Best Ever Albums

Re: An age-old question

badfaith — Sat, 10 Apr 2010 07:03:49 GMT

Author: badfaith

Posted: 04/10/2010 11:03

... An exception to the rule?

I saw today that Blur are releasing new material soon, and in my opinion, they are one of those rare bands who've actually become more interesting with time and age.

When I listen to their early work, they were trying to sound like everyone else, like they didn't really know themselves what they were about. And with the exception of the lesser known songs on the album, Parklife makes my head hurt.

but after this, their sound is more mature, their ideas more interesting, and with songs like my fave 'On your own', more experimental.

(Coffe and TV also great!)

Re: An age-old question

Anonymous — Sun, 28 Mar 2010 22:28:22 GMT

Author: Anonymous

Posted: 03/29/2010 02:28

[quote="Bork"][quote="Charicature"]
I'm wondering what exactly is your definition of "pop", because under either frequently used definition 99% of the albums on this site don't really fit that description in the broader scale of music. "Pop"ular and bubblegum "pop".[/quote]

Valid question I guess. Following the New Grove Dictionary of Music and Musicians[/quote]

This new guy is a little ridiculous, i like

Re: An age-old question

Anonymous — Sun, 28 Mar 2010 22:28:05 GMT

Re: An age-old question

badfaith — Sun, 28 Mar 2010 19:52:52 GMT

Author: badfaith

Posted: 03/28/2010 23:52

Another Hypothesis:

The Brits will probably be aware of recent idea from the our super government of playing a high frequency tone to disperse teenagers from outside shop fronts because it is most disagreeable to them (It's not unneccesary torture,...honest, well, not to older customers anyway, but that makes it ok doesn't it?)... the 'gnat', as I recall.

But this illustrates a good point, that as we age, our ears progressively pack up, losing those high frequencies first, and the more subtle tones are lost, shortening our dynamic range sensitivity.

Is it possible that this may be a contributary factor in musicians literaly 'losing it'?

As listeners we rely more on music we are familiar with, because of that anticipation factor you have when you listen to music, whereby you come to expect the right notes your ears anticipate to be next... further enhanced when these subtle frequencies are lost by the assistance of memory, compensating for the loss of the actual tones. So new music loses appeal, whereas older more familiar music is augmented by memory.

But this could affect musicians, who write music based on what they think sounds good as they write, but without a full range, their music becomes progressively flatter, narrower, and less intereting.

Yep, the future's bright folks!

Re: An age-old question

badfaith — Fri, 26 Mar 2010 21:11:01 GMT

Author: badfaith

Posted: 03/27/2010 01:11

Bork wrote:

badfaith wrote:

I think this is why I only usually end up buying the debut album of a band, then lose interest.

Just a quick reflection. It might be worth abandoning that strategy for finding good albums. If you'd stuck with that from the start you would have missed eight of the albums on your own top ten list.

True, but this is the effect of the slow withering of age.
All my tastes virtually were formed in the bright eyed promise of my youth, when I was an optimistic enthusiastic pop picker with greedy ears.
But successive disappointments of that feeling you get when, having purchased the follow up album of that band you thought would scale the ethereal dizzying heights of greatness with unparralleled vision and creative brilliance, deliver the flacid turd of a half-assed-thrown-together-yet-still-took-half-a-fucking-century-to-release-because-they-hadn't-quite-milked-the-value-of-the-debut-as-it-turns-out-was-just-a-burp-of-creative-talent-shit-pile you stand staring at in disbelief while craddling the broken promise of a record in your hands, and telling yourself "this must be a mistake, they've put the wrong CD in the case" have hastened the ageing process for me and made me largely cynical and distrusting.

So like all old farts, I find myself sticking to what I know more, and weeping for abandonment of hope.

You can fool me once... (oh, now what was it President Bush said again?)
...Oh, never mind.

You get the picture.

Pray for me.

Re: An age-old question

Bork — Fri, 26 Mar 2010 16:10:16 GMT

Author: Bork

Posted: 03/26/2010 20:10

badfaith wrote:

I think this is why I only usually end up buying the debut album of a band, then lose interest.

Re: An age-old question

Bork — Fri, 26 Mar 2010 14:47:38 GMT

Author: Bork

Posted: 03/26/2010 18:47

Charicature wrote:

I'm wondering what exactly is your definition of "pop", because under either frequently used definition 99% of the albums on this site don't really fit that description in the broader scale of music. "Pop"ular and bubblegum "pop".

Valid question I guess. Following the New Grove Dictionary of Music and Musicians, there is a clear difference between pop music and popular music, where popular music is the music most in line with the tastes and interests of the urban middle class and can go back to minstrel and vadueville way before the guitars were taken in use, whereas pop music is limited to describe the music evolved from the mid-50's rock & roll revolution. In this limited area it is, however, the music and musical styles that are accessible to the widest (western) audience. In short, what is played on the pop and rock radio stations, charts on Billboard Hot 100 or similar charts, and is being slaughtered on American Idol, is pop music. With that definition from arguably the highest regarded published source on the matter, 99% of what is discussed on this site DO fit that description in the broader scale of music. The top ten ranked bands on this site are, in falling order, The Beatles, Radiohead, Pink Floyd, Led Zeppelin, Bob Dylan, Nirvana, The Rolling Stones, U2, The Velvet Underground & David Bowie. They are all "pop" bands/artists. Out of the following 90, few are outside the pop genre, with Miles Davis on #28 being the first.

If one limits the definition of pop to bubblegum I agree with you though. Let's alter the term to pop/rock to avoid this confusion.

Re: An age-old question

Charicature — Fri, 26 Mar 2010 14:30:55 GMT

Author: Charicature

Posted: 03/26/2010 18:30

Bork wrote:

It seems this discussion is limited to "pop" music, and there it may hold true.

on this very much pop-oriented site (no criticism intended),

It might be true that there is an age limit, but it only seems to be there within the limited realm of pop.

Re: An age-old question

Bork — Fri, 26 Mar 2010 11:34:23 GMT

Author: Bork

Posted: 03/26/2010 15:34

It seems this discussion is limited to "pop" music, and there it may hold true. The first few albums of an artist or a band is more likely to be ground-breaking and defining for the artist, and the pop industry does not allow anyone over 35 (yes there are exceptions) to come forward (most likely there are fewer attempts too, regardless of that situation).

However, in other genres there are numerous examples of masterpieces being accomplished after reaching a mature age:

- Outlaw country legend Waylon Jennings was 36 when Honky Tonk Heroes was released and continued with a string of his both critically and commercially acclaimed albums.
- Fellow outlaw Willie Nelson released Shotgun Willie at age 40 thereby continuing to define the outlaw movement. Further critical and commercial masterpieces followed.
- Johnny Cash is considered a legend even among people not into the genre. At Folsom Prison, held in high regard also on this very much pop-oriented site (no criticism intended), was released at age 36.
- Frank Sinatra was over 40 when In the Wee Small Hours and Songs for Swingin' Lovers were released.
- Elvis Presley, even though it was in his younger years he helped shape the future of rock & roll, was closing in on 35 when one of his definite career highlights (from both a commercial and critical point of view) were released in 1969 (Ok, he was only 34 years and 4 months).
- In jazz music Miles Davis released Bitches Brew at age 44, John Coltrane changed the direction of jazz with A Love Supreme at age 38, and Thelonious Monk was 40 when Brilliant Corners appeared.
- Blues legend B.B. King was 40 when recording his Live at the Regal.

It might be true that there is an age limit, but it only seems to be there within the limited realm of pop.

Re: An age-old question

videoheadcleaner — Fri, 26 Mar 2010 03:18:58 GMT

Author: videoheadcleaner

Posted: 03/26/2010 07:18

maxperenchio wrote:

Most bands need no more than 3 or 4 albums to refine whatever it is they are trying to do as a band. So we are talking about a system that is basically set out to peak right around 25-30.

Great quote max. Instantly I thought of the bands that have created good albums in sucession and a majority of them are regarded highly (Beatles, Radiohead, Bowie, Cure, Rolling Stones, etc.)

And just back to an earlier comment on Nirvana with only a few releases under their belt: an influential band but I am tentative to give out the term 'legendary' to them. Not disputing what they achieved and how their legacy continues but I think legend is a difficult term to use as you'll get opinions from each side. Likewise with Jeff Buckley, influential but not 'legendary'.

Re: An age-old question

badfaith — Thu, 25 Mar 2010 21:40:00 GMT

Author: badfaith

Posted: 03/26/2010 01:40

I think this is why I only usually end up buying the debut album of a band, then lose interest.

When they arrive on the secne, they've come from the same place you're at in their lives, average schmo's with shit lives, and this comes across in the songs they write, and the manner they present it, you can relate to what it says, but once they've left that life behind for an existence of snorting coke off Kate moss's scabby ass and rolling out of Lindsay Lohan's hummer into the paps while papering their generic millionaire mansions of blandness with wads of dirty cash to show the world on cribs: "...and this is my other garage of Lambourghinis!"
...they've got nothing more to say to me or my failed existence,except if they CAn THroW OUt An ALBUM ABOUT B I T T ERN ESSSSS ANd ENNNNVY!!!!!!!!aaa AAAAaaAAAAARRGGggGgGHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Basically, you turn into Sting or Bono, and then, it's over.

(who do you know who minces about with stupid sunglasses all the god damn time?!)

Re: An age-old question

maxperenchio — Thu, 25 Mar 2010 21:36:02 GMT

Author: maxperenchio

Posted: 03/26/2010 01:36

I would say 35 is even too old- I think most great rock is made by twenty somethings, usually around 25. There is a inherent dilemma in the question itself though- because an overwhelming majority of artists start in their early twenties. If the band is even slightly relevant at 35, it is usually because they put out classic albums in the past... in their twenties. Most bands need no more than 3 or 4 albums to refine whatever it is they are trying to do as a band. So we are talking about a system that is basically set out to peak right around 25-30. Sure you could talk about risk, wide-eyed-wonder, or ruthless experimentation associated with youth, but I think its almost mathematical given social and music industry norms.

Re: An age-old question

Anonymous — Thu, 25 Mar 2010 17:58:27 GMT

Author: Anonymous

Posted: 03/25/2010 21:58

[quote="telefunker"]as for that twat who said you're not great until you've made 5 great albums, i don't know of any artist that has produced 5 great albums.. michael jackson may just about get there in my book, but even that is stretching it

one great song is a lot more than 99.999999999% of artists are capable of.. in my opinion, if you produce a great album, that is really an outstanding acheivement[/quote]

Also seconded, if a band produces just two amazing albums or three great albums, or some combination of amazing and great albums, they're going down in my book as legends in their own right. Thinking back on it, I don't believe I've ever listened to any album and not been tempted to skip the occasional song every now and then. There definately is no perfect album in my book, and there definately are no untouchable musicians out there either (cough, Beatles).

Re: An age-old question

Anonymous — Thu, 25 Mar 2010 17:53:11 GMT

Author: Anonymous

Posted: 03/25/2010 21:53

[quote="cartoken"][quote="harkan"]
and the reporter Richard Kingsmill also says: " I've had a long-held theory that to be great you have to make five killer albums. To be a legend, you have to make more. Maybe very few are simply incapable of such a feat. Those that can, pack out stadiums well into their sixties."
[/quote]

that's not exactly true. Nirvana for example: 1 masterpiece and one very good album, that's only 2 albums, and Nirvana are one of the Legends of rock music.[/quote]

Seconded with My Bloody Valentine, Stooges, and countless others. of course these aren't as popular, just legends to music people.

There's also a long standing argument that creativity is often paired, and likely the result of, dementia. People naturally want to socially "fit" so they have eliminated their awkward, demented, creative qualities by that age, and 35 seems to be a good estimate. This could attach to the 'popularity destroys creativity' argument, because once you are popular, you likely either strive to embrace it or repel it, and either way you're trying to fit into a subgroup, whereas before you were this unbounded, awkard, crazy-as-hell genius, and that again destroys your own special dementia and therefore your creativity. Of course there are exceptions, as bates pointed out, but just an idea.

Re: An age-old question

Norman Bates — Thu, 25 Mar 2010 16:05:11 GMT

Author: Norman Bates

Posted: 03/25/2010 20:05

Neil Young, Robert Wyatt

'nuff said.

Re: An age-old question

Anonymous — Thu, 25 Mar 2010 10:13:37 GMT

Author: Anonymous

Posted: 03/25/2010 14:13

Also to consider is that a lot of journalists and people may pin on one of the above factors to band, regardless of whether it is true or not, to explain why the album is bad rather than admitting they personally don't like a bands new sound.

I personally don't believe there is an age barrier on talent

Re: An age-old question

telefunker — Thu, 25 Mar 2010 09:55:43 GMT

Author: telefunker

Posted: 03/25/2010 13:55

a number of factors could be responsible for an apparent decline in creative output after a certain age. these could be:

- often to establish yourself in a highly competitive market, a great effort may be needed one way or the other.. simply, it's easier to market your 2nd album as everybody already knows you.. if you check the statistics, it's often the 2nd or 3rd albums which have the biggest "first week" or "first year" sales, but they're often not the most highly regarded in retrospect.. but this may explain the "it's all downhill after the debut album" phenomenon to some extent..

- those already established may get bored of music, or find they have nothing left to offer as an opinion.. they might also tire of fame (or with higher levels of self assurance, find their hunger for fame dissipates) and may have already accrued enough wealth as they see it

- increase in age may lead the subject to seek approval of his/her peer group as opposed to that of the generation below, as is often the case with 'popular' music

- popular music is primarily a youth indoctrination tool. something for them to associate adolescence with. they seek indoctrination from the generation before them, too bigger discrepancy in age between fan and artist in this particular art form can make it hard for the listener to relate.. also, since so much of 'popular' music is essentialy just sex (dancing is a mating ritual, most pop songs are about love one way or the other) then it makes sense that the image of the artist is sexy or has some degree of allure.. up until age 35, you probably have more of it.. unless you're james bond

as for that twat who said you're not great until you've made 5 great albums, i don't know of any artist that has produced 5 great albums.. michael jackson may just about get there in my book, but even that is stretching it

one great song is a lot more than 99.999999999% of artists are capable of.. in my opinion, if you produce a great album, that is really an outstanding acheivement

Re: An age-old question

cartoken — Thu, 25 Mar 2010 08:37:21 GMT

Author: cartoken

Posted: 03/25/2010 12:37

harkan wrote:

and the reporter Richard Kingsmill also says: " I've had a long-held theory that to be great you have to make five killer albums. To be a legend, you have to make more. Maybe very few are simply incapable of such a feat. Those that can, pack out stadiums well into their sixties."

that's not exactly true. Nirvana for example: 1 masterpiece and one very good album, that's only 2 albums, and Nirvana are one of the Legends of rock music.

Re: An age-old question

videoheadcleaner — Thu, 25 Mar 2010 07:28:50 GMT

Author: videoheadcleaner

Posted: 03/25/2010 11:28

Richie Hunt wrote:

So maybe this would be similar for art. Younger people take more risks, push the boundaries and create something new and exciting and maybe the best albums in their career.

Good quote Richie. Looking at the bands that I like and their respective albums, a number of them are debut albums by younger or new bands. Also the article said something about before 30: "Is it because you buy more music before you turn 30 and therefore are more likely to be interested in acts of your generation?" Something else to ponder.

N.B.:

Richie Hunt wrote:

Another example would be RF's chart. He takes the least risky option of selecting his bestever chart based on a consensus of music critiques best ever albums. He is older and therefore not at his creative peak say compared to harkan whose chart has some personal flavor, which i refer to as 'harkan juice'.

Somewhat disturbing but good to know my product is out there.

Re: An age-old question

Richie Hunt — Thu, 25 Mar 2010 05:50:15 GMT

Author: Richie Hunt

Posted: 03/25/2010 09:50

I dont think there is a cut off age but there surely is a peak for individuals and their product - I figure there probably is a rough guide and 35 sounds good enough for me but it comes down to what is being produced - ie poetry, painting, music and then the subset genre. Like age may not be as important in folk as it is for punk something along those lines.

I read a study that was conducted on financial investments and age. At the end of the study, it was the younger age group who performed best with higher returns on their investments. A possible reason was that younger people were more willing to take risk and therefore achieve greater returns.

So maybe this would be similar for art. Younger people take more risks, push the boundaries and create something new and exciting and maybe the best albums in their career.

Another example would be RF's chart. He takes the least risky option of selecting his bestever chart based on a consensus of music critiques best ever albums. He is older and therefore not at his creative peak say compared to harkan whose chart has some personal flavor, which i refer to as 'harkan juice'.