Best Hard Rock & Metal Albums - Music Diaries

RoundTheBend
I miss the comfort in being sad

Location: Ground Control

Tha1ChiefRocka wrote:

sethmadsen wrote:

Tha1ChiefRocka wrote:

That's why playing Led Zeppelin songs is annoying. You have to be absolutely rock solid to do some of the songs. "Immigrant Song" is easy, because the riff and the drum beat is nearly identical. "The Wanton Song", as the video demonstrates, takes nearly the same beat, but applies it to a more complex tune.

Probably the most fun Beatles songs to play on the drums. (Keyword being fun; I like Ringo, because he's a good person to listen to learn how to fill appropriately. But yeah, I could name about 50 other people I'd put ahead of him if I were making a list.)

1. I Want You (She's So Heavy)-- There's a lot of room for improvisation in here.
2. Helter Skelter-- Just so you can yell the famous Ringo line.
3. She Said, She Said-- The classic Ringo fills are a good way to learn to move around the kit in a linear fashion.
4. Come Together-- Much for the same reason as She Said.
5. Strawberry Fields Forever-- Room for improvisation.
6. Hey Bulldog-- The hardest rocker besides Helter Skelter.

Can you say more about developing your feel with Ringo's drum parts? Because they are "so simple" - do you find yourself needing to play more emotively?

I mean, I'm a low-functioning apeman, which is why I play the drums. I just hit the things that make sounds.

There are rarely any contrasting time signatures in a Beatles song, so they're pretty easy to play. It does allow the drummer to focus more on "emotion", I guess, because you're not having to treat yourself quite like a human metronome in that case. I feel relaxed when I play a Beatles song, and I feel like a brain surgeon if I try to play an easier Elvin Jones song. I would rather be able to say that I could play a mediocre version of an Elvin Jones drum part than say I could play a Beatles song though.

Absolutely. I'm hoping nobody is seriously thinking I'm arguing Ringo was the most technical drummer of all time. He'd easily be on the bottom of that list, if not even making the list. You can say that about Jimi Hendrix and guitar playing too... (he used his thumb [gasp] and was not the most technically proficient) he must be a terrible guitarist... (totally joking to make a point). He mostly played in a pentatonic scale and possibly had never heard the term mixolydian.

Last edited by RoundTheBend on 11/18/2018 17:56; edited 1 time in total

AfterHours

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

As for The VU: entirely different example as none of those others (except Dylan to some extent) are attempting or developing or culminating the same or even similar art/techniques/expressions as them. Which was not the case in the drum examples I gave that were posed as superior examples of similar expressions to Starr (again, no argument needed on this point. If you disagree on this or dont think it is "evidence", totally fine). Maybe the following is an asshole/blunt thing to say like some points in my other reply: but I dont think you are assimilating what youre listening to with the VU past a superficial view. This is just based on your comments here and there, which dont appear to thoroughly understand what they were doing/expressing. I will post a VU and Nico analysis (or at least touch on the key points and point them out among the songs etc) ... for discussion after we cool off from this argument and can be civilized again (in a different thread of course).
_________________
Best Classical
Best Films
Best Paintings

AfterHours

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

@ seth

While I am completely certain of my position in regards to the actual discussion at hand (re: Ringo, historically extraordinary?), I do want to apologize for any comments that were overly hostile or rude, particularly over the last batch of replies.

It is better if I have a bit more time to give some more detailed response, copy and paste videos or whatever is necessary, etc. So as soon as I can, I will go into my answers a bit more to better clarify.

And I will post a write up on VU and Nico, or at least essential observations/insights/bullet points as to why it is such an astonishing and profound masterpiece the likes of which has rarely been approached. Something that could perk some ears on a revisit and other users might even find useful. From what I remember, we also agreed on a Doors one (from our "criteria/Sistine Chapel" convo months ago), which I still have in mind to do sometime after VU, but not sure exactly when. I should be able to squeeze in the VU and Nico one within the next few days. If something comes up, no later than Sun night.
_________________
Best Classical
Best Films
Best Paintings

AfterHours

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

Recent updates over the past week...

FAMILIAR METAL ALBUMS - RE-RATED:
Temple Of The Morning Star - Today is the Day (1997) Not Rated to 8.1/10
Master Of Puppets - Metallica (1986) 7.5/10 to 7.8/10; 7.8/10 to 7.9/10
Images and Words - Dream Theater (1992) Not Rated to 7.5/10; 7.5/10 to 7.9/10
Roots - Sepultra (1996) Not Rated to 7.9/10
Ride the Lightning - Metallica (1984) 7.3/10 to 7.6/10
Blues For The Red Sun - Kyuss (1992) Not Rated to 7.5/10
2 - Earth (1993) Not Rated to 7.4/10
Reign in Blood - Slayer (1986) Not Rated to 7.3/10
Dirt - Alice in Chains (1992) Not Rated to 7.0/10
Ultramega OK - Soundgarden (1988) Not Rated to 6.8/10

NEWLY ASSIMILATED METAL ALBUMS - RATED:
What Passes For Survival - Pyrrhon (2017) 7.9/10
Demanufacture - Fear Factory (1994) 7.6/10
_________________
Best Classical
Best Films
Best Paintings

RoundTheBend
I miss the comfort in being sad

Location: Ground Control

AfterHours wrote:

@ seth

While I am completely certain of my position in regards to the actual discussion at hand (re: Ringo, historically extraordinary?), I do want to apologize for any comments that were overly hostile or rude, particularly over the last batch of replies.

It is better if I have a bit more time to give some more detailed response, copy and paste videos or whatever is necessary, etc. So as soon as I can, I will go into my answers a bit more to better clarify.

And I will post a write up on VU and Nico, or at least essential observations/insights/bullet points as to why it is such an astonishing and profound masterpiece the likes of which has rarely been approached. Something that could perk some ears on a revisit and other users might even find useful. From what I remember, we also agreed on a Doors one (from our "criteria/Sistine Chapel" convo months ago), which I still have in mind to do sometime after VU, but not sure exactly when. I should be able to squeeze in the VU and Nico one within the next few days. If something comes up, no later than Sun night.

I too likely was over the top and apologize (I nearly sent this as a PM). I mean come on, I was defending Ringo... Laughing

(I still stand by the arguments I was making as well and have yet to really be convinced otherwise as well). Ringo was not the most amazing drummer of all time in the "traditional" sense, but to ignore his craft as a significant place in drumming history (and not just because he was "famous", but on the merits of his actual work) I think also is ignoring and giving him a disservice. John Bonham really can't match Ringo's melodies, even if Ringo can't match Bonham's incredible delivery and technical prowess. Define best drummer. I do think, however, it is easy to characterize him as a weak drummer. It's a bit like fine foods and wine though... is it obvious or is it subtle? For Ringo it's much more subtle (imo). I think this recaps our conversation in an ok fashion (your argument to the fact that he probably is recognized just because he is a Beatle, except the author recognized that as a positive thing and you a negative/mediocrity thing). https://www.theguardian.com/music/2017/...les-genius

I feel this got heated because I felt like you intimated that Beatles fans are idiots and that I haven't got a clue about evaluating art. You know, like I don't have a degree from a top 50 university in German Literature and Philosophy or anything like that. I haven't dedicated much of my life to critical thinking or anything, so a bit of a slap in the face. Thank you for apologizing. It is accepted and I hope you accept mine.

Yeah - I'd love to hear why VU&N or The Doors are really that much of a step above. A 90 and 70 are massive differences and I really just don't see that. If you were comparing like The Loovin' Spoonful, The Monkees (sometimes I think you think The Monkees and The Beatles are basically the same band), or even Quicksilver Messanger Service, conversation would be over. Of course it'd be a waste of time to not give comparisons and use a lot of "fluff" if that makes any sense. If you think it uses a certain technique that nobody else has ever used (more technically proficient or better composition than anyone else in the late 60s... by leaps and bounds), point it out, define it, and give examples that can't be refuted. If you'd like, participate in the game I created for this purpose. I'd love to see the breakdown of each and why it is rated as such.

By the way if you were to just say, hey, this is my subjective opinion, I'd totally drop all of this and just respect. It seems you have an argument that seems your opinion aligns with objectivity, so we'll need some rules of objectivity and logic to finish this conversation. We can't have subjective arguments of "they are good... or even they are good because they use emotion better." And to be honest I'm not sure what level of objectivity we can establish (probably hence both of our frustrations). I suppose we'd have to write like a 20 page paper with a clearly stated thesis statement and road map to truly argue these points and each argument needs to tie to something clearly demonstrated and back to the thesis.

If you just give a review similar to what Scaruffi does, well then you'd be wasting both of our time as I don't feel he gives a foundation for most of his claims other than just trust him. And I keep bringing up Limp Bizkit because if he can equate Limp Bizkit to the same level of Sgt. Pepper, it's additionally easy to flip the bozo bit on him. That's just ludicrous.

EDIT: I find this applicable from David Foster Wallace:
Here's another didactic little story. There are these two guys sitting together in a bar in the remote Alaskan wilderness. One of the guys is religious, the other is an atheist, and the two are arguing about the existence of God with that special intensity that comes after about the fourth beer. And the atheist says: "Look, it's not like I don't have actual reasons for not believing in God. It's not like I haven't ever experimented with the whole God and prayer thing. Just last month I got caught away from the camp in that terrible blizzard, and I was totally lost and I couldn't see a thing, and it was 50 below, and so I tried it: I fell to my knees in the snow and cried out 'Oh, God, if there is a God, I'm lost in this blizzard, and I'm gonna die if you don't help me.'" And now, in the bar, the religious guy looks at the atheist all puzzled. "Well then you must believe now," he says, "After all, here you are, alive." The atheist just rolls his eyes. "No, man, all that was was a couple Eskimos happened to come wandering by and showed me the way back to camp."

It's easy to run this story through kind of a standard liberal arts analysis: the exact same experience can mean two totally different things to two different people, given those people's two different belief templates and two different ways of constructing meaning from experience. Because we prize tolerance and diversity of belief, nowhere in our liberal arts analysis do we want to claim that one guy's interpretation is true and the other guy's is false or bad. Which is fine, except we also never end up talking about just where these individual templates and beliefs come from. Meaning, where they come from INSIDE the two guys. As if a person's most basic orientation toward the world, and the meaning of his experience were somehow just hard-wired, like height or shoe-size; or automatically absorbed from the culture, like language. As if how we construct meaning were not actually a matter of personal, intentional choice. Plus, there's the whole matter of arrogance. The nonreligious guy is so totally certain in his dismissal of the possibility that the passing Eskimos had anything to do with his prayer for help. True, there are plenty of religious people who seem arrogant and certain of their own interpretations, too. They're probably even more repulsive than atheists, at least to most of us. But religious dogmatists' problem is exactly the same as the story's unbeliever: blind certainty, a close-mindedness that amounts to an imprisonment so total that the prisoner doesn't even know he's locked up.

AfterHours

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

[quote="sethmadsen"]

AfterHours wrote:

@ seth

While I am completely certain of my position in regards to the actual discussion at hand (re: Ringo, historically extraordinary?), I do want to apologize for any comments that were overly hostile or rude, particularly over the last batch of replies.

It is better if I have a bit more time to give some more detailed response, copy and paste videos or whatever is necessary, etc. So as soon as I can, I will go into my answers a bit more to better clarify.

And I will post a write up on VU and Nico, or at least essential observations/insights/bullet points as to why it is such an astonishing and profound masterpiece the likes of which has rarely been approached. Something that could perk some ears on a revisit and other users might even find useful. From what I remember, we also agreed on a Doors one (from our "criteria/Sistine Chapel" convo months ago), which I still have in mind to do sometime after VU, but not sure exactly when. I should be able to squeeze in the VU and Nico one within the next few days. If something comes up, no later than Sun night.

sethmadsen wrote:

I too likely was over the top and apologize (I nearly sent this as a PM). I mean come on, I was defending Ringo... Laughing

(I still stand by the arguments I was making as well and have yet to really be convinced otherwise as well). Ringo was not the most amazing drummer of all time in the "traditional" sense, but to ignore his craft as a significant place in drumming history (and not just because he was "famous", but on the merits of his actual work) I think also is ignoring and giving him a disservice. John Bonham really can't match Ringo's melodies, even if Ringo can't match Bonham's incredible delivery and technical prowess. Define best drummer. I do think, however, it is easy to characterize him as a weak drummer. It's a bit like fine foods and wine though... is it obvious or is it subtle? For Ringo it's much more subtle (imo). I think this recaps our conversation in an ok fashion (your argument to the fact that he probably is recognized just because he is a Beatle, except the author recognized that as a positive thing and you a negative/mediocrity thing). https://www.theguardian.com/music/2017/...les-genius

Thank you and appreciated.

I think where we differ is in thinking Ringo's melodic style was extraordinary when I find others did it better, almost any of which were much more dynamic to boot. Roach, for instance, carves a HUGE gap between them. Im not sure how Ringo could be among the greatest if there are drummers that there is simply no comparison with. It's a logical fallacy in my book, that doesn't hold up to comparison/scrutiny, and would warrant a revised search if I found myself with the same conclusion. Its hard to find a good or better Jazz drummer that hadn't surpassed him quite easily. And it isnt difficult to find pop or melodic rock drummers that weren't minimally his equal, a number of which obviously surpassed him across various albums/examples.

It's one of those points that is so obviously myth that it quickly gets annoying to find oneself actually having to argue about it (from my position). It is hard to not start to think the other person (you, anyone) must be just holding dearly onto said myth because its the Beatles "so Ringo automatically qualifies" and so on... Totally fine if you're not doing that, but its an impossible to believe position (his elevated greatness) because its just not based on anything real that I can see (not the idea that he was "good at what he did" -- which I would agree -- but the idea that he was "historically extraordinary/one of the best ever"). Quite illogical to me -- the evidence (other drummers) that Ive listened to (whether before, during or after The Beatles) is just overwhelming.

sethmadsen wrote:

I feel this got heated because I felt like you intimated that Beatles fans are idiots and that I haven't got a clue about evaluating art. You know, like I don't have a degree from a top 50 university in German Literature and Philosophy or anything like that. I haven't dedicated much of my life to critical thinking or anything, so a bit of a slap in the face. Thank you for apologizing. It is accepted and I hope you accept mine.

Yes, that was going too far. Fwiw I originally meant it within the spectrum of "evaluating The Beatles and Ringo's drumming" so I didn't mean it as a general point in other evaluations. But still it was quite a jump in conclusion and not something I actually know to be true or not. Exaggerated, generalized and said out of frustration.

Will get to the rest as soon as I can...
_________________
Best Classical
Best Films
Best Paintings

RoundTheBend
I miss the comfort in being sad

Location: Ground Control

Happy Thanksgiving AfterHours!

Yes, and perhaps that is where we can agree. I've already stated I'd put 25 drummers ahead of Ringo, Max Roach easily being one of them. I feel Ringo is somewhere between a symphonic drummer and a rock drummer. I somehow don't think any symphonic drummers would immediately come to many minds. Anyway, I think the discussion lies somewhere between Ringo is a dime a dozen pop drummers (where I think I hear you coming from) and easily being in the top 5 pop drummers of all time (my perspective). Are there prog rock, jazz drummers who are waaay better at what they do well, absolutely. Do some of those prog drummers have no idea how to write a melody with the drums... also very true. Jazz drummers on the other hand... well they always will win, even over Mr. Bonham.

AfterHours

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

sethmadsen wrote:

Happy Thanksgiving AfterHours!

Yes, and perhaps that is where we can agree. I've already stated I'd put 25 drummers ahead of Ringo, Max Roach easily being one of them. I feel Ringo is somewhere between a symphonic drummer and a rock drummer. I somehow don't think any symphonic drummers would immediately come to many minds. Anyway, I think the discussion lies somewhere between Ringo is a dime a dozen pop drummers (where I think I hear you coming from) and easily being in the top 5 pop drummers of all time (my perspective). Are there prog rock, jazz drummers who are waaay better at what they do well, absolutely. Do some of those prog drummers have no idea how to write a melody with the drums... also very true. Jazz drummers on the other hand... well they always will win, even over Mr. Bonham.

Happy Thanksgiving to you too!

Fair enough, we can leave it that for the time being.

Agreed that probably any of the best Jazz drummers are superior to Bonham (Bonham would probably make my top 10 or so Rock drummers). Similar to Scaruffi, I rank Jaki Liebezeit (Can) #1. My top 10, 20 and so forth would feature a shuffling of many of his top choices -- not the same order though. My #2 might be Damon Che Fitzgerald (Don Caballero), for instance... ... though I've never really sat down and tried to determine my exact drum rankings in an ordered, precise sequence.
_________________
Best Classical
Best Films
Best Paintings

AfterHours

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

sethmadsen wrote:

Yeah - I'd love to hear why VU&N or The Doors are really that much of a step above. A 90 and 70 are massive differences and I really just don't see that. If you were comparing like The Loovin' Spoonful, The Monkees (sometimes I think you think The Monkees and The Beatles are basically the same band), or even Quicksilver Messanger Service, conversation would be over. Of course it'd be a waste of time to not give comparisons and use a lot of "fluff" if that makes any sense. If you think it uses a certain technique that nobody else has ever used (more technically proficient or better composition than anyone else in the late 60s... by leaps and bounds), point it out, define it, and give examples that can't be refuted. If you'd like, participate in the game I created for this purpose. I'd love to see the breakdown of each and why it is rated as such.

Yep, uses their means (technically, compositionally) to much more profound, emotionally meaningful ends than most 60s artists, and yes, much more than the Beatles ... or is it the Monkees? Laughing

Seriously though, I dont know of any great albums by the Monkees, but I rate 2 Beatles albums as "superb/borderline extraordinary" (Abbey Rd, Sgt Pepper), 1 a notch below but still excellent (White Album, 6.5/10), and another (MMT, 6/10). The Beatles were far better artists.

Not that VU and Beatles are directly comparable at all -- completely different artists with very different expressive purposes. But yes, the resultant impact of VU and Nico (if assimilated) is far more powerful and profound than Sgt Pepper or almost any album in history. And I will point out the essential aspects to this. And anyone that cares to listen for and truly observe and assimilate these aspects will very likely see where I am coming from.

sethmadsen wrote:

By the way if you were to just say, hey, this is my subjective opinion, I'd totally drop all of this and just respect. It seems you have an argument that seems your opinion aligns with objectivity, so we'll need some rules of objectivity and logic to finish this conversation. We can't have subjective arguments of "they are good... or even they are good because they use emotion better." And to be honest I'm not sure what level of objectivity we can establish (probably hence both of our frustrations). I suppose we'd have to write like a 20 page paper with a clearly stated thesis statement and road map to truly argue these points and each argument needs to tie to something clearly demonstrated and back to the thesis.

I think we already cleared this up with our most recent replies

sethmadsen wrote:

If you just give a review similar to what Scaruffi does, well then you'd be wasting both of our time as I don't feel he gives a foundation for most of his claims other than just trust him. And I keep bringing up Limp Bizkit because if he can equate Limp Bizkit to the same level of Sgt. Pepper, it's additionally easy to flip the bozo bit on him. That's just ludicrous.

Scaruffi warns readers such as yourself that you are unlikely to get what he means in any one review out of relation/proportion to the rest of his work. I suppose its not dissimilar to my tendency to warn others that my selections will make more and more sense in proportion to one's experience with them as a whole. And this is quite true.

It's maybe impossible to cover what is essential to VU and Nico without some imitation of one of the few to accurately describe what was expressively substantial about the work in such a precise and informed manner. I will be pointing various aspects out that have probably been missed if one doesn't consider it among the most amazing and profound albums of all time.

I guess the Limp Bizkit thing would matter if you feel like the Beatles were the greatest Rock/Pop artists ever, or their 7/10s were really 10/10s like most critics do. But Scaruffi views them as rather unsubstantial so probably didnt even think twice about the similar scores. As an example, I think Lorde's Pure Heroine is just as great as the best the Beatles ever did and I dont think this is an odd statement or feels off at all because I dont think the Beatles made music that was even close to unsurpassable and have heard so much Rock, Jazz and Classical that is much much better that their stature doesnt carry any further meaning for me like it tends to do for their dedicated fans.

sethmadsen wrote:

EDIT: I find this applicable from David Foster Wallace:
Here's another didactic little story. There are these two guys sitting together in a bar in the remote Alaskan wilderness. One of the guys is religious, the other is an atheist, and the two are arguing about the existence of God with that special intensity that comes after about the fourth beer. And the atheist says: "Look, it's not like I don't have actual reasons for not believing in God. It's not like I haven't ever experimented with the whole God and prayer thing. Just last month I got caught away from the camp in that terrible blizzard, and I was totally lost and I couldn't see a thing, and it was 50 below, and so I tried it: I fell to my knees in the snow and cried out 'Oh, God, if there is a God, I'm lost in this blizzard, and I'm gonna die if you don't help me.'" And now, in the bar, the religious guy looks at the atheist all puzzled. "Well then you must believe now," he says, "After all, here you are, alive." The atheist just rolls his eyes. "No, man, all that was was a couple Eskimos happened to come wandering by and showed me the way back to camp."

It's easy to run this story through kind of a standard liberal arts analysis: the exact same experience can mean two totally different things to two different people, given those people's two different belief templates and two different ways of constructing meaning from experience. Because we prize tolerance and diversity of belief, nowhere in our liberal arts analysis do we want to claim that one guy's interpretation is true and the other guy's is false or bad. Which is fine, except we also never end up talking about just where these individual templates and beliefs come from. Meaning, where they come from INSIDE the two guys. As if a person's most basic orientation toward the world, and the meaning of his experience were somehow just hard-wired, like height or shoe-size; or automatically absorbed from the culture, like language. As if how we construct meaning were not actually a matter of personal, intentional choice. Plus, there's the whole matter of arrogance. The nonreligious guy is so totally certain in his dismissal of the possibility that the passing Eskimos had anything to do with his prayer for help. True, there are plenty of religious people who seem arrogant and certain of their own interpretations, too. They're probably even more repulsive than atheists, at least to most of us. But religious dogmatists' problem is exactly the same as the story's unbeliever: blind certainty, a close-mindedness that amounts to an imprisonment so total that the prisoner doesn't even know he's locked up.

Interesting quotes!
_________________
Best Classical
Best Films
Best Paintings

Facetious

Gender: Male
Age: 24
Location: Somewhere you've never been

AfterHours wrote:

Seriously though, I dont know of any great albums by the Monkees, but I rate 2 Beatles albums as "superb/borderline extraordinary" (Abbey Rd, Sgt Pepper), 1 a notch below but still excellent (White Album, 6.5/10), and another (MMT, 6/10). The Beatles were far better artists.

Didn't you have Revolver at 6/6.5?