Aside from Twin Infinitives, one of the only other Scaruffi favorites that I genuinely hate is The Days of Wine And Roses by Dream Syndicate, which I saw you also ranked in your top 50. What makes this awful album a piece of art or good or a choice to second chance?
PS: this year (2023) I am on a listening journey going through all of Scaruffi's 8/10s that I haven't heard yet, and the discographies also includes 7.5s and 7s, I'm taken them into account of hearing too. I HAVE to have heard and rated all the records before the end of the year. But I'm already down the records released in the 1960s and finished the 1970s today (although they are only a 5th of the records that are about to come). I think there is about 400-450 records in total.
Re: Days of Wine and Roses ... It is a descendant of The Velvet Underground/Lou Reed combined with Dylan's Hwy 61 Revisited so if you haven't really got those or partially have, difficulty with this one is probably a given. A lot of emotion and evocation is in the ferocious, swirling, tension-filled, distorted "walls" of interweaving, dueling, guitar work outs, which (in general) express an intense "urban anguish" and "neurosis" or "psychological catastrophe/devastation" left in the wake of (or as backdrops to) the protagonist's/singer's stories, anxieties, laments, etc. _________________ Best Classical Best Films Best Paintings
PS: this year (2023) I am on a listening journey going through all of Scaruffi's 8/10s that I haven't heard yet, and the discographies also includes 7.5s and 7s, I'm taken them into account of hearing too. I HAVE to have heard and rated all the records before the end of the year. But I'm already down the records released in the 1960s and finished the 1970s today (although they are only a 5th of the records that are about to come). I think there is about 400-450 records in total.
Right on DD! I still have a few 8s I've never heard, as well as a decent helping of 7.5s, and a number of 7s. May The Force be with you!
I have a harder time (than, say, Scaruffi) staying away from more revisits and comparisons across genre or art forms, which means I tend to listen to a lot of my favorites (and view, for visual art and cinema) multiple times instead of as heavy a focus on continuously discovering a large percentage of new stuff (I do spend time on new stuff, it's just not always a #1 priority). Scaruffi also just seems faster at grasping albums well (and decisively rating) in one or a few listens (even though I consider myself pretty good at this, he is on another level). This all combined, I am sure, helps him listen to lots of new stuff. I also am usually far less willing to spend as much time as he must listening to albums rated below 6. It's no wonder he seems to get exasperated about them (especially the hyped ones) from time to time. If that was more than half of what I was listening to I probably would too! _________________ Best Classical Best Films Best Paintings
PS: this year (2023) I am on a listening journey going through all of Scaruffi's 8/10s that I haven't heard yet, and the discographies also includes 7.5s and 7s, I'm taken them into account of hearing too. I HAVE to have heard and rated all the records before the end of the year. But I'm already down the records released in the 1960s and finished the 1970s today (although they are only a 5th of the records that are about to come). I think there is about 400-450 records in total.
Right on DD! I still have a few 8s I've never heard, as well as a decent helping of 7.5s, and a number of 7s. May The Force be with you!
I have a harder time (than, say, Scaruffi) staying away from more revisits and comparisons across genre or art forms, which means I tend to listen to a lot of my favorites (and view, for visual art and cinema) multiple times instead of as heavy a focus on continuously discovering a large percentage of new stuff (I do spend time on new stuff, it's just not always a #1 priority). Scaruffi also just seems faster at grasping albums well (and decisively rating) in one or a few listens (even though I consider myself pretty good at this, he is on another level). This all combined, I am sure, helps him listen to lots of new stuff. I also am usually far less willing to spend as much time as he must listening to albums rated below 6. It's no wonder he seems to get exasperated about them (especially the hyped ones) from time to time. If that was more than half of what I was listening to I probably would too!
I mean I checked his RYM account and it says that he has listened to almost 37k albums. Safe to say, I don't think he needs more than one listen to find out if it's another average faux experimental album or the next Yerself Is Steam. I won't be giving them more than one listen (except that I have written Dreamtime Return on here because I need to revisit it), and my favorites aka those I give anything above a 70/100, I will save in my library so I can return to them anytime I want.
I hear you about the hyped albums. I knew about it before obviously, but it hit me harder than anyone else during my listening spree of 2022 albums (you can say the same about 2021 yeah, but there's a difference between 540 albums and 1040 albums). I even think the Italian man speaks of it himself, that people tend to say you should listen to a particular album multiple times before seeing that it's actually a great album - last year, it was Big Thief, Kendrick Lamar, The Smile, Black Country New Road and such. But I can give lots of recommendations to other records released last year that does the same genre better, yet are much more obscure, and they don't even think about giving it a few minutes. Just like the rich gets richer, and the poorer gets poorer in a way. Marketing is very much as important as the music itself if you want people to listen to it sadly. I don't have any marketing behind my music, so that explains. And it's always mainly the pop music fans who cannot handle a criticism or an opinion that their record isn't groundbreaking or artistic genius, or simply not that enjoyable (because mainly in pop music, it really revolves around the image, the person and their private life). I'm very sick and tired of it honestly. But despite that, the most important thing for me is that the music I discover, can do something for me and my enjoyment/emotions.
Also, how essential do you think replay value is for an album to be great? If you ask me, it's one of the most important factors. The greatest compliment and treat you can give to a record is to listen to it. And if it keeps having a grasp even after 10, 20, 30, 50....100 listens, then yeah. Lil secret but I am erasing my alter concept from my chart (the X and Y categories) and are just ranking my favorite albums out of how much I've played them: if I feel an album should be higher, I should listen to it more to gain it, and if it doesn't add up then it's not even that amazing of an album to be on the chart nah mean. _________________ My Top 100 :
www.besteveralbums.com/thechart.php?c=4...amp;page=1
PS: this year (2023) I am on a listening journey going through all of Scaruffi's 8/10s that I haven't heard yet, and the discographies also includes 7.5s and 7s, I'm taken them into account of hearing too. I HAVE to have heard and rated all the records before the end of the year. But I'm already down the records released in the 1960s and finished the 1970s today (although they are only a 5th of the records that are about to come). I think there is about 400-450 records in total.
Right on DD! I still have a few 8s I've never heard, as well as a decent helping of 7.5s, and a number of 7s. May The Force be with you!
I have a harder time (than, say, Scaruffi) staying away from more revisits and comparisons across genre or art forms, which means I tend to listen to a lot of my favorites (and view, for visual art and cinema) multiple times instead of as heavy a focus on continuously discovering a large percentage of new stuff (I do spend time on new stuff, it's just not always a #1 priority). Scaruffi also just seems faster at grasping albums well (and decisively rating) in one or a few listens (even though I consider myself pretty good at this, he is on another level). This all combined, I am sure, helps him listen to lots of new stuff. I also am usually far less willing to spend as much time as he must listening to albums rated below 6. It's no wonder he seems to get exasperated about them (especially the hyped ones) from time to time. If that was more than half of what I was listening to I probably would too!
I mean I checked his RYM account and it says that he has listened to almost 37k albums. Safe to say, I don't think he needs more than one listen to find out if it's another average faux experimental album or the next Yerself Is Steam. I won't be giving them more than one listen (except that I have written Dreamtime Return on here because I need to revisit it), and my favorites aka those I give anything above a 70/100, I will save in my library so I can return to them anytime I want.
I hear you about the hyped albums. I knew about it before obviously, but it hit me harder than anyone else during my listening spree of 2022 albums (you can say the same about 2021 yeah, but there's a difference between 540 albums and 1040 albums). I even think the Italian man speaks of it himself, that people tend to say you should listen to a particular album multiple times before seeing that it's actually a great album - last year, it was Big Thief, Kendrick Lamar, The Smile, Black Country New Road and such. But I can give lots of recommendations to other records released last year that does the same genre better, yet are much more obscure, and they don't even think about giving it a few minutes. Just like the rich gets richer, and the poorer gets poorer in a way. Marketing is very much as important as the music itself if you want people to listen to it sadly. I don't have any marketing behind my music, so that explains. And it's always mainly the pop music fans who cannot handle a criticism or an opinion that their record isn't groundbreaking or artistic genius, or simply not that enjoyable (because mainly in pop music, it really revolves around the image, the person and their private life). I'm very sick and tired of it honestly. But despite that, the most important thing for me is that the music I discover, can do something for me and my enjoyment/emotions.
Also, how essential do you think replay value is for an album to be great? If you ask me, it's one of the most important factors. The greatest compliment and treat you can give to a record is to listen to it. And if it keeps having a grasp even after 10, 20, 30, 50....100 listens, then yeah. Lil secret but I am erasing my alter concept from my chart (the X and Y categories) and are just ranking my favorite albums out of how much I've played them: if I feel an album should be higher, I should listen to it more to gain it, and if it doesn't add up then it's not even that amazing of an album to be on the chart nah mean.
Re: "Scaruffi's RYM account" ... Does he really have one? I doubt it's really him. If you're referring to PieScarf, I really don't think that's actually Scaruffi, but just a fan that is closely tracking him and updating the ratings and lists accordingly. Pretty sure Scaruffi has indicated before in an interview or to someone that emailed him that he isn't much of a fan of RYM (though he probably likes the data base and I wouldn't be surprised if he uses it for some searches). And I'm also not sure why he would spend so much time on an account which is just repeating updates he is already making on his website.
Re: "replay value" ... Yes of course! My ratings are VERY predicated on "depth" (caused by consistency and degree of emotional, conceptual, creative expression). Depth, by definition, results in a "permanence" of quality (sustained impact, significance, etc). So, yes, the higher the rating/ranking the more "replay value" it has. At the very top (for instance, Michelangelo's Sistine) the work is apparently inexhaustible. Really, in many ways you could start saying that even around 7.5 or 8 or something (as those never really get "old" or "worn out"), the work seems (for all intents and purposes) "inexhaustible". At the very top with something like the Sistine, however, almost seems to grow in meaning the more one analyzes it, and the work seems to almost (perhaps really does) exist "above" the scale "beyond criticism". It is so reflective of so much human pathos, ambition, existence, aims, religion/philosophical conviction and quandary and what-not, of both the worries and inspiration of its time (and for much of time itself) and Michelangelo's art so personal and profound and meaningful in presenting all of it, that it can assume (take on) seemingly an infinitude of interpretation, meaning, emotional content, and so on (and I don't mean that in a hyperbolic sense, but legitimately, the more one observes and immerses oneself in its art, it seems "endless"). This "infinitude" of interpretive meaning and power seems to be a byproduct of an artist having more and more a "religious-type-conviction and engagement" (whether analogous to, or actually) with his art and expressing such through his work. And near or at the top of the ratings scale, of putting all of him or herself into his/her art while (simultaneously) being one of the most profound geniuses of history and a giant of humanity so that "all of him or herself" reflects so much more than if, say, he or she was a "smaller, less 'visionary' artist" (with small or more tunnel-visioned concerns and lesser genius or intellect). When you have a towering genius in art the likes of a Michelangelo or a Beethoven you tend to get a very personal and embracive being (in terms of their understanding and expressive capacity for the human condition and existence) and, when they peak as an artist, you can get a very wide sphere of meaning, while the artist is also (simultaneously) deeply expressing him or her self so that the art at hand is BOTH highly personal, very unique (very high individuality, very revealing of their whole person) AND yet also covers a very wide, perhaps "universal" sphere of import, of meaning, of interpretation that -- if that genius culminates (isn't suppressed), fully flowers -- one might say may approach an apparent infinitude of expressive depth, analogous to the universe or the ultimate questions of existence, and other alike parallels, connotations. _________________ Best Classical Best Films Best Paintings
In essence this is "efficiency" (basically, percentage of essential or worthwhile scenes vs superfluous scenes; not to be confused with "only fast-paced" films), and/or how compelling the "structural composition" of the film. A film can specialize in one or the other and rank well, but (usually) needs to excel or at least be good at both (efficiency and structure), and usually very compelling in at least one, to rank among the best.
NOTE that essential or worthwhile scenes would be primarily determined by how expressively and developmentally contributory they are to the emotional or thematic or conceptual expression the film is aiming for, composing, conveying. NOT by how immediately or easily entertaining they are, or the like (though, in a film aiming for such, that might be a key factor). The point is, a focus on entertaining the audience, a divertissement, is only one form of expression in film (or any art), and usually a "less meaningful form of entertainment", not the ultimate goal of most great art which is (in my opinion) a higher or more meaningful form of "entertainment" (infact "above" mere entertainment) that tends to deal with more profound or immersive, more deeply stimulating concepts, themes or emotions, than merely trying to entertain the audience in what is often a superficial, fleeting and forgettable, escape from reality (and too often the art form is brought to the lowest common denominator in order to appease as many as possible, which almost by rule, would mean it has limited the individuality or singularity of its aesthetic
and communicative potential in order to do so).
I would also probably add, for this list, that I usually find a film whose structure is extraordinary and unique yet also has an impressive internal logic to it, brilliantly composed, to be of higher value than, for instance, a film that is highly unique structurally but is yet (more or less) randomly composed (or might as well have been) and didn't require as brilliant composing to put together like that of the former. One could compare, for instance, the extraordinary structural composition of Nolan's Memento with an early surrealist film such as Bunuel's Un Chein Andalou, to consider the difference. This doesn't mean Un Chein Andalou should rank particularly low but just to point to why I would consider Memento a more impressive achievement in editing/structure despite Un Chein Andalou being among the most formally radical films ever made and certainly for its time. The essence being, that usually a film that is both radical or very inventive structurally and masterfully, intricately composed, will out-rank one that is mostly just a radical structural break from tradition.
VERY INCOMPLETE / IN PROGRESS
Citizen Kane - Orson Welles (1941)
Nashville - Robert Altman (1975)
Memento - Christopher Nolan (2001)
Persona - Ingmar Bergman (1966)
Taxi Driver - Martin Scorsese (1976)
8 ½ - Federico Fellini (1963)
Mirror - Andrei Tarkovsky (1975)
The Conversation - Francis Ford Coppola (1974)
Pulp Fiction - Quentin Tarantino (1994)
21 Grams - Alejandro Gonzales Inarritu (2003)
Touch of Evil - Orson Welles (1958) [1998 Restored "Welles' Memo" Cut, 111 minutes]
Three Colors: Red - Krzysztof Kieslowski (1994)
Satantango - Bela Tarr (1994)
Point Blank - John Boorman (1967)
Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind - Michel Gondry (2004)
Lost Highway - David Lynch (1997)
Breathless - Jean-Luc Godard (1960)
Irreversible - Gaspar Noe (2002)
The Godfather, Part 2 - Francis Ford Coppola (1974)
Brazil - Terry Gilliam (1985) [The Final Cut, 142 minutes]
Natural Born Killers - Oliver Stone (1994) [Director's Cut, 123 minutes]
Reservoir Dogs - Quentin Tarantino (1992)
Blow Out - Brian De Palma (1981)
Hiroshima, Mon Amour - Alain Resnais (1959) _________________ Best Classical Best Films Best Paintings
Last edited by AfterHours on 02/03/2023 16:32; edited 1 time in total
I've probably posted this before on BEA but want to highlight it again while I am revisiting a bit of cinema and working on my "editing/structure" list...
Well worth checking out, and if you haven't seen the film, for gawds sakes see it...
Memento is one of the great works of the 21st century and pretty highly regarded, but (rather awkwardly) often still gets ranked well below other 2000s films that aren't nearly as original or rewarding and usually even below some of Nolan's own films, such as the rather good (but obscenely overrated) Dark Knight, and sometimes others (Inception, Interstellar, Prestige, Dunkirk ... occasionally his other two Batman films ...).
I am on the verge of checking out Tenet, hoping it's better than advertised by the very mixed ratings/reviews from critics and filmgoers. _________________ Best Classical Best Films Best Paintings
I wonder why you don't like Unsane S/T much, since I think it's pretty similar to Willpower to some extent which you rank highly (both are catastrophic uncontrolled eruptions). Perhaps you could try their Scaruffi 7.5 Total Destruction? The song writings there are a bit more complex and fancier, instrumentation has a lot more timings and contrast too.
Ah nvm, I listened to Willpower again and it's more than just a series of heart attacks from what I remembered, with all the technical musicianship and such. Guess Unsane isn't so comparable to it, my bad
Ah nvm, I listened to Willpower again and it's more than just a series of heart attacks from what I remembered, with all the technical musicianship and such. Guess Unsane isn't so comparable to it, my bad
No worries, yeah, I do recall the Unsane s/t as being much different than Willpower (which is much more vivid, impulsive, dynamic, theatrical). I'll have to revisit Unsane but I remember it walking a very fine line between boredom and sustained intensity (for me). Doesn't mean I'm "correct" beyond that one experience with it (or maybe two), or at least that I will be in the end (after some more listens). I've only heard it once or twice, and it could've just been bad timing without the proper focus on what it is doing, its essential elements, their content, meaning and so on. Infact, I think that is more likely than not. What did I give the self-titled? A 6.5, something like that? _________________ Best Classical Best Films Best Paintings
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
