My Criteria For Art - Music Diaries - Forums : Best Ever Albums

AfterHours

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

DelBocaVista wrote:

Here's where he seems to take the idea more seriously: https://www.scaruffi.com/ratings/all.html

I do think it can be used as a solid guide for artist rankings. The discrepancies, however, between a 1.0 or 2.0 difference, are far too large to work for qualitative album ratings. As an example, if the difference between an 8.0 and 9.0 is truly 10 times in quality, then an album would be "accumulating" quality or gaining in rating by a full-additional-8.0/10 for every 0.1 in rising rating, which of course, is not the case. It does seem like your explanation in formula compensates a bit towards a less dramatic rise, but I really do think the combinative halves I've listed work all the way up and down his list (and in turn, mine) very accurately (though I am leaning towards 0.2 less for the combined totals I've posted ... if it currently says 14.5 its probably actually 14.3, and so on ... not "official", still working this out during my revisits...)
_________________
Best Classical
Best Films
Best Paintings

DelBocaVista

Hey does the two 7.9 halves=9.1 equation apply universally, or does it imply an average degree of "synergies" between the halves (a degree which can actually be exceeded/not met resulting in a higher/lower score than 9.1)?

In other words, if BreakOnThrough-->LightMyFire had very a different set of concepts/emotions/ways of evoking them than BackDoorMan-->TheEnd, would the album be worse?

Also, I know the focus on halves is just a simplification, but I think an interesting thing to consider is that in the days of vinyl and cassettes, artists felt more encouraged to to make artistic use of the fact that there were "sides". They would often make cross-references between the sides, the likes of which would add to a cumulative effect should your answer to my above question be yes. FWIW, that element was less focused on when CD's became more prominent.

DelBocaVista

Nevermind. I found your answer this this: "It is necessary that each half is an expansion and extension of the other's content (emotions/concepts/creativity) in order to produce the requisite cumulative impact/significance for a work of this order. For example, two miscellaneous 7.3's, experienced one after the other, will not necessarily equal that of a 7.9/10 -- it will be the experience of two separate 7.3's."

AfterHours

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

DelBocaVista wrote:

Hey does the two 7.9 halves=9.1 equation apply universally, or does it imply an average degree of "synergies" between the halves (a degree which can actually be exceeded/not met resulting in a higher/lower score than 9.1)?

In other words, if BreakOnThrough-->LightMyFire had very a different set of concepts/emotions/ways of evoking them than BackDoorMan-->TheEnd, would the album be worse?

Also, I know the focus on halves is just a simplification, but I think an interesting thing to consider is that in the days of vinyl and cassettes, artists felt more encouraged to to make artistic use of the fact that there were "sides". They would often make cross-references between the sides, the likes of which would add to a cumulative effect should your answer to my above question be yes. FWIW, that element was less focused on when CD's became more prominent.

*As a note, it may be 7.8 + 7.8 = 9.1 (or any combo of "15.6")

That said...

Your question is difficult to think with because it is hard to find a substantial work that doesnt present a sustained, overall vision/purpose from the artist. That's basically what an album is (even though Rock didnt consistently catch on to this until 1966). This concept goes back to Classical music, embedded in sonata form itself and thus most
of its major works. Perhaps most prominently (in a fully worked out personal-psychology-sense) with, first, Beethoven's 5th (and 6th) then reaching its classical apex with his 9th, which heavily influenced Wagner in reaching its operatic apex with Tristan & Isolde/The Ring, and the culmination (psychologically, extent thereof) of Beethoven's ideas (symphonically and from his chamber works) with Mahler's massive ruminations on life and death (his symphonies).

It is inherent to The Doors album that its songs are each alluding to the others and borne in and of each other. It is inescapable from listening to them individually and as a unit, and as it is part of their compositional, emotional and conceptual make-up and expressiveness, it is therefore part of the assessmemt, analysis and rating/ranking. Without this element in play, the rating would indeed be different because this would also change all of the songs (as their expressiveness is built on these unified, allusionary, elements).

Im out of time for now ... May add more to this answer later today...
_________________
Best Classical
Best Films
Best Paintings

AfterHours

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

@DelCosta

Now, if, say "The Doors" was that albums' first side (through Light My Fire) and its second side was The VU and Nico's (Heroin through European Son) ... would it still be 9.1/9.2 out of 10? Maybe, or at least close. Hard to say, because it would never happen. There has never existed a band that can compose and play songs how the VU do on their first album and the same goes for The Doors. That a band could do both, is hard to think with as they are so different from each other and each so unique... But I suppose, if it somehow occurred on a single album, then it might, in this case, lose some of its rating due to incongruousness and that the "Doors side" would no longer be referencing its second side and building up to it ... or something to that effect
... so it might lose 0.1 or so due to slightly decreased overall impact, and maybe rate as 9.0 -- in other words, maybe that makes the Doors first side only feel like a 7.6/7.7 or so, and maybe the VUs second side loses a point.

Either way, the numerical totals still apply. Continuity and sustenance of vision/purpose are a built in part of increased or decreased rating. The elaboration, the in-depth view, the working out of such, tends to be the hallmark/methodology of an artist displaying his vision with greater emotional/conceptual depth than otherwise.

But examples so incongruous dont exist as far as I know, or if they do, such "incongruousness" (Frank Zappa, Todd Rundgren...) is part of the artists' ethos, tied into his compositional/emotional/conceptual aesthetic, and used to his advantage ... maybe there is little or no actual tie in between the songs in such cases -- outside of medleys/segues -- but the artist is still presenting a vision of satire, or anarchy, or deconstruction of pop/mainstream music (etc). In other words, the good/great/best artists' tend to (always?) have an overall purpose/vision they are carrying out.

Typed fast, with no time for correction, so may contain errors and typos...
_________________
Best Classical
Best Films
Best Paintings

DelBocaVista

Thanks for the detailed explanation!

That would make an interesting concept album, indeed. A man takes the subway to Harlem to buy drugs and hang with an odd consortium of "uptown" high society and "downtown" freaks, excited to participate in the Nietzschean will-to-power of the experience.

DelBocaVista

Quick question....working backward from 9.4 (9.4 is two 8.1's, 8.1 is two 7.4's, etc), I believe that it would take an album of 32 equal-length songs that are slightly under 6.8 to make a 9.4. Round that up just a hair for a 28-song album, Trout Mask Replica, and you get a sense that the weighted average TMR track is ~6.8. 6.6 if you consider how you said everything is off by like 0.2. So shouldn't the best of TMR make more of a dent in your greatest tracks list? Or is that just way un-updated?

AfterHours

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

DelBocaVista wrote:

Quick question....working backward from 9.4 (9.4 is two 8.1's, 8.1 is two 7.4's, etc), I believe that it would take an album of 32 equal-length songs that are slightly under 6.8 to make a 9.4. Round that up just a hair for a 28-song album, Trout Mask Replica, and you get a sense that the weighted average TMR track is ~6.8. 6.6 if you consider how you said everything is off by like 0.2. So shouldn't the best of TMR make more of a dent in your greatest tracks list? Or is that just way un-updated?

That formula sounds like it might work out as a breakdown for TMR. Unless I upgrade TMRs rating soon, then it might be slightly off (hint hint Wink

).

But no, there are no 7.3+ songs on TMR. Its made up of 7s, 6.5s, etc. But it should be noted that a 6.5/7 accomplished in such-and-such less time than a 7.3+ has been accomplished over a longer stretch of time is often just as impressive (because it is on the same/perhaps better pace of emotional/conceptual/creative accumulation as the longer 7.3+). And Captain Beefheart accomplishes such feats faster than most. The only reason there are no 7.3s is because most of the songs off TMR are so short -- but the emotional/conceptual/creative pace, consistency and extent thereof, is astonishing per-unit of time -- so overall it is more impressive than most works per-unit-of-time. 15 min of 3-to-4-to-5 TMR songs is probably on the order of any 7.3/10 song of any length. And Side 1 of TMR (about 18 min I think) is probably 7.6 or so, maybe higher... The 1st 1/2 of TMR might be about 8.4-8.5/10 while the second 1/2 might be about 8.1-8.3... (both still under consideration right now ... potential ratings upgrade) -- if this ends up being the case, it means I will possibly be upgrading TMR to at least 9.5, perhaps 9.6 or 9.7 (depends also on "ratings by halves" changes, as you referenced)...
_________________
Best Classical
Best Films
Best Paintings

Last edited by AfterHours on 05/02/2018 01:27; edited 1 time in total

DelBocaVista

Pretty much exactly like I thought Smile

. If I'm right about the mid-6 song average despite their not being any 7.3+, it must mean you think the album is extremely consistent in quality, right? I don't share that view because I think of Pachuco Cadaver, When Big Joan Sets Up, and the Hair Pie 1 as being much better than the rest, and Dust Bowl being much worse, but I suppose it's pretty consistent otherwise

AfterHours

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

DelBocaVista wrote:

Pretty much exactly like I thought Smile

. If I'm right about the mid-6 song average despite their not being any 7.3+, it must mean you think the album is extremely consistent in quality, right? I don't share that view because I think of Pachuco Cadaver, When Big Joan Sets Up, and the Hair Pie 1 as being much better than the rest, and Dust Bowl being much worse, but I suppose it's pretty consistent otherwise

Yes, very consistent with various dips here and there (but never less than compelling/fascinating). I would add Moonlight on Vermont to that list ... and I'd have to pay better attention to the titles to pick out other best ones off hand (despite listening to the darn thing 200+ times! Laughing

)

Note: I added to my comment above before I saw your reply
_________________
Best Classical
Best Films
Best Paintings