Greatest Albums of All Time (Rock & Jazz)

Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 47, 48, 49, 50  Next
View previous topic :: View next topic
Author Message
AfterHours



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

  • #471
  • Posted: 11/09/2021 23:06
  • Post subject:
  • Reply with quote
Carl21 wrote:
AfterHours wrote:
Carl21 wrote:
AfterHours wrote:
C arl21 wrote:
A fterHours wrote:
I would go with the complete version, unless maybe if the shortened version is the "official" version. But, by "complete", it sounds like you mean that the longer versions are also the "official" ones.

In terms of rating, if lengthening the song provides a purposeful development (by "purposeful" I mean more "serves a useful purpose emotionally/conceptually/creatively" than determining how "intentional" it was, even though both usually go hand in hand) ...then it will tend to increase the rating compared to if it wasn't extended. Obviously, this will increase proportional to how successful the development is; if said development barely served a purpose and provides little qualitative accumulation over too long a period, then it could very well lower the overall rating or at best keep the rating at a stand still ... but some music, particularly that of the more contemplative or trance-like variety, can be enhanced by repetition.


The official versions are recorded live performances, so I'm assuming this repetition is for the sake of extending the concert. Repetition regarding verses that make each part of the song sounds necessary and intentional, but the repetition of a whole part is just performing it again as if you choose to repeat a song in an album, which, I think, is optional. However, regarding the short versions, there are few official ones, but they seem to be poorly cut from live performances, so they don't feel coherent. Many songs don't have official short versions, so this is something hypothetically exists.


Yeah, if it's basically a reprise or similar, I usually wouldn't include that as part of the "real" album, unless there was a clear intent that it is supposed to be part of it.

But also, if you're just listening to live performances, that's not really an area I get involved in, and none of my lists are representative of that as their focus, so maybe someone else is better suited to help dissect what should be included or not. Besides, usually there is an "official" work of art/release/album that the live performances are based on. In your case it sounds like those too are just poorly cut excerpts from the live ones, so I don't know man... Sounds like an annoying predicament to me (at least as far as a clear evaluation can be made; hopefully at least the music is worth it!)


Nah, the official versions are the live versions. There were attempts at omitting the repeated parts to make the songs shorter and hence easier to listen to for those not able or not in the mood to listen to a non-stop performance for 40 min and longer. In practice, it only sounds logical that each verse should be repeated twice cuz the flow of the song feels interrupted if it was hurried the other way. It sounds tough from a rating point of view, but from a listening point of view, it's not a problem.

The issue is that some of the recording of Arabic music, esp before the 60s, were live performances, same thing with Indian classical music. These performances belong to the peak period for these styles of music, so they can't be ignored even if they're not fine recordings. It was only recently that world music musicians, including the old ones that are still alive, started recording in studios, nothing's changed, but they just played their improvised live performances in a studio instead of in front of an audience.


Ah, makes sense and sounds like you have all the info you need. In terms of rating, in the end it is a matter of a balance between both the work's consistency and degree. This balance can be easily lost, especially in the mental exercise of trying to consider a work's overall impact (where it is easy to lose sight of how consistent it was too). I've found that it's roughly equal in importance to pay as much attention to this consistency (as it will always prove roughly equal in importance with "degree" or "extent" to the work's depth and durability, even if finding this out can take multiple revisits). In other words, anyone can say that Wagner's 13-14 hour Ring Cycle has the "most" expressed emotional, conceptual and creative engagement of any work ever, and perhaps that's true or at least a very legitimate argument could be made for it beyond most others, "so shouldn't it be #1?" (And I'm not necessarily arguing that it shouldn't...this is just an easy example for this point) But, what about when we combine this in import with CONSISTENCY (of expressed emotional, conceptual, creative engagement) as well. These given equal importance, does The Ring still provide the most potent accumulation of quality (emotion, concept, creativity) or is such somewhat more reserved for its climaxes but not as much "in between"? (even if by that I don't mean to claim that these parts of it are insubstantial as they do feature Wagner's multi faceted, often intertwined, genius with leitmotif) ...That's the sort of comparisons where it can get more meticulous: between a massive and extensive work like Wagner's Ring, and say, a relentless work - but relatively short and far less extensive - like The Doors' debut (that one might argue is more relentlessly consistent; a greater rapidity of potent/significant emotion, concept, creativity).

Only experience with evaluating and comparing many works tells the tale (imo). Of course, at or near the top, one finds the utmost potent combination between "consistency" and "degree" like obvious examples of Beethoven's 9th and Michelangelo's Sistine where both are exemplified to or near a maximum and with continuously purposeful development (or virtually).

But even with experience, these sort of comparisons (between a work like The Doors and Wagner's Ring) are probably the toughest sort of comparisons to make.


I think you're referring to the idea about "efficiency" of style that we talked about earlier. I think it probably matters how emotionally condensed and consistent a certain work of art is, but the final result, compared to a longer/bigger work, will be the same except the first one achieved it quicker. So, it's up to debate whether this attribute should be part of the rating system or not.


I don't disagree and didn't mean to say anything contrary to what we were talking about before.

I didn't quite articulate the above exactly how I should've, and it could cause confusion.

What I meant was, in for instance, Wagner's Ring, one could say that it has the "most amount" of significant emotional, conceptual, creative content, and rank it #1 overall solely off that. (And this isn't an argument one way or the other for it; just using such a massive/extensive masterpiece as an ideal example of such)

But per my criteria it is important not to get caught up in only that. And it's consistency is roughly equal in importance, and will prove so over time if it doesn't immediately. How well or momentously or efficiently the work accumulates is not just in where it eventually ends up, but yes, the efficiency in getting there.

Where I erred in my post above was probably in calling "amount" also "overall, extent", when, in this context they're not exactly the same. So those probably shouldn't be confused, as overall quality itself would fundamentally employ both efficiency and extent, result thereof, so we agree there. So I just mean that the "amount, totality" of significant content does not necessarily guarantee the highest rating (or overall quality/depth/impact), unless also accomplished efficiently or relatively so.
_________________
Best Classical
Best Films
Best Paintings
Back to top
  • Visit poster's website
  • View user's profile
  • Send private message
Carl21



Gender: Male
Age: 26

  • #472
  • Posted: 11/10/2021 08:13
  • Post subject:
  • Reply with quote
That being said, do you think "Accessibility" (that some people focus on) should be part of a rating system? I mean being able to bring high quality along with immediate recognition is something important; sometimes you can be very creative, but not very weird to the ear at the same time (Mozart). However, I think it's really hard to judge accessibility since it's something personal and relates to the person's background and knowledge.
Back to top
  • Visit poster's website
  • View user's profile
  • Send private message
AfterHours



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

  • #473
  • Posted: 11/10/2021 20:00
  • Post subject:
  • Reply with quote
Carl21 wrote:
That being said, do you think "Accessibility" (that some people focus on) should be part of a rating system? I mean being able to bring high quality along with immediate recognition is something important; sometimes you can be very creative, but not very weird to the ear at the same time (Mozart). However, I think it's really hard to judge accessibility since it's something personal and relates to the person's background and knowledge.


No, at least not in any substantial way.

Because this, almost automatically, pigeon holes the requirements of a work to only meet what the listener/viewer has already experienced, and not step outside this to include what the artist knows and has experienced. To impose that on the artist is an idiotic requirement the more you think about it, and actually defeats a major point of art, which is creativity, advancing the form, expressing one self, and so forth. So if the listener/viewer is unable or unwilling to follow art in this way (making some effort in following its advancements, its creativity, meeting the artist's/work's intentions as best he/she can...) then they're fundamentally not really in tune with what's going on and ultimately not even really observing and evaluating the work itself, but limiting it to their own pre-conceived "accessibility" requirement.

That doesn't mean I don't think an artist should have a strong ability to convey his/her ideas through the work, or think one should be "obscure for obscurities' sake". But one's reception of a work that is crossing particularly unfamiliar ground or that is "obscure/experimental" is often far more dependent on their own knowledge or familiarity with the genre or art movement or whatever type of creativity is on display, than any other factors. If the listener/viewer isn't themselves prepared for that to some degree, then they probably aren't part of the audience the artist was communicating to with that work, and I think it is very questionable for said listener/viewer to evaluate/rate/rank such a work if that is not first resolved. In other words, they should make themselves, to some degree or more, "a part of the artist's/work's audience" instead of giving a serious eval/rating/ranking prior to this, or "blaming their lack of connection to the work on the artist" (it is at least a two-way deal).

I think an ideal balance of what should be "required" in this regard is taken up (fundamentally, generally, from which much could be extrapolated...) on my criteria page:

"Of utmost importance is that creativity is significant largely in alignment and proportional to its purpose and contribution to the emotional or conceptual expression of the work. Without such an alignment and purpose, an artist may be coming up with something no one has heard or seen before, but the result would tend to be aimless or insignificant."
_________________
Best Classical
Best Films
Best Paintings
Back to top
  • Visit poster's website
  • View user's profile
  • Send private message
AfterHours



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

  • #474
  • Posted: 11/11/2021 20:27
  • Post subject:
  • Reply with quote
@Carl

Partial Edit re "idiotic to impose accessibility"...

Perhaps this could be a bit harsh. I mean "idiotic" more as an expression than literally so. On one hand, it is perfectly fine to me if someone likes music or other art more when it is accessible. Its not a criterion I would agree with (because it is so limiting towards creativity) but obviously someone is totally free to evaluate based off that. I just don't think it should be imposed on artists (meaning, practically all great ones) that are advancing the form, experimenting, developing their art, challenging the imagination, challenging the intellect, and so on, where one might actually have to think a little bit outside the box (so to speak) to come to grips with what they're doing. So, maybe "accessibility" could be a factor in a limited sphere of pop music or if one is rating/ranking by "how closely a work captures pop culture" or rates based on "how many hits this album has" (or something), but it is self-defeating in relation to the fundamental and greater purposes of art as a whole. One should first try and understand where the artist is coming from and this would ideally include a familiarity with the genre(s) their developing off of or from and, especially when far removed from one's own time period, one should gain an adequate familiarity with the key or "adjacent" works from the historical period of their art. Otherwise, you're unlikely to be a part of the audience that artist and their work was even intended for. And to blame that artist for not being "accessible enough for you" (or similar complaints) without you having even made yourself a part of their audience beforehand, can be a pretty unfair and even ridiculous position to take.
_________________
Best Classical
Best Films
Best Paintings
Back to top
  • Visit poster's website
  • View user's profile
  • Send private message
Carl21



Gender: Male
Age: 26

  • #475
  • Posted: 11/12/2021 05:47
  • Post subject:
  • Reply with quote
AfterHours wrote:
No, at least not in any substantial way.

Because this, almost automatically, pigeon holes the requirements of a work to only meet what the listener/viewer has already experienced, and not step outside this to include what the artist knows and has experienced. To impose that on the artist is an idiotic requirement the more you think about it, and actually defeats a major point of art, which is creativity, advancing the form, expressing one self, and so forth. So if the listener/viewer is unable or unwilling to follow art in this way (making some effort in following its advancements, its creativity, meeting the artist's/work's intentions as best he/she can...) then they're fundamentally not really in tune with what's going on and ultimately not even really observing and evaluating the work itself, but limiting it to their own pre-conceived "accessibility" requirement.

That doesn't mean I don't think an artist should have a strong ability to convey his/her ideas through the work, or think one should be "obscure for obscurities' sake". But one's reception of a work that is crossing particularly unfamiliar ground or that is "obscure/experimental" is often far more dependent on their own knowledge or familiarity with the genre or art movement or whatever type of creativity is on display, than any other factors. If the listener/viewer isn't themselves prepared for that to some degree, then they probably aren't part of the audience the artist was communicating to with that work, and I think it is very questionable for said listener/viewer to evaluate/rate/rank such a work if that is not first resolved. In other words, they should make themselves, to some degree or more, "a part of the artist's/work's audience" instead of giving a serious eval/rating/ranking prior to this, or "blaming their lack of connection to the work on the artist" (it is at least a two-way deal).

I think an ideal balance of what should be "required" in this regard is taken up (fundamentally, generally, from which much could be extrapolated...) on my criteria page:

"Of utmost importance is that creativity is significant largely in alignment and proportional to its purpose and contribution to the emotional or conceptual expression of the work. Without such an alignment and purpose, an artist may be coming up with something no one has heard or seen before, but the result would tend to be aimless or insignificant."


I dunno why you seem to be very strict and only considering things from the point of Beethoven, Wagner, John Coltrane, Captain Beefheart, Velvet Underground i.e. the ones you think highly of as if the rest of the world doesn't exist. I think there are a lot of choices outside their works, probably all the choices are outside them, so why twist the criteria to fit the elite and marginalize the rest?

I never meant by "accessible" to be creatively-limited. I said you can be creative and "not sound weird to the ear." Not sounding weird means sounding harmonic, easy to follow up, sometimes up beat and catchy; having some enjoyment isn't a sin! Classical music is probably fairly accessible now except the avant-garde. Almost everything from Mozart, whether symphonies, piano concertos or string quartets, is easy to get into and follow up. Beethoven wasn't very inaccessible for the majority of his works. Jazz can be a bit weird, but not all the time. Almost all popular Rock is accessible; the only inaccessible part of it, probably not very inaccessible depending on the person, are few ones suggested by Scaruffi.

The idea I was having in mind is to point out the easier and more accessible works first cuz most people would like something to catch on quickly. A more refined version of the list can be compiled for serious audience as a separate feature since it only draws a minority of listeners.

_________
Music From Around The World: https://www.besteveralbums.com/phpBB2/v...hp?t=24820


Last edited by Carl21 on 11/12/2021 06:32; edited 3 times in total
Back to top
  • Visit poster's website
  • View user's profile
  • Send private message
Carl21



Gender: Male
Age: 26

  • #476
  • Posted: 11/12/2021 06:12
  • Post subject:
  • Reply with quote
AfterHours wrote:
@Carl

Partial Edit re "idiotic to impose accessibility"...

Perhaps this could be a bit harsh. I mean "idiotic" more as an expression than literally so. On one hand, it is perfectly fine to me if someone likes music or other art more when it is accessible. Its not a criterion I would agree with (because it is so limiting towards creativity) but obviously someone is totally free to evaluate based off that. I just don't think it should be imposed on artists (meaning, practically all great ones) that are advancing the form, experimenting, developing their art, challenging the imagination, challenging the intellect, and so on, where one might actually have to think a little bit outside the box (so to speak) to come to grips with what they're doing. So, maybe "accessibility" could be a factor in a limited sphere of pop music or if one is rating/ranking by "how closely a work captures pop culture" or rates based on "how many hits this album has" (or something), but it is self-defeating in relation to the fundamental and greater purposes of art as a whole. One should first try and understand where the artist is coming from and this would ideally include a familiarity with the genre(s) their developing off of or from and, especially when far removed from one's own time period, one should gain an adequate familiarity with the key or "adjacent" works from the historical period of their art. Otherwise, you're unlikely to be a part of the audience that artist and their work was even intended for. And to blame that artist for not being "accessible enough for you" (or similar complaints) without you having even made yourself a part of their audience beforehand, can be a pretty unfair and even ridiculous position to take.


No offence taken, but I'm just astonished that you only take things from the perspective of the best, which is fine by me, but shouldn't be necessarily the case with any music reviewer. Objectively deciding on the best doesn't happen in a glimpse of an eye as we talked earlier. Finding the best and deciding that takes time; I don't think I can decide myself unless I have years of experience in the genre and I wouldn't suggest the best for any new listener cuz that would spoil or ruin the enjoyment of hundreds of other fairly good works out there. There's a difference between the best and the favorite. I might try to be strict when I'm asked to judge as objectively as possible, but I can be myself when I listen to music. Just because "Trout Mask Replica" is a great album that people should listen to it everyday! Probably they won't be in the mood for it all the time despite the amazing satire and some catchy tunes in it. Any music fan listens to great music that is accessible and enjoyable for most of the time; the rest of great music can be left for certain occasions and certain moods. That's why I think there should be a separate list for the elite or serious listeners.

_________
Music From Around The World: https://www.besteveralbums.com/phpBB2/v...hp?t=24820
Back to top
  • Visit poster's website
  • View user's profile
  • Send private message
AfterHours



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

  • #477
  • Posted: 11/12/2021 07:24
  • Post subject:
  • Reply with quote
@Carl

I wasn't talking about "you" re: accessibility being the main factor, and how I thought it was "idiotic". I was simply clarifying for anyone that might read that "literally" instead of as an expression (not an actual attack on intelligence).

Re: supposedly limited perspective ... Honestly, you may just need to look at my lists a bit more closely. This is obviously not true as they could hardly be any more varied while still maintaining uniform standards. Pretty much every genre is represented by its highest efforts across the selections of 7.8 and above, or if you want to go further than that, 7.3+ (not just Rock, but Jazz, Film ... and to some extent with 7.8+ Classical and the 7.3+ Paintings too, but those two are very incomplete). Seriously, it's actually hard to find one, or even a type of emotional expression, that isn't represented among the higher rankings of those lists.

Fwiw re: accessibility, you will find many of the greatest examples at/near the top of each of those same lists -- artists that both approached a "universality", and among the highest, most singular expression of art simultaneously (such as Beethoven, Mozart, Michelangelo, Leonardo Da Vinci, The Doors, Bob Dylan, Miles Davis, John Coltrane, Orson Welles, Alfred Hitchcock...). In other words, they found an ideal or near-ideal medium between "accessible" or "universal" and not compromising their artistic vision.

In short: for every "Tago Mago", or "Variations in Dream-time" there's also "The Four Seasons" or "Original Sin" rated pretty much the same... At every major echelon of the scale (ex: 7.3-7.7; 7.8-8.2; 8.3-8.7; 8.8-9.2; 9.3+...) there are "accessible" or "universal" works and more "obscure" or "experimental" ones, intermixed with each other, so it's just kind of funny to bring up as an "issue" (if that was your intent?) when it's all right there.

Obviously if one is going to claim he/she is listing "the greatest" in ordered scale, than that is the perspective and comparison from which to work from. So if you disagree with that strict approach, than I can't help you with that -- it is kind of the point of the list itself, of the order, in attempting rate/rank all those works accurately ...or maybe just meant you were surprised I would maintain the discipline of it (I can't tell which you meant). But I enjoy everything 6.8 and above always, every attentive listen/viewing (increasingly so the higher the rating, and increasingly well above mere entertainment into much greater, more impacting and profound experiences as one reaches higher and higher rated works). And even from 4.8 to 6.7 -- the 5s and 5.5s more so if I am only listening/viewing works in that sphere or not too far above them (in other words a 5 or 5.5 will seem especially lacking if I have just been listening to, say, a bunch of 8s or 9s or something, but will tend to be solid, mildly impacting and entertaining if amidst listening to a bunch of 6s or works that aren't too far above it, etc). Frankly, even from 3.0-4.7 has enjoyment factor in this regard (and in a very very mild sense, 2.6-2.9, though starting below 5 and as we get closer to 2.5 it is increasingly and totally lost).
_________________
Best Classical
Best Films
Best Paintings
Back to top
  • Visit poster's website
  • View user's profile
  • Send private message
Carl21



Gender: Male
Age: 26

  • #478
  • Posted: 11/13/2021 08:39
  • Post subject:
  • Reply with quote
Nah, actually I think it's probably because I was reminded of something I've read about, either in this thread or somewhere else, called "Challenge Rating". It's about how much time and effort it takes to get into a certain work of art, so I brought up this point. I think that would be a good feature to add to a best of list to help the viewer determine which they should try first or in a busy day and which they should give spare time and effort.

_______
Music From Around The World: https://www.besteveralbums.com/phpBB2/v...hp?t=24820
Back to top
  • Visit poster's website
  • View user's profile
  • Send private message
AfterHours



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

  • #479
  • Posted: 11/13/2021 10:08
  • Post subject:
  • Reply with quote
Carl21 wrote:
Nah, actually I think it's probably because I was reminded of something I've read about, either in this thread or somewhere else, called "Challenge Rating". It's about how much time and effort it takes to get into a certain work of art, so I brought up this point. I think that would be a good feature to add to a best of list to help the viewer determine which they should try first or in a busy day and which they should give spare time and effort.

_______
Music From Around The World: https://www.besteveralbums.com/phpBB2/v...hp?t=24820


I probably will add it at some point. Currently, there is an incomplete/in-progress version if you scroll down far enough on my criteria page.
_________________
Best Classical
Best Films
Best Paintings
Back to top
  • Visit poster's website
  • View user's profile
  • Send private message
Mercury
Turn your back on the pay-you-back last call


Gender: Male
Location: St. Louis
United States

  • #480
  • Posted: 01/25/2022 19:27
  • Post subject:
  • Reply with quote
hey afterhours, i wanted to crash this party briefly and say that from time to time I check on this masterclass of music discussion and I think i can get5 in and out quick and end up reading and reading... and reading and its all great stuff. So, thanks for this.

I was curious if you ever dived into metal of various kinds? I don't see any metal albums sticking out here, and was mostly checking to see if some albums that I find to be masterpieces and artistic high points (Neurosis' Through Silver In Blood, or more abstract stuff like Gorguts' Obscura) were here or mentioned. Is metal not particularly your thing or of interest to you?

The best and most brilliant metal of any kind albums are for me at this time
Reign In Blood by Slayer
Through Silver In Blood by Neurosis
Leviathan by Mastodon
Prowler In The Yard by Pig Destroyer
Everything Is Fire by Ulcerate
Dead As Dreams by Weakling

These also largely seem like albums you may be fascinated and moved and impressed by. (although Pig Destroyer is grindcore and I think of it as less intellectual perhaps but more primal and more in line with my love of hardcore punk.)
_________________
-Ryan

ONLY 4% of people can understand this chart! Come try!

My Fave Metal - you won't believe #5!!!
Back to top
  • Visit poster's website
  • View user's profile
  • Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic
All times are GMT
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 47, 48, 49, 50  Next
Page 48 of 50


 

Jump to:  
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


Similar Topics
Topic Author Forum
Best Musicians of All Time (Rock/Jazz) AfterHours Music Diaries
Just joined. Long time rock fan and ... Fischman New Members
Who are the greatest rock vocalists o... bobbyb5 Music
Greatest Up Tempo Rock Band Of All Time sheep21 Music
GREATEST ALBUMS OF ALL TIME AfterHours Music

 
Back to Top