Post subject: Can every musical form potentially achieve perfection?
I know that preferences change from person to person and that each person has their own idea of perfection. What drives me in music is the possibility of discovering new forms of perfection, so despite my metal-oriented tastes I look for anything. As a result, I'm even proud to have a release from one of my least favorite styles, drone, in my top 100: Ravedeath, 1972 by Tim Hecker. But there are some styles that haven't been granted that same level of love that either the outerworld populace or underworld community like us give love like that to: hence terms like buttrock for the 2000's rock scene. Nickelback was at the front of that scene.
The real problem with perfection is that ever since the age of vinyl kickstarted a new age of radio thanks to the efforts of rock and roll and the British Invasion, stations and labels would slowly realize that quality was no longer needed. What mattered was the cheap and easy aesthetic that makes Budweiser so popular. No more need to try. As a result, radio-rounded music scenes had less need for perfection. It seriously hurt the 2000's alternative scene, quickly ended rock around 2010 and practically killed smaller scenes like crunk where the only hope for survival was in the hands of Family Force 5.
But who's to say they never reached perfection? I'll be completely honest. I'm a firm believer in the power of Alter Bridge. Live at Wembley is a release you should only ignore if you have a deep hatred for the 2000's aesthetic. If fucking post-grunge can reach perfection, anything can. It helps that there is a large amount of 2000's rock acts because there was so much money involved. Such is not the case for a scene headed by Lil Jon, FF5 and Brokencyde with occasional ventures by Blood on the Dance Floor. There weren't many acts in that scene, largely due to the fact that most of these acts weren't as successful as other artists in other ventures. Even overdone country pop still has money involved, hence Shania Twain and Taylor Swift.
So even though I respect the freedom of opinion to be against a style, I'm afraid I still disagree on an almost moral level. The comfort zone is like a prison to me. I have to try something new every now and then so I go through phases where I switch from band to band with no consistent personal trait other than curiosity. I'll switch from the new Toots (RIP) to an Artillery album and then watch a movie. I'm even annoyed that most of my top 100, as accurate as it is, is 40% rock. I need to find new forms of perfection to satisfy myself, especially since I want a little less rock in my own top 100. I have no idea how many thousands of albums I've heard at this point, but I always need more knowledge of music. _________________ Do it yourself and let me play my music: https://www.besteveralbums.com/thechart.php?c=61802
Last edited by Spyglass on 09/16/2020 01:52; edited 1 time in total
Every piece of music has a goal. It's important that the goal be reached without sacrificing the quality of the song. The goal is often to please its target audience and scene, but once again, it shouldn't sacrifice anything. If the music achieves that in a creative way without sacrificing its own meat and blood, it can pass that goal, potentially being perfect.
Obviously this is not the only way to properly judge music, but this system can potentially take every type of music into account. _________________ Do it yourself and let me play my music: https://www.besteveralbums.com/thechart.php?c=61802
I have no idea what we are talking about really here... so I'll just say it's always rubbed me wrong when nothing can "feel" perfect to the listener. I mean sure you have to define perfection to achieve it, and therein lies BayStates argument (I think), that perfection doesn't actually ever exist.
Anyway, so maybe I'll stay away from words like the full on dogmatic "best" or "perfect".
Most pleasing to me or most cathartic to me or most impacting on me - those get those 5 star ratings for me. And to enjoy it to the max - there's no "sin" in that.
So maybe Nickelback was the best they could do for that feel is what's being discussed? I'd argue that no they didn't perfect it better than any other band doing what they were doing.
Somehow the perfectionism of Billy Corgan came to mind. (perhaps what was alluded to the decline of Alternative Rock?)
I like how you mentioned Corgan's perfectionism, si nce I'm guilty of being a bigger Alter Bridge fan than Smashing Pumpkins fan. It serves as a good example of the subjectivity pertaining to perfection and the varying definitions we all have. Mellon Collie forever. _________________ Do it yourself and let me play my music: https://www.besteveralbums.com/thechart.php?c=61802
This implies that no music has ever been made simply for the sake of making music - that no music is purely exploratory, that no music was or is made indecisively, that no music is aimless. Just wondering if you believe this to be the case?
I only bring this up because I almost posted something that would have been extremely similar baystate's post. I would've questioned whether perfection actually can be achieved, and even if it could whether that would be "a good thing". But he basically beat me to it. _________________ 2021 in full effect. Come drop me some recs. Y'all know what I like.
This implies that no music has ever been made simply for the sake of making music - that no music is purely exploratory, that no music was or is made indecisively, that no music is aimless. Just wondering if you believe this to be the case?
There are terms for that type of music: filler, sellout, etc. Do these filler songs complete their goal? Yes. A filler song always completes its goal because it's literally there to fill an album, and aimless music is just there to be music, so it also completes its goal just by existing. But do these songs sacrifice musical quality for that sake? Usually, but it's not a 100% guarantee.
This cycle can even be reversed. Some music is intentionally bad, like the Daddy's Boy albums. Shit music with the goal of being shit music. Does it pass it's goal? Unfortunately, yes. BUT, it sacrifices the very idea of quality itself, so it's not perfect at all. It just accomplishes what the artist wanted, but that doesn't make it enjoyable. _________________ Do it yourself and let me play my music: https://www.besteveralbums.com/thechart.php?c=61802
There are terms for that type of music: filler, sellout, etc. Do these filler songs complete their goal? Yes. A filler song always completes its goal because it's literally there to fill an album, and aimless music is just there to be music, so it also completes its goal just by existing. But do these songs sacrifice musical quality for that sake? Usually, but it's not a 100% guarantee.
All purely exploratory musical experiments are filler or sellout attempts? I'd argue that they're quite the opposite, in the vast majority of cases. Also, what does existence as a goal even mean, in the context of a non-sentient, almost abstract concept such as music? Does the artist, however willingly, believe that by creating said music, however consciously, that they have achieved some sort of goal? Without getting too "if a tree falls..." about it, I would certainly question the concept that every artist has some concrete intent when deciding (again, however consciously) to bang a stick against a rock, or pick up a guitar and strum it in some random motion whilst paying no deliberate intention to the method, and yet that's sometimes where the purest sounds might emerge from.
The concept of "perfection" in music is silly, because not only does it imply that there are no imperfections, but how does one perfect a form that doesn't yet exist, or hasn't yet been defined? You talk of "styles" of music being perfected, but if an artist is in the process of actually inventing or forming a new style, is there actually a format or template that can in fact be perfected?
I mean, if you're just using "perfect" as an adjective to describe a piece of music that you couldn't personally wish to change, I could maybe (at a push) give you a couple of examples that I might, on a good day, think fit that mold - I sometimes think New Order's 'Ceremony' or The Black Saint and the Sinner Lady or 'Int'l Player's Anthem' fit that definition, but other times I hear some imperfection in the composition or recording that I think could improve them even still - but I tend to believe that "perfection", given its literal meaning as a form that couldn't possibly be improved upon in any way or shape, and is thus objectively undeniable in said perfection, simply doesn't exist. _________________ 2021 in full effect. Come drop me some recs. Y'all know what I like.
After reading the first sentence I realize that this time I'm guilty of a misinterpretation. I figured you were talking about cheap radio pop music when you said "aimless" and "just to exist."
Here's my take: Aimless music in the experimental vein achieves a goal of freedom of expression, experimentation, etc. IMO, music made just to be can only fail if it doesn't exist. This may or may not be experimental, but TMR proves that freedom can be perfected with boldness. Experimental music and left-field music personify freedom, and I wish more people could enjoy it. I'd kill to live in an area with a station that plays this kind of music. _________________ Do it yourself and let me play my music: https://www.besteveralbums.com/thechart.php?c=61802
Last edited by Spyglass on 09/15/2020 17:09; edited 1 time in total
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
