Greatest Albums of All Time (Rock & Jazz) - Music Diaries

AfterHours

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

homelessking wrote:

Insights on Piper at the Gates of Dawn?

I'm too immersed in eval-ing paintings right now to offer much on this, but I will say that it's kind of "Bosch-ian" (Garden of Earthly Delights) in its psychedelic or surrealist visions, enchantments/spells of offbeat characters and visions that seem to merge the medieval or fantastical, with those of cosmic/space travel (or for Bosch, with fantastical and otherworldly contraptions, inventions, structures, scenery and what-not).
_________________
Best Classical
Best Films
Best Paintings

DommeDamian
Imperfect, sensitive Aspie with a melody addiction

Gender: Male
Age: 23
Location: where the flowers grow.

AfterHours wrote:

NOTABLE DISCREPANCIES WITH SCARUFFI'S RATINGS

If Bad ever makes a higher stand (again), you could consider putting it on here. Say, if you give it a 7 then

+/- 0.5 (AH: 7/10; Scaruffi: 6.5/10)

If we ignore how high of a score an album must have, Off The Wall and HIStory do have 0.5 or a higher discrepancy.
_________________
My Top 100 :
www.besteveralbums.com/thechart.php?c=4...amp;page=1

My music:
- www.hyperfollow.com/dommedamian
Spotify: ----------------------------------------------------↓

Last edited by DommeDamian on 10/14/2021 17:05; edited 2 times in total

AfterHours

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

DommeDamian wrote:

If Bad ever makes a higher stand (again), you could consider putting it on here. Say, if you give it a 7 then

+/- 0.5 (AH: 7/10; Scaruffi: 6.5/10)

Thanks Double D! Yes, I should update this, as some other entries have either shrunk or extended their ratings discrepancy since I last took a crack at it.
_________________
Best Classical
Best Films
Best Paintings

Carl21

Gender: Male
Age: 26

So I was trying to figure out based on your criteria if an album is rated 7 and it's 30 min long, what would the rating be if it was a double album i.e. combining two albums each one is 30 min long and rated 7? Same thing with an album that is 30 min long rated 9 and another one 60 min rated 9, what would be the difference between them?

AfterHours

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

Carl21 wrote:

So I was trying to figure out based on your criteria if an album is rated 7 and it's 30 min long, what would the rating be if it was a double album i.e. combining two albums each one is 30 min long and rated 7? Same thing with an album that is 30 min long rated 9 and another one 60 min rated 9, what would be the difference between them?

Re: Dbl album, 7 + 7, each side 30 min long ... It depends on if the second 7 develops, expounds upon, progresses -- emotionally, conceptually, creatively -- from the first 7, or not (the more it does so, the more it will tend to consistently or continuously "accumulate" in a meaningful manner).

Assuming both of them do so, rather equally (as is usually the case with the higher ranked works, and most serious artistic statements), then it would follow the figures I've given, and would get an 8.4/10 overall.

If they were rather incongruent, each developing emotionally, conceptually and creatively in a way that didn't accumulate much, if at all, from one to the next (as can happen with very disparate content), then the difference might be as drastic (from the above) as an average between the two, or maybe a 7.5 total (varies much depending on the progression/development). Pink Floyd's Ummagumma is a pretty good example of something like this (two disparate sides that don't particularly combine into a whole work of art, but are more so separate works in the pretense of a whole, so doesn't accumulate like, say, The Doors debut, or A Love Supreme, or most other great albums). Outkast's Speakerbox/The Love Below would be another good example of something like this, if it were given a combined rating (I'd have to revisit to remind me, but might be close to an avg between the two).

Re: 30 min 9 vs 60 min 9 ... No difference in terms of overall impact, except the faster one may just prove that composer/artist had a more efficient style (higher quality per unit of time) or maybe better quality control (perhaps the longer one has some less essential parts or track(s) that slowed its qualitative momentum down in comparison to the shorter one).
_________________
Best Classical
Best Films
Best Paintings

Carl21

Gender: Male
Age: 26

I see now, so does that mean compilation albums aren't likely to be highly rated since they just collect best tracks, sometimes each one is a masterpiece on its own, but together they don't necessarily add to each other to create a unique experience? On the other hand, albums like The Velvet Underground & Nico or Blonde On Blonde would drop in rating if they lose any of their tracks? Doesn't that sound like ratings are intuitive and based on the overall impact of a certain work rather than how long it lasts or how many tracks it has? d'oh!

AfterHours

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

Carl21 wrote:

I see now, so does that mean compilation albums aren't likely to be highly rated since they just collect best tracks, sometimes each one is a masterpiece on its own, but together they don't necessarily add to each other to create a unique experience? On the other hand, albums like The Velvet Underground & Nico or Blonde On Blonde would drop in rating if they lose any of their tracks? Doesn't that sound like ratings are intuitive and based on the overall impact of a certain work rather than how long it lasts or how many tracks it has? d'oh!

RE: compilation albums ... In many cases, it could be that way, yes (to greater or lesser degree, but each would be an individual case-by-case basis).

RE: VU Nico and Blonde on Blonde dropping in rating if they lost tracks ... Yes, though of course how much they would drop varies widely depending on the track (Heroin or Venus in Furs, for example, would have a much more detrimental effect, than, say, There She Goes Again) ...and true in most cases, particularly great albums where -- usually -- each of the tracks add qualitative value to the whole. You will find this to be true for yourself, for any album that you feel is very consistent, the experience and overall impact will be lessened by removal of one or more of the tracks (assuming you track the cumulative experience as it is happening and note the difference).

RE: Doesn't that sound like ratings are intuitive and based on the overall impact of a certain work rather than how long it lasts or how many tracks it has? ... Not sure if I'm tracking exactly what you mean by your question (so you may have to explain further). But the ratings are very much based on (as per the criteria page) the following:

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.

These factors are first inherent in the work itself, as expressed from the artist. 'Procuring' them is inherent on the listener/viewer's observation and evaluation of said work. The impact of this, once 'procured', will become PALPABLE (the higher the rating, the closer to or more awe-inspiring said palpable sensation, will tend to be, and the more permanent/sustained that awe will be) <<<<<<< This sensation, degree thereof, IS, in essence, what the rating is based on. It is basically a meeting ground between artist and listener/viewer (the artist is providing the expression, and it will always boil down to those factors; the listener/viewer is procuring them).

It can start off intuitive, for instance: any moron can instantly tell that Michelangelo's Sistine Chapel has a greater velocity, intensity, expression, extent (all such adjectives) of emotional, conceptual engagement and creativity, than, say, a painting by Bob Ross. And this would intuitively tell him/her that one would VERY likely reward his/her time and observation over the other. But the more complete, overall palpable/experiential sensation of the Michelangelo work requires one actively goes through it and learns about the artist and evaluates the work, piece by piece, and as a whole, 'procuring' its emotional/conceptual engagement and creativity along the way and determining its consistency and as a whole. This will likely be far more substantial and powerful than the initial impression, even if that initial impression might be great and might lead one to intuitively estimate that he/she is looking at a great work. THEN a real (more finalized) rating can be given, and it should be based on what's palpable/experienced and a thorough consideration of the whole work, providing one has thoroughly procured what the artist is conveying. There are stages of this of course, or can be, and it is perfectly fine to rate at earlier stages along the way (really up to the person) and to keep returning to the work, which may change the rating (but one should be aware of this as one goes, and not consider his/her rating more "finalized" until he/she has thoroughly gone through the work).
_________________
Best Classical
Best Films
Best Paintings

Carl21

Gender: Male
Age: 26

RE about elaboration of my point: What I meant to say by "intuitive", is that it comes naturally. You know, some people listen to music, for instance, to enjoy virtuosity and technical skills, so wouldn't that obscure their vision from obtaining the emotions/concepts expressed while just admiring technique and creativity? Or will this exposure to the work, sooner or later, is gonna force its emotions on you that you'll feel it as soon as you got enough familiarity with it? Is this more of a passive or active evaluation or a combination of both? And if it depends, how much of the work will you gain with this passive or intuitive evaluation?

I was one person who didn't take Bob Dylan seriously for the lack of prominent technical skills, so how do I know that I need to go further if there wasn't a positive initial response? If Dylan wasn't a popular musician, what would encourage people today to do further evaluation of his music to uncover how much is hidden there? I mean sure it took him time to be accepted as an essential part in the American art history, and to be recognized by music snobs and pretentious listeners, who bashed him first for the lack of virtuosity and technical skills, and same thing can be applied to some other artists, who don't give an encouraging first impression.

About compilations, I'm interested in examples of compilations where single tracks add to each other in creating a whole picture of an artistic persona? Is Madonna or Beatles a possible choice?

Separate question: I wanna know what is the difference in emotional conviction that you would "feel" as you give higher rating, what would be your reaction as you're experiencing this work of art in real time? And when do you know that you got everything from a certain work of art and it's time to sit down, stop further evaluation and just admire what is in front of you fully? How do you know that's final decision, how much is it gonna take to be sure that this is a sublime masterpiece in front of you like say, The Velvet Underground & Nico, which is probably the only album yet that I'm quite sure can be the equivalent of "The Garden of Earthly Delights" in Rock music, considering how both are able to create a whole world right in front of the viewer.

AfterHours

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

Carl21 wrote:

RE about elaboration of my point: What I meant to say by "intuitive", is that it comes naturally. You know, some people listen to music, for instance, to enjoy virtuosity and technical skills, so wouldn't that obscure their vision from obtaining the emotions/concepts expressed while just admiring technique and creativity? Or will this exposure to the work, sooner or later, is gonna force its emotions on you that you'll feel it as soon as you got enough familiarity with it? Is this more of a passive or active evaluation or a combination of both? And if it depends, how much of the work will you gain with this passive or intuitive evaluation?

I was one person who didn't take Bob Dylan seriously for the lack of prominent technical skills, so how do I know that I need to go further if there wasn't a positive initial response? If Dylan wasn't a popular musician, what would encourage people today to do further evaluation of his music to uncover how much is hidden there? I mean sure it took him time to be accepted as an essential part in the American art history, and to be recognized by music snobs and pretentious listeners, who bashed him first for the lack of virtuosity and technical skills, and same thing can be applied to some other artists, who don't give an encouraging first impression.

About compilations, I'm interested in examples of compilations where single tracks add to each other in creating a whole picture of an artistic persona? Is Madonna or Beatles a possible choice?

Separate question: I wanna know what is the difference in emotional conviction that you would "feel" as you give higher rating, what would be your reaction as you're experiencing this work of art in real time? And when do you know that you got everything from a certain work of art and it's time to sit down, stop further evaluation and just admire what is in front of you fully? How do you know that's final decision, how much is it gonna take to be sure that this is a sublime masterpiece in front of you like say, The Velvet Underground & Nico, which is probably the only album yet that I'm quite sure can be the equivalent of "The Garden of Earthly Delights" in Rock music, considering how both are able to create a whole world right in front of the viewer.

RE: You know, some people listen to music, for instance, to enjoy virtuosity and technical skills, so wouldn't that obscure their vision from obtaining the emotions/concepts expressed while just admiring technique and creativity?

No matter what other spin is put on it, it still fundamentally distills to emotional (and/or conceptual) engagement and creativity. Even if someone has confined themselves to "listening for technical reasons" he/she is still going to be most impacted or affected or awed (etc) by those works that they've "procured" the most emotional engagement, and/or conceptual engagement, and creative expression from. Technique on its own would mainly fall under "conceptual" (artists is using X chord to produce X sound etc, is a concept underlying the music). The impact or emotion it produces, emotional.

The main point is that no matter what restrictions or parameters are placed within the "criteria", those 3 factors will govern the actual impact the work has, whether one is consciously aware of it or not. The factors themselves are objective, all encompassing, explain all other phenomena; the alteration or restrictions one may impose on them are or can be subjective. Some people confine themselves to genres or technicalities or what-have-you, but the factors still govern those. Its just a more restrictive version of the same criteria. This doesn't mean a person will consciously rate/rank with that in mind, but it does mean that whether they do or not, those main factors are governing the actual real and palpable qualitative considerations. Even if one ranks by some other notion (say "how technically proficient/skilled the performer is/was", or some such), the examples they found the most impacting will be those that measured up the most against those 3 factors (emotion, concept, creativity) whether they rank by that or not.

RE: Or will this exposure to the work, sooner or later, is gonna force its emotions on you that you'll feel it as soon as you got enough familiarity with it?

I think knowing more about technique or any other such factors (music theory etc), will potentially assist a person to more efficiently observe and procure the emotional, or conceptual, or creative aspect of a work, so could always be advised and -- yes -- it is likely that exposure would, sooner or later, lead them there (towards more prominently emotional, conceptual, creative considerations). I think the key would be, for the person not to consider the "technical rendition" as an end in itself. One would have to be rather dull not to eventually ask oneself the question of "why" the artist applied such and such technique? For what purpose? To what end? It will always be for those 3 factors.

RE: Is this more of a passive or active evaluation or a combination of both? And if it depends, how much of the work will you gain with this passive or intuitive evaluation?

Active, or at least that is the goal (or should be) in each attempt. One gets to a point, or can, where this becomes natural with those artists or works one is most familiar with and has brought the active evaluation to a point of certainty that doesn't require "effort" (or very little) any longer. One is so familiar, one just "knows" as one is listening, doesn't have to think about it. Many people can or already do this with their favorite works, and/or the works that come most easily to them. There may be other works that are more foreign or complex to them or what-have-you. And these will require a more active participation to bring to that same level of familiarity.

I might say that, to the degree one is listening for only casual reasons, an active participation is not as necessary. But if one is listening to procure as much of the impact of a work as possible, then it is generally necessary, and even more so if one also wants to determine qualitative comparisons between works, and even more so from there, if one wants to build a scale of such qualitative comparisons and rate/rank them. Otherwise, such determinations are not really possible -- at least in an organized, highly specified sense.

RE: I was one person who didn't take Bob Dylan seriously for the lack of prominent technical skills, so how do I know that I need to go further if there wasn't a positive initial response?

Well, of course, my lists can be used as a general guide (or anyone's that has done similar work with a similar criteria for uniform and all-encompassing judgments, Scaruffi above all imo). I suppose the only advantage one might have with me, is that I am more "available" and can help illuminate or be more explanatory than Scaruffi (who is generally pretty tight lipped, and often abbreviated in his answers, probably a combination of how busy he is and the fact that his website IS his answers and usually what is being asked has already been answered there in some form or another). But it should never be missed that he is by far the more original between us, and I am making no attempt to be more original or to surpass his work (even if I wanted to, I don't have a life like his that is well designed for it. I have too many mis-aligned obligations, whereas his travels and time and events tend to fuse with his studies and preoccupations). Anyway, I would probably be a good 10 years behind where I am now, if not for his website, even if a similar trajectory of progress would've been being worked towards (just with far, far less efficiency). Granted, one should ultimately make one's own determinations, but having that sort of a guide can give one a major advantage in bypassing much trial and error to begin with. And naturally, this is part of the reason for my criteria page in the first place: to assist anyone to judge the same things for themselves because it distills and lays out the parameters and a method for doing so. After that, it is a matter of practice plus historical familiarity. The more one is aware of the history of an art, the more certain works will stand out above others and the more quickly they are usually spotted. And the more one has "exercised the muscle" of meeting the artist's work with those criteria as the primary considerations, the better one gets at it, and it will lead one towards more certain and aligned judgments that have a greater sense of permanence to them (because they're based on, being aligned to, objective factors).

RE: About compilations, I'm interested in examples of compilations where single tracks add to each other in creating a whole picture of an artistic persona? Is Madonna or Beatles a possible choice?

I have little interest in compilations at this time, but I'm sure with especially singles-oriented artists, they would often be the best "album" of their career.

As a note, a 9/10 album is often a majority, most of, or all of the best material of a career already, but also arranged in a format that has an aligned, accumulation of purpose/concept/theme to it. This statement becomes less true when an artist is so great that he/she has multiple 9s or close (like Beethoven for the top example), but even then, his 9s are very different from each other and would hardly work if pieces were combined. It is very rare for an artist to score two 9s of the same "type" as the 9, in itself, tends to be an artistic culmination of that type, and if an artist happens to produce another 9, will have no reason to repeat the previous one, and will have done so in a new "type".

RE: Separate question: I wanna know what is the difference in emotional conviction that you would "feel" as you give higher rating, what would be your reaction as you're experiencing this work of art in real time? And when do you know that you got everything from a certain work of art and it's time to sit down, stop further evaluation and just admire what is in front of you fully? How do you know that's final decision, how much is it gonna take to be sure that this is a sublime masterpiece in front of you like say, The Velvet Underground & Nico, which is probably the only album yet that I'm quite sure can be the equivalent of "The Garden of Earthly Delights" in Rock music, considering how both are able to create a whole world right in front of the viewer.

It might not ever be truly final, especially with the highest rated works. At the very top, the sense of "expressive infinitude/infinity of meaning" gets very very high and I'm not sure this can ever be fully grasped in a truly conclusive sense. Plus, fundamentally, we are dealing with a meeting ground of artist and listener/viewer, not a 100% complete immersion into the artist. While there is (or should be) a very valiant attempt by the listener/viewer to procure the artists' expressions, it is still subjective in the end no matter how accurate (still one's own viewpoint is part of this ... a wall to two people might yet be conclusively a wall, but it is still being seen through different perceptions and point of views, no matter how slightly the difference). One is evaluating the artist's attempt plus the historical comparison he/she has attempted this against to come up with its value, and this is always a process the person is changing with, even if a little; a continuous journey, not an utterly final destination. The numerical ratings are technically "very close estimates" of value. And especially: very close estimates of COMPARABLE value. By which I mean, calling something a 10 is most meaningful in relation to what one calls a 9.9, 9.8 and on down. If someone gives 50% of albums 9/10-10/10 then those might mean the same as what would often be a 5 or 6 on my scale, in most cases (and so on).

But there is MUCH value (experiential) in the journey itself, and striving as closely as possible to attain a qualitative consideration/rating that approaches a "finality". Striving for this in itself (in relation to the main factors of criteria) will get one far closer than not (and the palpable impact/experience of doing so, too, will tend to be more worthwhile, deepened; the empathy or impression or understanding with the artist or their work will usually be greater).

Some key factors I would look for in showing one that his evaluation can be considered good is that (a) it will align well to the 3 major factors of that criteria; each facet individually and each of them to each other. The higher the truth, the more it will explain or lead to all other factors. In regards to specifics of evaluation, this should be modified to emphasize that the point should not be so fundamental that it explains nothing specifically, but should be fundamental enough that it explains as much as possible of value (for our purposes). For instance, with a painting, one can get ultra fundamental in an "evaluation" and say "it is a painting - FIN" but this is useless because it is SO fundamental it explains nothing (at least in a specific sense), even if "technically" it would lead to everything (so in a very fundamental sense it isn't wrong, but has practically no value in qualitative evaluation and comparison). So a modification could be added that one is looking for the closest truth or best explanation one can find that also explains or leads to the specific emotional, conceptual and creative ends of the work; (b) it will tend to have a sense of permanence no matter how many revisits (c) the more art one has assimilated, the more certain these will tend to become, and the more practice the more proficient they will tend to be.
_________________
Best Classical
Best Films
Best Paintings

Carl21

Gender: Male
Age: 26

I think I got enough ideas about what is in my mind, but I still wonder how is it possible to keep track with this criteria as some works get bigger in size or longer in time, esp TV series that tend to expand over hours and hours of cinematic work, how am I gonna compare that to a movie that lasts 3 hours at best? Sounds Like it's more applicable to easy to review and come back to works of art like music albums and short movies, but as the work expands two hours, like most TV Shows, but most importantly Opera and specifically Wagner's opera that can extend over 4 hours, sometimes surpasses 10 hours of music, or extends on a huge space like The Sistine Chapel or Garden of Earthly delights, I think many people will get hesitant to revisit it and hence a lot might be missed if I'm correct.

I'm kind of convinced now that emotions, specifically, might be one essential leading factor behind most people's choices in art or their definition of greatness, whether consciously or unconsciously, so probably I'll be trying to make a similar get-into list for a certain small field of art, probably eastern music of a certain region (India or Middle East), that isn't very popular on the internet and few is available about its best works. I won't be trying to do a detailed comparison unless I have 5 years of experience, but just an initial effort and later compare how far I went between year one and year five. My main concern is that how much this detailed analysis, multiple revisions and historical study will differ from the public opinion, since I see how Scaruffi's, a detailed study, version of Rock history is very different from that of the public and pretty much still unsupported or refused.

Also, I wonder what do I need to include in a review about a certain work of art? Is it a brief get-into explanation or more elaborate details about each specific part, which could be spoiling the fun of personally discovering these elements. I mean there are lots of words to poetically praise something, but is that the goal of a review or is it just about saying this is great based on x criteria and the careful assimilation of it according to the criteria will lead to the same opinion? Eastern music isn't scholarly studied, or not widely, and it is more of a folk phenomenon, so how is it possible to balance the review between the artist's own vision and his version of a public sense of beauty compared to the public opinion and their assumptions about his art that is supposed to be about them as well?