Overrated artists - Music - Forums : Best Ever Albums

RoundTheBend
I miss the comfort in being sad

Location: Ground Control

AfterHours wrote:

In considering the best ever, you can answer this question for yourself with any given music artist, as follows:

Are they truly among the most talented artists of all time, with technical renditions (vocally, instrumentally) that demonstrate this?
Is their vocalist(s) (if applicable) truly among the most extraordinary and affecting of all time?
Are their instrumentalists truly among the most extraordinary and affecting of all time?
Are they truly among the greatest composers of all time, even for at least an album or two?
Are they truly among the most creative artists of all time, replete with works that it seems utterly astonishing the human mind produced?
Are any of their albums truly among the most thoroughly affecting or profound experiences you can imagine having from music or art (or close to this)? Any of their songs/tracks?

If you answered no to some of the above, the selected artist is probably a logical fallacy. If you answered no to most or all of the above, the selected artist is definitely a logical fallacy. If you answered yes to all of the above as applicable, I am very pleased that we both love Beethoven.

(RE: Beethoven)

I agree with this. Of course you are going to get varying interpretations of these answers and such interpretations are not a hard science, but these are fantastic questions to ask.

Being a fan of literary theory (a great toolbox of lenses through which to interpret art), I'd have to add things like the web of influence the artist had (new historicism). I'd also want to know if the art actually touches on the aspects of what Goethe called his demon or what was then known as the non-book smart "genius", taught by nature and as such it is a reflection of nature (Kant) and the human spirit?

For me, sometimes an artist/work can answer yes to all your questions, but they are missing a powerful "demon" behind it. It's not just an emotional thing, rather a mirror of humanity.

rkm

AfterHours

Gender: Male
Location: originally from scaruffi.com ;-)

rkm wrote:

Funny

but not a particularly relevant analogy for what I said...

...but one could probably observe each of their qualities and characteristics and determine which are the most contributive to the development of humanity, the animal kingdom and Earth itself.
_________________
Best Classical
Best Films
Best Paintings

AfterHours

Gender: Male
Location: originally from scaruffi.com ;-)

[quote="sethmadsen"]

AfterHours wrote:

In considering the best ever, you can answer this question for yourself with any given music artist, as follows:

Are they truly among the most talented artists of all time, with technical renditions (vocally, instrumentally) that demonstrate this?
Is their vocalist(s) (if applicable) truly among the most extraordinary and affecting of all time?
Are their instrumentalists truly among the most extraordinary and affecting of all time?
Are they truly among the greatest composers of all time, even for at least an album or two?
Are they truly among the most creative artists of all time, replete with works that it seems utterly astonishing the human mind produced?
Are any of their albums truly among the most thoroughly affecting or profound experiences you can imagine having from music or art (or close to this)? Any of their songs/tracks?

If you answered no to some of the above, the selected artist is probably a logical fallacy. If you answered no to most or all of the above, the selected artist is definitely a logical fallacy. If you answered yes to all of the above as applicable, I am very pleased that we both love Beethoven.

(RE: Beethoven)

sethmadsen wrote:

I agree with this. Of course you are going to get varying interpretations of these answers and such interpretations are not a hard science, but these are fantastic questions to ask.

Thanks -- good chat as always Smile

Probably, though I have reservations with saying "absolutely". I think it is much more based on knowledge and experience than people generally seem wanting to admit. This in place, any reasonably intelligent person can probably connect to any work's expressiveness, as it is within anyone's potentiality to feel and express any emotional sensation.

I am open to the possibility your (prevalent) assumption is something of a logical fallacy in itself because one of the common denominators of the most astonishing artists of history such as Michelangelo with The Sistine Chapel or Beethoven with the 9th Symphony (and many other works) is that they KNEW they were causatively producing a seminal work of art the likes of which no one had experienced before. Ok. "What" did they know? (I can answer that, it's more a rhetorical question)

sethmadsen wrote:

Being a fan of literary theory (a great toolbox of lenses through which to interpret art), I'd have to add things like the web of influence the artist had (new historicism).

This, in essence, is not un-workable. But not entirely in practice, because "web of influence" requires that the work has been disseminated a lot, which isnt always the case, and is infact becoming less and less the case (that the most creative works tend to be more disseminated). And if a work hasnt been disseminated it is still the same work than as if it had. This is all basically because the purpose of art has been at least partially suppressed as it has been replaced by the greed or financial concerns of those that oversee its production. Artists have probably always run into this issue to some degree but it has become progressively more one sided as the decades roll on. Proportionally, in this society you now have many artists whose "web of influence" could be perceived as great, but whose creativity is very low, and is almost entirely marketing and media based. So one should understand the expressive and creative history of a form and its works of art well enough to make a determination despite external influences that could "fool" him/her.

sethmadsen wrote:

I'd also want to know if the art actually touches on the aspects of what Goethe called his demon or what was then known as the non-book smart "genius", taught by nature and as such it is a reflection of nature (Kant) and the human spirit?

For me, sometimes an artist/work can answer yes to all your questions, but they are missing a powerful "demon" behind it. It's not just an emotional thing, rather a mirror of humanity.

I doubt you can find a truly worthy example... Think

_________________
Best Classical
Best Films
Best Paintings

AfterHours

Gender: Male
Location: originally from scaruffi.com ;-)

sethmadsen wrote:

I'd also want to know if the art actually touches on the aspects of what Goethe called his demon or what was then known as the non-book smart "genius", taught by nature and as such it is a reflection of nature (Kant) and the human spirit?

For me, sometimes an artist/work can answer yes to all your questions, but they are missing a powerful "demon" behind it. It's not just an emotional thing, rather a mirror of humanity.

Re: the other points here...

As in my criteria (which is mid revision and has been polished up/updated a bit since we last discussed it), you will probably find I closely agree with you, particularly at the highest echelons, as we reach an idealization of the purposes of art.

Ex:

"9.5 - SUPREME MASTERPIECE ... At 9.3+, the experience seems like an utterly impossible achievement. An achievement so astonishing that, regardless of the type of emotional and conceptual content, it inspires awe comparable to a life-changing, miraculous religious experience or as if discovering and unraveling some very profound mysteries of existence and the universe. 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."

"10 – EPITOME OF ART … At 9.8+, the experience is 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 also prove so inspiring and its emotional/conceptual weight so transcendent and dynamic, that perceiving it only seems to extend the possible meaning or interpretations into what seems like an infinite, ultimately indefinable depth of significance that feels like 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 in his art on the order of a profound religious devotion. His own understanding of his art will be so refined and rarefied that it will seem informed by divine guidance. His technical rendering and emotional conveyance will have assumed the quality of a profound spiritual revelation, seeming sacred and impossible to behold. In this will be found an ultimate and revelatory unveiling of self through the whole of his art and an idealization of the purpose of art itself, a development formally complete but so fundamentally true and of such depth and allusion that it is infinitely reflective and suggestive, transfigured to immortality.

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" can also be quite relative to the task or ambition undertaken. One could view a flawless painting of a bowl of fruit, and there are many of these. Alongside 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? Or should we take much stronger consideration of the creativity, expressive impact and significance of each work when comparing them? A 10/10 represents a seemingly unsurpassable combination of creativity, expressed emotional conviction and conceptual significance, relative to all forms and genres of art throughout the history of mankind. It is and has proven to be impossible to match or surpass, and is the ideal from which all others are judged."
_________________
Best Classical
Best Films
Best Paintings

jdenny2018

Gender: Male

I'm just gonna ignore the direction the thread went and just say that Arcade Fire and Bob Dylan are extremely overrated to me. I've never "gotten" AF and Bob Dylan is just trying to be Woody Guthrie. That and Bob Dylan is horribly boring to me.
_________________
Don't get work up over my posts. I'm an idiot.
Rantings on my Top 100
My podcast

Fischman
RockMonster, JazzMeister, Bluesboy,ClassicalMaster

Gender: Male
Location: Land of Enchantment

jdenny2018 wrote:

I'm just gonna ignore the direction the thread went and just say that Arcade Fire and Bob Dylan are extremely overrated to me. I've never "gotten" AF and Bob Dylan is just trying to be Woody Guthrie. That and Bob Dylan is horribly boring to me.

Hear! Hear!

baystateoftheart
Neil Young as a butternut squash

Age: 29
Location: Massachusetts

jdenny2018 wrote:

I'm just gonna ignore the direction the thread went and just say that Arcade Fire and Bob Dylan are extremely overrated to me. I've never "gotten" AF and Bob Dylan is just trying to be Woody Guthrie. That and Bob Dylan is horribly boring to me.

What Bob Dylan albums have you listened to? There is some diversity in his albums, so even if you haven't liked what you've heard so far, it's possible that something for you is out there.
_________________
Add me on RYM

Fischman
RockMonster, JazzMeister, Bluesboy,ClassicalMaster

Gender: Male
Location: Land of Enchantment

baystateoftheart wrote:

What Bob Dylan albums have you listened to? There is some diversity in his albums, so even if you haven't liked what you've heard so far, it's possible that something for you is out there.

Diversity? The problem is they're all sung with that same exceedingly nasal voice and that ridiculous vocal affect where he drones out the last syllable of almost every line. Unlistenable. A few good songs though, that when performed by other artists, become listenable.

baystateoftheart
Neil Young as a butternut squash

Age: 29
Location: Massachusetts

Fischman wrote:

Diversity? The problem is they're all sung with that same exceedingly nasal voice and that ridiculous vocal affect where he drones out the last syllable of almost every line. Unlistenable. A few good songs though, that when performed by other artists, become listenable.

We all get that you don't like Bob Dylan. But why are you jumping in to try to persuade someone else against trying out something they might like?
_________________
Add me on RYM