Best Ever Albums

Re: Is "Good Music" an Absolute?

Bork — Wed, 21 Apr 2010 08:13:07 GMT

Author: Bork

Posted: 04/21/2010 12:13

maxperenchio wrote:

does it? are those really your views? how well do you know yourself? can sarcasm be measured objectively?

Yes. Yes, albeit intentionally a bit harshly stated. Pretty good, why do you ask? No.

Re: Is "Good Music" an Absolute?

maxperenchio — Tue, 20 Apr 2010 22:57:45 GMT

Author: maxperenchio

Posted: 04/21/2010 02:57

Bork wrote:

Either way, it's bullshit in any case. If it was an expression of an actual opinion I'll let that stand for itself, if it was sarcasm it is still bullshit as in that case it is nothing but a smartass comment that takes away from the serious intentions of the original post and the discussion that could follow.

does it? are those really your views? how well do you know yourself? can sarcasm be measured objectively?

Re: Is "Good Music" an Absolute?

HyperBully — Fri, 16 Apr 2010 22:23:43 GMT

Author: HyperBully

Posted: 04/17/2010 02:23

harkan wrote:

Good music could not be an absolute.

This site would not exist if 'good' music was an absolute. One man's trash is another man's treasure.

My personal example is Animal Collective's Merriweather Post Pavilion. Last year, this was applauded as the best album of the year and almost of the decade. I tried several times to listen to the album and look at its greatness but I couldn't. Maybe my young adult ears have not developed far enough but to me it was not 'good' music.

'Good' music is personal. A general consensus could be taken that the Beatles are good but I know people, young and old, that cannot stand their music. Personal taste. 'Good' in an artistic merit is like other artforms. Films like Godfather and 2001 are considered 'good' but not by everyone.

Artistry is one thing, but a deep seated connection is also needed. Even though the Cure can release crap, I regard them as 'good' and with an artform to their work. On the other hand, I don't like Bob Dylan's music but I can consider his artistry in his work.

I completely agree. Except for the part about Bob Dylan. I just can't understand how you don't like his music. That little disagreement right there was an example of how good music is never truly absolute. We all have our opinions, and the entire purpose of this site is to share and compare them.

Re: Is "Good Music" an Absolute?

Elston — Fri, 16 Apr 2010 21:02:24 GMT

Author: Elston

Posted: 04/17/2010 01:02

'Greatest of' lists do a good job of presenting sound aesthetic experiences, albums that are cohesive, well-rounded, and just you know, good. So in a way I do believe in aesthetic excellence, but I don't think it matters much because we never fall in love with the 'right' albums. Usually when we like an album it's not because of how 'good' it is, more often it's because it struck a chord, or just the tone of it feels right. It can even be a simple matter of hearing the right thing at the right time. Love of music isn't rational I suppose, so even if there are absolutes it wouldn't make a difference. Are there absolutes? If you go looking for them you may miss out on actually enjoying the music, on actually hearing it.

Re: Is "Good Music" an Absolute?

teodor_matz — Fri, 16 Apr 2010 14:26:38 GMT

Author: teodor_matz

Posted: 04/16/2010 18:26

It's a very hard question. I think music can be good in a lot of different ways. VU and Nas is good in a very intelegent way and i love them for that. But i also love silly eurodisco just because it's nice to listen to.

Re: Is "Good Music" an Absolute?

videoheadcleaner — Thu, 15 Apr 2010 22:49:18 GMT

Author: videoheadcleaner

Posted: 04/16/2010 02:49

Good music could not be an absolute.

This site would not exist if 'good' music was an absolute. One man's trash is another man's treasure.

My personal example is Animal Collective's Merriweather Post Pavilion. Last year, this was applauded as the best album of the year and almost of the decade. I tried several times to listen to the album and look at its greatness but I couldn't. Maybe my young adult ears have not developed far enough but to me it was not 'good' music.

'Good' music is personal. A general consensus could be taken that the Beatles are good but I know people, young and old, that cannot stand their music. Personal taste. 'Good' in an artistic merit is like other artforms. Films like Godfather and 2001 are considered 'good' but not by everyone.

Artistry is one thing, but a deep seated connection is also needed. Even though the Cure can release crap, I regard them as 'good' and with an artform to their work. On the other hand, I don't like Bob Dylan's music but I can consider his artistry in his work.

Re: Is "Good Music" an Absolute?

Anonymous — Thu, 15 Apr 2010 20:03:05 GMT

Author: Anonymous

Posted: 04/16/2010 00:03

[quote="Bork"]if it was sarcasm it is still bullshit as in that case it is nothing but a smartass comment that takes away from the serious intentions of the original post and the discussion that could follow.[/quote]

[purple laughs]

Re: Is "Good Music" an Absolute?

HyperBully — Thu, 15 Apr 2010 17:13:23 GMT

Author: HyperBully

Posted: 04/15/2010 21:13

Applerill wrote:

Anyway, I'm rambling now. Here's what I'd like to end with: If an artist like Lady Gaga is able to sell a lot of copies, one could technically assume that he has more people that "love her" than Jeff Buckley.

So, what do you guys make of this?

I knew it.

Re: Is "Good Music" an Absolute?

Bork — Thu, 15 Apr 2010 09:09:29 GMT

Author: Bork

Posted: 04/15/2010 13:09

I've told you I was born in Sweden and don't understand sarcasm.

Either way, it's bullshit in any case. If it was an expression of an actual opinion I'll let that stand for itself, if it was sarcasm it is still bullshit as in that case it is nothing but a smartass comment that takes away from the serious intentions of the original post and the discussion that could follow.

The question has been debated since forever and probably will continue to be so. The easy answer of course is to stick with "No, it's all subjective and any attempts to say that one piece of music is objectively better than another is pretentious", but that answer doesn't tend to satisfy people and mostly is another attempt to find a simple answer to a complicated question.

I am not claiming to have an answer to the question, but I did find an interesting exercise a while back in a book by Julian Baggini & Jeremy Stangroom called Do You Think What You Think You Think?:
1. To the following six factors of what constitutes a piece of art assign on a scale from 0 to 4 how important you consider that part, with 4 being vital, 3 being very important, 2 being quite important, 1 being a little important, and 0 being not important at all: TECHNICAL ABILITY, ENJOYABILITY, EXPRESSES ARTIST'S FEELINGS, MORAL OR LIFE LESSONS, HARMONY AND BEAUTY, INSIGHT INTO REALITY.
2. Pick two artists that you are sufficiently familiar with, and decide which you prefer over the other (try the who-to-bring-to-a-deserted-island exercise if it's hard to choose, but don't choose one over the other purely based on bigger volume).
3. Rate the work of the two artists according to how far they reflect each of the six factors above using a scale from 0 to 4, with 4 being To the very highest degree, 3 being To a great degree, 2 being To a significant degree, 1 being To some degree, and 0 being Not at all.
4. Multiply the importance you assigned to the each factor with the rating you assigned to each artist on that factor, and sum up the total score for each artist.
5. Check if the score properly reflects your choice on whose work to bring to a deserted island at section 2.

Note: This is not science and don't bash me for trying to claim that this should settle the argument of objectivity-subjectivity. I am not. At worst it's a fun little exercise, and at best it might help in breaking down and analyzing WHY we consider some pieces of art better than others.

Re: Is "Good Music" an Absolute?

Mr. Shankly — Wed, 14 Apr 2010 23:54:00 GMT

Author: Mr. Shankly

Posted: 04/15/2010 03:54

Bork wrote:

maxperenchio wrote:

Whatever generates the most money is ultimately the best music. I'll take a few pretty faces over a A7#9 chord any day.

Sorry, but...BULLSHIT!

I'm guessing Max was being sarcastic, but being new, you probably missed that.

Re: Is "Good Music" an Absolute?

mikeyskywalker — Wed, 14 Apr 2010 20:50:54 GMT

Author: mikeyskywalker

Posted: 04/15/2010 00:50

SquishypuffDave wrote:

Simple answer: No.

In regards to art, 'good' is a subjective term. Therefore, music being 'objectively good' is an oxymoron. If music is the best-selling, that doesn't make it good or bad music, all that can be determined is the objective information; that it has sold X many copies. Doesn't seem very complicated to me.

I was going to say something along the lines of this, but was too lazy. 😜

Re: Is "Good Music" an Absolute?

SquishypuffDave — Wed, 14 Apr 2010 20:00:19 GMT

Author: SquishypuffDave

Posted: 04/15/2010 00:00

Simple answer: No.

In regards to art, 'good' is a subjective term. Therefore, music being 'objectively good' is an oxymoron. If music is the best-selling, that doesn't make it good or bad music, all that can be determined is the objective information; that it has sold X many copies. Doesn't seem very complicated to me.

Re: Is "Good Music" an Absolute?

RFNAPLES — Wed, 14 Apr 2010 19:25:05 GMT

Author: RFNAPLES

Posted: 04/14/2010 23:25

All music is good! Some music you may enjoy more than others. What the masses like, you may abhor. But today, somebody must like the music in order to play and publish it--composer, singer, musician, label, engineer, manager, mother, father, girlfriend, etc.

Re: Is "Good Music" an Absolute?

Bork — Wed, 14 Apr 2010 15:52:39 GMT

Author: Bork

Posted: 04/14/2010 19:52

maxperenchio wrote:

Whatever generates the most money is ultimately the best music. I'll take a few pretty faces over a A7#9 chord any day.

Sorry, but...BULLSHIT!

Re: Is "Good Music" an Absolute?

maxperenchio — Wed, 14 Apr 2010 15:27:53 GMT

Author: maxperenchio

Posted: 04/14/2010 19:27

Whatever generates the most money is ultimately the best music. I'll take a few pretty faces over a A7#9 chord any day.

Re: Is "Good Music" an Absolute?

Mr. Shankly — Wed, 14 Apr 2010 13:14:45 GMT

Author: Mr. Shankly

Posted: 04/14/2010 17:14

Interesting question. Ultimately, like all art, it's in the eye, or in this case, ear of the beholder and it all comes down to what moves the listener or what he or she enjoys. Take two of the most argued about ones on here; although many people revere them, to some the Beatles are nothing but an overrated pop band who wrote some catchy tunes that made the charts. Some people here love the complexity and arty fractured weirdness of Captain Beefheart's Trout Mask Replica, while others find it a mess of inaccessible, pretentious, self-indulgence. But both can be considered "good" for very different reasons.

Still, when one is really passionate about something, it's inevitable that opinions will form. Also, the more music you expose yourself to, the more you will start to form categories in your mind of what constitutes "good,"based on moments where you had an emotional reaction to music or it made you think or reflect in some way, or just felt thoroughly entertained, or sometimes you may be influenced by what you perceive as "cool." As you get older though "cool" becomes less important than the enjoyment factor. Hopefully your capacity to appreciate other genres ignored in the past expands too. My personal opinion is that most of the "good"music today is not on mainstream radio. You have to get past what the big corporate record companies are feeding you because most of it's crap. But then I wonder is this because the mainstream doesn't sound innovative,or more because in the past, I've found enjoyable music off the beaten path? In the end though, that's what it comes down to, good music is the music you enjoy.

Re: Is "Good Music" an Absolute?

Freddie55 — Tue, 13 Apr 2010 10:56:41 GMT

Author: Freddie55

Posted: 04/13/2010 14:56

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_El2_enNFaI

Is "Good Music" an Absolute?

Applerill — Tue, 13 Apr 2010 10:18:11 GMT

Author: Applerill

Posted: 04/13/2010 14:18

OK, so I was trying to make this the topic of my last thread, but it ended up making me look like a total jerk instead.

The thing that got my attention with my mom was how, even if an album is considered among the "best ever" by experts, it can be easily labeled as trash by an outsider.

So, is music quality relative, or are there "absolutes" to it?

To tell the truth, I'm not really sure. Whenever I listen to a "critically acclaimed" album, nine times out of ten, I end up understanding what made it so "great". Because of that, it sometimes seems that greatness is an absolute, and is something that you should be able to recognize.

At the same time, though, there are a select few albums, most notably Avril Lavigne's Under My Skin, that, while only getting mixed reviews by critics, still bring chills up my spine in every track. That particular instance is probably formed from a good bit of nostalgia, but you get my point. This also explains why Telefunker (who is a great guy, mind you) can go and have an album like Dangerous on his top 10, even though it features certain rapping basketball players in notoriously cheesy ways 😜 . I could pick on him for it, but I don't, since he probably has the same sense of nostalgia with MJ's later stuff that I have with Avril.

Anyway, I'm rambling now. Here's what I'd like to end with: If an artist like Lady Gaga is able to sell a lot of copies, one could technically assume that he has more people that "love her" than Jeff Buckley (who I'm listening to as I write this). In a utilitarian mindset, I believe, where good is defined as "the most good for the most people", that would make sense. But, according to our chart, that isn't the case, is it?

So, what do you guys make of this?