My Criteria For Art - Music Diaries - Forums : Best Ever Albums

AfterHours · 2017-02-08T03:15:17-05:00

MY CRITERIA FOR ART (Mid-Revision) The following factors are inherent in all Art and govern all qualitative considerations: (1) Expressed Emotional Engagement Expressed: to show, manifest, or reveal. Emotional: pertaining to or involving any state of emotion. Emotion: any of the feelings of joy, sorrow, fear, hate, love, etc. To be clear, by “emotional” I am referring not just to "pathos" or the most dramatic states, but to any emotion or confluence of emotions being expressed. It is not so important which emotion is being expressed, but to what degree of engagement is the artist expressing it? It is primarily this factor that makes it affecting or compelling. Engagement: the act of engaging or the state of being engaged; involvement. Engage: participate or become involved in; to do or take part in something; to give attention to something; to attract the attention or efforts of (a person or persons). (2) Expressed Conceptual Engagement Conceptual: pertaining to concepts or the forming of concepts. Concept: an idea of something formed by mentally combining all its characteristics or particulars; a construct. By “conceptual” I am referring to any concept or confluence of concepts being expressed, whether a psychedelic, abstract or lucid experience, whether a dangerous, comforting or mysterious circumstance, a relationship torn apart or coming together, an existential crises or spiritual revelation, etc. It is not so important which concept is being expressed, but to what degree of engagement is the artist expressing it? It is primarily this factor that makes it affecting or compelling. These two points (Emotion and Concept) are virtually interchangeable. One will find that you can’t have an expression of emotion without the artist simultaneously conveying a concept along with it, and vice versa: a concept cannot be expressed without some degree of emotion being conveyed. Some artists are more conceptually inclined while others are more emotionally inclined, but regardless, these share similar artistic potential. (3) Expressed Creativity Creativity: the ability to transcend traditional ideas, rules, patterns, relationships, or the like, and to create meaningful new ideas, forms, methods, interpretations, etc.; originality, progressiveness or imagination. Perhaps in its most ideal and fundamental form of expression this could be stated as: "expressed through a singular intelligence, uniquely personal nature, vision or idiom". One could probably say that, ultimately, this would be a work or artist that most closely expresses a unique point-of-view or their own unique nature in their Art. This would, probably axiomatically, be inimitable. Certain artists are closer to this ideal than others. There isn't another Beethoven, or Orson Welles, or John Coltrane, or Michelangelo, or Captain Beefheart. These are each artists that expressed their art from a very singular idiom and are virtually inimitable. 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 creativity and it is the most singular examples that hold the greatest potential at making a lasting or permanent impact (because they can't be imitated, even if derived from). Beyond being only "unique" or "singular", of utmost importance is that creativity is significant largely in alignment and proportional to its purpose and contribution to the emotional or conceptual expression of the work. Without such an alignment and purpose, an artist may be coming up with something no one has heard or seen before, but the result would tend to be a bit aimless or insignificant without an emotional and/or conceptual engagement also being expressed in tandem with its creativity (all aligned in purpose/development). There are of course degrees of this. One can come up with a fleeting novelty, of brief meaning or purpose, perhaps lasting a few seconds at some point within a song, or in a film, or occupying a small part in a painting. Or one can come up with an innovation (or series of them) continuously expounded over the whole course of an album or symphony, or across a film, or throughout a painting, to the point where there is a very full exploration, development and culmination of that creative idea or series of ideas. In such a comparison between this and the fleeting novelty, there would tend to be a massive differential in creativity between the two. Even if the initial idea for both was equally brilliant, the more explored, developed example would usually show a lot more understanding, effort, engagement, expressiveness, importance (etc) given to that idea. Of course, the extensiveness of such a development or progression isn't all that matters, but of equal importance is that it's consistently compelling too (so that its extensiveness becomes worthwhile). And again, how compelling and engaging this development remains throughout its duration tends to depend very directly upon its creative alignment with its expressed emotions/concepts. Furthermore, it will prove axiomatic that: If a music work features a significant percentage of truly innovative creativity, it follows (indisputably) that its sound world as a whole will form a musical picture that is quite distinct. The degree to which its instrumentation and/or vocals are each and all being applied towards the ends of innovative creativity will be proportional to how completely the whole musical picture assumes such complete distinction, to how unique a musical environment is produced. Similarly, if a visual work features a significant percentage of truly innovative creativity, it follows (indisputably) that its visual field as a whole will form a picture (moving, as in cinema; still, as in most paintings), that is quite distinct. The degree to which its artist(s) (whether painters, cinematographers, art directors, etc) are applying their techniques towards the ends of innovative creativity will be proportional to how completely the whole visual field assumes such complete distinction, to how unique a visual construct or environment is produced. >>>>>This can be "reverse engineered" ... Add more... Music, Film, Paintings... Keeping these in mind and using them to observe can make one a 'quick study' in regards to which works are most likely to reward increased attention and revisits, and so assist one to allocate one's time more heavily to extraordinarily creative works of history and less so with those that only vaguely added something to the story. It also can steel one from false or exaggerated claims (most common to popular music where the amount of hits, media hype, the celebrity effect upon a populous, ubiquitous presence within a culture, can confuse "social or mass media impact" with "musically, artistically or technically innovative/revolutionary"). One will find that no matter the details or nuances of expression, all art shares these key elements (emotion, concept, creativity) as primary common denominators and to greater or lesser degree. Art is fundamentally a creative expression. This expression is always of emotion(s) and/or concept(s) (whether general, defined or abstract). This always requires an impulse of creativity. All of these factors are always impelled by an engagement with the work from the artist, whether that engagement is minimal or whole. These factors are evident (to varying degrees) in all art and in every aspect of its expression and at all times. To the degree these factors are realized and brought to fruition will be the degree to which the work will be a total work of art and thus peak as an artistic expression. The greatest work of art could be said to be that which features the most potent concentration, convergence and culmination of these factors. It is key to note that expressed emotional engagement, expressed conceptual engagement, and expressed creativity are referring, first and foremost, to what the artist is conveying in their work, as opposed to the listener or viewer's reaction. Expressed is a carefully chosen descriptor and worthy of emphasis, lest one miss the point. What is being expressed by the artist in their work needs to be grasped first before one's reaction should be taken seriously. What emotion or emotions is the work expressing? What concepts/themes are being expressed? What is creative about these expressions? What distinguishes it from others? How close did the work come to expressing a singular artistic voice and vision? The perception of this is largely monitored by your experience and assimilation of the genre or Art as a field of comparison. These factors each approach (perhaps could be said to be, in essence) objectivity, or at least a relative objectivity, in the sense that the works themselves don't actually change after the point of completion. But one's perception of them does. The work, as completed, is what it is. One's perspective changes as he or she experiences and assimilates more art, with historical precedents, influences, contemporary works and so forth. And it often undergoes further change upon revisits of the work itself, as one becomes increasingly acclimated and familiar with what the artist is expressing in their work emotionally, conceptually, creatively. One should be striving to grasp as closely as one can the emotions, concepts, creativity, that is being expressed through the work, as this will be of permanent value (or virtually so), whereas other associations will prove transient and won't sustain increased familiarization and scrutiny. It will be observed that as expressed emotional engagement, expressed conceptual engagement, and expressed creativity are applied congruently, they tend to combine into a greater sense of significance, producing DEPTH. Similarly, an ideal description for how depth is produced could be stated as follows: Emotional or conceptual content expressed with the utmost engagement and creativity, thus an effect so singular and impacting as to permanently distinguish itself. (Note: depth as described here is virtually synonymous with 'profundity', so one or the other, when stated, are essentially stating the same thing) The higher the rating and ranking, the more depth the work will express. And in the highest ratings and rankings, it will seem virtually infinite. Depth tends to produce a sense of immersion into the work, a strongly compelling sensation of being consumed by the artist's expression, wherein one's being and intellect are taken by it and given to it more wholly than otherwise. The experience tends to be more substantial as it is mirroring, communicating or challenging more closely to a wavelength that approximates one's or humanity's actual potential expressively and creatively, pressing more completely one's experience, emotional and mental faculties. Experiences such as this actually compel one's own creative imagination or abilities forth to meet the artist's own in absorbing their work. This can have a generative effect of enhancing one's own ability to further assimilate a wider sphere of artistry and expression, and in inspiring or impelling greater creative intelligence. By "assimilate", I mainly mean that one has reached a point where one can listen to or view a work, in real-time, and while doing so, has a good grasp of the emotional and/or conceptual content, and a good grasp of the creativity thereof. In other words, can follow and note these (mentally or verbally, either/or) as one is progressing through the work. And, ideally, has listened to or viewed enough works of comparable artists, genre and quality so that one has a good grasp of how substantially it stands in relation to these. "Technical" knowledge is not necessarily required to accomplish the above, but (to varying degrees) may be needed in certain cases. It is probably true that it tends to be most helpful to the degree one is just unable to grasp the emotional, conceptual, creative expression in the work; then may be the time to learn something about the technical process and choices the artist is going through to produce their work, and once backed by this one can usually start better grasping these key facets. No matter what, technical knowledge can certainly speed up one's ability to do so, as one's understanding with what the artist is doing and why, would tend to be more immediate. However, it is probably less necessary and can be bypassed in most cases the more familiar one already is with a type of art. And it should best be thought of as a means to an end rather than the end in itself. Technical factors are only valuable to the degree they are leading to emotional, conceptual, creative expression, so I would recommend its focus being as relevant as this, and not important in and of itself outside of this. My lists are not so much a rating/ranking of the "most technically advanced artists/works of all time" (even if that might be true in various cases) though, more precisely, may be argued to be that of "those artists/works that applied their techniques most proficiently to produce the most potent emotional, conceptual and creative expressions". If one wants to expand one's ability to assimilate a widening expanse of great art, one should become familiar with works of great depth. Otherwise, one's ability to do so is likely to slow or stagnate, and tends to remain fixated in a limited sphere. Such a progression of becoming more and more familiar and proficient in assimilating works of great depth tends to be cumulative, as each one widens one's sphere of understanding and widens one's expanse of emotional, conceptual and creative comprehension. On my lists, it is generally reliable to say that the higher rated the work one has assimilated, the more enhanced and proficient one's ability to assimilate becomes thereafter. Therefore it should be understood that one is very unlikely to assimilate one of the higher rated works with just a cursory observation or without becoming quite familiar with it. This does not mean that one has to go re-compose Beethoven's 9th Symphony or re-paint The Sistine Chapel, but one should get to the point where he or she can proficiently procure the conceptual and emotional expressions and creativity of the work, in real-time, as one is listening or viewing. Depending on the work's depth, how foreign its content, and how complex it may be, this may take multiple experiences to approach a mastery of, which may also include familiarizing oneself more with the artist, their personality, life and aims, with historical prerequisites and contemporary works that can be necessary towards establishing a base of knowledge and experience from which to better evaluate from. Not all of that is always necessary. Again, it can vary widely depending on the artist and the type of art, and your own level of knowledge and familiarity, etc. My lists can be seen and used as a guide towards such ventures. If you are interested and persistent enough, there is little doubt you will find this extremely worthwhile, as it too is a cumulative journey. One's conception of what one is hearing or seeing tends to become increasingly aligned with the artist's purposes and vision while one's awe and appreciation of what has been accomplished tends to grow, not just with an individual work itself but also with Art as a whole. In order to better experience or assimilate art, one must have a grasp on emotional expression, on how to see, feel or ascertain and know the character of emotion(s) in as many forms as possible, visually, in sound or musically. One must have a grasp on conceptual expression, on how to see, feel or ascertain an expressed concept in as many forms as possible, visually, in sound or musically. And one must be able to recognize, be cognizant of and assimilate degrees of creativity in as many forms as possible, relative to other works in a genre or confluence of genres. All of these can be developed and enhanced by practicing one's observation of emotional, conceptual and creative expression as one is listening or viewing a work, in real-time. This will usually develop beyond having to think about it, into a more rapid or nearly instantaneous knowledge and experience of said emotions, concepts, creativity while one is listening to or viewing the work. Even if inexperienced with many forms of art, you will probably find you already can do this with simpler and more obvious works and various works that you're quite familiar with. The key point a lot of people have to separate themselves from is to stop waiting, requiring or depending on artist's works to align to one's own past or life experiences and instead primarily focus on acclimating oneself to the artist's expressiveness being given through the work. One will be far more successful and with a much wider sphere of art with this mindset. Otherwise, one is not really listening to or viewing the work for what it is and what it's about, but would actually be (intentionally or not) rather selfish in (more or less) expecting or even requiring the artist and their work into being about oneself. This does not require that one shares the views of the artists' expression(s) or morals or way of life. You do not have to see eye to eye with the artists' expression and it does not have to be based on or reminiscent of your own life experiences in order to reach you. You already have a virtually infinite capacity to admire or assimilate and empathize with probably anyone's point-of-view and expressiveness. As an artist is much more creatively endowed than most people, one is naturally inclined towards wanting to understand more about this, probably because it is analogous, directly or metaphorically, to our most innate desires and creative purposes in life. In my opinion much of the culture we live in has simply caused people to lose sight of this or even forget it entirely, and this can be further buried and inhibited by other factors. Creativity could be said, in its very essence, to be adding or granting more life and meaning to an otherwise inanimate or monotone object, time frame, or space. So long as one is reasonably intelligent and willing to recover and/or enhance this ability and to recognize and admire it in others, it simply needs to be practiced and honed. Concertedly doing so, one is very likely to get better and better at it. The resulting impact and significance of the work will be felt sooner or later, almost regardless of personal agreement with the artist's views, so long as one maintains a majority of their focus on the artist's point of view first and foremost with particular attention to the work's expressed emotional and conceptual engagement, and the creativity thereof. All the choices on my lists are a representation of is #1 (Expressed Emotional Engagement), #2 (Expressed Conceptual Engagement) and #3 (Expressed Creativity) in increasingly greater concentration, convergence and culmination. A reliable basis for determining my ratings is as follows: ACCUMULATION OF THE DEGREE AND CONSISTENCY OF EXPRESSED EMOTIONAL ENGAGEMENT, EXPRESSED CONCEPTUAL ENGAGEMENT, AND EXPRESSED CREATIVITY, WITHIN THE TIME FRAME OR SPACE OF THE WORK OF ART. With “time frame”, I am referring to art such as cinema and music that are produced and assimilated within finite running times. With “space”, I am referring to visual arts such as paintings that are produced and assimilated within finite spatial parameters. RATINGS The differences in rating and ranking are determined by a carefully observed attempt at evaluating the degree and consistency of expressed emotional or conceptual engagement and the creativity thereof while listening to or viewing the work. During this process, I observe and consider in real-time the various emotions and concepts expressed, to what degree and consistency of engagement they are being expressed, plus how creative and singular these expressions are. The effect and impact the work has is a direct result of this and is represented by its rating. The stability or permanence of the effect or impact the work has directly correlates to (a) how well those factors have been observed and assimilated; (b) to what distinction the work has expressed those factors relative to the works of its medium or the whole of Art, potentially modified by how well one is able to recognize that relative distinction. This is probably axiomatic or close (for anyone, whether aware of it or not) but I'll stop short of declaring it as such. Note to self ---------->>>>> "Objective/Subjective" point here??? <<<<<---------- As I am progressing through the work I am tracking this and actively determining its rating upon arriving at distinct junctures (such as at the halfway point through the album, film, painting, etc) and then a full rating when finished. Making determinations at distinct junctures as one goes can help one track the rating by parts and can help arrive at an overall conclusion more easily than trying to account for all of its content at once. In determining the rating, I tend to compare the work to others of a similar genre or expressive type and also a similar emotional arc or of similar consistency or momentum of quality (where among the whole its quality is sustained, where it maintains qualitative "peaks and valleys"). In doing so I will usually try and find two or more works to compare it to, one (or more) lower than it, and one (or more) higher than it and then place it between these, before working it into a precise placement by comparing it (by qualitative consistency/degree) to the other works immediately surrounding it. This sort of meticulous method can be very helpful in getting the rating and ranking precise as it lines it up to works that are already familiar and with enough similarities to draw a qualitative comparison. Experiences do tend to differentiate -- even if slightly -- from one to the next, so a resulting evaluation marks an attempt to determine as precisely as possible the highest rating that the work very consistently sustains. Therefore, I will tend to revisit a work several times (particularly in the higher ratings) before I really settle in to a more permanent rating and ranking for it. Of course, even after that, these are subject to change, but usually I can sooner or later come to terms with a very close estimation of its sustained value within my criteria and in relation to other works of art. After that, there may still be variances with that work, from one experience to the next, but in most cases they are so minute that the rating usually doesn't change much, if at all. As each rating can be seen to represent an accumulation in quality, one will find that smaller portions of the work will tend to have a lesser accumulation of quality (thus lower ratings) than the whole. This is easy to prove to oneself if for some reason you doubt its veracity. Just play your favorite song and stop it mid-way through. You will invariably find, unless the song is very unevenly 'front-loaded' or 'back-loaded', that your own experience of its overall quality, will certainly be less by the half-way point than as a whole. The same applies to whole albums, films, paintings, etc. Quality here basically means the same as what I've stated above: ACCUMULATION OF THE DEGREE AND CONSISTENCY OF EXPRESSED EMOTIONAL ENGAGEMENT, EXPRESSED CONCEPTUAL ENGAGEMENT, AND EXPRESSED CREATIVITY, WITHIN THE TIME FRAME OR SPACE OF THE WORK OF ART. Below this section, you will find my Ratings Scale laid out from the bottom to the top, including basic formulas at all points that can assist one in working out the ratings and comparing them to all others. A rating and ranking is rather meaningless to the degree it is not comparable to an established ideal and an accompanying scale of lowest, intermediate and highest quality. The better such a scale is defined and worked out, the more defined and meaningful the accompanying ratings and rankings are likely to be. This Ratings Scale has been fine tuned over years of experience to be very aligned and logical, without being too complicated. It is likely that a more detailed or advanced math would produce an even more exacting and intricate version, with more complex formulas than what I've provided, but in the interest of simplicity of understanding and ease of application, I've maintained it as is. Also, I am not sure I could muster the time or the advanced math that might produce such a version, but if I did (or someone else did) it would likely smooth out some very minor uneven gradations and slight inconsistencies between some of the formulas in relation to others. These very minor inconsistencies will only be important to those looking for extreme exactitude, but otherwise are hardly worth addressing here. NOTE as of late 2023: The numbers provided in the following explanation are likely incorrect, as further analysis has seemed to demonstrate (for myself). The "ratings by halves" has always been a bit too "simplified" anyway (as has long been known; it is used for the purpose of providing a simple way to double check the ratings, or at least a very good idea, but is not intended to be "perfect" math and certainly has flaws under various circumstances). So, until I update this, just ignore holding too closely to the specific numbers I've used below and focus in on understanding the "gist" of what I'm getting at, and how it can be applied to "double check" ratings (but again, the specific numbers are in the process of being changed. There is an updated version on the ratings scale below (from 8.1-10) that may not yet be "accurate" but is probably closer than before and than what I've provided in the explanation just below this note. What I've provided here is a method that might be called "rating by halves" or "rating by combined halves". These are not the only formulas or even the best or most exacting possible formulas. They are simply, for most, not too difficult to think with and apply, and will also serve to familiarize oneself simultaneously with the whole scale and the differences between the various lower, intermediate and higher ratings. This method does seem to fall short on rare occasions when a work is disparate enough from one part or half to the next to mitigate its emotional, conceptual and creative development. This can cause the combination of parts or halves for that particular work to not add up to the expected combined overall rating, and will instead add up to something "lesser than its individual parts" (because the parts are not aligned enough to accumulate at the same rate as in the expected combinations). But these are few and far between. The vast majority of albums feature content that is aligned enough to where this won't be an issue. At some point I will likely introduce another side to the scale which is rating entirely "by qualitative pace, per unit of time", such as per song/track (for an album) and averaging them out to determine the overall score. And this will give another angle to the ratings that one can use (and still arrive at the same overall scores), but I still need to carve out the time to work this out in full. This may shore up many or all of the inconsistencies that occasionally arise from ratings by halves. That said, ratings by halves will prove accurate (and simpler to apply) with probably over 95% of all works. As an example of how this method works, let's take a work that I rate very highly and that is also very well known, such as The Doors' debut album. I rate this album 9.2/10 as a whole. It is essential to know that this 9.2/10 represents an accumulation of quality, meaning that all the songs on the Doors' debut combine by the end to produce that level of quality. If you took one of the songs away, the rating would drop. If you added a 12th song to the album, the rating might rise if the song continued a high enough qualitative pace to maintain or increase its emotional, conceptual and creative momentum and development. If you look at the Ratings Scale where 9.2/10 is listed, you will see: 9.2/10 = Combined total of both halves equaling 15.6 or 15.7. Examples: 7.8/10 + 7.8/10; 8.3/10 + 7.4/10 Those totals for combined halves only serve to illustrate what the ratings of each half of the work would need to amount to in order to produce the requisite accumulation needed for a 9.2/10. So, "15.6" or "15.7" can be used to see the variety of combinations that would amount to this. So long as it adds up to "15.6" or 15.7" it will work for any such combination. It could be where the first half of the album is a 9.0 and the second half is a 6.6 (9 + 6.6 = 15.6). It could be the first half is 7.5 and 2nd half is 8.1 or 8.2 (7.5 + 8.1 = 15.6; 7.5 + 8.2 = 15.7). Any two-valued combination that amounts to 15.6 or 15.7 will amount to the accumulation of quality needed for an overall rating of 9.2/10. In the case of The Doors, both halves equal "15.6" and each rate 7.8/10 on their own. This means that The Doors' first half: Break on Through (To The Other Side) + Soul Kitchen + The Crystal Ship + Twentieth Century Fox + Alabama Song + Light My Fire -- all accumulated, combined -- totals a 7.8/10 and should by itself, match the qualitative experience of any other 7.8/10. Similarly, The Doors' second half: Back Door Man + I Looked at You + End of the Night + Take It as It Comes + The End -- all accumulated, combined -- totals a 7.8/10 and should, by itself, match the qualitative experience of any other 7.8/10. When one combines all of this accumulated quality into a single whole -- both sides together -- one has the experience of a 9.2/10, which is double that of a 7.8 (or in the case of the higher 9.2's, as represented by "15.7", it would require slightly more than that, such as 7.8 + 7.9). These 'formulas' or 'equations' have been worked out for two-halved combinations at every echelon of the Ratings Scale. This is why they can be so helpful in verifying the ratings, because they illustrate how each overall rating can be broken down to smaller ratings and what it takes to accomplish them. Thus, this also means that all ratings are very logically aligned to each of the others; the differential between them being very precisely worked out to align at each rating. And one can use these in a myriad of other judgments along the entire scale, thus assessing these can greatly increase one's familiarity with the ratings and incremental differences at every point so that one's own determinations become very reliable in relation to all the others. This is particularly useful in assisting one in verifying the often minute differences in ratings that are very close qualitatively (like an 8.8 compared to an 8.9, etc) which can be more difficult to assess the differential mentally without breaking it down into halves or distinct junctures to help one work it out. This can be further verified by testing lower-rated works in relation to the halves that match them in rating, and vice versa. You will likely find (on those you agree with at least) that the accumulation of quality will be the same or very close in those parallel examples. By this I mean that you can take any rating and one will find that the halves match up qualitatively to their respective lesser ratings with the works that share those lower ratings. Note: by claiming this I do not mean that you will need to agree with me on my selections, or their ratings and rankings. The main point is the Ratings Scale itself, its precision and its increments, its accumulation of quality, all meticulously laid out, can be verified regardless. It can be of assistance in your own ratings even if the selections are different. It can greatly assist in organizing them into logical placements, especially if you agree with the main points of this criteria page. You will find that the selections will have an inherent and aligned logic all the way up and down the scale, and will be verifiable by their logical progression and in a multitude of ways. Furthermore, the more one familiarizes oneself with the great works across the histories of their respective arts, the more often one will still be able to see the logic of a selection, even if one disagrees with its placement on my lists, or often even before one is familiar enough to agree or disagree. Because in many cases one can still observe when a work is expressing substantial emotional and conceptual engagement, and creativity thereof, even if just a surface observation and even if partially intuitive. So this can allow one to note very quickly which works are more likely to reward revisits than others that don't substantiate such qualities. This doesn't mean one won't sometimes make mistakes or sometimes be surprised by a work that they underestimated or overestimated. But the main point is that, very often, one will be able to observe or intuit in advance. And then one can know, in many cases, which are the most likely works one should devote more time to. Example: even if inexperienced in evaluating paintings, almost anyone can see that Michelangelo's Sistine Chapel Ceiling and Last Judgment is a very concentrated, integrated, extensive and engaged expression of emotions, concepts and vast creativity, and almost anyone will be in instantaneous awe of it upon viewing it or at least be very impressed. Its quality and impact is palpable almost immediately. This is still only a partial, rather superficial experience with it, and yet it is already that impactful, awe-inspiring and overwhelming even to many who are hardly even familiar with it. Just imagine an in-depth experience of it, based on considerable understanding of Michelangelo's art and the gamut of meaning and expressiveness on display! That gives you a taste of the ideal from which the following Ratings Scale has been aligned and arranged on down from the very top to the bottom. All lower ratings have been meticulously worked out in relation to that. One could say similar things about Beethoven's 9th Symphony. Even his rare critics often concede that it is yet a massively influential and visionary work, a monumental outpouring of emotion and there is something profound or remarkable about it whether or not they can put their finger on it. You could even take a similar view at a work as divisive as Trout Mask Replica. It has plenty of critics but who among them would argue that there is a vast and highly creative outpouring of ideas and emotional expression throughout? This can be used as a sign that, if grasped, it might very well provide something extraordinary. How about a film like Citizen Kane? Practically every shot has an ingenious concept behind it and virtually every scene a unique way of expressing its emotions into a highly creative and profound cinematic experience that marked a paradigm shift for film. Maybe worth taking note and really discovering it before deciding it's over-rated like seems to be rather popular with many (usually inexperienced) filmgoers these days. You will tend to find there is an artistic logic to the selections that can be observed even before much personal agreement has taken place or even if one disagrees. And I simply recommend that you follow this observation or intuition in discovering them further. ***MOSTLY REVISED UP TO THIS POINT, AS OF 26 FEB 2021. STILL SOME TOUCH UPS/CORRECTIONS NEEDED AND SOME ADDITIONAL DETAILS TO ADD, PARTICULARLY FOR THE ABOVE SECTION, INCLUDING "OBJECTIVE VS SUBJECTIVE"*** RATINGS SCALE Below the following note is my full ratings scale, 0 through 10, including brief explanations, examples and what is required for each rating to be attained. NOTE: One can consider many of the following ratings descriptions as most accurate relative to the rest of the scale. And this can also be confused to the degree one is not so familiar with the level of quality that exists at the higher ends of the scale. Above 5.0 and below 9.5, the quality (or transcendent impact, depth thereof) doubles (roughly) for every 1.5 point increase in rating (1.4 to be super exact). Between 2.5 and 5.0 the quality gradually gets closer to an indifferent impact (the closer it lowers below 5.0 to 2.5) then below that, an increasingly detrimental impact. Therefore, below 5.0, the qualitative trajectory changes gradually towards an increasing percentage of indifference overtaking any redeeming or mediocre qualities. At 2.5 and below that indifference is complete (or at least, by far the majority) and the lower one goes the more a percentage of the work is overtaken by an even worse quality in which it is not just indifferent and tedious but more and more detrimental, even exasperating, to spend time or attention on. Above 5.0 is where one might say that a mild but stable, consistent qualitative transcendence is evident (again, very mild historically). Above 5.0 is a gradual, ascending upward curve towards the overwhelming transcendant experience of the higher ratings and, eventually, a 10. Below 5.0 is a gradual, descending downward curve below average, and eventually, the thoroughly tedious, then the detrimentally exasperating experience of wasting one's time with the very lowest ratings. At 9.5 and beyond, the level of quality seems to surpass a certain threshold of what might be called an apparent "infinity" of emotional, conceptual and creative depth with each of these expressed on a miraculous or incredible order of profundity (coming to compete or near-complete fruition at 9.8+). This in truth starts accumulating far lower on the scale. The entire scale above 2.5 technically (from an extremely low order), and more properly from 5.0 on up (because this is when an adequate transcendence begins in a culminated state, albeit of a very low order historically), is an accumulation towards a greater and greater consistency and degree of this. But at 9.5 it seems to have reached a point where it is so high that it is virtually beyond one's conception; it can barely be grasped or reckoned with or accounted for even while it can be experienced in terms of impact. This culminates at a full 10. Because of this, it seems that there is another increasingly steeper upward curve beginning at 9.5 and up through 10; perhaps a threshold is surpassed where finite calculations are becoming less conclusive, towards an incalculabe rate and culmination in quality, thus this final surge and acceleration to represent this as much as it can in simple math. I am not sure myself if this is the most perfect reasoning for it or the most ideal numerical representation of this qualitative phenomena (probably needs a more advanced math), but there are so few examples across the whole human history of art that can be used as "evidence", that it is difficult to judge precisely. The math and combinations that I've provided are probably over-simplified but should be workable enough to provide a gateway for one to verify and experience that phenomena and level of quality for oneself. A lack of familiarity with the whole scale can make many works seem like "masterpieces" in relation to lower rated works. Even a 4 can seem like some sort of "masterpiece" if only being compared to a 3 or below. A 5.5 can seem like a masterpiece in relation to a 4 and below. A 7 can seem like a masterpiece in relation to a 5.5 and below. So, for instance, if one comes from a listening background where he/she has listened to mainstream radio or chart hits as their main or only source of music, one may tend to see most 5s and 5.5s or 6s as masterpieces (because these and similar sources are full of 3s, 3.5s, 4s, 4.5s...). Conversely, lower ratings can often seem quite lacking once one familiarizes oneself with those rated high enough above them. A 5, for instance, which is usually an average and qualitatively successful work in itself, often with nothing particularly "wrong" with it within the spectrum of the artist's intentions and in accomplishing a consistently solid example of its genre or type of expressiveness, will nevertheless tend to prove quite lacking relative to the other works well above it which are far more transcendent and impactful. And this is probably true of most of the ratings. 7.3 works are perhaps the lowest point that will remain truly extraordinary even after familiarizing oneself with many superior works across the highest ratings (8.8 and above). This does not mean there will not be a large and obvious gap between, say, any 9/10 and a 7.5/10. It just means 7.3 is, in most cases, where a truly unique and visionary, audacious, ambitious art starts coming to fruition moreso than not within the work, and this will remain fairly distinguished even among the greatest masterpieces of history. (Extra Note: it is possible for a lower rated -- especially smaller scale or shorter works -- to be just as consistently extraordinary as a 7.3+, but in such lower rated cases they are simply too short or not extensive enough to develop to the same degree/culmination of impact.) 0 - TOTALLY WORTHLESS 0.0/10 = Combined total of both halves equaling 0.1/10 = Combined total of both halves equaling 0.2/10 = Combined total of both halves equaling 0.5 - EXTREMELY INEPT AND ALMOST TOTALLY WORTHLESS 0.3/10 = Combined total of both halves equaling 0.4/10 = Combined total of both halves equaling 0.5/10 = Combined total of both halves equaling 0.6/10 = Combined total of both halves equaling 0.7/10 = Combined total of both halves equaling 1.0 - THOROUGHLY INEPT AND THOROUGHLY WORTHLESS, AMOUNTING TO AN EXTREMELY NEGATIVE EXPERIENCE QUALITATIVELY (TO THE POINT OF BEING EXTREMELY ARDUOUS AND EXASPERATING TO SPEND THE REQUISITE TIME AND ATTENTION ON) 0.8/10 = Combined total of both halves equaling 0.9/10 = Combined total of both halves equaling 1.0/10 = Combined total of both halves equaling 1.1/10 = Combined total of both halves equaling 1.2/10 = Combined total of both halves equaling 1.5 - UNBELIEVABLY POOR AND DETRIMENTAL EFFORT / EXTREMELY UNINSPIRED EMOTIONALLY, CONCEPTUALLY AND CREATIVELY, AMOUNTING TO A VERY NEGATIVE EXPERIENCE QUALITATIVELY (TO THE POINT OF BEING VERY ARDUOUS AND EXASPERATING TO SPEND THE REQUISITE TIME AND ATTENTION ON) 1.3/10 = Combined total of both halves equaling 1.4/10 = Combined total of both halves equaling 1.5/10 = Combined total of both halves equaling 1.6/10 = Combined total of both halves equaling 1.7/10 = Combined total of both halves equaling 2.0 - EXTREMELY POOR AND DETRIMENTAL EFFORT / VERY UNINSPIRED EMOTIONALLY, CONCEPTUALLY AND CREATIVELY, AMOUNTING TO A NEGATIVE EXPERIENCE QUALITATIVELY (TO THE POINT OF BEING FRUSTRATING AND ARDUOUS TO SPEND THE REQUISITE TIME AND ATTENTION ON) 1.8/10 = Combined total of both halves equaling 1.9/10 = Combined total of both halves equaling 2.0/10 = Combined total of both halves equaling 2.1/10 = Combined total of both halves equaling 2.2/10 = Combined total of both halves equaling 2.5 - VERY POOR EFFORT / MOSTLY INDIFFERENT EMOTIONALLY, CONCEPTUALLY AND CREATIVELY, AMOUNTING TO A TEDIOUS EXPERIENCE WITH FEW REDEEMING QUALITIES 2.3/10 = Combined total of both halves equaling 2.4/10 = Combined total of both halves equaling 2.5/10 = Combined total of both halves equaling 2.6/10 = Combined total of both halves equaling 2.7/10 = Combined total of both halves equaling 3.0 - EXTREMELY LOW QUALITATIVE IMPACT / SOMEWHAT ENGAGED, BUT VERY SUPERFICIAL, LACKING INGENUITY AND/OR A CONFUSED OR UNDER-DEVELOPED ARTISTIC PURPOSE 2.8/10 = Combined total of both halves equaling 2.9/10 = Combined total of both halves equaling 3.0/10 = Combined total of both halves equaling 3.1/10 = Combined total of both halves equaling 3.2/10 = Combined total of both halves equaling 3.5 - VERY LOW QUALITATIVE IMPACT / APPARENTLY ENGAGED, BUT VERY SUPERFICIAL, LACKING INGENUITY AND/OR A CONFUSED OR UNDER-DEVELOPED ARTISTIC PURPOSE 3.3/10 = Combined total of both halves equaling 3.4/10 = Combined total of both halves equaling 3.5/10 = Combined total of both halves equaling 3.6/10 = Combined total of both halves equaling 3.7/10 = Combined total of both halves equaling 4.0 - LOW QUALITATIVE IMPACT / APPARENTLY ENGAGED, BUT SUPERFICIAL, LACKING INGENUITY AND/OR A CONFUSED OR UNDER-DEVELOPED ARTISTIC PURPOSE 3.8/10 = Combined total of both halves equaling 3.9/10 = Combined total of both halves equaling 4.0/10 = Combined total of both halves equaling 4.1/10 = Combined total of both halves equaling 4.2/10 = Combined total of both halves equaling 4.5 - BELOW AVERAGE HISTORICALLY / APPARENTLY ENGAGED, BUT SOMEWHAT SUPERFICIAL, LACKING INGENUITY AND/OR A CONFUSED OR UNDER-DEVELOPED ARTISTIC PURPOSE 4.3/10 = Combined total of both halves equaling 4.4/10 = Combined total of both halves equaling 4.5/10 = Combined total of both halves equaling 4.6/10 = Combined total of both halves equaling 4.7/10 = Combined total of both halves equaling 5.0 - HISTORICALLY MEDIOCRE / CONSISTENTLY ENGAGED BUT SOMEWHAT SUPERFICIAL, UNREMARKABLE EXPRESSIVE CONTENT AND/OR A CONFUSED OR UNDER-DEVELOPED ARTISTIC PURPOSE 4.8/10 = Combined total of both halves equaling 4.9/10 = Combined total of both halves equaling 5.0/10 = Combined total of both halves equaling 5.1/10 = Combined total of both halves equaling 5.2/10 = Combined total of both halves equaling 5.5 - ABOVE AVERAGE HISTORICALLY / CONSISTENTLY ENGAGED WITH A MILD AND PALPABLE TRANSCENDENCE (OF A LOW ORDER HISTORICALLY), BUT SOMEWHAT SUPERFICIAL, GENERALLY UNREMARKABLE EXPRESSIVE CONTENT AND/OR A CONFUSED OR UNDER-DEVELOPED ARTISTIC PURPOSE Definition of transcendent being applied: extending or lying beyond the limits of ordinary experience Ordinary experience in this case is not referring to the work having direct correlation with one's life experiences or not. It is referring to how ordinary the expressiveness of the art under evaluation is in relation to generic examples, as in those having little particularly distinctive or special quality. So the more transcendent, the more distinct and beyond that it is, the more likely it is to deliver an experience that is unique and takes one beyond the generic towards or above the extraordinary. Above 5.0, this will be more and more palpable, and the higher the rating, will increasingly outweigh any lesser parts or inconsistencies of a work. CONDITIONAL: These descriptions will not necessarily apply as much to a shorter/smaller work (such as the shorter songs/tracks, short films or small paintings) at least when describing its qualitative efficiency in regards to how impressive it is per unit of time/space. Ex: A work that is 5.5/10, but accomplished in, say, 5 or 10 minutes or so, is actually quite impressive. Although it has accumulated the overall emotional/conceptual expressive impact and creativity that a comparable 5.5/10-rated album has over a much longer time frame, it would actually be doing so much more expediently, so its impact per unit of time is much greater. 5.3/10 = Combined total of both halves equaling 5.4/10 = Combined total of both halves equaling 5.5/10 = Combined total of both halves equaling 5.6/10 = Combined total of both halves equaling 5.7/10 = Combined total of both halves equaling 6.0 - GOOD OR BORDERLINE EXCELLENT / CONSISTENTLY ENGAGED WITH A PALPABLE, IF INCONSISTENT, TRANSCENDENCE (OF A LOW ORDER HISTORICALLY) WITH CONTENT THAT IS MIXED BETWEEN COMPELLING AND UNIMPRESSIVE ... Most works with this rating have laid the foundation for an extraordinary work but are likely an under-developed or expressively mitigated version of such. So while it may be a thoroughly consistent and perfectly successful example in itself, scrutiny and experience will show its merits to wane in relation to higher rated works. CONDITIONAL: These descriptions will not necessarily apply as much to a shorter/smaller work (such as the shorter songs/tracks, short films or small paintings) at least when describing its qualitative efficiency in regards to how impressive it is per unit of time/space. Ex: A work that is 6/10, but accomplished in, say, 10 minutes or so, is actually very impressive, roughly on pace for 8/10 to 8.5/10 if over the course of an entire album. Although it has accumulated the overall emotional/conceptual expressive impact and creativity that a comparable 6/10-rated album has over a much longer time frame, it would actually be doing so much more expediently, so its impact per unit of time is much greater. 5.8/10 = Combined total of both halves equaling 5.9/10 = Combined total of both halves equaling 6.0/10 = Combined total of both halves equaling 6.1/10 = Combined total of both halves equaling 6.2/10 = Combined total of both halves equaling 6.5 - EXCELLENT OR BORDERLINE SUPERB / CONSISTENLY ENGAGED AND ITS EXPRESSIVE CONTENT WILL ACHIEVE A PALPABLE TRANSCENDENCE, THOUGH IT WILL TEND TO ALLUDE TO TRULY REMARKABLE EXAMPLES AS OPPOSED TO WHOLLY OR ACTUALLY BEING ONE OF THEM ... This is where truly excellent works begin. There is an emotional/conceptual and creative transcendence to such a work that is now clearly separating itself from the norm (5/10, 5.5/10). The majority of these works will accumulate into a consistent, thoroughly great work, wholly satisfying and affecting as itself, or nearly so. CONDITIONAL: These descriptions may not necessarily apply as much to a shorter/smaller work (such as the shorter songs/tracks, short films or small paintings) at least when describing its qualitative efficiency in regards to how impressive it is per unit of time/space. Ex: A work that is 6.5/10, but accomplished in, say, 10 minutes or so, is actually pretty rare and very impressive, exhibiting the potential of a near masterpiece or all time masterpiece. Although it has accumulated the overall emotional/conceptual expressive impact and creativity that a comparable 6.5/10-rated album has over a much longer time frame, it would actually be doing so much more expediently, so its impact per unit of time is much greater. 6.3/10 = Combined total of both halves equaling 6.4/10 = Combined total of both halves equaling 6.5/10 = Combined total of both halves equaling 6.6/10 = Combined total of both halves equaling 6.7/10 = Combined total of both halves equaling 7.0 – SUPERB OR BORDERLINE EXTRAORDINARY / CONSISTENTLY ENGAGED AND RATHER TRANSCENDENT, BUT FALLS SHORT OF A TRULY VISIONARY, SPECIAL OR AUDACIOUS WORK OVERALL … At 6.8+ the work will tend to prove quite competent expressively, providing a very effective and thoroughly impactful rendition of its emotional/conceptual content. These will often strike a qualitative balance between very well-executed and (as we get closer to 7.3+), borderline extraordinary. Upon evaluation and scrutiny, these works will usually prove somewhat short on depth (even if marginally), to be a bit too derivative or not quite creative enough to truly belong among more singular, remarkable or stunning examples (7.3 and, especially, above). These are often the most immediately recommendable and dependable works for those wanting great experiences but are just starting off or are relatively unfamiliar with a genre or type of art. This does not mean you will not find any music or art below 6.8/10 that could be described or experienced as "superb" or "borderline extraordinary". What it does mean is that those 6.8/10 and above can generally be described in this way with little or no reservation and permanently or historically so, regardless of how many revisitations and regardless of how much great art one assimilates, including relative to the greatest works of all time. CONDITIONAL: These descriptions may not necessarily apply as much to a shorter/smaller work (such as the shorter songs/tracks, short films or small paintings) at least when describing its qualitative efficiency in regards to how impressive it is per unit of time/space. Ex: A work that is 7/10, but accomplished in, say, 10 minutes or so, is actually quite rare and highly impressive, exhibiting the potential of a near masterpiece or all time masterpiece. Although it has accumulated the overall emotional/conceptual expressive impact and creativity that a comparable 7/10-rated album has over a much longer time frame, it would actually be doing so much more expediently, so its impact per unit of time is much greater. An assessment for a work of this stature (6.8/10 - 7.2/10) can be calculated by halves as follows. One needs to ensure to balance each half at equal (or nearly equal) running times (for music, film) or equal spatial parameters (for paintings/visual art). 6.8/10 = Combined total of both halves equaling 6.9/10 = Combined total of both halves equaling 7.0/10 = Combined total of both halves equaling 7.1/10 = Combined total of both halves equaling 7.2/10 = Combined total of both halves equaling Various Examples Rock: Sgt Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band - The Beatles (1967); Nevermind - Nirvana (1991); OK Computer - Radiohead (1997) Jazz: Blue Train - John Coltrane (1957); Time Out - Dave Brubeck (1959); Journey in Satchidananda - Alice Coltrane (1970) Film: The Empire Strikes Back - Irvin Kershner (1980); Fight Club - David Fincher (1999); The Dark Knight - Christopher Nolan (2008) Painting: Saturn Devouring His Son - Francisco Goya (1823); Metropolis - George Grosz (1917); Nighthawks - Edward Hopper (1942) 7.5 – HISTORICALLY EXTRAORDINARY / BORDERLINE AMAZING ... At 7.3+ the work will begin to really stand out to history as creatively and emotionally/conceptually extraordinary. Definitions of extraordinary being applied: "Highly exceptional; remarkable" and "Beyond what is usual, ordinary, regular, or established." --Dictionary.com / The Free Dictionary.com This does not mean you will not find any music or art below 7.3/10 that could be described or experienced as "extraordinary". What it does mean is that those 7.3/10 and above can generally be described in this way with little or no reservation, and permanently or historically so, regardless of how many revisitations and regardless of how much great art one assimilates, including relative to the greatest works of art of all time. An assessment for a work of this stature (7.3/10 - 7.7/10) can be calculated by halves as follows. One needs to ensure to balance each half at equal (or nearly equal) running times (for music, film) or equal spatial parameters (for paintings/visual art). 7.3/10 = Combined total of both halves equaling 7.4/10 = Combined total of both halves equaling 7.5/10 = Combined total of both halves equaling 7.6/10 = Combined total of both halves equaling 7.7/10 = Combined total of both halves equaling Various Examples Classical: To be determined/updated... Rock: Agaetis Byrjun - Sigur Ros (1999); Yankee Hotel Foxtrot - Wilco (2002); Funeral - Arcade Fire (2004) Jazz: Maiden Voyage - Herbie Hancock (1965); The Inner Mounting Flame - Mahavishnu Orchestra (1971); The Koln Concert - Keith Jarrett (1975) Film: Casablanca - Michael Curtiz (1942); Blade Runner - Ridley Scott (1982); Mulholland Drive - David Lynch (2001) Painting: Mona Lisa - Leonardo da Vinci (1505); Las Meninas - Diego Velazquez (1656); The Scream - Edvard Munch (1893) 8.0 – HISTORICALLY AMAZING ... At 7.8+, the work will start becoming a more thoroughly amazing experience. These are often masterpieces by most definitions of the word, and will usually be cornerstones of their genre or confluence of genres. Definition of amazing being applied: "To affect with great wonder; astonish." --The Free Dictionary.com This does not mean you will not find any music or art below 7.8/10 that could be described or experienced as "amazing". What it does mean is that those 7.8/10 and above can generally be described in this way with little or no reservation, and permanently or historically so, regardless of how many revisitations and regardless of how much great art one assimilates, including relative to the greatest works of art of all time. An assessment for a work of this stature (7.8/10 - 8.2/10) can be calculated by halves as follows. One needs to ensure to balance each half at equal (or nearly equal) running times (for music, film) or equal spatial parameters (for paintings/visual art). 7.8/10 = Combined total of both halves equaling 7.9/10 = Combined total of both halves equaling 8.0/10 = Combined total of both halves equaling 8.1/10 = Combined total of both halves equaling 14.1 or 14.2. Examples: 7.1/10 + 7.1/10 8.2/10 = Combined total of both halves equaling 14.3 or 14.4. Examples: 7.2/10 + 7.2/10 In instances where it is very difficult to balance the work by two equal halves one would apply greater ratings' weight to the larger of the two, the degree of which would vary depending on how substantial the differential between them. With these, it is perhaps more challenging to conclude an exact rating and ranking, but if one is able to draw a close estimate one can then compare it with other similarly ranked works to get a more accurate determination. Various Examples Rock: Are You Experienced? - Jimi Hendrix (1967); Blue - Joni Mitchell (1971); Exile On Main Street - The Rolling Stones (1972) Jazz: Brilliant Corners - Thelonious Monk (1956); Kind of Blue - Miles Davis (1959); The Survivor’s Suite – Keith Jarrett (1976) Film: 8 ½ - Federico Fellini (1963); 2001: A Space Odyssey - Stanley Kubrick (1968); The Godfather, Part 2 - Francis Ford Coppola (1974) Painting: The Night Watch - Rembrandt van Rijn (1642); Les Demoiselles d'Avignon - Pablo Picasso (1907); The Kiss - Gustav Klimt (1908) 8.5 – HISTORICALLY AWE-INSPIRING … At 8.3+, the work will be thoroughly awe-inspiring and transcend all or nearly all examples of its genre or confluence of genres. Definition of awe-inspiring being applied: "an overwhelming feeling of reverence, admiration, fear, etc., produced by that which is grand, sublime, extremely powerful, or the like." --Dictionary.com This does not mean you will not find any works below 8.3/10 that could be described or experienced as "awe-inspiring". What it does mean is that those 8.3/10 and above can generally be described in this way with little or no reservation, and permanently or historically so, regardless of how many revisits and regardless of how much great art one assimilates, including relative to the greatest works of art of all time. An assessment for a work of this stature (8.3/10 - 8.7/10) can be calculated by halves as follows. One needs to ensure to balance each half at equal (or nearly equal) running times (for music, film) or equal spatial parameters (for paintings/visual art). 8.3/10 = Combined total of both halves equaling 14.5 or 14.6 Examples: 7.5/10 + 7.0/10; 7.3/10 + 7.3/10 8.4/10 = Combined total of both halves equaling 14.7 or 14.8. Examples: 7.7/10 + 7.0/10; 7.4/10 + 7.4/10 8.5/10 = Combined total of both halves equaling 14.9 or 15.0 Examples: 7.9/10 + 7.0/10; 7.5/10 + 7.5/10 8.6/10 = Combined total of both halves equaling 15.1 or 15.2 Examples: 8.0/10 + 7.1/10; 7.6/10 + 7.6/10 8.7/10 = Combined total of both halves equaling 15.3 or 15.4 Examples: 8.0/10 + 7.3/10; 7.7/10 + 7.7/10 In instances where it is very difficult to balance the work by two equal halves one would apply greater ratings' weight to the larger of the two, the degree of which would vary depending on how substantial the differential between them. With these, it is perhaps more challenging to conclude an exact rating and ranking, but if one is able to draw a close estimate one can then compare it with other similarly ranked works to get a more accurate determination. Various Examples Classical: Violin Concertos Nos. 1-4, "The Four Seasons" - Antonio Vivaldi (1723); Piano Sonata No. 23 in F Minor "Appassionata" - Ludwig van Beethoven (1805); The Rite of Spring - Igor Stravinsky (1913) Rock: The Piper at the Gates of Dawn - Pink Floyd (1967); In the Court of the Crimson King - King Crimson (1969); The Downward Spiral - Nine Inch Nails (1994) Jazz: Ascension - John Coltrane (1965); The Magic City - Sun Ra (1965); Conference of the Birds - Dave Holland (1972) Film: Vertigo - Alfred Hitchcock (1958); Persona - Ingmar Bergman (1966); Taxi Driver - Martin Scorsese (1976) Painting: The Beethoven Frieze - Gustav Klimt (1902); Metamorphose de Narcisse - Salvador Dali (1937) 9.0 - ALL TIME MASTERPIECE ... At 8.8+, the work will be very astonishing and will stand out as an especially intense, deeply felt or profound exploration, development and culmination of its expressiveness and creativity. It will stand out to history as an achievement in its genre or confluence of genres that may never be equaled or surpassed. An assessment for a work of this stature (8.8/10 - 9.2/10) can be calculated by halves as follows. One needs to ensure to balance each half at equal (or nearly equal) running times (for music, film) or equal spatial parameters (for paintings/visual art). 8.8/10 = Combined total of both halves equaling 15.5 or 15.6. Examples: 8.3/10 + 7.2/10; 7.8/10 + 7.8/10 8.9/10 = Combined total of both halves equaling 15.7 or 15.8. Examples: 8.3/10 + 7.4/10; 7.9/10 + 7.9/10 9.0/10 = Combined total of both halves equaling 15.9 or 16.0 Examples: 8.5/10 + 7.4/10; 8.0/10 + 8.0/10 9.1/10 = Combined total of both halves equaling 16.1 or 16.2. Examples: 8.5/10 + 7.6/10; 8.1/10 + 8.1/10 9.2/10 = Combined total of both halves equaling 16.3 or 16.4. Examples: 8.5/10 + 7.8/10; 8.2/10 + 8.2/10 In instances where it is very difficult to balance the work by two equal halves one would apply greater ratings' weight to the larger of the two, the degree of which would vary depending on how substantial the differential between them. With these, it is perhaps more challenging to conclude an exact rating and ranking, but if one is able to draw a close estimate one can then compare it with other similarly ranked works to get a more accurate determination. Various Examples Classical: Mass in B Minor - Johann Sebastian Bach (1749); Symphony No. 5 in C Minor - Ludwig van Beethoven (1808); Requiem - Guisseppe Verdi (1874) Rock: Blonde On Blonde - Bob Dylan (1966); The Velvet Underground & Nico - The Velvet Underground (1966); Astral Weeks - Van Morrison (1968) Jazz: The Black Saint & The Sinner Lady - Charles Mingus (1963); A Love Supreme - John Coltrane (1964); Escalator Over The Hill - Carla Bley (1971) Film: Citizen Kane - Orson Welles (1941); North By Northwest - Alfred Hitchcock (1959); Brazil - Terry Gilliam (1985) Painting: The Last Supper - Leonardo da Vinci (1497); The Garden of Earthly Delights - Hieronymus Bosch (circa 1490-1515); Guernica - Pablo Picasso (1937) 9.5 - SUPREME MASTERPIECE ... At 9.3+, the work will seem like an utterly impossible achievement. An achievement so astonishing that, regardless of the type of emotional and conceptual content, experiencing it will inspire awe comparable to a miraculous religious experience or a series of mind-blowing revelations. It will produce such effects thoroughly and in a manner so singular and exceptional that it will tend to completely revolutionize one's concept of what an artist and work of art are capable of expressing. An assessment for a work of this stature (9.3/10 - 9.7/10) can be calculated by halves as follows. One needs to ensure to balance each half at equal (or nearly equal) running times (for music, film) or equal spatial parameters (for paintings/visual art). 9.3/10 = Combined total of both halves equaling 16.5 or 16.6. Examples: 9.0/10 + 7.5/10; 8.3/10 + 8.3/10 9.4/10 = Combined total of both halves equaling 16.7 or 16.8. Examples: 9.0/10 + 7.7/10; 8.4/10 + 8.4/10 9.5/10 = Combined total of both halves equaling 16.9 or 17.0. Examples: 9.0/10 + 7.9/10; 8.5/10 + 8.5/10 9.6/10 = Combined total of both halves equaling 17.1 or 17.2. Examples: 9.0/10 + 8.1/10; 8.6/10 + 8.6/10 9.7/10 = Combined total of both halves equaling 17.3 or 17.4 Examples: 9.0/10 + 8.3/10; 8.7/10 + 8.7/10 In instances where it is very difficult to balance the work by two equal halves one would apply greater ratings' weight to the larger of the two, the degree of which would vary depending on how substantial the differential between them. With these, it is perhaps more challenging to conclude an exact rating and ranking, but if one is able to draw a close estimate one can then compare it with other similarly ranked works to get a more accurate determination. Various Examples Classical: Symphony No. 9 in D Minor "Choral" - Ludwig van Beethoven (1824); Tristan und Isolde - Richard Wagner (1859); Symphony No. 9 in D Major - Gustav Mahler (1910) Rock: Trout Mask Replica - Captain Beefheart (1969); Rock Bottom - Robert Wyatt (1974) Jazz: None Film: None Painting: None 10 – ARTISTIC APOTHEOSIS … At 9.8+, the work will be so beyond the generally perceived heights of human artistic capability that it is very difficult to adequately describe. It is a work that would be overwhelmingly miraculous, and would tend to leave one astounded, moved and struck by waves of epiphany throughout the experience towards a seemingly inexhaustible ingenuity, staggering emotional depth and conceptual significance. As we reach a full 10.0, the work will have achieved, beyond any other, a particular quality where even as it can be thoroughly understood and experienced when a knowledgeable, extensive effort is made, such will yet prove so inspiring, so transcendent and dynamic, that doing so only seems to extend the possible meaning or interpretations into what seems like a (virtually) infinite, ultimately indefinable depth of impact and significance. It seems that it can both be grasped and yet endlessly open to further assimilation. No matter the scrutiny, it will seem above criticism and evaluation, as if artistically “priceless”. It is also a work that will prove to be a culmination of the development of its art form, brought to a previously unimaginable creative epoch, causing a paradigm shift that will resonate for all time. It will prove to be axiomatic that the artist has now achieved an emotional and conceptual conviction and engagement with his art on the order of a profound religious devotion (whether or not it is specifically religious in terms of actual content). His own understanding of his art will be so refined and rarefied that it will seem informed by something miraculous or on the order of divine guidance. His technical rendering and emotional conveyance will have assumed the quality of a profound spiritual revelation, seeming sacred and miraculous to behold. In this will be found a revelatory unveiling of self that is both highly personal and ambitiously universalized at the same time, culminated and transfigured into this work into a realm of expression that surpasses its own rules and limits into an artistic truth of such depth and allusion that it seems endlessly reflective and suggestive. A 10/10 does not necessarily mean "100% flawless", though probably approaches this in many regards. One could probably conceive of flaws in anything being qualitatively judged, so this is not the claim. "Flawless" in terms of its comparative value can also be quite relative to the task or ambition undertaken. As a simple demonstration and comparison, there are many flawless paintings of bowls of fruit, where the technique and rendering looks so detailed and realistic that one could say that it is a perfect painting. In comparison to this, one could view Michelangelo's Sistine Chapel and yet perhaps conceive of some minor flaws in the work. So is the bowl of fruit the greater work of art because it's "more flawless"? Or should we take much stronger consideration of the creativity, expressive impact and significance of each work when comparing them? What is the flawlessly painted bowl of fruit expressing? A bowl of fruit. A 10/10 represents an unsurpassed combination and accumulation of creativity, expressed emotional and conceptual engagement, relative to all forms and genres of art throughout the history of mankind. It is the ideal from which all others are judged. An assessment for a work of this stature (9.8/10 - 10/10) can be calculated by halves as follows. One needs to ensure to balance each half at equal (or nearly equal) running times (for music, film) or equal spatial parameters (for paintings/visual art). 9.8/10 = Combined total of both halves equaling 17.5, 17.6 or 17.7. Examples: 9.3/10 + 8.2/10; 8.9/10 + 8.8/10 9.9/10 = Combined total of both halves equaling 17.8, 17.9, 18.0. Examples: 9.3/10 + 8.5/10; 9.0 + 9.0/10 10/10 = Combined total of both halves equaling 18.1, 18.2, or 18.3. Examples: 9.3/10 + 8.8/10; 9.2/10 + 9.1/10 In instances where it is very difficult to balance the work by two equal halves one would apply greater ratings' weight to the larger of the two, the degree of which would vary depending on how substantial the differential between them. With these, it is perhaps more challenging to conclude an exact rating and ranking, but if one is able to draw a close estimate one can then compare it with other similarly ranked works to get a more accurate determination. Various Examples Classical: None? (Maybe: Symphony No. 9 in D Minor "Choral" - Ludwig van Beethoven (1824) ... Very close call...) Rock: None Jazz: None Film: None Painting: Sistine Chapel: Ceiling & The Last Judgment - Michelangelo Buonarroti (1512; 1541) Literature/Poetry: The Divine Comedy - Dante Alighieri (circa 1321) PIERO SCARUFFI: In viewing my lists, it should come as no surprise that Piero Scaruffi is responsible, through his site, for helping me discover many of my selections. Primarily, I should thank him for introducing me to several of my “Greatest Rock” and “Greatest Jazz” selections. He has introduced me to quite a few of my "Greatest Films" and "Greatest Paintings" selections as well (though I've also returned some of the favor in this regard). Also, he has introduced me to some of my “Greatest Classical” selections. I strongly recommend his site for those seeking similar experiences in art that I’ve described throughout this page: http://www.scaruffi.com/. My “Greatest Rock Albums” selections are the most similar to his of all of my lists. For what it's worth, this came about gradually over time and did not start off this way. My Jazz choices share a strong resemblance too, though as he has not rated most of his, it is unclear just how close they are to his overall order and ratings. Similarly, for my Classical, Film and Visual Art/Paintings lists. Overall, I estimate that I agree with him closely on approximately 80% of our alike selections. This is pretty much the same even when I happen to rate a work before he does. I don’t know for sure why this is, except I must assume we have a very similar criteria. Mine was borne from discovering the Classical music giants (Beethoven, Bach, Mozart, Brahms, etc) over 20 years ago, long before I discovered Scaruffi. In assimilating these works I began developing a strong taste for the criteria I’ve described above, and an urge to find more works that aligned with it. By 2005, I'd only found a select group of Rock albums that matched or approached the emotional/conceptual depth of those I'd found in Classical (the most impressive selections one can find on many "best of" lists, such as Astral Weeks, Velvet Underground & Nico, The Doors, etc). Sometime in 2005, after coming across Scaruffi's page and being very intrigued by his selections and the prospect that they could meet what I was looking for, I took on the challenge of his "Greatest Rock Albums of All Times" list. To this day I am continually surprised at just how closely his selections meet my criteria, and extremely impressed by how "mathematically accurate" and logical his ratings and rankings are in relation to one another. Piero Scaruffi’s criteria page alludes to or explains this in some regard, but is decidedly less certain or explicit of a particular formula than how I've stated mine here. In any case, the page is quite insightful, a very worthwhile read and one can get a very good idea of his point-of-view and how I could draw similar conclusions: http://www.scaruffi.com/music/criteria.html ... If that link doesn't work, copy into your browser. Perhaps our similar ratings could also be partially explained by this quote from Scaruffi himself: “That said, I believe that appreciation of a work of art depends on knowledge. Two people whose knowledge is wildly different will have wildly different opinions on a piece of music. For example, a person who has listened to a lot of music has a different opinion from a person who has listened to very little music (but it doesn't have to be "quantity", it could just be different kinds of music). Therefore, knowledge determines what you like and what you don't like. To a large extent, the "emotion" that music makes you feel depend on what you know... ... My experience is that people who have similar knowledge have remarkably similar opinions.” (Note: I removed a small portion of the above quote that I do not agree with, though none of what is presented has been altered in any way) Now, I don’t claim to have as vast knowledge or experience as he does in all the arts, but I have listened to much of the same music, seen many of the same films, and assimilated much of the same visual art, so the point has some validity towards explanation. Combine this experience with my uniform criteria for all art, which seems similar to Scaruffi’s, and in my opinion, applies what are possibly – perhaps even scientifically – the fundamental, common denominators in all art. And add that this was borne in the ideals established by my early discovery of Beethoven, Bach, Mozart, Brahms and other Classical masterpieces (not dissimilar to Scaruffi) and it shouldn’t be too hard to understand how I so easily and thoroughly found harmony with his choices, which were then perpetuated by my use of his lists (from 2005-present) in discovering and assimilating much of the same art as he has. That said, though I do agree with Scaruffi’s choices quite often, I do so out of close observation and my own experience – not automatically -- and am often more than happy to explain my choices upon request (time and circumstance permitting). There are on occasion times where I have realized that I rated a work similar to Scaruffi's partially from some bias after so much prior agreement with him, but even when this occurs, I always correct it thereafter upon revisit(s) and the rating becomes 'my own' whether or not it still closely matches his. In the end there is no doubt that Ive learned a lot from him so in the sense that his lifetime of work has helped me to so many discoveries, and in the sense that I continue to learn from his analysis, lists and histories, my ratings and rankings are undoubtedly influenced by the knowledge he has shared, even though almost always also determined with my own integrity intact, and if not, corrected thereafter. Okay, hopefully I’ve provided an understandable explanation for my criteria and my choices. If you’d like me to clarify any of these points, or any of my selections, don’t hesitate to ask.

AfterHours Profile
The Zone

sethmadsen wrote:

The Pines of Rome is a staple. Is it the greatest art of all time, no. But neither is 99% of any art.

Right on, I keep forgetting to update the "Recommendations" page with 1ChiefRockas (and now yours too) recommendation(s).
_________________
Best Classical
Best Films
Best Paintings

AfterHours Profile
The Zone

AfterHours wrote:

boyd94 wrote:

Quick question about this. I'm an anorak who find all kinds of evaluation and interpretation of art intrinsically interesting so forgive my pedantry, but this confuses me a little:

Quote:

9.0/10 = Combined total of both halves equaling 15.7. Examples: 7.8/10 + 7.9/10; 7.3/10 + 8.4/10

Is this a formula specifically designed to distinguish albums that are more than the sum of their parts? I.e, that an album containing a Side A of 'Historically Extraordinary/Amazing' work and a Side B of 'Near-Masterpiece' work amounts to a work that is cumulatively an 'All-Time Masterpiece' (assuming cohesiveness in emotional/conceptual content from one side to the next)?

Well, yes, but I also dont think there's a legitimate debate otherwise (not that this is your intent). All art is an accumulation of parts/actions (etc), so whether one agrees with my ratings or not, the fundamental idea is difficult to dispute. For an extreme example, consider the following: Michelangelo's Sistine Chapel. Lets say that's a 10/10. If one starts taking figures and scenes away, does it keep the same rating? Is each brush stroke a 10/10? If said stroke were left alone and presented in frame at an art gallery would they each be as great as the Sistine Chapel altogether? Of course not. It is a 10/10 as a whole, and portions of it broken down to such miniscule parts would not nearly be so astonishing and significant (though that doesn't mean I don't think that Michelangelo's tone and brush strokes are possibly, on their own, the most significant of all time, perhaps only surpassed by Da Vinci?). Still, at best, one could look at Michelangelo's tone and conviction in said brush stroke and say something like: "if he keeps painting this way on a scale of The Sistine Chapel he has the potential to produce an astonishing work of art." ... ... Same thing with music. Songs are essentially collections of notes, accumulating into a composition (keeping this simple and concise). Albums are collections of songs. It is very rare, particularly with the best albums, to find cases where a half of the album is better than the whole (because you're generally dealing with a great artist with considerable conviction, inspiration, follow-through and an overall vision). White Light/White Heat and Atlantis, off the top of my head, are the only ones that come to mind. Sister Ray is slightly better alone (maybe) than it fairs with the rest of the album "added" to it, as there is a qualitative dip sufficient enough to (slightly) mitigate the overall emotional/conceptual significance of the work (current ratings might be 6.5 or 6.6 for Side A, 8.9 or 9.0 for Side B). Atlantis (Sun Ra) is a similar issue, but with a greater differential. This phenomenon of substantial quality differential between songs/parts is probably more prevalent with poor or mediocre works, which more often feature great inconsistencies in quality (if they're not just "consistently poor/mediocre" which is very common as well).

Note: The ratings could be broken down in smaller parts (1/3rds, 1/4ths, 1/8ths) and so forth, as well. I chose halves because this was easier to describe ratings-wise, and is also usually my first point of orientation when figuring out an overall rating for an album after listening to it (after that I might break it down further, especially when trying to decide its exact ranking in relation to another work(s) with the same rating ... but "by halves" is almost always my entry point). And especially with Rock/Jazz/Classical music where artists commonly have similarly timed sides to their albums/works, this is simpler to consider and allows one to more easily follow the logic of my ratings (and Scaruffi's too, as it seems to work just as well with his, aside from occasions where we disagree).

Actually, "more" than the sum of their parts would probably be an incorrect connotation (depending on exactly what you mean by the term). The number is the sum of its parts. The quality of a 7.8 followed the quality of a 7.7 equals the quality of an 8.8 (as in, the same accumulation and degree of emotional/conceptual significance and creativity). Etc. The number is representative of the qualitative accumulation of its halves, which are made of (of course) of smaller parts... etc.
_________________
Best Classical
Best Films
Best Paintings

RoundTheBend I miss the comfort in being sad Profile
Ground Control

AfterHours wrote:

Right on, I keep forgetting to update the "Recommendations" page with 1ChiefRockas (and now yours too) recommendation(s).

No worries. The Pines of Rome actually was 1ChiefRocka's suggestion, I was just helping clarify that the piece is commonly performed by major symphony's worldwide. Whether it is mind boggling conceptually and emotionally, no I wouldn't put it in that realm. Whether it is a staple in Western Civilization, absolutely.

AfterHours Profile
The Zone

sethmadsen wrote:

No worries. The Pines of Rome actually was 1ChiefRocka's suggestion, I was just helping clarify that the piece is commonly performed by major symphony's worldwide. Whether it is mind boggling conceptually and emotionally, no I wouldn't put it in that realm. Whether it is a staple in Western Civilization, absolutely.

Thanks, it is highly probable that I've heard it then but just not familiar with the name. Looking forward to checking it out when I get around to extra Classical works.
_________________
Best Classical
Best Films
Best Paintings

AfterHours Profile
The Zone

Tha1ChiefRocka wrote:

Hey, I know you're still on a classical kick, so I figured I'd suggest a couple I didn't see on your list.

Ottorino Respighi- The Roman Trilogy (Fontane di Roma, Pini di Roma, Feste Romane)

Anything by Silvestre Revueltas- Particularly 'Sensemaya' or 'La Noche De Los Mayas'.

FINALLY added to the recommendations page 🤡 👏
_________________
Best Classical
Best Films
Best Paintings

RoundTheBend I miss the comfort in being sad Profile
Ground Control

I'm curious what your feedback would be with these 2 EPs. I quite appreciate them from a conceptual level and emotional. They create music based on the 4 classical elements: Fire and Water for the first EP. Air and Earth for the second. I'm not certain another project out there is quite like this one.

I will say the collection was a grower (mostly because I'm less of a fan of that style of screaming on Fire). But once it clicked, it became an album released in the past 20 years which I came to highly respect, even if I didn't at first.

It also features some of the most fantastic baritone guitar work I've ever heard. They also have a knack for writing in unique time signatures, yet it isn't forced.

The Alchemy Index by Thrice

https://open.spotify.com/album/4qJ6YCuvhSRNik047WYgG2
https://open.spotify.com/album/6wLcEP3s7HOJ3LQlNy6nIC

Unrelated, I'd like to understand more why albums which emotionally and conceptually are very interesting to me are rated as barely above average. We've talked about this a few times, so if it isn't worth your time, I understand that, but perhaps you take the first half of Sgt. Pepper or Joshua Tree and explain in more detail why The Doors debut is FAR superior (I think a full 2 points?). Please provide specific examples as you do so, as I feel our discussions in past have been difficult due to generalities. Part of why I want to do this is because in times past you've suggested Beatles fans have yet to show any evidence of any reason why they should be considered more than a simple pop group with no significant aesthetic worth (paraphrasing). I'd like to understand more why VU or Doors are FAR more superior (as I see them as all equally significant, just different).

I suppose I'm asking for a fair, honest, recent assessment not based on bias, rather the "text themselves". I promise to do the same with those two albums (I actually like VU's self titled album better and perhaps I'm missing something you can help me see).

AfterHours Profile
The Zone

@ sethmadsen ... yes, no problem, I will explain as soon as I can -- maybe not all at once (I rarely have that kind of time), but taken in parts.

One thing to know is that my results are less likely to be understood proportionately to the degree one hasnt experienced all the music/art I have (Scaruffi says a similar thing including that "people with similar knowledge tend to have remarkably similar opinions" ... not exact quote). I dont mean that to come across condescendingly btw. But if youve only assimilated a small percentage of the albums on my Rock/Jazz list (7.3 on up) than my results are unlikely to make as much sense as they might if youve taken the time/effort to really "get" most/all of them. Albums like Joshua Tree and other 7s (while superb albums in their own right) may seem much more creative and singular, and delivered with extraordinary conviction, if one hasnt heard hundreds of more impressive works, including those that elicit similar pathos but much more profoundly/strikingly/creatively/powerfully.

So just keep in mind that its not that I dont think Joshua Tree is a great and poweful album. Its just that albums like Spirit of Eden or Hex (etc) take similar pathos/spiritual salvation/existential quandary to even more profound and powerful heights. And I strongly doubt youd disagree if you assmilated them (but in the end, who knows).

Anyway, Ill answer your queries as soon as I have enough time.
_________________
Best Classical
Best Films
Best Paintings

Last edited by AfterHours on 02/04/2018 02:46; edited 1 time in total

AfterHours Profile
The Zone

Re: Alchemy ... Sounds like it has a correlation to the Third Ear Band (2 albums on my list). Their self titled tackles the same themes. I will add these to my recommendations page, thank you.
_________________
Best Classical
Best Films
Best Paintings

Last edited by AfterHours on 02/03/2018 23:22; edited 1 time in total

AfterHours Profile
The Zone

Note/Edit ... Just noticed Spirit of Eden is in your top 100 of the 80s, so maybe you do really "get" that one? Only something you would know...
_________________
Best Classical
Best Films
Best Paintings

AfterHours Profile
The Zone

Note/Edit #2 ... re: Alchemy ... after reading your brief descriptions of the music, maybe there is no correlation (or a superficial one?) with Third Ear Band. Regardless, sounds interesting.
_________________
Best Classical
Best Films
Best Paintings