like a song, all I can do is give a description of the music itself, and a description of my reaction to it. I wouldn't be able to "mount a convincing argument" for its objective quality because there's no such thing. I could give a super detailed description of the music, but no matter how much detail I go into, every definition of quality inevitably leads back to each of our subjective values.

It might not be fruitless though, because I might draw your attention to something you personally respond to, and your enjoyment of music seems to be tied to collecting information about that music. Your enjoyment also seems to be tied to the idea of impressiveness and accomplishment, so if I were to point out that a certain musical element was difficult to pull off, or required a lot of thought and care, you might also respond to that. It just sounds like the things other people respond to about The Beatles aren't things you respond to though.

Sort of, but not exactly. Music, when you get down to it, is basically a relay between composer/performer and listener/audience. It's basically a communication/conversation, wherein the composer relays whatever he/she relays (but regardless, emotion(s)/concept(s) always are the foundation of subject(s)), and the listener/audience receives with the goal being "understanding" (just like any received communication or conversation between two or more people/parties). There are tones of voice/instrument and combinations thereof that are designed to relay emotions and concepts, and combinations/ambiguities thereof, and further identified by the amount of effort, pace and rhythm being instilled into the instrument(s) and performance as a whole. Furthermore, there are very successful rules (sonata form and so forth) in fully developing themes and elements of a composition that, if organized and resolved successfully, produce/enhance the sensation of an idea being elicited and developed into an experiential, climactic and/or brilliantly resolved whole (just as in literature there are methods to writing sentences/paragraphs/stories, just like with great speakers or theatrical performers (or film actors/actresses) there are oratory methods to impinge upon and get agreement with an audience, just like in film there are editing techniques and shot composition...).

So, if the listener/audience is knowledgeable/experienced in recognition of such elements, he/she/them will naturally respond to it with greater understanding and their subjective point of view is much more likely to approach that of the composer's. In other words, a thorough or complete conversation has taken place.

I think you have a fundamental misunderstanding of this whole "understanding" thing. I take it you're probably at least aware of Wittgenstein's analogy of the "beetle in the box" (or, shall we say, *Beatle. ha. ha.)? Not only is it theoretically impossible to "understand" the intentions of an artist, it is also impossible to quantify "understanding" relative to other "understandings", particularly in a "linear" fashion;* furthermore, as different participants in this process come to divergent "understandings" we can see that there must be no scientific method for producing direct understandings of the artist's intentions. If it were scientific, it would have produce reproducible outcomes. It does not. Something must account for this divergence, and that common denominator seems to be the listener. Throughout literature, music, and art, there is an idea that certain techniques may be used to reach a certain effect or impart a certain idea, but there is no suggestion that this imparting is necessarily "objective" and I don't think that those who teach these techniques would even suggest as much (in fact, I'm almost sure they don't, being in one such program).

The onus is on you to present to me a piece of music which demonstrates an "objectively" good approach, and explain to be - in detail - what the exact intentions of the musicians composing or performing it are and how they are displayed in the music. Thus far you have said a great deal of things but ventured to explain none of them (or maybe you have - this is a long fucking thread and I skimmed some of it).

I will try not to bring up how some of what have been accepted as the greatest works of fine art have been accepted as such BECAUSE rather than in spite of their ambiguity of intention.

_______

* that is not to say that trying to understand a work is necessarily useless/fruitless venture

Yes, I would recommend reading the thread (or it's relevant posts to the subject), including reading more closely the portion of it that you're quoting. I make no such assertion of full objectivity, that is now supposedly my onus to prove...

I would only say that all art is fundamentally a creative expression of emotion(s)/concept(s) -- each of these elements to greater or lesser degree. This is objective (though could be stated with some variance in explanation/semantics). The perception of quality of these factors (very likely) is not objective, but mostly (maybe wholly) a combination of one's knowledge and experience.

Re: 100 Ratings

AppleOfDiscord — Sat, 23 Dec 2017 12:34:04 GMT

Author: AppleOfDiscord

Posted: 12/23/2017 17:34

AfterHours wrote:

SquishypuffDave wrote:

Re: 100 Ratings

RockyRaccoon — Sat, 23 Dec 2017 11:40:01 GMT

Author: RockyRaccoon

Posted: 12/23/2017 16:40

If I were a prospective new member of this forum, I’d read this thread and run as fast as I can.

I’m starting to see a bit of truth in Romanelli’s frequent complaint of a sense of elitism in these forums.

Re: 100 Ratings

Antonio-Pedro — Sat, 23 Dec 2017 11:37:40 GMT

Author: Antonio-Pedro

Posted: 12/23/2017 16:37

AfterHours wrote:

Oh, Scaruff, you bad boy you [-X

We all knew this was coming

Thumbnail. Click to enlarge.

Re: 100 Ratings

AfterHours — Sat, 23 Dec 2017 11:24:27 GMT

Author: AfterHours

Posted: 12/23/2017 16:24

Antonio-Pedro wrote:

Beatles' "Aryan" music removed any trace of black music from rock and roll. It replaced syncopated African rhythm with linear Western melody, and lusty negro attitudes with cute white-kid smiles.

The fact that so many books still name the Beatles as "the greatest or most significant or most influential" rock band ever only tells you how far rock music still is from becoming a serious art. Jazz critics have long recognized that the greatest jazz musicians of all times are Duke Ellington and John Coltrane, who were not the most famous or richest or best sellers of their times, let alone of all times. Classical critics rank the highly controversial Beethoven over classical musicians who were highly popular in courts around Europe. Rock critics are still blinded by commercial success. The Beatles sold more than anyone else (not true, by the way), therefore they must have been the greatest. Jazz critics grow up listening to a lot of jazz music of the past, classical critics grow up listening to a lot of classical music of the past. Rock critics are often totally ignorant of the rock music of the past, they barely know the best sellers. No wonder they will think that the Beatles did anything worthy of being saved.

The Beatles were not a terribly interesting band, but their fans were and still are an interesting phenomenon. I can only name religious fundamentalists as annoying (and as threatening) as Beatles fans, and as persevering in sabotaging anyone who dares express an alternate opinion of their faith. They have turned me into some kind of Internet celebrity not because of the 6,000 bios that i have written, not because of the 800-page book that i published, not because of the 30 years of cultural events that i organized, but simply because i downplayed the artistic merits of the Beatles, an action that they consider as disgraceful as the 2001 terrorist attacks.

explanation

Oh, Scaruff, you bad boy you 🫵

Re: 100 Ratings

dihansse — Sat, 23 Dec 2017 11:21:03 GMT

Author: dihansse

Posted: 12/23/2017 16:21

Antonio-Pedro wrote:

I didn't know you were an internet celebrity AP...
And don't worry: there's lots of people who like the Beatles but don't need to harass people who don't.

Re: 100 Ratings

Antonio-Pedro — Sat, 23 Dec 2017 11:09:33 GMT

Author: Antonio-Pedro

Posted: 12/23/2017 16:09

Beatles' "Aryan" music removed any trace of black music from rock and roll. It replaced syncopated African rhythm with linear Western melody, and lusty negro attitudes with cute white-kid smiles.

The fact that so many books still name the Beatles as "the greatest or most significant or most influential" rock band ever only tells you how far rock music still is from becoming a serious art. Jazz critics have long recognized that the greatest jazz musicians of all times are Duke Ellington and John Coltrane, who were not the most famous or richest or best sellers of their times, let alone of all times. Classical critics rank the highly controversial Beethoven over classical musicians who were highly popular in courts around Europe. Rock critics are still blinded by commercial success. The Beatles sold more than anyone else (not true, by the way), therefore they must have been the greatest. Jazz critics grow up listening to a lot of jazz music of the past, classical critics grow up listening to a lot of classical music of the past. Rock critics are often totally ignorant of the rock music of the past, they barely know the best sellers. No wonder they will think that the Beatles did anything worthy of being saved.

The Beatles were not a terribly interesting band, but their fans were and still are an interesting phenomenon. I can only name religious fundamentalists as annoying (and as threatening) as Beatles fans, and as persevering in sabotaging anyone who dares express an alternate opinion of their faith. They have turned me into some kind of Internet celebrity not because of the 6,000 bios that i have written, not because of the 800-page book that i published, not because of the 30 years of cultural events that i organized, but simply because i downplayed the artistic merits of the Beatles, an action that they consider as disgraceful as the 2001 terrorist attacks.

explanation

Re: 100 Ratings

Anonymous — Sat, 23 Dec 2017 10:24:36 GMT

Author: Anonymous

Posted: 12/23/2017 15:24

On the subject of the historical-cultural significance of the Beatles: I think they were right at the vanguard of significant artists in the 60s that wrote they own music and had a huge amount of artistic control over their output. Control shifted from studios to the artists themselves. This opened up a world of possibilities for popular music and counter-culture as well. The Beatles remained at the forefront of this for most of their career (perhaps only Dylan made a comparable contribution to the evolution of pop-musicians as self-contained artists) The Beatles deserve their place in the history books for this alone.

Re: 100 Ratings

Anonymous — Sat, 23 Dec 2017 10:11:21 GMT

Author: Anonymous

Posted: 12/23/2017 15:11

CryingGameDahlin wrote:

Michael1981 wrote:

This subjective Vs objective thing seems to often come up in these forums. I think it's best to say that music criticism is both subjective and objective. I.e. the music provides the object and the listener the subjective response to it. So then it's more of a question of what values or assumptions (if any) you bring to making a judgement about if something is good or not e.g. Afterhours' seems to critique rock albums against artistic standards that are also applicable to classical music and other 'higher' forms of artistic expression and is transparent about this.

To debate Afterhours point that the Beatles' work is not of the same artistic merit as Beethoven we would need to point out the ways in which they are (if possible) or that he's applying values and assumptions to the Beatles music that aren't relevant to appreciating this music. To say Afterhours' is wrong because his claims are subjective doesn't really debate the point being made.

Yeah again I think it's how we define subjective or objective, but I do agree with that sentiment that we're all experiencing the same thing but viewing it through our own seperate eyes... with our varied experiences, biases, emotional make-up and personal tastes affecting how we both interpret and absorb it as well as determine it's suppossed importance in any particular regard.

And again I'm not debating whether or not AfterHours is wrong in his assertions because I may or may not agree with his criteria or the nature of need towards a certain measurement of cultural/historical/creative importance in relation to art criticism is necessary or not, again there are no right or wrong answers when it comes to opinion and my own subjective opinion is that particular dichotomy isn't really necessary is no more or less correct or valid than how one values and discusses music and if they do indeed feel there is a right or wrong... nor is he automatically right about the Beatles supposed lack of creative/historical significance because somone personally hasn't been able to cogently express an opinion that fits his criteria in that regard or the Beatles doesn't sufficiently meet the standards of that supposed importance in comparison to other bands AH finds more creative or significant in the wider realm of music.

Again art and the discussion of it is a never-ending path, as long as humans exist it's never going to reach a definitive endpoint and it's about the journey, not the destination. Again, though, that's just how one sees it.

That's all fair enough. There is always going to be multiple possible narratives relating to the greatest albums and artists of all time. But it's still possible and often interesting to make a case for the narratives you think are best and to dispute narratives you think are unjust, without claiming to have the definitive answer.

Re: 100 Ratings

AfterHours — Sat, 23 Dec 2017 09:57:05 GMT

Author: AfterHours

Posted: 12/23/2017 14:57

Tap wrote:

Quote:

intense, psychological, self-destructive, death-defying rushes

one of the noteworthy things about the simpsons is how they would give characters a distinct shape so that you could tell what character it is by the silhouette. I feel like this kind of writing tho, in silhouette, it's just description with no substance, the silhouette could be anything. you could be talking about surfin bird or egyptian shumba. also how good at death defying are the doors really, I'm pretty sure that one dude died. but yeah this is just the dressed up typical bullshit adjective fight, "it's so gopd" "no its actually bad" "but it's thrilling" "no it isnt its turgid" "but what about all of the excitement" "no it was boring" AND NOBODY LEARNED ANYTHING

you can't just build the 100th floor of the skyscraper without any foundation. it crashes to the ground and becomes more garbage.

In the real world I was responding to another user, boyd, who was wondering about The Doors emotional content and why they are different in this wise and why they stand out to Scaruffi, myself, presumably in relation to my criteria and the fundamentals of art under discussion ... and in comparing the difference between a song like Taxman (and the album Revolver and The Beatles), and also relating this statement to their virtual invention of the hardcore/punk genres ... In this context, all of which you, um "conveniently ignored", what I said was pertinent. I love how you don't even repeat or comment about what was said but make claims that don't even exist in order to make your "point". Nice. Welcome to what is known as "what really happened".