100 Ratings - Music - Forums : Best Ever Albums

RockyRaccoon
Is it solipsistic in here or is it just me?

Gender: Male
Age: 33
Location: Maryland

Moderator

Perhaps I think the Beatles are better than Beethoven because I like them more than Beethoven and I don’t need another reason beyond that.

This really isn’t all that complicated. You wanna talk about the historical impact or the technical complexity of Beethoven vs the Beatles, go ahead, Beethoven’s going to win every time. But cultural impact, technical complexity, and all that doesn’t change the fact that I just simply enjoy the Beatles more than Beethoven (though I do still love Beethoven) and there’s nothing wrong with that.
_________________
2023 Chart

Early Psychedelic Rock

Electronic Chart

AfterHours

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

RockyRaccoon wrote:

Perhaps I think the Beatles are better than Beethoven because I like them more than Beethoven and I don’t need another reason beyond that.

This really isn’t all that complicated. You wanna talk about the historical impact or the technical complexity of Beethoven vs the Beatles, go ahead, Beethoven’s going to win every time. But cultural impact, technical complexity, and all that doesn’t change the fact that I just simply enjoy the Beatles more than Beethoven (though I do still love Beethoven) and there’s nothing wrong with that.

Ill reply to this one ahead of some others because I can fit it into the few min that I have...

Keep in mind that the challenge or argument is not intended for "everyone that likes the Beatles a lot". No one is forcing you to be part of it or to reply. Ive simply found it a point of curiosity that those who say The Beatles are historically extraordinary/among the greatest artists in history almost uniformly can't seem to address or explain their position, especially in relation to the precedents they are aligning them with/comparing them to (and sometimes not at all regardless of criteria or comparison). Nor are they obligated to, but in the various arguments/challenges/discussions (both heated and civilized) that Ive engaged in over the years, it is hard not to suspect at this point that the vast majority of them do not seem to understand their own claim and have not really thought it through, and in many cases were not familiar at all with the historical precedents they were choosing them over/comparing them to (doesn't mean you or anyone on this thread in particular). It's not something I think about except during threads/conversations such as this, but I do find the phenomena interesting and usually the discussion is interesting too and has assisted me in the past, perhaps even now, in better explaining my criteria/views, etc.

But yeah, I'm actually looking for someone that can talk about why The Beatles are historically extraordinary (in terms of resulting musical expression) without dodging the question in some sort of dissertation about subjectivity (etc). Maybe it can't be done. I don't personally feel it can be answered convincingly in this light, aside from maybe a very small percentage of their output... And if not in this light, what are the musical attributes that make them historically extraordinary (again, in terms of musical expression) ?
_________________
Best Classical
Best Films
Best Paintings

AfterHours

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

boyd94 wrote:

You know I've been thinking about this lately as I've been listening through a lot of Scaruffi's favourite music, and the more I hear, whether I like or dislike a given album, the more I can't understand his aversion to the Beatles. A lot of their late 60s stuff seems right up his alley.

I guess I come at this from the opposite direction - why dislike the Beatles?

I don’t dislike The Beatles. I do think they are way overrated (probably the most overrated artists of all time, that I know of, any medium). I do think Abbey Rd and Sgt Pepper are superb, excellent albums, and I think The White Album, MMT are pretty darn good, and some of their other songs (such as TNK…) are excellent (where I only wish they would’ve taken such ideas into much further developments). … I simply don’t think there is much that is particularly remarkable about their music, especially when compared to the astounding work of hundreds of other amazing (much more talented instrumentally and compositionally and vocally) Jazz or Rock artists, and even more so when compared to the great Classical artists in history (such as Beethoven, Bach, Mozart, etc).

boyd94 wrote:

They're not one of my favourite bands, they'd probably have 1 or 2 albums hovering around my top 100. But I don't hear the huge gap in quality, in an objective (yes, objective) sense, that you and Scaruffi seem to hear when compared with about a dozen acts/albums on this list http://www.scaruffi.com/music/best100.html

I think I've mentioned this before, but The Doors is the weirdest one there. I really like the album, but it seems littered with relatively simple pop arrangements and sentiments (I don't view this as a negative in itself, just different from the likes of Faust). Like a Smiths album, much of it seems to be artfully scaffolding a few masterpieces.

There is no rule of Scaruffi’s that discounts melody or standard song structures, so long as this is not applied with banality. Can you list any artists before The Doors that sounded like them?

Love, a contemporary of theirs, is kind of similar, but that’s about it. The Doors' sound is a very unique fusion of elements (touched on below)

boyd94 wrote:

Let's jump from 'Break On Through' to the opening of Revolver, 'Taxman'. I mean, I might have a tin ear but they're much of a muchness to me. Entertaining pop rock alike. I think 'Crystal Ship' is a true classic, but it's baroque and melodic in a similar way to a number of Beatles tracks - it's the Door's gloominess that I temperamentally identify with Laughing

'Here, There and Everywhere' comes to mind on Revolver. On other albums, 'Michelle', 'Something', perhaps 'Let it Be'.

Regardless of the "form", it's the content, that Scaruffi seems to pay the most attention to. Break on Through is much much harder, penetrating and more intense than Taxman so I don’t understand your comparison. Aside from fundamental cues from Dylan and Jagger, Break on Through nearly invents the hardcore/punk ethos in the process, and has no real precedent in rock music (one has to look to free/experimental jazz or modern/romantic Classical for similarly intense, psychological, self-destructive, death-defying rushes). The Beatles, in the vast majority of their songs, apply feeble guitar work, resulting in a “thin” sound (not holding the notes or chords or strumming with conviction) which limits the impingement and immersive-ness of their songs, resulting in a musical “environment” that is “reserved” and “holding the listener at bay” to the experience instead of putting them into the middle of it (compare to Zappa for the satirical bent on this, or Beefheart, or for other more serious pronouncements: Hendrix, or Cream, or the Yardbirds, or The Velvet Underground, etc) – which would make their enthusiastic songs much more substantial (compare their upbeat songs to much more exciting works such as Power Out by Arcade Fire or Dan Deacon’s Bromst, or Mozart’s Symphonies such as #35, 36, 38, 39, 41 or most of Haydn’s late symphonies – not guitars but orchestral heft & mixed/transparent tonal combinations -- to hear this done much more immersively and with themes and emotions far more developed and resolved in remarkable ways than the Beatles relatively devolved and one-dimensional compositions) … Ringo’s drums too tend to simply form a basic pulse of the song and don’t TAKE it anywhere (like the momentum swinging Doors’ works, or the era’s jazz artists, or basically any good drummer of the time) … The Doors turn their songs into much more “tactile” and immersive experiences through an unprecedented, infectious cohesion of manic, spidery guitar, keyboard, and relentless drumming (all of it in immaculately high class “classicist”, perfect form that can sometimes be likened to excursions into Bach’s baroque music), fusing Classical, Jazz, Soul and Rock. Morrison turned the Rock vocalist into a theatrical performer (no longer just a mostly equal part of the band), granting the vocalist freedom to create a song as it happens and (in some cases) divulging into an unprecedented suspense of “musical free association” (The End, When the Music’s Over). But even in the more standard, “hard rock” songs he sings with a theatrical, penetrating, death-defying, wild or lost abandon, either in such a way that is akin to a stage performer with evangelic inflection (amidst liturgical swirls of organ/keyboard and the spiraling climaxes of drums), preaching or performing maniacally and threatening the audience, or (such as Crystal Ship, End of the Night, The End), casting spells as a shaman, preaching his songs like sermons, taking the audience by the hand, and leading them hypnotized into a lost and winding, surrealistic dream/nightmare (or akin to descending straight into the mad visions of a Salvador Dali painting)… Furthermore, each of the songs sound as if they are coming from “the other side” due to the echo-like effect/distorted space of the recording dimensions and Morrison’s hollow/ghostly voice entering the foray seductively or ferociously … Furthermore, all of the songs echo each other’s structures/content/chords/climaxes/emotional expressions (while still remaining variable and each a creative excursion of its own, but all as if from the same wellspring/inspiration/purpose), resulting in a sustained series of developments and climaxes into one, cyclic, unified whole -- that one could consider a close equivalent to Classical music’s “cyclic form” -- and that lends the whole a continuous sense of momentum and prismatic, spiraling theater, each song its own part of the whole, building to climaxes, one after the other, that at the albums' height (Light My Fire and The End) become overwhelming and metaphysical, as they are both their own massive spiraling climax of infernal ritual and drama (Light My Fire) and extended theater into the other side, a destiny of suspenseful surreal visions (The End), but also reflective of all that came before (and the shorter songs leading up to these in "budding anticipation and allusions" to them) so causing a rippling effect (hence, "prismatic") throughout the album.

boyd94 wrote:

I don't care much for the Beatles' forays into Indian music, and 'Yellow Submarine' is a novelty dud that should've been excised, but I can see why some might feel the same about 'Alabama Song'. The Doors contains two further masterpieces, 'Light My Fire' and 'The End', which separates it above any single Beatles album, but the rest of Revolver proceeds in a similar vein to side B of The Doors, with delightful little compositions that serve no more or less to brighten my day, to lift me out of a low mood, before closing with a piece of bonafide mercurial genius in 'Tomorrow Never Knows'.

Aside from their relatively “normal” song structures, I don’t understand your comparison between the two, between any of the songs/sides of albums. Their content has no similarities (or, if any, it’s miniscule). The articulation, instrumental color, conviction, drama and theater between the two are completely different.

boyd94 wrote:

This is just a quick run-down, the Beatles had a handful of similar albums that, for me, sit in that range of 7.5-8, not quite masterpieces, a few missteps (they were trying their hand at pretty much everything), but otherwise there's probably no single artist/act as consistently good at what they're intending to do as the Beatles.

Please note that I'm really trying to avoid commentary on anything beyond 'the text', so to speak. When evaluating an album/band (or any piece of art) I try to distance myself from the cultural phenomenon thereof. If their work is culturally significant then it should be evident in the work and should speak from the work. I was born in 1994 so all of this is before my time and I come to almost all great music completely divorced from its historical mooring. I care only about what I hear.

I do think this is a fair and intelligent way to start off with one’s evaluation of a work.
_________________
Best Classical
Best Films
Best Paintings

Last edited by AfterHours on 12/23/2017 16:20; edited 1 time in total

Tap
to resume download

Gender: Female
Age: 38

Quote:

intense, psychological, self-destructive, death-defying rushes

one of the noteworthy things about the simpsons is how they would give characters a distinct shape so that you could tell what character it is by the silhouette. I feel like this kind of writing tho, in silhouette, it's just description with no substance, the silhouette could be anything. you could be talking about surfin bird or egyptian shumba. also how good at death defying are the doors really, I'm pretty sure that one dude died. but yeah this is just the dressed up typical bullshit adjective fight, "it's so gopd" "no its actually bad" "but it's thrilling" "no it isnt its turgid" "but what about all of the excitement" "no it was boring" AND NOBODY LEARNED ANYTHING

you can't just build the 100th floor of the skyscraper without any foundation. it crashes to the ground and becomes more garbage.

RockyRaccoon
Is it solipsistic in here or is it just me?

Gender: Male
Age: 33
Location: Maryland

Moderator

AfterHours wrote:

But yeah, I'm actually looking for someone that can talk about why The Beatles are historically extraordinary (in terms of resulting musical expression)...what are the musical attributes that make them historically extraordinary (again, in terms of musical expression) ?

Why? Who cares? Why does anyone have to defend the significance of The Beatles? They were significant to some people and not to others. They had a massive cultural impact on popular music, does that mean they should be talked about the in same breath as Mozart and Beethoven? I don’t know and I don’t care.
_________________
2023 Chart

Early Psychedelic Rock

Electronic Chart

AfterHours

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

RockyRaccoon wrote:

I don’t know and I don’t care.

No worries then.
_________________
Best Classical
Best Films
Best Paintings

AfterHours

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

Tap wrote:

Quote:

intense, psychological, self-destructive, death-defying rushes

one of the noteworthy things about the simpsons is how they would give characters a distinct shape so that you could tell what character it is by the silhouette. I feel like this kind of writing tho, in silhouette, it's just description with no substance, the silhouette could be anything. you could be talking about surfin bird or egyptian shumba. also how good at death defying are the doors really, I'm pretty sure that one dude died. but yeah this is just the dressed up typical bullshit adjective fight, "it's so gopd" "no its actually bad" "but it's thrilling" "no it isnt its turgid" "but what about all of the excitement" "no it was boring" AND NOBODY LEARNED ANYTHING

you can't just build the 100th floor of the skyscraper without any foundation. it crashes to the ground and becomes more garbage.

In the real world I was responding to another user, boyd, who was wondering about The Doors emotional content and why they are different in this wise and why they stand out to Scaruffi, myself, presumably in relation to my criteria and the fundamentals of art under discussion ... and in comparing the difference between a song like Taxman (and the album Revolver and The Beatles), and also relating this statement to their virtual invention of the hardcore/punk genres ... In this context, all of which you, um "conveniently ignored", what I said was pertinent. I love how you don't even repeat or comment about what was said but make claims that don't even exist in order to make your "point". Nice. Welcome to what is known as "what really happened".
_________________
Best Classical
Best Films
Best Paintings

Last edited by AfterHours on 12/23/2017 15:39; edited 2 times in total

theblueboy

CryingGameDahlin wrote:

Michael1981 wrote:

This subjective Vs objective thing seems to often come up in these forums. I think it's best to say that music criticism is both subjective and objective. I.e. the music provides the object and the listener the subjective response to it. So then it's more of a question of what values or assumptions (if any) you bring to making a judgement about if something is good or not e.g. Afterhours' seems to critique rock albums against artistic standards that are also applicable to classical music and other 'higher' forms of artistic expression and is transparent about this.

To debate Afterhours point that the Beatles' work is not of the same artistic merit as Beethoven we would need to point out the ways in which they are (if possible) or that he's applying values and assumptions to the Beatles music that aren't relevant to appreciating this music. To say Afterhours' is wrong because his claims are subjective doesn't really debate the point being made.

Yeah again I think it's how we define subjective or objective, but I do agree with that sentiment that we're all experiencing the same thing but viewing it through our own seperate eyes... with our varied experiences, biases, emotional make-up and personal tastes affecting how we both interpret and absorb it as well as determine it's suppossed importance in any particular regard.

And again I'm not debating whether or not AfterHours is wrong in his assertions because I may or may not agree with his criteria or the nature of need towards a certain measurement of cultural/historical/creative importance in relation to art criticism is necessary or not, again there are no right or wrong answers when it comes to opinion and my own subjective opinion is that particular dichotomy isn't really necessary is no more or less correct or valid than how one values and discusses music and if they do indeed feel there is a right or wrong... nor is he automatically right about the Beatles supposed lack of creative/historical significance because somone personally hasn't been able to cogently express an opinion that fits his criteria in that regard or the Beatles doesn't sufficiently meet the standards of that supposed importance in comparison to other bands AH finds more creative or significant in the wider realm of music.

Again art and the discussion of it is a never-ending path, as long as humans exist it's never going to reach a definitive endpoint and it's about the journey, not the destination. Again, though, that's just how one sees it.

That's all fair enough. There is always going to be multiple possible narratives relating to the greatest albums and artists of all time. But it's still possible and often interesting to make a case for the narratives you think are best and to dispute narratives you think are unjust, without claiming to have the definitive answer.

theblueboy

On the subject of the historical-cultural significance of the Beatles: I think they were right at the vanguard of significant artists in the 60s that wrote they own music and had a huge amount of artistic control over their output. Control shifted from studios to the artists themselves. This opened up a world of possibilities for popular music and counter-culture as well. The Beatles remained at the forefront of this for most of their career (perhaps only Dylan made a comparable contribution to the evolution of pop-musicians as self-contained artists) The Beatles deserve their place in the history books for this alone.

Antonio-Pedro
Subspace Highway Traveler

Gender: Male
Age: 24
Location: Rain forest Kingdom

Beatles' "Aryan" music removed any trace of black music from rock and roll. It replaced syncopated African rhythm with linear Western melody, and lusty negro attitudes with cute white-kid smiles.

The fact that so many books still name the Beatles as "the greatest or most significant or most influential" rock band ever only tells you how far rock music still is from becoming a serious art. Jazz critics have long recognized that the greatest jazz musicians of all times are Duke Ellington and John Coltrane, who were not the most famous or richest or best sellers of their times, let alone of all times. Classical critics rank the highly controversial Beethoven over classical musicians who were highly popular in courts around Europe. Rock critics are still blinded by commercial success. The Beatles sold more than anyone else (not true, by the way), therefore they must have been the greatest. Jazz critics grow up listening to a lot of jazz music of the past, classical critics grow up listening to a lot of classical music of the past. Rock critics are often totally ignorant of the rock music of the past, they barely know the best sellers. No wonder they will think that the Beatles did anything worthy of being saved.

The Beatles were not a terribly interesting band, but their fans were and still are an interesting phenomenon. I can only name religious fundamentalists as annoying (and as threatening) as Beatles fans, and as persevering in sabotaging anyone who dares express an alternate opinion of their faith. They have turned me into some kind of Internet celebrity not because of the 6,000 bios that i have written, not because of the 800-page book that i published, not because of the 30 years of cultural events that i organized, but simply because i downplayed the artistic merits of the Beatles, an action that they consider as disgraceful as the 2001 terrorist attacks.

explanation
_________________
Top 100 Hits you must hear before the u... of beauty