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

DelBocaVista

Excited to see what happens to it. Related, here's a random thought I had:

Maybe I don't have enough background in this, but I think music exists in "ordered" time more than, say, paintings have an order in time (or even space). Unless a painting depicts the passage of time, there's no telling where to look first. But parts of an album don't "happen" until time passes, creating stuff like chord progressions (hence the word progression). So when one part of a song/album cross-references an earlier part, we FEEL the effect of cross-referencing on the latter one. Arguably, the cumulative effect should benefit it more than the earlier one (the earlier should just get intellectual credit for being set up for future cross-referencing). But then again, the whole idea of a cumulative effect ignores the value of the parts (even the adjusted value) since it focuses on the whole.

Also I PM'd you something about the ratings by halves concept that I might use to change all of my ratings..still tinkering with it.

AfterHours

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

DelBocaVista wrote:

Excited to see what happens to it. Related, here's a random thought I had:

Maybe I don't have enough background in this, but I think music exists in "ordered" time more than, say, paintings have an order in time (or even space). Unless a painting depicts the passage of time, there's no telling where to look first. But parts of an album don't "happen" until time passes, creating stuff like chord progressions (hence the word progression). So when one part of a song/album cross-references an earlier part, we FEEL the effect of cross-referencing on the latter one. Arguably, the cumulative effect should benefit it more than the earlier one (the earlier should just get intellectual credit for being set up for future cross-referencing). But then again, the whole idea of a cumulative effect ignores the value of the parts (even the adjusted value) since it focuses on the whole.

Also I PM'd you something about the ratings by halves concept that I might use to change all of my ratings..still tinkering with it.

Movement and directional patterns/angles/lighting/gestures/actions (etc) in a painting can be obvious or implied by the artist -- and in a majority of cases are. There are of course "free form" works where this pretty much goes out the window (such as Kandinsky, Pollack...) but a majority (especially pre-Modern Art) are story-based or directional. With paintings it is important to view up close enough to get a strong sense of the painters technique and conviction applied. In all art it is first and foremost a recognition of the conviction from the artist (along with this, a grasp of emotion(s)/concept(s) applied) which then affects one (to whatever degree of interest/amazement), which compels in one a sense of fixation or immersion (to whatever degree) which, if held, is the senior-most phenomenon impelling the sense of "accumulation of emotional/conceptual content and ingenuity". Cross-referencing is not necessary but is a compositional tool applied by various artists as a very compelling way to generate an accumulation of emotions/concepts (inherent in sonata form). Many albums on my list feature no such "cyclic form/theme" or "cross-referencing" but they always have a strong enough (usually very strong) sense of vision and purpose, relayed with extraordinary conviction, that immerses or fixates one into its conveyance/world. The paintings I champion, are fundamentally no different (though a different art to assimilate so that one can then experience them like this).

I think that fundamentally answers your question? Let me know...

Also, I looked at your PM briefly some days ago. Ill get back to it. Ive been super busy (as always, but even more so than usual...)
_________________
Best Classical
Best Films
Best Paintings

DelBocaVista

Thanks for this. Cross-referencing was a bit of a simplification. I was thinking of any kind of cumulative effect. Like, if the album seems to be building to something, the impact of what it builds to is "felt" once that is accomplished. So, while the album is more than the average of its parts, one could say that the latter part makes a greater contribution to that being the case (in the phenomenological sense at least, fwiw).

AfterHours

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

DelBocaVista wrote:

Thanks for this. Cross-referencing was a bit of a simplification. I was thinking of any kind of cumulative effect. Like, if the album seems to be building to something, the impact of what it builds to is "felt" once that is accomplished. So, while the album is more than the average of its parts, one could say that the latter part makes a greater contribution to that being the case (in the phenomenological sense at least, fwiw).

Sure, that sounds right to me, assuming we are on the same page (which we usually are). Simply put, the evaluation involves taking into account what the artist is expressing (emotionally, conceptually) which would encompass such aspects as a musical passages'/works' compositional development (or lack thereof). Note that a lack thereof doesn't necessarily mean a low rating (see minimalist, abstract works, etc). Fundamentally, it really depends on the artist, their conviction (expressed conviction) and in how he/she/they use their chosen method(s) creatively and towards an emotional/conceptual effect.
_________________
Best Classical
Best Films
Best Paintings

AfterHours

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

sethmadsen wrote:

Also I suppose this is where I'm confused. Their absolute best musters up to a G and F'in R album? (assuming the 8 I saw assigned to them earlier is equating the same scale). GnR is the basest of nearly all music ever made from the aspects you gave me to measure The Beatles against. Please truly sell me on how you and Scaruffi can equate Beatles to GNR and Limp Bizkit (besides the argument they are basically the Monkees/average pop music... cause if that's your argument then you clearly haven't assimilated The Beatles like you think you have... you may have found their best tracks - which by the way, those were some great selections... missing some other important musical/emotional/intellectual tracks, but good selection nonetheless).

Re: Monkees/The Beatles ... Could've sworn I just got done saying The Beatles are much better than The Monkees Think

I think they are something close to equals compared to The Beatles through about 1963-1964ish (discounting Hard Days Night song and album and the better Beatles tracks once or twice per album), but Rubber Soul and Revolver look like masterpieces compared to The Monkees, just like they may seem like masterpieces compared to albums full of trivial one dimensional songs like Please Please Me.

Re: Appetite for Destruction ... You are masochistic in how dedicated you are being to only relating The Beatles ratings/rankings to albums/artists you single out that they have no relation to and that you seem to despise! Laughing

Besides the obvious technical point that G N' R were way better musicians -- which isnt particularly important in and of itself -- they also applied this to a very complete ethos and much more powerful expression than The Beatles ever did across any *single* album. It looks like you may be confusing the requirement to be "conceptually expressive" as a requirement to be music "as that of an intellectual" or that "sounds particularly intellectualized" or something like this... Scaruffi's review describes essentially what to pay attention to emotionally/conceptually. He is *not* trying to write an "intellectual" analysis about G N' R (which would be incongruous to their content). He is simply pointing out *what* they are expressing so as *how* to listen and *what* is most essential to pay attention to (primarily) that leads to a complete assimilation of the musical aims/purpose.

If you are listening to G N' R expecting a nuanced reinterpretation of The Beatles Art Pop, you will be disappointed. If you are listening to them expecting a highly visceral thrust into a jungle/calamity of violence, drugs, sex, juvenile delinquence, in a storm of highly kinetic "melodic cacaphony" (on the edge of both), continuosly counterpointed by ferocious/swooning/delirious/tortured/angry delinquent vocals atop infectious/wild/hurtling/unending momentous, but tightly composed and extensive instrumental "concertos" led by extensive, energetic and frequently restless soloing of the lead guitar ... then you will assimilate what is extraordinary about the work, the likes of which are difficult to find equalled or topped anywhere else. In the sense of the above, it is immersive and powerful and profound -- not the intellectualized definition of "profound", but deep in the sense that it explores these sensations very thoroughly across the whole album and expresses them vividly and with great conviction and impact, applying rather astounding technical acumen (basically peak Rolling Stones/New York Dolls on hyperdrive)

Also realize I said The Beatles re-created masterpiece could be 8 - 8.5 indicating there is a good chance it would rate higher. A much more apt comparison could be "somewhere between Roxy Music's debut (which is practically Art Pop) and Piper at the Gates of Dawn" (which could be said to culminate The Beatles inclinations) ... and maybe better than both.

More later...
_________________
Best Classical
Best Films
Best Paintings

RoundTheBend
I miss the comfort in being sad

Location: Ground Control

Oversimplification of my statements below: If just about any rock music was getting a 7 and any "serious" music was the only music getting an 8 or 9 then it'd make a whole lot more sense.

Nope not looking for The Beatles in GnR. I'd take RHCP over GnR with this Hollywood stance any day.

I am equating the comment that GnR is seen better than the Beatles because The Beatles didn't really stand out above their fellow compadres at a 7 to The Beatles really are basically The Monkees. But perhaps I'm misunderstanding the Monkees are a 5 on your scale, as probably is Please Please Me (forget that bass line is easily better than any bass line GnR has, and honestly has more emotional energy than anything GnR has... GnR sounds like stripper/porno music... you know like elevator music, but slightly risque).

It's just them being the epitome of "the streets of hollywood" is laughable. I doubt he'd give the same review of RHCP, even if their case might be the same/more of a case, even if there are bands like the Germs who possibly embody this image more seriously. Did anyone in GnR get shot or overdose? Were they just parties or were they really the "street crazies" pictured in Scaruffi's stretch of hot air? Has the dude even been to Hollywood?

Additionally it comes down to this supreme exegesis (I can assimilate better) that seems to be way off. At first it takes you by surprise and you like the new/fresh point of view and then he delivers stuff like his laughable hollywood streets analysis - they were a bunch of dudes who got in a few bar fights/were "F" dudes, got hooked on drugs, etc... could have been anywhere... no, they weren't in the thick of it. They aren't the epitome of Hollywood street life at all, they had exposure to it, not real experience. Furthermore I keep bringing up GnR and Limp Bizkit because if those artists are comparable to the Beatles (given the same scores) in musical, emotional conveyance, and philosophical meaning - with comparable aptitude and depth... then I guess Scaruffi gave it all for the nookie, because really anyone can see that equation doesn't compute. Slash is a "technical" guitar player who can shred, but really is mediocre compared to his contemporaries. Axl Rose, even if as stupid as a dump truck, has a great singing range, but sings about the stupidest things. And yes, Fred Durst and John Lennon or even Bono are totally on the same plane lyrically. I just don't see it compute is all. And no, I don't see GnR as a true picture of drug, street violence... I actually see them as corporate rock trying to convey this image and the only thing that really ties them to it is they are junkies who are pretty good technical musicians with no real soul. They didn't grow up on the streets of Hollywood like RHCP actually did... but likely because RHCP are popular, they can't actually have any depth or worth to them.

It seems like you had more adjectives to describe GnR than they even know how to spell or the depth of their ability to convey such emotions. I think you and Scaruffi are giving them way more credit than they deserve. That's my two cents anyway, and just makes me really confused on how you can back a band as base as GnR and then tear down artists who actually have a consensus of being significant musicians in the 20th century as just run of the mill. Composers like Stockhausen or musical giants like Bernstein were totally giving GnR the same accolades the Beatles were given. Again, if it is a matter of taste, conversation over, but it appears you attach your analysis to a sense of objectivity and that GnR truly are the "street poets" of Hollywood and really are so much more edgy than all their corporate rock contemporaries, and really do convey all those emotions (to me that album really just sounds like one long boring song with very little ability to show any musical genius/dynamics, emotional depth, or philosophical intrigue... They had very much the depth just like the RHCP did up until 1987 when they started to mature).

AfterHours

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

sethmadsen wrote:

Oversimplification of my statements below: If just about any rock music was getting a 7 and any "serious" music was the only music getting an 8 or 9 then it'd make a whole lot more sense.

Nope not looking for The Beatles in GnR. I'd take RHCP over GnR with this Hollywood stance any day.

I am equating the comment that GnR is seen better than the Beatles because The Beatles didn't really stand out above their fellow compadres at a 7 to The Beatles really are basically The Monkees. But perhaps I'm misunderstanding the Monkees are a 5 on your scale, as probably is Please Please Me (forget that bass line is easily better than any bass line GnR has, and honestly has more emotional energy than anything GnR has... GnR sounds like stripper/porno music... you know like elevator music, but slightly risque).

The Monkees are more like 3s and 4s, among the worst successful and competent artists ever ... similarly rated to Please Please Me through Help (except HDN). Id rate The Monkees approx 0.5 below each comparable album.

sethmadsen wrote:

It's just them being the epitome of "the streets of hollywood" is laughable. I doubt he'd give the same review of RHCP, even if their case might be the same/more of a case, even if there are bands like the Germs who possibly embody this image more seriously. Did anyone in GnR get shot or overdose? Were they just parties or were they really the "street crazies" pictured in Scaruffi's stretch of hot air? Has the dude even been to Hollywood?

Additionally it comes down to this supreme exegesis (I can assimilate better) that seems to be way off. At first it takes you by surprise and you like the new/fresh point of view and then he delivers stuff like his laughable hollywood streets analysis - they were a bunch of dudes who got in a few bar fights/were "F" dudes, got hooked on drugs, etc... could have been anywhere... no, they weren't in the thick of it. They aren't the epitome of Hollywood street life at all, they had exposure to it, not real experience. Furthermore I keep bringing up GnR and Limp Bizkit because if those artists are comparable to the Beatles (given the same scores) in musical, emotional conveyance, and philosophical meaning - with comparable aptitude and depth... then I guess Scaruffi gave it all for the nookie, because really anyone can see that equation doesn't compute. Slash is a "technical" guitar player who can shred, but really is mediocre compared to his contemporaries. Axl Rose, even if as stupid as a dump truck, has a great singing range, but sings about the stupidest things. And yes, Fred Durst and John Lennon or even Bono are totally on the same plane lyrically. I just don't see it compute is all. And no, I don't see GnR as a true picture of drug, street violence... I actually see them as corporate rock trying to convey this image and the only thing that really ties them to it is they are junkies who are pretty good technical musicians with no real soul. They didn't grow up on the streets of Hollywood like RHCP actually did... but likely because RHCP are popular, they can't actually have any depth or worth to them.

It seems like you had more adjectives to describe GnR than they even know how to spell or the depth of their ability to convey such emotions. I think you and Scaruffi are giving them way more credit than they deserve. That's my two cents anyway, and just makes me really confused on how you can back a band as base as GnR and then tear down artists who actually have a consensus of being significant musicians in the 20th century as just run of the mill. Composers like Stockhausen or musical giants like Bernstein were totally giving GnR the same accolades the Beatles were given. Again, if it is a matter of taste, conversation over, but it appears you attach your analysis to a sense of objectivity and that GnR truly are the "street poets" of Hollywood and really are so much more edgy than all their corporate rock contemporaries, and really do convey all those emotions (to me that album really just sounds like one long boring song with very little ability to show any musical genius/dynamics, emotional depth, or philosophical intrigue... They had very much the depth just like the RHCP did up until 1987 when they started to mature).

You seem to vastly underestimate the musical intelligence of a band that also produced a rather measured and competently emotional, mostly acoustic (approx 2/3 of it), follow up with Lies (with its first 3rd being a pretty good example of their manic energy in live performances, solidly evoking the MC5 by way of The Sex Pistols). Then proceeded to align their ethos in an endless array of formats, to practically the whole of Rock history, with Use Your Illusion I and II. Then (with Rose alone) produced the very polished and technical/compositional virtuosity of Chinese Democracy.

Not sure why the legitimacy of their personal lives matters except as a possible retort to the accuracy of a statement by Scaruffi. I absolutely agree that the album is akin to musical pornography. It is Expressionist and Theatrical, all instruments in darker/shady tones, posing frantic frescoes of urban decadence. It is utterly consumed in sex and sleaze and 80s excess. It is consumed in degradation and grime, taking The Rolling Stones/New York Dolls "dirty" sounding guitars and instrumental work to whole new levels of excess, heroin/cocaine addled, nihilistic, nasty, shady and sleazy. Its highly "contortionist", melodically "fractured" or "anxious", and "unclean" guitar work (playing winding and extensive, scenographic concertos) parades a party/calamity of anarchic abandon and unbridled sort of anti-fantasy-land (media, Hollywood, punks, hookers, alleys, streets and all) of the shady/nasty/criminal/grotesque personas that Rose portrays, real or imagined. The whole album is a constantly influx, ferocious expressionist and theatrical series of nightmarish expressions of these two-faced/double-edged ambiguous slices of life (seductive yet grotesque, melodic yet cacophonous ... the dark, dangerous tones and hurtling, racing, violent emphasis of the instruments but expressed vibrantly and epileptic as if the flickering allure of the night life ... etc). Rose, as well, is never who he seems (one moment the persona of a disgusting rapist, the next a romantic crooner, etc). The comparison of its dark, nihilistic and expressionist frescoes to the disillusionment, fatalism, menace and dangerous visualization and personas of the best hard boiled film noir (particularly neo noir of the 80s) is also apt (except these expressions are brought to an extreme of frenetic pace, violence, sleazy seduction and excess, without losing a grounding in its touchstones: Rolling Stones/New York Dolls and Sex Pistols). Rose portrays a very shady and nihilistic anti hero falling in love with hookers/femme fatales, being chased, being a punk/thug, engaging in frantic violence etc ...but he portrays the extreme, disillusioned, apocalyptic end of this character, the limit of what was envisioned by Hollywood, now a total psycho living life on the edge of being caught, at the living end, angry and pained at every phrase, dismissing each line in nihilistic and grotesque enunciations, throwing them away or spewing them in utter disgust and distaste. Not exploited theatrically by Hollywood until such grotesque and violent "neo noirs" with extreme anti heros, such as Natural Born Killers and Sin City. To this day, Rose's performance is a totally batshit embodiment of these types of characters/personas, given full determination, vision and chase by the manic instrumental frescoes counterpointing him.
_________________
Best Classical
Best Films
Best Paintings

Last edited by AfterHours on 11/26/2018 06:28; edited 8 times in total

DelBocaVista

Keys to understanding the basic framework of this position:
- While GNR were not true "street punks" (ODs, shootings, etc), Scaruffi's assessment of them is not grounded in his mistake of thinking they were. It's just an aside. What should matter is how vividly/creatively the street punk experience/perspective is expressed.
- Of utmost importance is how it is expressed through the music, not lyrics.
- Whether talking about the music or the lyrics, the "profundity" in question is the depth (vivid+creative) of expression, not in the specific thing being expressed (so it doesn't matter if hookers and Hollywood aren't interesting).

On the other hand, check out this Australian band that they totally ripped off for Sweet Child O Mine: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=oxqreCG0htQ. This whole thread, website, and the 80s in general are hereby officially disqualified Smile

.

AfterHours

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

DelBocaVista wrote:

Keys to understanding the basic framework of this position:
- While GNR were not true "street punks" (ODs, shootings, etc), Scaruffi's assessment of them is not grounded in his mistake of thinking they were. It's just an aside. What should matter is how vividly/creatively the street punk experience/perspective is expressed.
- Of utmost importance is how it is expressed through the music, not lyrics.
- Whether talking about the music or the lyrics, the "profundity" in question is the depth (vivid+creative) of expression, not in the specific thing being expressed (so it doesn't matter if hookers and Hollywood aren't interesting).

On the other hand, check out this Australian band that they totally ripped off for Sweet Child O Mine: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=oxqreCG0htQ. This whole thread, website, and the 80s in general are hereby officially disqualified Smile

.

Salient points ^^^

Haha at that Australian "Sweet Child O' Mine"! Laughing

Thank God they gave it new life -- that song is just godawful. 1/10?
_________________
Best Classical
Best Films
Best Paintings

AfterHours

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

^^^ Fwiw, I added some salient points about Appetite to my latest reply to Seth above -- just in case it was read before I did that.
_________________
Best Classical
Best Films
Best Paintings