Having said that, from a music theory standpoint (meaning the formalist view of music - the space and time/keys/key changes/ etc.) are still argued to be some of the best to come out of the 60s. Even VU doesn't have the musical complexity of the Beatles, and in this regard are the lectures I've heard in their favor (so not from a cultural/lyrical analysis, but strictly from a formalism analysis of their music).
Then again - they are saying this from a standpoint of rock - not of jazz or classical music, so musically above their peers, very much so - musically above anything and everything ever written - absolutely not.
The Beatles "musical complexity" is only complex relative to very simple music though, in a very limited spectrum. I don't consider complexity alone relevant anyway, unless it is contributing to a compelling result (emotional/conceptual depth). The Velvet Underground may have been less "complex" (dubious claim imo), but even so, they were much more emotionally/conceptually "complex" ("in-depth" would be a better word; I don't rank music by how "complex" it is). The Beatles expressiveness, for the most part, shows very little to say about whichever emotion(s) they are expressing. They are almost always trivial, non-experiential, little atmosphere/scene, etc.
sethmadsen wrote:
I think most importantly isn't that they wrote the most complex music of the 1960s (which is entirely false), rather they wrote complex music without making it sound complex. They wrote pop tunes, yet were way above the standard pop tune - it's this aesthetic that intrigues me -it's that bitter sweet/alternative pop music that really gets me. Motown does it so well - it's this song in a major key, yet makes you cry. It's brilliant and sometimes just as brilliant as the extreme emotional/conceptual parties had by those held in higher esteem - for example Frank Zappa. Frank Zappa - I love everything about the man except his music. I love his lyrics (mostly) and his cultural/political/social influence - but his music is just a bit over the top - it doesn't really convey a powerful/emotional human message, and is very much fringe... as fantastic as it is. There's no denying it isn't fantastic music. It just... somehow falls flat for the emotional and conceptual - a bit like There Might Be Giants... often too absurd to be taken seriously at all. And not in the same way as say Maxwell's Silver Hammer - I feel like in composition and in lyric it only teeters on the absurd, and the difference of that is what is magical to me. It is when you can play with the absurd, but still be a standard pop tune that really is interesting somehow.
I don't think I agree (though maybe you just need to provide more examples/specifics of what you mean), but either way, I'm glad you dig them. _________________ Best Classical Best Films Best Paintings
^^^^^ Classic hipster-itis. You don't appreciate The Beatles b/c they're too commonly loved.
False. Beethoven, Bach, Mozart, Michelangelo, Da Vinci, Van Gogh, Dali, Klimt, The Doors, Bob Dylan, John Coltrane, Miles Davis, Charles Mingus, Orson Welles, Kubrick, Coppola, and many others, are among my all time favorite artists, each with works that populate the highest ratings on my lists. All of them are among the most famous, "commonly loved" artists in their mediums, and in the history of art.
jackbrown8786 wrote:
Revolver is revolutionary and sounds absolutely nothing like anything that came b4 it, and every significant thing after is clearly influenced by it, either directly by it or indirectly through something that was influenced by it.
None of the albums on your chart even have the diversity or range that Revolver does, most songs on it are different genres. What's the most foreign sounding rock b4 "Love You To"? The most psychedelic music b4 "I'm Only Sleeping"? The most experimental music b4 "Tomorrow Never Knows"?
You haven't listened to many of the albums on my chart then, but if you're going to pretend like you have and then make a claim based on it, you should at least sample them beforehand.
Re: Diversity ... Off the top of my head: Trout Mask Replica, Escalator Over the Hill, Even the Sounds Shine, Yerself is Steam, Starsailor, Lullaby Land, Original Sin, Piper at the Gates of Dawn, Les Stances A Sophie, The River, Flying Teapot, Mu, Uncle Meat, Epitaph, Liberation Music Orchestra, Not Available, Volunteers (plus dozens more) are each at the very least as diverse as Revolver and several of them much more so. Revolver is really just a mild continuation from Rubber Soul. If you remove Tomorrow Never Knows, the "leap" is minimal.
Of course, there were several "foreign" sounding Jazz works way before these (Charles Mingus, Herbie Nichols, Yusef Lateef...)
Re: psychedelic b4 I'm Only Sleeping...
Zappa's Freak Out, Bob Dylan's Blonde On Blonde, Bob Dylan's Mr Tambourine Man... Sun Ra (Cosmic Tones for Mental Therapy, Magic City among others), Classical music (Berlioz as far back as 1830 with Symphonie Fantastique, and so on through many composer's and compositions before the Beatles)
Re: The most experimental music b4 "Tomorrow Never Knows"?
Ornette Coleman, Cecil Taylor, Sun Ra, Miles Davis, Charles Mingus, John Coltrane, Eric Dolphy, Sam Rivers etc ... Beethoven, Wagner, Mahler, Berlioz, Schoenberg, Ravel, Debussy, Stravinsky, Bartok, Carter, Shostakovich, etc etc etc ... Frank Zappa's Freak Out, Bob Dylan's Blonde On Blonde, Sandy Bull, Fugs, The Velvet Underground ...
Even though I'm answering these for you, I don't see why it matters so much to you who's first anyway. Is the first symphonist automatically greater than Beethoven? Were the first operas more extraordinary than Wagner's? Was the first film greater than Citizen Kane?
Continuing on... I haven't had much time, so I'm answering this in pieces when I get a few min here and there...
jackbrown8786 wrote:
Nobody throughout their entire careers b4 Revolver used such a wide range of sounds, instruments, vocal and recording techniques as The Beatles do in this one album.
Again, albums like Zappa's Freak Out or Charles Mingus' Epitaph (among others) were way more diverse. And though not employing "recording techniques", Classical works far more startling, colorful, dynamic and diverse have existed for centuries (from Mozart's operas to Wagner's Ring, to Beethoven's or Mahler's Symphonies, etc)...
jackbrown8786 wrote:
The vocal sample and non-instruments used in the interlude of "Yellow Submarine" create an almost cinematic experience, where has this been done b4?
Zappa and the Fugs, for instance ... Several Classical composers, such as Stockhausen, Pierre Schaeffer (Symphonie Pour Un Homme Seul) (1950), for instance, employed the sort of techniques you're referring to (though Zappa is the most direct derivation to the Beatles Yellow Submarine) ... Also, for further "cinematic experiences", one can listen to any number of Symphonies, each far more compositionally advanced and emotionally compelling (perhaps the most "cinematic" [and very influential towards film scores] would be Dvorak's 9th Symphony "From the New World" ... _________________ Best Classical Best Films Best Paintings
I suppose something I've been thinking about is while AfterHours' criteria for great work is pretty good, there's other aspects that are important as well. Cultural impact/history isn't always shaped by the criteria AfterHours has set.
Albeit the criteria is great and I agree - There's just also more to defining what will stand the test of time.
Everything relevant that you can possibly mention will fall under the umbrella of emotional/conceptual expression and creativity, so I disagree.
sethmadsen wrote:
I mean according to Star Trek reboot, it's a Beastie Boys song they will be playing while saving the universe... hehe.
On another note, I've known plenty of Beatles fans who are music professors, professional classical musicians, and the likes. It's not completely exclusive. But I do agree that if Beatles are like God - you've probably missed A LOT of cultural/musical history. But to say Beatles aren't respected by all sorts of music academics/serious musicians alike of being one of the greatest artists of the past 100 years and will indeed stand the test of time, likely means one has been reading too much Scaruffi and hasn't been going to USC school of music or Silver Lake Music Conservatory, etc. or listened to the countless serious musicians from Jazz, Classical, and (I'll simplify and just call it Pop)
But alas, it comes down to opinion, and Beatles don't have the emotional or intellectual depth for AfterHours, and that's perfectly fine. I do wonder how much he's read about their work, but that actually doesn't matter.
In bold is what I am saying. Probably being the key word.
I've met professors/music historians and very few of them were familiar with huge sections of "alternative" Rock history they'd missed. They were generally only familiar with the most famous bands/artists, and none of those that heavily championed The Beatles had done remotely the same degree of assimilation of hundreds of other, much more startling or creative artists that would give them context to see if the Beatles really were as amazing as they thought. I'm sure there exists those who have, but it makes me wonder...
sethmadsen wrote:
1) I don't think all culturally/historically significant things have to be under the umbrella of
"emotional/conceptual expression and creativity." It maybe "should be", but I totally would not be at all surprised that if in 200 years from now it will actually be miley cirus who is revered, and not any of the arguments we are making now are relevant to them. History is written by the winners right? And you must admit, The Beatles are winning at the moment. Way less of the population, and even as you mentioned, musicologists, who share your zest for really only appreciating the best under your guidelines. If the vast majority of musicologists aren't sharing your view, then it likely also won't be what's remembered 100 years from now, even if you are "right".
Obviously I am not interested in a popularity contest, so my ratings would not change one iota if Miley Cyrus was determined to be " culturally relevant" and so this should somehow make her music extraordinary enough to warrant a 9/10+.
I would argue that these musicologists, by and large, are missing huge swaths of Rock history. Read their books and, by and large, you will only see the most famous artists have been assimilated in any detail. If you can present otherwise, please do, and even if you can, it will be the minority.
You say "confines" of my aesthetic, but it is as all-inclusive as possible, the only caveat being quality (not genre).
In my opinion the pinnacle of personal/individual and universal (simultaneously), are Beethoven's symphonies. U2, The Beatles (or whoever) are very far from this level of quality, of emotional/conceptual elicitation and creativity.
sethmadsen wrote:
Also I'm realizing that your criteria (I think) is the same as mine - that it needs to speak to my intellect and heart (emotional and conceptual) - we just view that world slightly differently, and that's what makes this site so great.
2) Fair enough. This is likely true for rock history, since that really isn't a subject most PhD's defend their music history dissertation on and is likely not a deep study for most academics. To compound the problem, most academics are likely from a time when the Beatles were god, so by defacto their review of them are tainted.
I agree this is usually (always?) the case. Any typical history of Rock course will simply be a lineup of the most famous artists even though most of the innovations/creativity was far greater elsewhere.
Confines- I didn't mean that in a you are ignoring other forms of art or whatever - rather confines=rules... and you do have very clearly defined rules.
I wasn't talking popularity either - I was talking cultural impact/significance. Like it or not, Miley Cyrus has a cultural impact - not for good, of course.
I suppose I was going back to my original statement that there's more to music than it's conceptual/emotional element, even if I agree that's what draws me the most. I disagree that that is the only thing that matters. There are other factors of equal importance when deciding the cultural impact/the importance of the work.
I do appreciate you explaining your point of view (and I'm not saying this to be cheeky at all) - it does help me understand why someone would like The Red Crayola beyond it being novel. Same with Captain Beefheart - those are extremely emotional/creative/... maybe sometimes intellectual. But for me, that's it. I either haven't understood their connection with humanity beyond what appears to me to be fringe art, or it doesn't exist, and therefore for my aesthetic might as well be something made in someones basement and never heard by anyone/have any cultural impact. It just doesn't speak to my heart, even if extremely emotional - no real catharsis is present. Does that matter at all?
Or if you could, you'd list a Central Park performer who was very intellectual/very emotional on your chart and that artist would be more important than XYZ artist who you feel is overrated, yet widely accepted othewise?
Another thing I've thought about is I think you are talking about performance sometimes instead of actual writing of the music - or perhaps both? I mean I suppose the highly emotional (in my opinon) Yer Blues and Helter Skelter from the Beatles do reach your same aesthetic or not really? The interesting thing is sometimes I feel like VU is actually void of emotion... on purpose. Like Sunday Morning is a pretty song and all, but it actually is almost like someone on ambien is performing it. Which is why I like it... but I wouldn't call that song highly intellectual or emotional. On the other hand, U2's song Please is much more emotional, much more creative, and much more intellectual (lyrically and musically). Yet U2 is completely dismissed as being emotionally/conceptually anything, and VU is the emotional/conceptual god.
You don't have to answer any of this if you don't want to - I'm likely just talking out loud/processing your point of view vs mine and writing out internal thoughts - but if you enjoy it, by all means.
I suppose something I've been thinking about is while AfterHours' criteria for great work is pretty good, there's other aspects that are important as well. Cultural impact/history isn't always shaped by the criteria AfterHours has set.
Albeit the criteria is great and I agree - There's just also more to defining what will stand the test of time.
Everything relevant that you can possibly mention will fall under the umbrella of emotional/conceptual expression and creativity, so I disagree.
sethmadsen wrote:
I mean according to Star Trek reboot, it's a Beastie Boys song they will be playing while saving the universe... hehe.
On another note, I've known plenty of Beatles fans who are music professors, professional classical musicians, and the likes. It's not completely exclusive. But I do agree that if Beatles are like God - you've probably missed A LOT of cultural/musical history. But to say Beatles aren't respected by all sorts of music academics/serious musicians alike of being one of the greatest artists of the past 100 years and will indeed stand the test of time, likely means one has been reading too much Scaruffi and hasn't been going to USC school of music or Silver Lake Music Conservatory, etc. or listened to the countless serious musicians from Jazz, Classical, and (I'll simplify and just call it Pop)
But alas, it comes down to opinion, and Beatles don't have the emotional or intellectual depth for AfterHours, and that's perfectly fine. I do wonder how much he's read about their work, but that actually doesn't matter.
In bold is what I am saying. Probably being the key word.
I've met professors/music historians and very few of them were familiar with huge sections of "alternative" Rock history they'd missed. They were generally only familiar with the most famous bands/artists, and none of those that heavily championed The Beatles had done remotely the same degree of assimilation of hundreds of other, much more startling or creative artists that would give them context to see if the Beatles really were as amazing as they thought. I'm sure there exists those who have, but it makes me wonder...
sethmadsen wrote:
1) I don't think all culturally/historically significant things have to be under the umbrella of
"emotional/conceptual expression and creativity." It maybe "should be", but I totally would not be at all surprised that if in 200 years from now it will actually be miley cirus who is revered, and not any of the arguments we are making now are relevant to them. History is written by the winners right? And you must admit, The Beatles are winning at the moment. Way less of the population, and even as you mentioned, musicologists, who share your zest for really only appreciating the best under your guidelines. If the vast majority of musicologists aren't sharing your view, then it likely also won't be what's remembered 100 years from now, even if you are "right".
Obviously I am not interested in a popularity contest, so my ratings would not change one iota if Miley Cyrus was determined to be " culturally relevant" and so this should somehow make her music extraordinary enough to warrant a 9/10+.
I would argue that these musicologists, by and large, are missing huge swaths of Rock history. Read their books and, by and large, you will only see the most famous artists have been assimilated in any detail. If you can present otherwise, please do, and even if you can, it will be the minority.
You say "confines" of my aesthetic, but it is as all-inclusive as possible, the only caveat being quality (not genre).
In my opinion the pinnacle of personal/individual and universal (simultaneously), are Beethoven's symphonies. U2, The Beatles (or whoever) are very far from this level of quality, of emotional/conceptual elicitation and creativity.
sethmadsen wrote:
Also I'm realizing that your criteria (I think) is the same as mine - that it needs to speak to my intellect and heart (emotional and conceptual) - we just view that world slightly differently, and that's what makes this site so great.
2) Fair enough. This is likely true for rock history, since that really isn't a subject most PhD's defend their music history dissertation on and is likely not a deep study for most academics. To compound the problem, most academics are likely from a time when the Beatles were god, so by defacto their review of them are tainted.
I agree this is usually (always?) the case. Any typical history of Rock course will simply be a lineup of the most famous artists even though most of the innovations/creativity was far greater elsewhere.
Confines- I didn't mean that in a you are ignoring other forms of art or whatever - rather confines=rules... and you do have very clearly defined rules.
My criteria is well defined, but I do want to make sure you know that doesn't necessarily mean there are restrictions (aside from quality). It's "rules" are simply an application of the fundamentals of all art (expression of emotion(s)/concept(s)), and how creatively and to what degree the artist has done so.
I wasn't talking popularity either - I was talking cultural impact/significance. Like it or not, Miley Cyrus has a cultural impact - not for good, of course.
Yes, she is very media driven, like so many pop artists. I guess it seems like you're trying to say this factor somehow might make her music more relevant but I don't know why this would matter in assessing such a thing (but maybe you're not saying this actually?). She has practically no effect whatsoever on music as an art form. She makes music and she is very popular and is a celebrity and there are probably many teenage girls or whoever that she has made want to do the same thing, but her music has not inspired any advancement of ideas musically. There may be ideas of "I want to make music and act like her", "I want to imitate what she's done", but it is unlikely people are listening to her music and experiencing a wellspring of ideas/innovation from it (such as what occurs from Beethoven, Wagner, Stravinsky, The Velvet Underground, John Coltrane, and so forth)
I suppose I was going back to my original statement that there's more to music than it's conceptual/emotional element, even if I agree that's what draws me the most. I disagree that that is the only thing that matters. There are other factors of equal importance when deciding the cultural impact/the importance of the work.
Well, the other key element is ingenuity, how creative the work is. Everything that is happening in a song/work is an elicitation of emotion(s) and/or concept(s) to whatever degree, and however creative. Fundamentally, what else do you think there is (if you do)?
I do appreciate you explaining your point of view (and I'm not saying this to be cheeky at all) - it does help me understand why someone would like The Red Crayola beyond it being novel. Same with Captain Beefheart - those are extremely emotional/creative/... maybe sometimes intellectual. But for me, that's it. I either haven't understood their connection with humanity beyond what appears to me to be fringe art, or it doesn't exist, and therefore for my aesthetic might as well be something made in someones basement and never heard by anyone/have any cultural impact. It just doesn't speak to my heart, even if extremely emotional - no real catharsis is present. Does that matter at all?
I don't think I understand what you're talking about exactly. Maybe you could elaborate. What do you mean by "cultural impact"?
Or if you could, you'd list a Central Park performer who was very intellectual/very emotional on your chart and that artist would be more important than XYZ artist who you feel is overrated, yet widely accepted othewise?
Maybe. If his music was highly creative, extraordinarily expressive emotionally and/or conceptually, then yes. But that's highly unlikely. If it meets my criteria, it meets my criteria. I really don't care how famous the artist is/was. _________________ Best Classical Best Films Best Paintings
Last edited by AfterHours on 06/17/2017 20:39; edited 3 times in total
[quote="sethmadsen"]It just doesn't speak to my heart, even if extremely emotional - no real catharsis is present. Does that matter at all?
If what you're asking is if it matters whether a work "speaks to my heart" (is personal to me) or not, then I'd say: Of course. Just read the ratings definitions and descriptions on my criteria page: https://www.besteveralbums.com/phpBB2/v...hp?t=15503 Even though they're fairly general (because they're "overall" descriptions), I mean them quite literally. That doesn't mean, to rate high, a work has to be "personal" to me. For instance, Suicide or Type O Negative's sort of rage and homicidal tendencies are not emotions or actions I'm "personally" familiar with in my own life, but that doesn't mean I don't find their audacious, startling expressive power and creativity quite awe inspiring.
Another thing I've thought about is I think you are talking about performance sometimes instead of actual writing of the music - or perhaps both?
Either/or
sethmadsen wrote:
I mean I suppose the highly emotional (in my opinon) Yer Blues and Helter Skelter from the Beatles do reach your same aesthetic or not really?
They're more emotional than many Beatles songs, though not much better examples of "anger and blues" than some of their best "delirious/enthusiastic" songs are examples of those emotions (A Hard Days Night, Help). Either way, they are still a very far cry from, say, Jimi Hendrix (such as Voodoo Chile Long Version from Electric Ladyland) or MC5 (Kick Out the Jams album). So when you say highly emotional, is this relative to themselves or other artists doing similar music? There are much more impacting, startling examples of such music during the same time period and many times over thereafter. So, for someone familiar with Rock history and assessing from such a context, I'm not sure why those songs would stand out so much.
sethmadsen wrote:
The interesting thing is sometimes I feel like VU is actually void of emotion... on purpose. Like Sunday Morning is a pretty song and all, but it actually is almost like someone on ambien is performing it. Which is why I like it... but I wouldn't call that song highly intellectual or emotional.
Yes, much of their music features a "deaf-noise", a pummeling or entranced/hypnotic submission towards death -- not just physical death -- but a loss of mental capacity or character, a hopeless loss of spirituality or feeling -- often (paradoxically) with an ascending majesty that turns the music into the overpowering allure and sensation of a religious experience, as if what is happening to the protagonist cannot be escaped. As if it is overcoming his will (like an inescapable cycle or drug).
Re: intellectual ... It's not necessarily a prerequisite for the music I rank/rate highly (many not-so-intellectual punk albums rank highly, for instance), but I'm not sure how VU and Nico could be a much more in-depth elicitation of its emotions/themes from a musical perspective, while still maintaining its hyper-realism (as opposed to an exaggerated, more theatrical expression). Every element of the music (even its tuning and oppressive sound quality) contributes to the emotional/thematic character of the subject matter.[/quote] _________________ Best Classical Best Films Best Paintings
On the other hand, U2's song Please is much more emotional, much more creative, and much more intellectual (lyrically and musically). Yet U2 is completely dismissed as being emotionally/conceptually anything, and VU is the emotional/conceptual god.
What is so emotional to you about Please? What is so creative about it? (genuinely curious as your view on this)
I don't dismiss U2 entirely. Joshua Tree is particularly excellent. One of their earlier albums is great too, though it's been years since I heard anything from it (was it War?). Some other songs are very good. They just don't make music that I can point to as particularly extraordinary. What do you feel they did artistically that stands out so much in music history (if you feel they did)?
I can't really fathom how U2 could possibly be more creative than VU and Nico -- a work of such singular and substantial ingenuity, a wellspring of new emotional experiences and innovation that changed the entire course of music history from the 70s-to-present -- all of it stemming from entirely musical terms. The VU were making expressionist, ritualistic depictions that had the depth, tactile and psychological immersion of a traumatic reality the likes of which had never been heard before and has never been replicated since. Every aspect contributed to the whole. I can go into greater detail if necessary, but I would maybe suggest that you see if you can listen to VU and Nico, not from the view of just listening to a set of "songs" (as they only have some superficial similarities to other songs of the era), but from paying greater attention to how each detail illustrates the entire scene and emotional/conceptual embodiment of its depictions. You may be doing this already (I have no idea), so it's just a hunch that you may want to look into this further. If I get some more time, maybe I'll illustrate some details of a song or more to provide further insight into what I mean. _________________ Best Classical Best Films Best Paintings
Last edited by AfterHours on 06/20/2017 02:48; edited 5 times in total
Yes (for the most part, aside from some more factual aspects) that is what we are discussing -- different opinions. I don't think seth and I (or anyone else) has to put "imo/in my opinion" before every sentence. I think (or would hope) we can handle the fact that we have different views, and so far our discussion has shown me no signs that we can't _________________ 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
