Re: "how can you be so precise between 9.0 and 9.1?"
Yes, it is very precise and meticulously worked out, so it is not a guess... The differences are minor between a 9.0 and 9.1 but can be differentiated by someone familiar enough with the criteria and the work(s) under question.
Because my criteria is so thoroughly worked out and aligned from top to bottom, and the ratings are determined in relation to the values all across my list, all of which I've experienced innumerable times over the last several years across each art form.
One tends to acquire more certainty of what's substantial and what's not so substantial in an art form to the degree one has experienced it. For instance, Nirvana is likely to appear and sound much more creative and emotionally substantial to someone that does not know Dinosaur Jr and Husker Du (and others that could be cited...).
Perhaps a good use case is Bosch. Earlier this week you mentioned you adjusted the score and then adjusted it back. I can't remember the values, but if it is so precise, by what benchmark or what evaluation went into play.
Everyone does the same thing, just trying to break it down logically/perhaps philosophically (aesthetics). For me I often find my place of mind isn't always the same. My own emotional and mental state (to be frank laziness or patience... I'll go with the latter because it sounds better ) can all play in what rating I give something. Sometimes I will re-evaluate something and be like - I gave that a 90... it's clearly an 80, and then a year later I'll be like how could I be such an idiot, that's a 100. From our conversations, it sounds like that never really happens to you - perhaps because you have a very solid understanding of what a nebulous though of "emotional greatness" means to you, and I on the other hand see it relating at multiple values on many different levels, and those vary pending on multiple situations (my mood - my ability to listen to it in the car vs my home stereo vs headphones, etc.... I mean they are all small things, but I've found they actually make a difference).
AfterHours wrote:
Another point is that, as far as I know, I am the first person to successfully figure out and describe the actual method behind Scaruffi's ratings -- or at least this is what I think it is (or very close). I was lucky in that my method/criteria was so similar so I only had to describe my own to get very close to his, so I am not claiming this should be considered some remarkable achievement. But it does and may prove important to some. This will be inconsequential to the many people that might not be interested in such a thing. However, it is not hard to find arguments and queries across the internet about how confusing his ratings are, and how he could possibly draw such conclusions. I don't know anyone else that has been able to figure this out. Or at least that is my claim. I once emailed Scaruffi the method and he replied with a smiley face-wink "I'll leave that for you guys to figure out", so maybe we will never know for sure. He prefers to remain a bit elusive about such things. But anyone extensively familiar with his selections can check for themselves and will likely draw a very similar conclusion as I have. It can be rather remarkable to see how workable the formula is for most (all?) his selections and just how uniform it is from top to bottom. But again, only those who have extensively done such work will be privy to this "certainty" or "knowledge" (or whatever you want to call it). That can't help but sound pretentious but I hope you get what I mean.
I don't think that's pretentious and kind of cool. I personally have a hard time with his ratings as well (Sgt. Pepper and Limp Bizkit be chillin for example). I feel I mostly understood where he was coming from (could at least sympathize with it) and respected his point of view (mostly) until I saw that. There are certain things he says that make me feel like he's making claims he can't actually back up, and as a "legit critic" I feel he should, but other than that, I can agree he has a valid voice at times.
Me being a subscriber to pluralism, can simultaneously respect and agree with his ratings, but also feel he's missing the boat on some things. I kind of feel a dialectical reasoning could be applied to it and come to something that's probably something closer to reality. In otherwords -somewhere between your perspective and mine I think lies a probable "more true" assessment. Hence my want to dive into the works sometime (you know, with all our free time). (While I get WatchGuard and Cylance certified in the next 60 days).
Re: Bosch ... There's no way I can describe this without going into a ton of specifics as to the work itself, which I am not going to do right now, so the much simpler version is something like: in revisiting it while we were discussing it, I focused too heavily on its painterly qualities (and wasn't focusing as much as I usually do on its greater merits, particularly in regards to symbolism) and in going back through and "re-reading" the painting, part-by-part, I experienced it to a lesser degree than usual, and haphazardly (unusual for me) docked it down to an 8.9 because it (momentarily) seemed qualitatively equal to other works in that ratings band. When I revisited it again a day or two later, I realized the mistake I made, as I was more focused this time and more receptive to the totality of its qualities. In a sense, I momentarily forgot just how great it really was, but only somewhat (an 8.9 is a VERY high rating, and not far beneath a 9.1 at all).
So yes, this sort of "mistake" can and does happen for me from time to time.
As per my criteria...
"The differences in rating and ranking are determined by a precise attempt at measuring the degree of amazement or awe inspired from the experience of the whole work while it is being assimilated. Both its peaks and consistency are carefully considered into the overall rating. During the process of assimilation, I observe and consider in real-time the various emotions and concepts expressed, to what degree and consistency they are being expressed, how creative and singular these expressions are, and their impression upon me. This is compared to other works and ratings, taking into account as much from the history of art as needed, to help isolate and determine an exact rating. In such a determination, the overall significance of the experience (its qualitative peaks and consistency and sum impact) is what is being compared to other works, not necessarily a direct comparison in content, especially if the content is dissimilar. 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 consistently sustains. Therefore, I will tend to assimilate 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 then, 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 are still 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." _________________ Best Classical Best Films Best Paintings
@ seth
...you're one of my favorite users on this site...
A solid 7/10?
7.1 actually, if you take into account his internet personality, followed by his actual personality.
Lol, I just realized this makes Seth the artisitic equivalent of The Joshua Tree. Which has many existential and psychological connotations as to the power of art. _________________ Best Classical Best Films Best Paintings
Specific examples of when I felt you disregarded my statements/dismissed them without really contemplating them.
1) when I've talked to you about the musical complexities of The Beatles or conceptual greatness and I gave examples of something great and you didn't really address them/continued to discount them as anything great. Which seemed a bit ironic given you had also mentioned that Beatles fans usually can't give you anything concrete.
Such as? It's possible there are some examples of this, but realize that if I don't take something up much, it means that I probably felt it was self-evident now that I'd pointed it out ... and that I just needed to point it out ... or maybe that I didn't have time when you said it and forgot to come back to it at a later time. I don't know what you're referring to but if I said something like "The Beatles don't usually play their instruments with much conviction (press the chords/notes with much effort, feeling or energy, relative to far superior technicians), resulting in a thin, un-immersive sound", then there is no need for further comment. You simply should re-listen to them with this in mind and you will notice it. And compare them to The Kinks, The Rolling Stones, Yardbirds, Jimi Hendrix, Cream or whoever, and see how much a difference in emotional impact this would make with their music if they were better technically and applied this to more emotionally resonant results.
Similar such examples abound for drums or vocals too. Or that almost all of their songs up until 1967 (there is a some improvement after that) severely lack expressive depth and are usually one-dimensional examples of whatever they are expressing with little emotional/conceptual development that would make them more "experiential" and substanital instead of emotionally/conceptually generic and trivial...
sethmadsen wrote:
2) Perhaps I misunderstood what you said, but I feel like you completely spun his own words into something that didn't matter. And you might be right.
AfterHours wrote:
Quote:
Are you meaning Venus in Furs? To me that has the context of expressionist theatre, from what I know about it. And I think that song is fantastic.
Black Angel's Death Song... you may be giving it more credit than it deserves. Lou Reed himself wrote:"The idea here was to string words together for the sheer fun of their sound, not any particular meaning."
Idk... that's my take on it. I feel like the performances on those songs are not an aesthetically pleasing listen (I find grating music pleasurable...not sure how to describe what I mean)... and I don't think the distortion is on purpose... I feel it was the method in which the album was recorded... most of the album is not recorded very well.
But I do think your interpretation is interesting and intriguing on how you reached it - tell us more!
I think Lou Reed, though an amazing artist, has done one too many drugs and can be lazy in his explanations. He often has an I-don't-give-a-bleep attitude with interviews. It's also probable that Cale was more the brains behind their sound at that point. So maybe Lou didn't require an explanation and just did his thing, while Cale provided the sound and concept? The expressionist, theatrical intentions behind their music are very clear in how they're produced and what they evoke, as well as in their "Exploding Plastic Inevitable" presentations and performances while realizing their sound: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HsR4ghMfq0U
Venus in Furs is certainly the most intense example. That the whole album creates an entirely new sound that had never been heard before, follows the same oppressive, deaf-toned, nightmarish atmosphere (in different varieties of) throughout its songs, and then is dropped in later albums, is not an accident or happenstance. The "singing" on Black Angel's Death Song is clearly in the form of a theatrical "recitative". On Femme Fatale, of a chanteuse, in soliloquy, lamenting from the stage.
Yes, seeing this again I do remember it now. What thew me off is that you said I was talking about Black Angel's Death Song as very profound when in the real context I was taking a moment to point out it's general creative/emotional elements. It is profound in the creative and emotional sense in that it is an entirely new experience in Rock music, so remains startling and compelling to this day. Whether Reed/Cale did this "accidentally" or not (which I doubt, considering his and Cale's musical training/expertise) makes little difference to me. It's the result that matters in the end, which is one of the main reasons I stress EXPRESSED emotional conviction and EXPRESSED conceptual significance. It's what's being expressed, what made it into the music/art, that is, ultimately important.
sethmadsen wrote:
Lastly the whole reason for this is we might learn something. I mean I'd like to create a new thread for this, but for example, here's 40 minutes from a composer dissecting The Beatles music. Most of the time you consider it campy, pop music with no real depth except for a couple of songs. We've made jokes about the Biebs and Beatles being the same thing. Now I know you do see the value in The Beatles, but I also see that you rank They Might Be Giants above any Beatles album.
I don't necessarily agree with everything this guy says, particularly the dogmatic things he says, but you can't deny objectively his musical critique, showing how the Beatles were indeed some of the greatest artists of the century. These are the things I've been trying to articulate and felt you dismissed, but also short for time and wasn't able to do this level of homework (even if some of it is simplified for a general audience). Something tells me you haven't assimilated their music to this level and had you, you'd rate an album of theirs at least above They Might Be Giants:
I've seen this video before, but it's been a while. I'm not willing to watch it again. Overall, I remember Goodall's analysis as being poor, not because he isn't knowledgeable of composition and the musical elements The Beatles applied, but because he clearly lacks historical context in his claims, and ends up making claims that are laughably false. He also practically ignores George Martin as the main reason behind almost all of their better songs. This fact doesn't really matter in the qualitative determination of one of their songs/albums, but it does when you're calling them "geniuses". I do like his enthusiasm and have no problem with how much he likes them at all. And he is good at covering elements to their music that are more interesting, but if you look at these elements within the context of whole albums and their career, you will notice that they are few and far between (i.e. Penny Lane, Strawberry Fields, TNK, Eleanor Rigby...). I agree with him that these songs are quite good-to-great, but also it is not lost on me that they usually only take up a small portion of a given album.
Again, I don't have time to re-watch the video (nor do I want to), and then note down and go into specifics. But I do remember various musicians/musicologists/professors/historians or just knowledgeable people in general calling him out in the comments section (on YT) and some of them take the time to point out the flaws in his claims. So if you go through that you should get what I mean.
You're welcome to post those (hopefully they haven't been removed) ... and you're welcome to post various points made by Goodall, and I may take them up if it feels worthwhile. _________________ Best Classical Best Films Best Paintings
The 9.1 rating is a number representing its overall value (not an average) based on the accumulation of its parts -- of its qualitative peaks and consistency ... it's cumulative ... the quality of a work keeps building if the quality of its parts are consistently good enough and/or attain high enough peaks to cause this.
This sounds like you "arbitrarily" assign a 9.1. Accumulation of parts sounds like math, but I could see how it's just a number. It appears that you are more interested in the work as a whole, and not just a really good part of the work.
AfterHours wrote:
Break on Through + Soul Kitchen + Crystal Ship + 20th Century Fox + Alabama Song + Light My Fire + Back Door Man + I Looked at You + End of the Night + Take it as it Comes + The End ... ALTOGETHER, CUMULATIVE equals a 9.1/10. They do not "average out" to a 9.1/10. They are, as a whole, a 9.1/10. If you remove a song, the rating would begin to dip. The better the song the greater the dip if removed.
This sounds like you are doing math per song. The word cumulative=addition. You further reinforce the idea you are doing addition by saying that if you remove a song, the rating would dip. (which also effects averages - but apparently I'm the idiot).
But then you say as a whole they are 9.1 and that this isn't an average (I'm thinking this means no math whatsoever was used). How are they a 9.1 - do you assign it according to a reasonable assessment. Why isn't it a 9.0? (don't answer qualitative)
AfterHours wrote:
If you cut that in half by equal sides (equal by running time) as in:
(1) Break on Through + Soul Kitchen + Crystal Ship + 20th Century Fox + Alabama Song + Light My Fire = 7.9/10 ... again the rating is CUMULATIVE, ALTOGETHER (not an average by song)
(2) Back Door Man + I Looked at You + End of the Night + Take it as it Comes + The End = 7.9/10 ... again the rating is CUMULATIVE, ALTOGETHER (not an average by song) ...
Hence: A 7.9/10 + 7.9/10 = 9.1/10
No. Mathematically 7.9/10 + 7.9/10 = 1.58
Your equation doesn't make any sense and my repeated requests for a mathematical proof have been ignored (and if it isn't real math, all you had to say was it is not real math).
AfterHours wrote:
This also means that each of those halves of the album is equivalent to any other full album (or film ... or painting ... or classical work, etc) that I have rated as a 7.9/10. In other words, it is the equivalent to them in ACCUMULATION OF THE DEGREE AND CONSISTENCY OF ITS EMOTIONAL CONTENT, CONCEPTUAL SIGNIFICANCE, AND ITS INGENUITY, WITHIN THE TIME FRAME OR SPACE OF THE WORK OF ART.
It will have the same cumulative or overall impact.
The "15.8" (for 9.1 ... and other alike combo numbers for the other ratings) is ONLY listed so that one knows what TOTALS of two halves will equal WHICH rating, to help others determine a rating when using the same system (if they choose to do so). HALVES are only used because they're easier to think with -- easier to orient oneself to when trying to figure out the rating. This "numerical formula" will still work if you have, say, halves that are of great discrepancy between each other but amount to the same total when combined ... such as 6.0 for the first half and a 9.8 for the second half. This "15.8" will equal the experience of a 9.1 (the logic being that a 6.0 half causes the album to suffer qualitatively in relation to the far superior second half, which the 9.8 makes up for to a large enough degree to amount to 9.1 overall).
Let me know if that makes sense now.
You explain here how you arrive at 15.8, but you don't explain how 15.8=9.1.
If none of this is backed up by any real math, please simply say so.
The 9.1 rating is a number representing its overall value (not an average) based on the accumulation of its parts -- of its qualitative peaks and consistency ... it's cumulative ... the quality of a work keeps building if the quality of its parts are consistently good enough and/or attain high enough peaks to cause this.
This sounds like you "arbitrarily" assign a 9.1. Accumulation of parts sounds like math, but I could see how it's just a number. It appears that you are more interested in the work as a whole, and not just a really good part of the work.
AfterHours wrote:
Break on Through + Soul Kitchen + Crystal Ship + 20th Century Fox + Alabama Song + Light My Fire + Back Door Man + I Looked at You + End of the Night + Take it as it Comes + The End ... ALTOGETHER, CUMULATIVE equals a 9.1/10. They do not "average out" to a 9.1/10. They are, as a whole, a 9.1/10. If you remove a song, the rating would begin to dip. The better the song the greater the dip if removed.
This sounds like you are doing math per song. The word cumulative=addition. You further reinforce the idea you are doing addition by saying that if you remove a song, the rating would dip. (which also effects averages - but apparently I'm the idiot).
But then you say as a whole they are 9.1 and that this isn't an average (I'm thinking this means no math whatsoever was used). How are they a 9.1 - do you assign it according to a reasonable assessment. Why isn't it a 9.0? (don't answer qualitative)
AfterHours wrote:
If you cut that in half by equal sides (equal by running time) as in:
(1) Break on Through + Soul Kitchen + Crystal Ship + 20th Century Fox + Alabama Song + Light My Fire = 7.9/10 ... again the rating is CUMULATIVE, ALTOGETHER (not an average by song)
(2) Back Door Man + I Looked at You + End of the Night + Take it as it Comes + The End = 7.9/10 ... again the rating is CUMULATIVE, ALTOGETHER (not an average by song) ...
Hence: A 7.9/10 + 7.9/10 = 9.1/10
No. Mathematically 7.9/10 + 7.9/10 = 1.58
Your equation doesn't make any sense and my repeated requests for a mathematical proof have been ignored (and if it isn't real math, all you had to say was it is not real math).
AfterHours wrote:
This also means that each of those halves of the album is equivalent to any other full album (or film ... or painting ... or classical work, etc) that I have rated as a 7.9/10. In other words, it is the equivalent to them in ACCUMULATION OF THE DEGREE AND CONSISTENCY OF ITS EMOTIONAL CONTENT, CONCEPTUAL SIGNIFICANCE, AND ITS INGENUITY, WITHIN THE TIME FRAME OR SPACE OF THE WORK OF ART.
It will have the same cumulative or overall impact.
The "15.8" (for 9.1 ... and other alike combo numbers for the other ratings) is ONLY listed so that one knows what TOTALS of two halves will equal WHICH rating, to help others determine a rating when using the same system (if they choose to do so). HALVES are only used because they're easier to think with -- easier to orient oneself to when trying to figure out the rating. This "numerical formula" will still work if you have, say, halves that are of great discrepancy between each other but amount to the same total when combined ... such as 6.0 for the first half and a 9.8 for the second half. This "15.8" will equal the experience of a 9.1 (the logic being that a 6.0 half causes the album to suffer qualitatively in relation to the far superior second half, which the 9.8 makes up for to a large enough degree to amount to 9.1 overall).
Let me know if that makes sense now.
You explain here how you arrive at 15.8, but you don't explain how 15.8=9.1.
If none of this is backed up by any real math, please simply say so.
If you just read what Ive said without trying to figure anything else additional to what Ive said, it will make sense. Just read what I said and discard any previous explanation/discussion when doing so -- start with a blank slate. I do not know what you dont get about it, but it appears you are trying to reconcile it with an additional expectation/complexity than the simplicity of what Ive stated. I really dont know how it could be written any clearer. Maybe Facetious can help? We've discussed my ratings on various occasions (particularly at listology.com). It could just be a slight alteration in how its being stated that would make a difference for you, and perhaps he might say it in such a way. _________________ Best Classical Best Films Best Paintings
Later when I have a little more time, Ill scour your posted queries above and see if I can solve whatever it is youre running into. But let me know if you figure it out in the meantime. _________________ 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
) can all play in what rating I give something. Sometimes I will re-evaluate something and be like - I gave that a 90... it's clearly an 80, and then a year later I'll be like how could I be such an idiot, that's a 100. From our conversations, it sounds like that never really happens to you - perhaps because you have a very solid understanding of what a nebulous though of "emotional greatness" means to you, and I on the other hand see it relating at multiple values on many different levels, and those vary pending on multiple situations (my mood - my ability to listen to it in the car vs my home stereo vs headphones, etc.... I mean they are all small things, but I've found they actually make a difference).
