Artists with a PERFECT discography? - Music

RoundTheBend
I miss the comfort in being sad

Location: Ground Control

AfterHours wrote:

sethmadsen wrote:

AfterHours wrote:

I know Classical music isn't the intent of this thread, and looking at it from the perspective of "discographies" sort of disqualifies many Classical artists (as their compositions tend to be recorded by several different recording artists and not usually by themselves in linear fashion) ... but it's worth mentioning that Johannes Brahms is perhaps the ultimate answer to such a query (if looked at from "compositions/music works" instead of only "discographies"). He may be the most consistently high quality musician/composer in music history. I am not aware of a single bad apple in his entire career, not to mention that he wrote several all time masterpieces and near masterpieces.

I could say a similar thing about J.S. Bach, perhaps even more extraordinary considering the sheer number of works he produced (over 1000).

Mozart has some early works that were pretty trivial (but still quite impressive for an "amateur"), but if we look at his career once he started reaching maturity, his consistency is incredible as well.

Beethoven probably reached greater, sustained heights than any of them, but wasn't quite as consistent.

But Brahms and Bach are probably the most consistently HQ music artists ever, without many (or perhaps any) works that were less than "good-to-excellent" (or better) in their entire oeuvre.

(Come to think of it, Mahler, though much less prolific than many of the great composers, is probably a very good answer to the question too)

Bach I agree with. Although I haven't heard all his pieces obviously, but there's nothing really boring of his. Even the St. Mathäus Passion is exquisite.

Brahms on the other hand somehow always bores me. I just don't get the emotional vigor and mental stimulation from his works like I do other composers.

Agree with your assessments of Mahler, Beethoven, and Mozart though.

Also to be fair, we are discussing discography, not music career or cultural/artistic impact. Technically none of these artists produced a discography in the modern sense. I suppose you could call the Leonard Bernstein or Herbert von Karajan recordings a discography.

I suppose there's cataloged music by these musicians, and perhaps that can be translated into discography as it is a similar idea: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/K%C3%B6chel_catalogue

Splitting hairs I know, but wanted to make that distinction.

Re: we are discussing discographies... ... See my first paragraph again. You may have read it before I revised it.

Re: Brahms ... If you are intent on revisiting him, his 3rd and 4th Symphonies are probably the best starting point to appreciating his mastery and supreme genius. Along with being endlessly compelling examples of emotional ambiguity, they are astonishing masterpieces of "cyclic theme" and the expansion of an idea into accumulating compositional architecture and melodic/thematic/motivic depths of musical "reverberation" (echoes/premonitions/mergings unto itself throughout every aspect of the work) on the order of Beethoven's 5th and any of his ensuing symphonies or works, save for perhaps his 14th SQ and 9th Symphony.

Well I quoted it - so either I didn't see it or I'm a complete idiot (somehow mine was an after thought after reading yours and I obviously gapped you said that). Something tells me it is the latter. I suppose we were on the same page.

I totally forgot about A German Requiem as I was writing this. That is a fantastic piece. His Symphonies and Hungarian dances (although the latter I do like more)... idk... they just have this mediocrity to them. Like the carpenters or something - you know bland almost easy listening to me. There might be a fleeting moment of something intriguing, but mostly I don't feel it has any serious passion to it. I mean I'm saying this as one who (minus the German Requiem) has only heard Brahms maybe for 4 hours total. Still - 4 hours in and I'm not crazy about it. It might have some conceptual stuff to it, but is missing the most important part - that passion you hear in punk rock, the blues, Beethoven - and dare I say the Beatles. Cool

But perhaps the 3rd and 4th will click next time I listen to them (haven't gotten to them yet in my classical party).

By the way it's the vocals that get me going in A German Requiem. Perhaps this is why? Dunno.

AfterHours

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

Tha1ChiefRocka wrote:

Quote:

Re: Brahms ... If you are intent on revisiting him, his 3rd and 4th Symphonies are probably the best starting point to appreciating his mastery and supreme genius. Along with being endlessly compelling examples of emotional ambiguity, they are astonishing masterpieces of "cyclic theme" and the expansion of an idea into accumulating compositional architecture and melodic/thematic/motivic depths of musical "reverberation" (echoes/premonitions/mergings unto itself throughout every aspect of the work) on the order of Beethoven's 5th and any of his ensuing symphonies or works, save for perhaps his 14th SQ and 9th Symphony.

Not to mention even his non-symphonic work (the Hungarian Dances) are some of the liveliest music you'll ever hear.

Agreed. Brahms' mastered almost every major form Smile

_________________
Best Classical
Best Films
Best Paintings

AfterHours

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

sethmadsen wrote:

AfterHours wrote:

sethmadsen wrote:

AfterHours wrote:

I know Classical music isn't the intent of this thread, and looking at it from the perspective of "discographies" sort of disqualifies many Classical artists (as their compositions tend to be recorded by several different recording artists and not usually by themselves in linear fashion) ... but it's worth mentioning that Johannes Brahms is perhaps the ultimate answer to such a query (if looked at from "compositions/music works" instead of only "discographies"). He may be the most consistently high quality musician/composer in music history. I am not aware of a single bad apple in his entire career, not to mention that he wrote several all time masterpieces and near masterpieces.

I could say a similar thing about J.S. Bach, perhaps even more extraordinary considering the sheer number of works he produced (over 1000).

Mozart has some early works that were pretty trivial (but still quite impressive for an "amateur"), but if we look at his career once he started reaching maturity, his consistency is incredible as well.

Beethoven probably reached greater, sustained heights than any of them, but wasn't quite as consistent.

But Brahms and Bach are probably the most consistently HQ music artists ever, without many (or perhaps any) works that were less than "good-to-excellent" (or better) in their entire oeuvre.

(Come to think of it, Mahler, though much less prolific than many of the great composers, is probably a very good answer to the question too)

Bach I agree with. Although I haven't heard all his pieces obviously, but there's nothing really boring of his. Even the St. Mathäus Passion is exquisite.

Brahms on the other hand somehow always bores me. I just don't get the emotional vigor and mental stimulation from his works like I do other composers.

Agree with your assessments of Mahler, Beethoven, and Mozart though.

Also to be fair, we are discussing discography, not music career or cultural/artistic impact. Technically none of these artists produced a discography in the modern sense. I suppose you could call the Leonard Bernstein or Herbert von Karajan recordings a discography.

I suppose there's cataloged music by these musicians, and perhaps that can be translated into discography as it is a similar idea: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/K%C3%B6chel_catalogue

Splitting hairs I know, but wanted to make that distinction.

Re: we are discussing discographies... ... See my first paragraph again. You may have read it before I revised it.

Re: Brahms ... If you are intent on revisiting him, his 3rd and 4th Symphonies are probably the best starting point to appreciating his mastery and supreme genius. Along with being endlessly compelling examples of emotional ambiguity, they are astonishing masterpieces of "cyclic theme" and the expansion of an idea into accumulating compositional architecture and melodic/thematic/motivic depths of musical "reverberation" (echoes/premonitions/mergings unto itself throughout every aspect of the work) on the order of Beethoven's 5th and any of his ensuing symphonies or works, save for perhaps his 14th SQ and 9th Symphony.

Well I quoted it - so either I didn't see it or I'm a complete idiot (somehow mine was an after thought after reading yours and I obviously gapped you said that). Something tells me it is the latter. I suppose we were on the same page.

I totally forgot about A German Requiem as I was writing this. That is a fantastic piece. His Symphonies and Hungarian dances (although the latter I do like more)... idk... they just have this mediocrity to them. Like the carpenters or something - you know bland almost easy listening to me. There might be a fleeting moment of something intriguing, but mostly I don't feel it has any serious passion to it. I mean I'm saying this as one who (minus the German Requiem) has only heard Brahms maybe for 4 hours total. Still - 4 hours in and I'm not crazy about it. It might have some conceptual stuff to it, but is missing the most important part - that passion you hear in punk rock, the blues, Beethoven - and dare I say the Beatles. Cool

But perhaps the 3rd and 4th will click next time I listen to them (haven't gotten to them yet in my classical party).

By the way it's the vocals that get me going in A German Requiem. Perhaps this is why? Dunno.

Start listening for the endlessly reverberating nuances of his 3rd and 4ths cyclic form first and I would bet the rest will start clicking into place for you (a hunch). The subtlety and depths of musical integration is very very far beyond artists like the Bealtes or punk music (even those I champion) or (gasp!!) The Carpenters (!?!?).

Wait -- 4 hours!? That's barely enough to get through each of his Symphonies once! Brick wall

It is hard to come up with a more emotionally, conceptually, intellectually compelling and flawless work than his 4th (his 3rd not far behind). I've rarely been so beside myself and more flabbergasted in awe than when I assimilated these works years ago, and this continues to this day; they never run out of depth.

I agree with you that A German Requiem is up there too. Both vocally and orchestrally amazing. Currently I have it at 9.0/10 on my list but I've considered it for as high as 9.4 before and would not be surprised if it moved up at any point in the future.
_________________
Best Classical
Best Films
Best Paintings

AfterHours

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

In addition to the above ^^^ it is also important (as you know) to listen to the best recordings (if you're not already). I've heard many different recordings for Brahms' works (as well as any other composers I list) so, naturally, I would wholeheartedly recommend those on the following list, each meticulously chosen: https://www.besteveralbums.com/phpBB2/v...hp?t=15098
_________________
Best Classical
Best Films
Best Paintings

RoundTheBend
I miss the comfort in being sad

Location: Ground Control

AfterHours wrote:

In addition to the above ^^^ it is also important (as you know) to listen to the best recordings (if you're not already). I've heard many different recordings for Brahms' works (as well as any other composers I list) so, naturally, I would wholeheartedly recommend those on the following list, each meticulously chosen: https://www.besteveralbums.com/phpBB2/v...hp?t=15098

Ain't that the truth. A bad recording can suck the life out of any piece. Just started the YouTube recording you posted and it does have more life than what I sampled for a moment to remember the piece in spotify by leaps and bounds.

I suppose subtlety isn't something I adore in art (Yes, I took it too far with the carpenters... hehe, but as you can see I don't appreciate subtlety, hehe). It has it's place and sometimes I feel Brahms is very subtle.

The recording you suggested however isn't as subtle as those I've heard in the past, so I appreciate you pointing me in that direction. Taking it a step forward, classical music (well most music) is best live, and now that I think of it, I've never heard any Brahms live.

RoundTheBend
I miss the comfort in being sad

Location: Ground Control

RE: only 4 hours.

Yes - I've listened to like 3 symphonies, Hungarian dances and Requiem. There's likely a tad more - but I'm pretty sure that's enough to assess whether I like an artist or not (at least in the current mind frame - sure music changes as you age).

I mean I think it is enough to assess whether I should spend more time on it. BUT... as you showed me, perhaps I wasn't listening to the right recordings.

IDK - if I were to listen to all of VU's work, that'd likely be no more than 5 hours. 5 hours into something doesn't make you an expert, but does give you a pretty damn good idea what it's like.

But I do agree that listening to something 20 times will likely give you better perspective into something and you might actually gain appreciation for it strictly out of familiarity, even if it is terrible.

AfterHours

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

sethmadsen wrote:

Ain't that the truth. A bad recording can suck the life out of any piece. Just started the YouTube recording you posted and it does have more life than what I sampled for a moment to remember the piece in spotify by leaps and bounds.

I suppose subtlety isn't something I adore in art (Yes, I took it too far with the carpenters... hehe, but as you can see I don't appreciate subtlety, hehe). It has it's place and sometimes I feel Brahms is very subtle.

The recording you suggested however isn't as subtle as those I've heard in the past, so I appreciate you pointing me in that direction. Taking it a step forward, classical music (well most music) is best live, and now that I think of it, I've never heard any Brahms live.

Understood. Brahms' 3rd and 4th Symphonies are especially ambiguous, applying combinations of melody, theme, tonalities (etc) (in the same conveyance) that turn its musical phrases into not just a single plane of emotion, but into enigmatic, emotional dualities (even seemingly incongruous ones). The employment of "cyclic form" throughout every part of the 3rd and 4th expands on this even more, turning into an expansive architecture of "reverberating" lyricism and multi-faceted, enigmatic expressions -- each of its movements, and all its fragments and parts inside its movements, echoing, alluding to and expanding upon all its other parts (before, during and after they've more clearly been presented in the work) from the beginning of the symphony to the end. Overall, the work becomes an intensely reflective prism.

If under-recognized/under-assimilated, this enigma can appear at first to be a lack of clear, purposeful drive and expression, but once the whole panorama starts coming to view it becomes increasingly evident how much conviction and compositional intricacy was employed by the artist, and the overall effect is quite incredible and overwhelming.
_________________
Best Classical
Best Films
Best Paintings

Last edited by AfterHours on 06/29/2017 07:22; edited 7 times in total

AfterHours

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

sethmadsen wrote:

RE: only 4 hours.

Yes - I've listened to like 3 symphonies, Hungarian dances and Requiem. There's likely a tad more - but I'm pretty sure that's enough to assess whether I like an artist or not (at least in the current mind frame - sure music changes as you age).

I mean I think it is enough to assess whether I should spend more time on it. BUT... as you showed me, perhaps I wasn't listening to the right recordings.

IDK - if I were to listen to all of VU's work, that'd likely be no more than 5 hours. 5 hours into something doesn't make you an expert, but does give you a pretty damn good idea what it's like.

But I do agree that listening to something 20 times will likely give you better perspective into something and you might actually gain appreciation for it strictly out of familiarity, even if it is terrible.

Yes, maybe to decide if one would like to continue with the work any further, I suppose. But I would also say that it is impossible to truly assimilate most of the greatest works of art with such limited familiarity, so is one really deciding about the actual work at all? Or just deciding based on a limited perception of all it has to offer that he doesn't know he's ignorant of up to that point?
_________________
Best Classical
Best Films
Best Paintings

AAL2014

Merely going by Perfect in this thread meaning every album is great and worth listening to, so far I can't help but say Kendrick Lamar. DAMN. was tough for me at first, but it proved to me that I will probably be able to like anything that Kendrick releases in the future. Very unlike TPAB which is one of my top 20 of all time, but I came out liking it a lot anyway. Keep going, Kendrick.

Jimi Hendrix Experience as well, mentioned before but those records don't get old.

Tool's 4 albums are all worth listening to. They all have slightly different moods.

Velvet Underground for the same reasoning as Tool.

I'll throw an honorable mention to Mastodon. H/M because I'm not saying they have a perfect disc. but I enjoy all 7 of their albums, and can be in the mood for any given one.
_________________
Attention all planets of the solar federation: We have assumed control.

RoundTheBend
I miss the comfort in being sad

Location: Ground Control

AfterHours wrote:

sethmadsen wrote:

Ain't that the truth. A bad recording can suck the life out of any piece. Just started the YouTube recording you posted and it does have more life than what I sampled for a moment to remember the piece in spotify by leaps and bounds.

I suppose subtlety isn't something I adore in art (Yes, I took it too far with the carpenters... hehe, but as you can see I don't appreciate subtlety, hehe). It has it's place and sometimes I feel Brahms is very subtle.

The recording you suggested however isn't as subtle as those I've heard in the past, so I appreciate you pointing me in that direction. Taking it a step forward, classical music (well most music) is best live, and now that I think of it, I've never heard any Brahms live.

Understood. Brahms' 3rd and 4th Symphonies are especially ambiguous, applying combinations of melody, theme, tonalities (etc) (in the same conveyance) that turn its musical phrases into not just a single plane of emotion, but into enigmatic, emotional dualities (even seemingly incongruous ones). The employment of "cyclic form" throughout every part of the 3rd and 4th expands on this even more, turning into an expansive architecture of "reverberating" lyricism and multi-faceted, enigmatic expressions -- each of its movements, and all its fragments and parts inside its movements, echoing, alluding to and expanding upon all its other parts (before, during and after they've more clearly been presented in the work) from the beginning of the symphony to the end. Overall, the work becomes an intensely reflective prism.

If under-recognized/under-assimilated, this enigma can appear at first to be a lack of clear, purposeful drive and expression, but once the whole panorama starts coming to view it becomes increasingly evident how much conviction and compositional intricacy was employed by the artist, and the overall effect is quite incredible and overwhelming.

Thanks for the tip/"what to look for". Understanding something is half the battle sometimes.