Oh man, I love every single track on Doolittle, but let me guess which 4 songs could possibly ruin it for you: I'd go for Silver, No. 13 Baby, I Bleed and Mr. Grieves.
😄 2/4 correct: Dead (65), Mr. Grieves (70), No. 13 Baby (70), There Goes My Gun (70)
The rest are 80 and above.
Grzywa wrote:
See, perhaps maths does not work in this case...
Indeed. It totally has it's limitations. But it was the only thing I could think of/helped me identify the difference between a 30th vs 70th vs 90th album. After about 20... I either had a hard time choosing... so I'd do it by favorite artists or something first... or I'd just randomly assign them according to a whim thought, that the next week I myself didn't even agree with.
Not sure how to solve that problem yet. If I didn't "have to" use math to allow for tiered ranking past my top 20... And then what do I do when I come to my overall chart and I have nothing but 90+ records and math may or may not help me there. Am I going to constantly change it according to what my taste/cultural influence/mood is at the moment?
These of course are pretty trivial questions... but I think them.
Grzywa wrote:
Does Jacko do anything to you ? Is it more than Pixies ever did ? Does Smooth Criminal give you the same level of pleasure/emotion/goosebumps as, say, Debaser ? And isn't an album with 11 out of 15 highlights better than another one filled with consistently tolerable songs ?
So... great questions. I guess it all depends on how I'm looking at them. On one hand, I'm a sucker for rhythm and bass like Michael Jackson, and on the other hand, I'm a finger to the man punk rocker... I'd have to be honest and really give them possibly a tie... and that's probably why I'm frustrated with my rankings... along with the fact that Michael Jackson had less filler and the filler was less "bad". It wasn't better... but less bad, if that makes any sense.
Grzywa wrote:
Music has a lot to do with maths on the level of structure, but I'm afraid you might always be at a loss when trying to apply straightforward calculations to the way you receive music. Do not get obsessed with trying to reach some objective results here, they're unattainable. If you feel you enjoy Doolittle more than Thriller, then fuck maths and put it higher on your chart. Just thinking out loud, too ;)
Hahaha... good points. And I actually sometimes dislike math rock... and I agree that I'm not getting an objective result, and never really believed that ever, but... it was the only thing that solved my problem of what do I do with those albums past my top 25? It's hard for me to rate an 85 album against another 85 album (so math has kind of helped me solve that problem with scores like 86.2 and 83.7... and only rarely do those number object to my personal taste (yes I just contradicted myself)... I should restate that and say up until now it hasn't really been a real problem. Only really for those three big 70s albums... and for those I actually shrugged it off and was like... well actually there is a bit of filler and that kind of fits my aesthetic for a "great" album (not a bunch of shitty songs and like 3 good ones - not the case with those albums... but you get the idea).
So maybe I should approach this conversation with, does your 50 to 100 rankings bother you or how do you deal with rating similar albums and choosing oh this totally deserves to be in the 30s and this one totally is an album I'll put at my 100th album. Or maybe these thoughts don't bother you at all?
Last edited by RoundTheBend on 04/21/2016 03:17; edited 1 time in total
RoundTheBendI miss the comfort in being sadProfile Ground Control
Plus, as much as I love Doolittle, Thriller is a rather excellent album and certainly nothing to be ashamed of enjoying.
Right, totally agree... I guess I was saying my 20 year old self would have been. I have no shame in admitting Michael Jackson, regardless of being a pop artist, has massive influence on our culture and actually wrote/co-wrote some amazing music. Also... the dude totally gave his ENTIRE life to music. I realize that's an oversimplification... but sometimes I kinda feel sorry for the dude and totally respect him as a musician (personal life... well he was robbed of his childhood and well he wasn't a serial killer, that we know of... so he made out ok with his demons I suppose, but of course his alleged actions are unpardonable).
It also is a bit shocking: Thriller makes my top 10 and Doolittle doesn't make my top 25... I suppose that's what made me sad/made me seriously rethink my system.
I think I'll keep truckin and see where it leads me... there's always tomorrow.
RoundTheBendI miss the comfort in being sadProfile Ground Control
So I updated the chart so I can be made fun of now... hehe. It's still a work in progress, and I as I said I have mixed feelings about it (feel pretty good about 50s-70s). But SOOOO much U2 (ok... I'll be honest, I blame them for getting me into albums... it started with I grew up on Joshua Tree and then when I was a teen there was the Pop album (discovering music outside of my family who lost interest in them)... and the like 14 year old self was like WTF... this isn't U2... and then I realized (after discovering more music) wait U2 did some really cool stuff that sounds nothing like Joshua Tree... and it's not a terrible experiment they tried once and then realized oh, we really only know how to do one sound... hmmm... how the HELL did they pull that off... etc...)
64 onwards is below an 80 rating... so probably won't stick around much longer. At 135 albums rated, goal is to hit 200 rated, but want to do another 138 (273 total).
But SOOOO much U2 (ok... I'll be honest, I blame them for getting me into albums... it started with I grew up on Joshua Tree and then when I was a teen there was the Pop album (discovering music outside of my family who lost interest in them)... and the like 14 year old self was like WTF... this isn't U2... and then I realized (after discovering more music) wait U2 did some really cool stuff that sounds nothing like Joshua Tree... and it's not a terrible experiment they tried once and then realized oh, we really only know how to do one sound... hmmm... how the HELL did they pull that off... etc...)
Nobody will laugh at you because you like U2 and I like it that you put Boy and War so high up your list. I even like the earlier one (October) better. Btw the live album Under a Blood Red Sky was a perfect synthesis of their first album and reflects the energy they emitted at their earlier stage in their career.
This is the most underrated track on the album; I believe people loathe one-chord structure going on for a long time under Frank's weird vocals and they miss out on the real treasure of this song: the best outro ever. Better than Layla.
sethmadsen wrote:
So... great questions. I guess it all depends on how I'm looking at them. On one hand, I'm a sucker for rhythm and bass like Michael Jackson, and on the other hand, I'm a finger to the man punk rocker... I'd have to be honest and really give them possibly a tie... and that's probably why I'm frustrated with my rankings... along with the fact that Michael Jackson had less filler and the filler was less "bad". It wasn't better... but less bad, if that makes any sense.
And how did you rank the monkey on the cover ? Or the 0.5 second transition between end of Tame and beginning of Wave of Mutilation ? Or Kim-the-coolest-bass-player-in-the-business ? Or the moment you got stoned with your friends listening to Debaser (Man, did he just say 'slicing up eyeballs') ?
So... I would say the experience of an album goes far beyond rating particular tracks. And I don't know about you, but I'm un chien andalusien.
sethmadsen wrote:
So maybe I should approach this conversation with, does your 50 to 100 rankings bother you or how do you deal with rating similar albums and choosing oh this totally deserves to be in the 30s and this one totally is an album I'll put at my 100th album. Or maybe these thoughts don't bother you at all?
The rules are as follows:
No. 1 is what my life depends upon,
Top 3 are essential for my well-being,
Top 10 I make sure that nothing I'm not 100% convinced about is there,
11-100 The order not that important and I'll play with it every now and then. Certainly I find all these records valuable, which is why they made the list in the first place, but I'm aware that my no. 23 could easily become no. 87 if the list was prepared half an hour later.
Am I planning to change it ? Yeah. Totally. My big plan is to finally start writing notes. Maybe this would make me treat the order more carefully. _________________ Always shouts out something obscene
RoundTheBendI miss the comfort in being sadProfile Ground Control
But SOOOO much U2 (ok... I'll be honest, I blame them for getting me into albums... it started with I grew up on Joshua Tree and then when I was a teen there was the Pop album (discovering music outside of my family who lost interest in them)... and the like 14 year old self was like WTF... this isn't U2... and then I realized (after discovering more music) wait U2 did some really cool stuff that sounds nothing like Joshua Tree... and it's not a terrible experiment they tried once and then realized oh, we really only know how to do one sound... hmmm... how the HELL did they pull that off... etc...)
Nobody will laugh at you because you like U2 and I like it that you put Boy and War so high up your list. I even like the earlier one (October) better. Btw the live album Under a Blood Red Sky was a perfect synthesis of their first album and reflects the energy they emitted at their earlier stage in their career.
But Doolittle is so low compared to Thriller :wink:
Yeah, maybe not... but my overall chart now... that's half the comments I got... way too much R.E.M. and U2... and mostly cause that was my musical identity for much of my life.
And yes, so much shame with Doolittle :(.
RoundTheBendI miss the comfort in being sadProfile Ground Control
And how did you rank the monkey on the cover ? Or the 0.5 second transition between end of Tame and beginning of Wave of Mutilation ? Or Kim-the-coolest-bass-player-in-the-business ? Or the moment you got stoned with your friends listening to Debaser (Man, did he just say 'slicing up eyeballs') ?
Yes... totally agree there's more to an album than the tracks... I think (meaning I have no idea what I'm doing, just stabbing in the dark trying to find "best practices") right now I'm doing a survey (meaning just checking what's out there and what I think my taste is and if I have prejudices before even listening to something, etc.)... I had the thought once to wonder how I feel about ALL the aspects of an album and not just the tracks... and then a part of me likes the tracks thing because then it isn't inflated with expected worth, but maybe something more tangible? Still figuring it out...
I mean this really isn't a problem when you are not listening to 1400 albums in a relatively short amount of time...
Grzywa wrote:
The rules are as follows:
No. 1 is what my life depends upon,
Top 3 are essential for my well-being,
Top 10 I make sure that nothing I'm not 100% convinced about is there,
11-100 The order not that important and I'll play with it every now and then. Certainly I find all these records valuable, which is why they made the list in the first place, but I'm aware that my no. 23 could easily become no. 87 if the list was prepared half an hour later.
Am I planning to change it ? Yeah. Totally. My big plan is to finally start writing notes. Maybe this would make me treat the order more carefully.
Gotcha. And really that's probably just fine... somehow it bothered me that I didn't know how to deal with how to rank an album at 30 or if it really belonged in the 60s... and honestly that's just for me and my perfectionism... I'm sure 99% of people ARE NOT being like... dude he ranked it at 30 instead of 20... that means something. No, they are in the same boat. Just my own "geekin".
Yes... totally agree there's more to an album than the tracks... I think (meaning I have no idea what I'm doing, just stabbing in the dark trying to find "best practices") right now I'm doing a survey (meaning just checking what's out there and what I think my taste is and if I have prejudices before even listening to something, etc.)... I had the thought once to wonder how I feel about ALL the aspects of an album and not just the tracks... and then a part of me likes the tracks thing because then it isn't inflated with expected worth, but maybe something more tangible? Still figuring it out...
I mean this really isn't a problem when you are not listening to 1400 albums in a relatively short amount of time...
I admire the task you've taken up, but my main concern is how on earth you might be able to evaluate all these records that you get to hear once ? First impressions can be soooo deceptive...
sethmadsen wrote:
Gotcha. And really that's probably just fine... somehow it bothered me that I didn't know how to deal with how to rank an album at 30 or if it really belonged in the 60s... and honestly that's just for me and my perfectionism... I'm sure 99% of people ARE NOT being like... dude he ranked it at 30 instead of 20... that means something. No, they are in the same boat. Just my own "geekin".
I totally respect your perfectionism, and your "1400" strategy is somewhat motivating. This morning I started to go slowly with 1950s 😉 However, I'll try to get a couple of listens before I rate something, that's the way I see it.
And I definitely won't stick to 1950s only. There's too much cool stuff going on in the meantime 😄 _________________ Always shouts out something obscene
RoundTheBendI miss the comfort in being sadProfile Ground Control
Yes... totally agree there's more to an album than the tracks... I think (meaning I have no idea what I'm doing, just stabbing in the dark trying to find "best practices") right now I'm doing a survey (meaning just checking what's out there and what I think my taste is and if I have prejudices before even listening to something, etc.)... I had the thought once to wonder how I feel about ALL the aspects of an album and not just the tracks... and then a part of me likes the tracks thing because then it isn't inflated with expected worth, but maybe something more tangible? Still figuring it out...
I mean this really isn't a problem when you are not listening to 1400 albums in a relatively short amount of time...
I admire the task you've taken up, but my main concern is how on earth you might be able to evaluate all these records that you get to hear once ? First impressions can be soooo deceptive...
I totally respect your perfectionism, and your "1400" strategy is somewhat motivating. This morning I started to go slowly with 1950s 😉 However, I'll try to get a couple of listens before I rate something, that's the way I see it.
And I definitely won't stick to 1950s only. There's too much cool stuff going on in the meantime :)
hehehe... ain't that the truth.
I had a conversation today with someone and postulated that there has been more music recorded and released in the past 10 years, than possibly since the 1950s. I think with the advent of things like bandcamp, soundcloud, reverbnation, etc. AND home recording that sounds better than 80s punk records... and so many people claiming to be decent musicians (myself included... if I lived in the 50s there's no way I'd be able to record an EP). Think about it... an artist no longer needs a record deal to pay $100k for recording/distribution costs. We also have the DIY punk rock movement to thank for that.
Back to discussion. I totally agree one listen isn't enough. I turned the Rolling Stones down for their albums... I thought they were only "hit" makers... and well I actually really enjoy listening to Some Girls and Exile now. And that's from a group I already knew I liked. I still think Rolling Stones aren't AMAZING album makers, but I do feel they are better than what I originally gave them credit for (before I would say I'm not wasting my time on their albums, greatest hits only please, they have too many bad tracks on their albums).
I think right now I'm in a discovery mode and a trying to not be prejudiced mode. I've listened to A LOT of music I'd regularly not choose to listen to. From Iron Maiden and Slayer to Madonna and Wham!. Some music that I have listened to in the past a couple times and now REALLY want to get into them (Siouxsie & The Banshees and Tom Waits).
So I suppose this is a discovery/survey and a confirming of... ok I think this is an important album that I like... but then I listen to it and realize... well actually it's ok to maybe not good at all (I had some albums on my charts before that I've decided to remove altogether). Or actually this album is better than I think. Or... hmmm I used to think this album was critically acclaimed so I too must think that and now I'm trying to see what I like vs what I "should" like. I think Velvet Underground and Nico versus Velvet Underground albums are perfect examples... I ranked the former way higher than I know think it deserves and probably didn't really give the latter time of day. Now the latter is easily my favorite and pending my mood I might even like Loaded more than the former.
Thanks to Spotify, I've been able to listen to 95% of this music without really having to hunt it down too... so that's been super helpful to give music a try I never would have in the past.
And I totally respect you giving an album more listens before truly rating it. I will be FORCED (more or less) to do this for the 2010s as I have no real understanding of it yet, whereas other decades I feel I have a decent understanding of it already and I'm just revisiting/confirming or denying my opinion on it.
Having said that... I see where you are coming from... if I truly am trying to discover and rid myself of prejudices, wouldn't I give an album a few chances before rating it? Sometimes yes and sometimes no. No because some albums I can tell instantly I will almost never in a million years like this (it's like convincing someone that getting their teeth pulled is worth it, just give it a few more chances 🤣🤣🤣 ).... and then other times I have actually marked on my spreadsheet... this one is worth revisiting.
Good luck on your evaluations! You should start a thread too!!!
I had a conversation today with someone and postulated that there has been more music recorded and released in the past 10 years, than possibly since the 1950s. I think with the advent of things like bandcamp, soundcloud, reverbnation, etc. AND home recording that sounds better than 80s punk records... and so many people claiming to be decent musicians (myself included... if I lived in the 50s there's no way I'd be able to record an EP). Think about it... an artist no longer needs a record deal to pay $100k for recording/distribution costs. We also have the DIY punk rock movement to thank for that.
'Tis very true. Finding something valuable and being able to focus on it are two greatest challenges of 2016.
sethmadsen wrote:
Back to discussion. I totally agree one listen isn't enough. I turned the Rolling Stones down for their albums... I thought they were only "hit" makers... and well I actually really enjoy listening to Some Girls and Exile now. And that's from a group I already knew I liked. I still think Rolling Stones aren't AMAZING album makers, but I do feel they are better than what I originally gave them credit for (before I would say I'm not wasting my time on their albums, greatest hits only please, they have too many bad tracks on their albums).
Exile is great, never listened to Some Girls. Will have to try, added to Wish List 😄 At this point I'm only familiar with Some Girls Wander By Mistake, a collection of early singles by The Sisters of Mercy 😜
sethmadsen wrote:
I think right now I'm in a discovery mode and a trying to not be prejudiced mode. I've listened to A LOT of music I'd regularly not choose to listen to. From Iron Maiden and Slayer to Madonna and Wham!. Some music that I have listened to in the past a couple times and now REALLY want to get into them (Siouxsie & The Banshees and Tom Waits).
So this is the greatest advantage of your 1400 trip. Stuff you'd probably never get into otherwise. Which Siouxise & Waits did you particularly enjoy ? Any Wham! recommendations ?
sethmadsen wrote:
So I suppose this is a discovery/survey and a confirming of... ok I think this is an important album that I like... but then I listen to it and realize... well actually it's ok to maybe not good at all (I had some albums on my charts before that I've decided to remove altogether). Or actually this album is better than I think. Or... hmmm I used to think this album was critically acclaimed so I too must think that and now I'm trying to see what I like vs what I "should" like. I think Velvet Underground and Nico versus Velvet Underground albums are perfect examples... I ranked the former way higher than I know think it deserves and probably didn't really give the latter time of day. Now the latter is easily my favorite and pending my mood I might even like Loaded more than the former.
VU&N is my overall #2, you gotta be kiddin' 😄 On a serious note, yeah, critically acclaimed is not equal to 'I enjoy it'. I totally understand why you may prefer VU s/t...
... but then, Loaded... 🤔
sethmadsen wrote:
And I totally respect you giving an album more listens before truly rating it. I will be FORCED (more or less) to do this for the 2010s as I have no real understanding of it yet, whereas other decades I feel I have a decent understanding of it already and I'm just revisiting/confirming or denying my opinion on it.
I get the point. For 2000s and 2010s, how do you choose the albums to listen to ? Is it BEA Top 200 ?
sethmadsen wrote:
Good luck on your evaluations! You should start a thread too!!!
Thinking about it, not quite sure about the methodology yet. I got several ideas towering over my heeeeaaaad. I definitely want to cover 1950s. And I'm thinking of doing Polish only stuff. I need to focus... _________________ Always shouts out something obscene
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
RoundTheBend
dihansse
Grzywa
mozzmozz
9 years
