|
View previous topic :: View next topic
|
|
| Author |
Message |
PurpleHazel
|
- #21
- Posted: 02/16/2018 00:37
- Post subject:
|
| ECUpirate wrote: | | Lol....people always have to be so difficult, don't they. |
Asking a question about the rules isn't being difficult. AAL2014 didn't explain the reasoning. I've participated in polls on other sites where they actually encouraged members to submit lists of different sizes and what was on those lists got the same number of points.
|
|
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
travelful
BEA's Official Florida Man
Age: 27
Location: Davenport, Florida
|
- #22
- Posted: 02/16/2018 00:49
- Post subject:
|
| PurpleHazel wrote: | | Asking a question about the rules isn't being difficult. AAL2014 didn't explain the reasoning. I've participated in polls on other sites where they actually encouraged members to submit lists of different sizes and what was on those lists got the same number of points. |
Lol..okay.
|
|
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
SOCRATES
Gender: Male
Location: PERU
|
- #23
- Posted: 02/16/2018 04:11
- Post subject:
|
1. 1997
2. 1967
3. 1969
4. 1971
5. 1991
6. 1994
7. 1977
Nothing from the 00s (great years: 2000, 2001, 2002 and 2007) and the 10s (2010 and 2016).
|
|
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
YoungPunk
|
- #24
- Posted: 02/16/2018 04:24
- Post subject:
|
|
Don't really know enough about these years yet to respond (was born in 1990), but hope this site will help me achieve greater understanding so I can participate someday!
|
|
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
Tap
to resume download
Gender: Female
Age: 38
|
- #25
- Posted: 02/16/2018 07:21
- Post subject:
|
I'll just be posting about stuff from this year every now and then while this is still going, to try to argue for the merit of this year.
So one interesting thing about the 90s as a whole is I think the way music becoming a recorded and broadcasted thing effected how we listened to music started having an impact on the form of the music being made, and other substantial qualities about the music. A lot has been made in this century about hypnagogic types of music that draw on the music of the past both in terms of what is typically recognized as musical content, but also in the way specific recording, playback, and broadcasting technologies have an impact on the experience of the music and what it is in that moment of listening. Like the way things sound over AM radio or whatever. But anyway, I don't think anyone's talking about this stuff in the context of Fantasma by Cornelius, but there's a lot to it that fits in this context.
Sure, it's relatively cleanly produced, and the hypnagogic tag is usually reserved for hazier sounding stuff. And the catchy guitar pop that does the 90s thing of a collage of signifiers of the past, and it's easier to talk up something that's less about liking existing music than it is about rejecting it and going for something that feels boldly new. But there is something really significant to the way this album operates. The transitions are all really great and gives a little extra sense of momentum to the album experience, sometimes it's smooth, sometime's it's jarring, so sometimes the feeling is a little delayed or it's immediate but there is this feeling of the change in track having significance. And that's important because each track tweaks the formula a little bit, bringing in different styles and the material aspects of production. This presentation makes it feel like there is a sense of validity to listening for these things. Oh and of course, the songs are all really fucking good, otherwise none of this would work. Taken on it's own, Star Fruit Surf Rider is a classic track. But for what it does in pushing forward the idea of what this album can be as it hits the middle, it's even better, since the beat and big electronic stab thing with the long tail weren't in the album's vocabulary yet.
I feel like the most extreme example of all of this is Chapter 8 - Seashore and Horizon. A collaboration with Apples in Stereo vocalists, it starts out with what feels like the chorus of one song, and then you hear some sort of physical sound of some kind of tape machine, and it jumps into a chorus of what feels like a much different song, and it goes back and forth a bit with these physical tape sounds moving us between the two parts. If the song were just frankensteined without the additional sounds, I feel like it would be a song that may deserve some criticism for the disjointedness, but these aspects of presentation become substantial and provide a purpose to the disjointedness. It's fantastic stuff and if you haven't heard it, you should give it a shot, I think you might like it.
An album I don't think you'll like is Memory & Money by Les Sculpteurs De Vinyl.
I feel like this album works in somewhat similar territory in recognizing the significance of the sounds of music being a thing that exists as a recording playing at your ears, except it isn't a studio construction, and it's in a fresher style of amazingly chaotic plunderphonics. It's not exactly easy listening, but that's the thing about fresh styles, you have to choose one or the other. It's a moderately sized group, including Otomo Yoshihide and Sachiko M, and if you know those names and are already like "fuck this, this is going to be way too diffcult to listen to", actually you should settle down because it's not really that bad. You got 5 people on turntables, Sachiko on sampler, and then a vocalist and a cellist. You can find earlier sample heavy stuff, sure, this album is playing in semi-established territory, but the sense of controlled chaos in a totally live performance puts it in a class of it's own.
But yeah, this one has a good amount of diversity of sampled material and the way they use the turntable and records for the "empty" sounds of them playing back silence, turning that nothing into something, all this sorta postmodern, medium-is-the-message type of stuff, I love it and it does make me see a sort of kinship between these two records. And yeah sure they didn't invent postmodernism but I do feel like the particular way this has all manifested in these two albums is a significant asset that the other years do not have, so this is one of the reasons I say 1997 is number 1 here.
|
|
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
brunotp
Gender: Male
Age: 36
Location: Belo Horizonte
|
- #26
- Posted: 02/16/2018 13:34
- Post subject:
|
1. 1977
2. 1971
3. 1967
4. 1969
5. 1994
6. 1997
7. 1991
|
|
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
glynspsa
Gender: Male
Age: 52
|
- #27
- Posted: 02/16/2018 13:49
- Post subject:
|
1. 1967
2. 1969
3. 1971
4. 1977
5. 1994
6. 1991
7. 1997
Mine almost goes in chronological order
|
|
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
paladisiac
= music
Gender: Male
Location: Denver
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
dihansse
Gender: Male
Age: 60
|
- #29
- Posted: 02/16/2018 20:33
- Post subject:
|
1. 1991
2. 1994
3. 1977
4. 1997
5. 1971
6. 1967
7. 1969
I think this deserves a bit of explanation:
However much I like the 60s and however much 1967 was important to the global rock history it was centered around only a few ground breaking albums with as important names the Beatles and... The Beatles.
The same goes for the start of the 70's: Led Zeppelin.
Of course those two bands were not the only ones around and I like many others but overall always the same names come back.
1977 was for me a pivotal year in rock music where you had that fantastic old rock record Rumours and those great new records by Talking Heads and the punks.
But 1991 is to me the year but overall the highest quality output of albums. I've got 11 albums of that year in my top 100 and 23 albums in my top 500. And Nevermind is not even the highest ranked but my own favorite the Aints.
|
|
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
Fischman
RockMonster, JazzMeister, Bluesboy,ClassicalMaster
Gender: Male
Location: Land of Enchantment
|
- #30
- Posted: 02/16/2018 21:18
- Post subject:
|
| dihansse wrote: |
I think this deserves a bit of explanation:
However much I like the 60s and however much 1967 was important to the global rock history it was centered around only a few ground breaking albums with as important names the Beatles and... The Beatles.
. |
That seems a rather narrow look at 1967. Pepper may be so big that it overshadows others, but that doesn't mean the others aren't absolutely top of the pops, or that they wouldn't absolutely kill it in any other year. While I didn't choose it as my personal fave, I have to acknowledge the musical incredibleness it brought forth.
There is soooooo much that was both totally new, and has had lasting impact, from that year, nothing comes close in that regard.
Beyond the fabs, that year introduced us to:
The unprecedented sonic onslaught and to-this-day still top-ranked Jimi Hendrix--and he gave us not one, but two all time classics that year.
The earth-shattering and nothing-like-the-Beatles debut by the Doors, another artist who managed to double up on classics in their first year.
While it wasn't the same lineup that would garner the most recommendation, Pink Floyd's debut remains a pivotal album in musical history.
While Pepper gets some credit for being concept-ish, The Moody Blues released a true concept album that to this day remains the absolute gold standard for fusion of previously considered disparate genres (in this case pop/rock and classical). There is no overstating just how seminal... and beautiful, that album is.
And while the Beatles were playing with psychedelia, Jefferson Airplane were living it through and through, and put out mot just one, but their very best two albums that year.
Although I personally can't stand it, Velvet Underground & Nico rocked the underground, and if anything, continues to grow in stature year by year.
Speaking of growing in stature, that was also the year of Love's Forever Changes.
Plus, this is the year Albert King almost singlehandedly brought back the Blues, and totally blew up electric blues with Born Under a Bad Sign, another album considered to this day to be the very epitome of it's genre. Without this album, there's no Stevie Ray Vaughn, no Joe Bonamassa, etc.
Throw in a wonderfully evolutionary album by the Kinks, and a pretty awesome lineup of seminal jazz albums, and the year is impossible to top by anything approaching an objective standard. I had it down as low as my fifth choice, but that doesn't mean I don't recognize it for what it was.
|
|
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
  |
All times are GMT
|
| Page 3 of 7 |
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
