Top 10+ Music, Movies, and Visual Art of the Week (2023) - Music Diaries

AfterHours

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

TiggaTrigga wrote:

Not sure if I ever asked you this, but when you are listening to an album or watching a movie, during it, are you (1) analyzing it, making thoughts here and there about it (e.g. "This melody fits the gloomy vocals" or "I wonder if there's symbolism behind Kane saying Rosebud") or (2) just being immersed in it, not really taking mental pauses to understand it but rather something along the lines of meditation (or something like that)? Or...both (1) and (2)? Just wanna get more of an idea of what helps you "understand" a piece of art better.

I am analyzing it and "watching/listening to" it in conjunction with each other (as part of the same exercise), I guess you could say (though I'm not entirely sure what you mean by #2 especially "meditation"). I assume you mean just getting swept away with the film/album without really thinking, observing, considering much about what you're hearing/seeing (or similar).

I would propose that (on avg, not always) the higher the rating the more the analytical aspect, if successful, will obtain a more complete and rewarding "immersion" in said film/album than one could otherwise. Without that, such immersion will tend to be partial at best. Lower rated, more superficial films/albums, will have less depth and thus such an immersion may take place without any "effort" or "analysis", but will also prove short lived, far less compelling, superficial, "one dimensional", relative to what one would experience with a higher rated work.

Citizen Kane is a classic (perhaps ultimate) example of a work that features a surface level entertainment that can sweep the viewer up in its wizardry and invention without much awareness or understanding of what it is conveying beyond that surface manifestation. And this will hold a certain value and possess a certain import or impression in itself, but is infact far below the depth and profundity and incredible meaning the work holds, and rather superficial relative to what the film is capable of as a viewing experience, an experience that is probably impossible to obtain without excellent observation and serious analysis of its scenes (thus, allowing one access to a much greater immersion in the work).

Infact, my top four films (particularly) are all a bit like that: Brazil, Touch of Evil, North by NW ("entertainments" with subtext, deeper meanings in their scenes, being developed across the whole). The following three: Persona, Nostalghia, Werckmeister Harmonies are more "obviously" experimental/art films so invite a more evident need of analysis but are not necessarily more complex/analytical than the top four. It's something of a mirage posed by the surface entertainment/ease of watch-ability of the above four, but not especially true in actual practice.

I'm out of time for now and may add more later...
_________________
Best Classical
Best Films
Best Paintings

TiggaTrigga

Yes, by "meditation", I meant just being fully immersed in it/swept away without really thinking, observing, considering much about what you're hearing/seeing. I couldn't think of the right word at the time.

With you saying that you do both things in conjunction with each other, I can't tell if you mean doing them both in the same listen/watch, or at different times. For example, listening to Backxwash's album for the 1st time you fully immersed in it w/out analyzing it. Then maybe the 2nd time you analyzed. Then the 3rd time you fully immersed in it again.

AfterHours

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

TiggaTrigga wrote:

Yes, by "meditation", I meant just being fully immersed in it/swept away without really thinking, observing, considering much about what you're hearing/seeing. I couldn't think of the right word at the time.

With you saying that you do both things in conjunction with each other, I can't tell if you mean doing them both in the same listen/watch, or at different times. For example, listening to Backxwash's album for the 1st time you fully immersed in it w/out analyzing it. Then maybe the 2nd time you analyzed. Then the 3rd time you fully immersed in it again.

With any "serious" listen/watch, I am (almost always) analyzing while listening/watching (they are the same action/exercise). Both In the same listen/watch (first, second, third, or whatever). There can be listens/watches that are more "casual" or less "analytical/evaluative", like with those I am more familiar with (many of my favorite albums I've listened to over 100 times, many of my favorite films I've seen over 20 times...) than with those I am still getting used to, so by "serious" listen/watch, I simply mean, the majority of those where I am making a concerted effort to experience the work in its fuller qualitative capacity and potential (than just a "casual" listen/watch would offer). Regardless, more often than not, I am listening/watching "seriously", with a sense of purpose beyond "casual" (an effort to experience the work in its fuller qualitative capacity), so what I am describing below is in relation to that.

Now, one thing that could arise when I am (over) describing this sort of thing (and maybe even just using words like "immersion", "analyze" or "evaluate") is it can maybe bring about the impression that I am doing something super special or obscure or unusual while listening to/watching a work. The simple fact is that I am listening to/watching the work and just mentally noting what I'm observing in the categories of creativity (in essence, does its sound or visual world stand out in a special way?), and emotional/conceptual expression (in essence, what is it expressing emotionally? [is it fearful, enthusiastic, angry, sad ... etc] What concept(s)/theme(s) are being conveyed by this work? [is it about relationships, the apocalypse, satire, death ... etc]. And, in alignment with "creativity", are these expressions [emotional/conceptual] being conveyed in a unique or personal way? With film this generally begins with the main character(s) AND the camera movement/framing in alignment with the visuals (what the visuals are conveying or directing the viewer to; the "directer" is usually the "author" of the work so in a well-directed work there will tend to be a strong sense of this and what we, the viewer, are being directed to apply more focus on throughout the film -- not always just the basic plot being fed, but often as a parallel development(s)/counterpoint(s) to it). With music this generally begins with the main vocalist (or lead instrument), whichever has the "main voice" (as protagonist) of the work, and I work my way from there while listening. As I make observations (especially where they are accurate or close enough) they will tend to naturally flow into others (where the "author" of a work has a vision, there will usually be alignment amongst its parts). With more complexly varied works, maybe it doesn't happen as easily as others, but that's the gist -- start from somewhere, establish that, and work one's observations from there. Sometimes this starts off more abstract and is then built upon on further listen(s)/watch(es). And other times I am more immediately in tune with the work and it is more detailed from the get-go. It varies widely depending on the work. As a matter of fact, with certain more "impressionistic" or "abstract" music (and some films, and lots of modern art) the point is not so much nailing down an exact, specifically detailed explanation of the precise emotions or concepts the work is conveying, but just an abstract sense or impression of them, just noting the allusion, elusive sense they project (so don't get too caught up in being ultra precise on these sorts, particularly with very ambiguous, elusive works, and a good deal of instrumental jazz/classical where there is wider potential interpretation -- mystery/ambiguity itself, when masterfully composed or singularly expressed, can be a "means to an end" expressively/artistically).

So that is the gist while in the act of listening/watching. Outside of that, yes, I do engage in analysis here and there of an album/classical work/film (and especially common with paintings) where I may read more about it or read/watch another critic's analysis, etc, to see if they have other things to point out that I may not have caught or that may lead me to further conclusions (and so on). Obviously Scaruffi is the most common source (mostly for Rock, not necessarily the others as he hasn't said nearly as much on those yet; misc points of his on cinema have been helpful here and there; occasionally, jazz in a usually more general sense). For film, it varies very widely (Senses of Cinema, Deep Focus Review are both excellent, for instance). Sometimes even a Roger Ebert review (even if his ratings were kind of hit and miss for me) can point something out as he is very good at communicating the main ideas/themes of a film in a concise or easily understood way. I've almost always drawn a good deal of conclusions before I check these sorts of things out, but they can help (either directly ... or even indirectly lead one to) polish up an analysis, better cohere one's thoughts, and what-not.
_________________
Best Classical
Best Films
Best Paintings

TiggaTrigga

AfterHours wrote:

With music this generally begins with the main vocalist (or lead instrument), whichever has the "main voice" (as protagonist) of the work, and I work my way from there while listening.

Could you go a bit more into detail about this? I never paid attention to music in this sense, as far as having the main vocalist or lead instrument guiding the music (or representing the main "plot" of the music? I may have misunderstood what you meant)

AfterHours

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

TiggaTrigga wrote:

Could you go a bit more into detail about this? I never paid attention to music in this sense, as far as having the main vocalist or lead instrument guiding the music (or representing the main "plot" of the music? I may have misunderstood what you meant)

Keep in mind that I am using descriptors like "generally the case" (or the like). In other words, "more often than not" (but not always). Just trying to give you a general idea, the gist, of how I would go about it, to answer your questions in a fairly satisfactory manner. But there is no way to give short-handed advice to all possible types of art (or even music) in one shot. Each album/classical work/film/painting are their own cases with their own artistic vision and peculiarities, and so on. The only factors that really do apply in all cases are the main factors pointed out on my criteria page (expressed emotions/concepts, expressed creativity, more defined and in more detail on that page). Starting with those gives one a foundation from which to begin observing the work (in this context: observing = listening or viewing proactively to analyze the content of). From those areas, one has the categories from which to start with and further derive more specific elements of expression from and make a more specific analysis, and eventual rating/ranking or even just a better idea of value (or, if one prefers, just how successful they feel the work did in meeting those criteria even if not adding numerical, comparative value to that).

That said, I suspect this is more likely a case where you simply haven't thought in exactly these terms, something you're probably aware of "subconsciously" (for lack of a better word) but maybe just without really thinking about it in the way I've stated it. But surely it wouldn't be surprising to suggest in each of the songs on, for instance, Kanye West's MBDTF, his vocal performance and the characterization being drawn by and expressed by that in each of the songs and throughout, would represent the main character being voiced throughout that album, would it? And that the other guest vocal performances are generally/always reacting or responding to or about his, or playing off of, or supporting characters in relation to the experiences being expressed in the songs, across that work, and so on. And all the instrumentation are also following or reacting, emoting or otherwise expressing along with, or furthermore in conjunction with, his vocal performance and its trajectory of characterization (its emotional highs and lows, changes in persona, changes in circumstance that are being expressed, etc).

Obviously MBDTF is a concept album with a capital C. For a very splintered album like, say, The Beatles White Album, it wouldn't really be so unified as "one" character going through a connected set of experiences through the whole, and in this case it would be more song-by-song (each more as individuals than a connected series bringing about a whole). So there the focus (or lack thereof) is more on a band, split apart, each voicing their own ideas, with the main point of unification being that and the sense of ambition or adventurousness for The Beatles in diversifying their sound more than ever. (more or less, two ends of the spectrum)

Let me know one way or the other if that makes sense.
_________________
Best Classical
Best Films
Best Paintings

AfterHours

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

On the nerdiest side of things...

As an aside, I am double checking "ratings by halves" as part of an ongoing project to double-check and update my ratings scale. Checking and comparing "by halves" (or even smaller parts than that) can help ensure the overall ratings of a full work are accurate ... most helpful between ratings that are a few tenths of a point or less apart where it can get harder to differentiate without breaking it down into smaller parts and checking those too

The gist (in its simplest version) is that where one has a higher rating, it is made up of by a combination of two or more lower ratings.

At this point it seems to be that a higher rating is made up of a doubling of two equal (equal in terms of time or, with paintings, it would be space) parts that are each approximately 1.0 below the overall ratings. Ex: a 9.0 is approximately made up of a doubling of 8.0. An 8.5 is made up of a doubling of 7.5s. Etc. I'm not sure if this stays perfectly consistent as the ratings get lower and lower on down but it is my "working theory" at this time, particularly for overall ratings of 8.0+ (when the lesser parts start dipping below 7.0 the calculations may start changing). Obviously those figures are only applicable in a two-equal-part system (further break downs, such as four-equal-parts etc, would generally lead to a lesser rating per part). The other (VERY important, easily missed) factor is that those two-equal-parts must be well-aligned as a complete unit of development for this to work perfectly as a smooth and seamless accumulation when combined. Therefore, with films especially, it works more perfectly (because, they are almost always a complete, unified, relatively seamless narrative), whereas with albums that are broken up by multiple songs/tracks, there is usually not (even with concept albums) a "smooth, seamless narrative" connection between them (sometimes there is, but usually not) that allows a perfect accumulation of parts. So, with albums (in most cases) we are usually working with more disparate parts (even when thematically well-unified, they are still somewhat disparate even if less so), and the individual quality (rating) of those parts (in most cases) tends to need to be higher (per part) in order to make up the same overall rating as would occur more seamlessly in most films. So, the more disparate the content is between two or more parts, the less "accumulation", they gain when combined (as discussed many times with DelBoca on my criteria page or in PMs about this). This can get harder and harder to wrap one's head around, but this (after many, many tests) is appearing, more and more, to be how it works out.

Note that the precise "two part combinations" are still under test (ie, 2 x 7.5 = 8.5 etc). Currently it seems that (at least from 8.0 up through 9.4) it works out that each rating has a slightly lower side and a slightly higher one. EX: The best or highest 9.0s are made up of two parts equaling 16.0 and the "lower" 9.0s are made up of 15.9. So with higher 9.0s you might have two parts of 7.5 + 8.5 (or any variation as long as one doesn't go lower than 7.0, which might change the calculation), and with a lower 9 it might be 7.9 + 8.0 or 7.5 + 8.4, etc. ... 8.9 is 15.8 and 15.7. Etc.

As a note, DelBoca predicted something very similar to this in calculations he was sharing with me as far back as (at least) two, maybe even three, years ago, in regards "continuity" and how much disparate parts would change the "accumulation factor". I think I replied (something like) that it looks like it could be accurate, but that I would need to test more in actual practice. Well...

So here are some recent "tests" with various revisits...

RATINGS BY HALVES:

FILM:
Citizen Kane - Orson Welles (1941): 1st half: 7.5-7.6 / 2nd half: 8.3-8.4. Total = probably 15.9, maybe 15.8 or 16.0 = overall rating of 9.0 (if 15.8 = high 8.9 under these calculations)

Touch of Evil - Orson Welles (1958): 1st half: 7.7 / 2nd half: 7.9. Total = probably 15.6 = overall rating of 8.8

Vertigo - Alfred Hitchcock (1958): 1st half: 7.0-7.1 / 2nd half: 7.7-7.8. Total = probably 14.8, possibly 14.9 = overall rating of 8.4, possibly 8.5

La Dolce Vita - Federico Fellini (1960): 1st: 7.2 / 2nd: 7.5. Total = 14.7 = overall rating of 8.4

Taxi Driver - Martin Scorsese (1976): 1st half: 7.3-7.4 / 2nd half: 7.1-7.2. Total = probably 14.5, maybe 14.4 or 14.6 = overall rating of 8.3 (if 14.4 = high 8.2)

Pulp Fiction - Quentin Tarantino (1994): 1st half: 7.1 / 2nd half: 7.4-7.5. Total = probably 14.5, possibly 14.6 = overall rating of 8.3

The Lady from Shanghai - Orson Welles (1948): 1st: 6.9 / 2nd: 7.4. Total = 14.3 = overall rating 8.2

2001: A Space Odyssey - Stanley Kubrick (1968): 1st: 6.8-7.0 / 2nd: 7.3-7.5. Total = probably 14.2 = overall rating of 8.1 ... But also note that this is among the films with the most potential for a major upgrade (I considered that it could even be as high as 8.6-8.9 on last viewing). Certainly among the deepest films in terms of ideas. However, still to be determined just how fully realized they are in terms of cinematic expression (not just photographic, but CINEMATIC). Is it perhaps a little bit too "slow" (not cinematically demonstrative enough?) relative to the density of ideas, thus mitigating some of its power? Maybe... (It sometimes seems like it "should" be 8.3 or above "in thought" but maybe not necessarily as much during the actual viewing experience, so it puts me in a tough spot)

ROCK/JAZZ:

Neu! - Neu! (1972): 1st half: 7.7-7.8 / 2nd half: 7.8-7.9. Total = probably 15.6 (maybe 15.5 or 15.7) = overall rating 8.8 (if 15.7, maybe 8.9)

Improvisie - Paul Bley (1971): 1st track: 7.4-7.5 / 2nd track: 7.7-7.8 (note that is by track, not equal halves, because first is approx 14 min and second is approx 24 min ... both track ratings would be upgrades) ... Total may equal overall rating upgrade to 8.7 (once one applies the new track ratings the appropriate weight by their percentages of running time)
_________________
Best Classical
Best Films
Best Paintings

Last edited by AfterHours on 09/06/2022 20:53; edited 3 times in total

TiggaTrigga

AfterHours wrote:

Let me know one way or the other if that makes sense.

I think so. And it's obviously impossible to generalize all kinds of art by stating something like that there's always going to be a "main character". Like for something like Twin Infinitives or Trout Mask Replica, the "main character" is... I don't know honestly -- those songs are all over the place. Let's say that for something like "21st Century Schizoid Man", the "main character" keeps changing (as it goes from prominent guitar AND horns to prominent vocals back to prominent guitar and horns then to-- well, a lot of different things)...right? But I want to avoid viewing a piece of art so methodically...I'm trying not to overthink art (I tend to overthink things lol) . But if the "main character" thing is one way that a person could begin analyzing a song, then I guess it's fine.

Hopefully what I said makes sense.

AfterHours

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

TiggaTrigga wrote:

I think so. And it's obviously impossible to generalize all kinds of art by stating something like that there's always going to be a "main character". Like for something like Twin Infinitives or Trout Mask Replica, the "main character" is... I don't know honestly -- those songs are all over the place. Let's say that for something like "21st Century Schizoid Man", the "main character" keeps changing (as it goes from prominent guitar AND horns to prominent vocals back to prominent guitar and horns then to-- well, a lot of different things)...right? But I want to avoid viewing a piece of art so methodically...I'm trying not to overthink art (I tend to overthink things lol) . But if the "main character" thing is one way that a person could begin analyzing a song, then I guess it's fine.

Hopefully what I said makes sense.

The overriding point is that in any work there is always a perspective(s) coming from someone (almost always the creator of said work, or when a collaborative affair, a combination of creators or the dominant personality among them). It's not just a song/album that has been produced and is now there with a cool beat or sound and cool vocals (or whatever), it is (much more importantly) a perspective being conveyed by someone, who's force of personality (or lack thereof) will be recognizable in the song/album, and will tend to be tied in (quite intimately) to the emotions/concepts being expressed and the creative decisions that were made. In short, there tends to be a dominant personality or author driving the work. Recognizing this is essential (because most, if not all, of the other points of the work connect to this main point, thus can lead one to better understanding it). In most films, especially post-Welles-Citizen Kane (and of course Welles himself), this is the director, the film being their vision of whatever theyre showing (not necessarily without input from others but theirs is the dominant vision, the final say, and generally a vast majority of the content). Hence, why it is so important to not just "follow the plot and dialogue" but to understand visual expression, what is being expressed through the camera framing/movement and "what" it is framing or leading you to see (and why it is being staged that way, shown in that perspective, edited to include these parts, etc ... Having a reasonably good grasp on that). Overthinking it can certainly happen but these are not just incidental or randomly associated points but are first and foremost very essential components to understand and recognize in 'getting' any worthwhile art.
_________________
Best Classical
Best Films
Best Paintings

AfterHours

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

In Power (as well as all the tracks save perhaps the guest starring "epilogue" at the end of the album, or at least more "indirectly" here then elsewhere) the main character is definitely West, the characterization and emotional expressions being conveyed through his vocal performance. All the guest vocals and instrumentation are in conjunction with, or reacting to, or in response to this "main character" (even when instrumentation takes the lead it is accompanying, further emphasizing or additionally expressing his states, mental phenomena, conflict, upset, decadence or evil thoughts, "Faustian" wish fulfillment, etc)

TMR, besides some vignettes/interlude tracks, it is definitely Vliet as the main vocalist.

Twin Infinitives it is definitely the lead vocalist on any given track, with the insane environments chaotically dispersing, visually distorting, endangering, collapsing (etc) all around them (similar in a very fundamental sense to the program of TMR, though very different beyond that very basic point of similarity).
_________________
Best Classical
Best Films
Best Paintings

TiggaTrigga

What about something instrumental, especially something that doesn't have a clear emphasis on a certain instrument - would there be a main character in those pieces?

I'll give some examples:
-1/1 (Music for Airports) - Brian Eno
-In Doubt - Peter Gabriel
-What Does Your Soul Look Like, Part 4 - DJ Shadow
-Hallogallo - Neu
-Freeform Freak-Out (the 1st one) - Red Krayola