Is an album's influence overvalued? - Music

HigherThanTheSun

Gender: Male
Age: 33
Location: UK

swedenman wrote:

As music connoisseurs, we all have criteria we use to rank our albums. Some of us have more complex systems than others, but when it comes to objectively evaluating an album, we've got certain qualities we look for. Among these are originality, influence, technical proficiency, production quality, flow, compositional complexity, musicality, and lyrical depth, to name a few.

Seems a complicated way to rate an album. For me I just rate them according to how much they mean to me. Music is subjective so I think it's a bit futile to use a set list of criteria like you do because even if an album ticks all the boxes you still might find yourself not particularly liking it. Similarly there are some albums which barely tick any boxes and you know they're not really that great as an artform yet you can't help loving them.

Surely you just have to ask yourself, how much am I enjoying this album rather than is it original or is it influential etc. I know you say this is your system for objectively evaluating an album but I'm not at all sure it's actually possible to objectively evaluate an album is it?

For example I see you've no hip hop albums in your list, can I assume you're not a fan of hip hop? If so how is it possible for you to objectively say that an album from a genre you enjoy is better than one from a genre you don't? Because that's clearly a personal bias and so subjective rather than objective.

I've tried to be as honest as I can in my list and I've got a lot of albums in there which I know for sure that most people won't like, it doesn't bother me though I'm not just gonna fill my list with the staple 'classics' to give it credibility, my list is a reflection of the albums which I most enjoy listeneing to and nothing else.

To answer your question I suppose you can guess that I don't think 'influence' is an important measure of how 'good' an album is. It tends to be the case that albums which define genres and movements tend to be the best of that genre or movement but essentially I don't think it's important in evaluating how 'good' an album it is. How 'important' the album is, maybe, but not 'good'.

If everyone chose their lists entirely subjectively I think the overall chart would change somewhat, there seems to be a lot of staple albums around that I suspect people add to their lists to give them credibility rather than just choosing the ones they like the best.
_________________
Shut up mate you're boring!

Guest

HigherThanTheSun wrote:

swedenman wrote:

As music connoisseurs, we all have criteria we use to rank our albums. Some of us have more complex systems than others, but when it comes to objectively evaluating an album, we've got certain qualities we look for. Among these are originality, influence, technical proficiency, production quality, flow, compositional complexity, musicality, and lyrical depth, to name a few.

Seems a complicated way to rate an album. For me I just rate them according to how much they mean to me. Music is subjective so I think it's a bit futile to use a set list of criteria like you do because even if an album ticks all the boxes you still might find yourself not particularly liking it. Similarly there are some albums which barely tick any boxes and you know they're not really that great as an artform yet you can't help loving them.

Surely you just have to ask yourself, how much am I enjoying this album rather than is it original or is it influential etc. I know you say this is your system for objectively evaluating an album but I'm not at all sure it's actually possible to objectively evaluate an album is it?

For example I see you've no hip hop albums in your list, can I assume you're not a fan of hip hop? If so how is it possible for you to objectively say that an album from a genre you enjoy is better than one from a genre you don't? Because that's clearly a personal bias and so subjective rather than objective.

I've tried to be as honest as I can in my list and I've got a lot of albums in there which I know for sure that most people won't like, it doesn't bother me though I'm not just gonna fill my list with the staple 'classics' to give it credibility, my list is a reflection of the albums which I most enjoy listeneing to and nothing else.

To answer your question I suppose you can guess that I don't think 'influence' is an important measure of how 'good' an album is. It tends to be the case that albums which define genres and movements tend to be the best of that genre or movement but essentially I don't think it's important in evaluating how 'good' an album it is. How 'important' the album is, maybe, but not 'good'.

If everyone chose their lists entirely subjectively I think the overall chart would change somewhat, there seems to be a lot of staple albums around that I suspect people add to their lists to give them credibility rather than just choosing the ones they like the best.

Well yes, as I said, I'm speaking in terms of objectively ranking albums. I realize that we as individuals don't value an album's objective qualities as much and that we are generally more concerned with what we enjoy, but when it comes to creating a universal ranking (such as our overall charts), the community as a whole is more concerned with objectivity (even if, as you said, this isn't the way it should be). I personally don't evaluate every album I listen to on those criteria that I listed, but before I say that an album is a true "masterpiece" I would consider those objective qualities first. That isn't how I determine my own personal rankings, however.

It's true that I'm not too big on hip-hop. Not so much because I dislike it as because I just haven't listened to much of it. This isn't because I think the genre is inherently a weaker genre. I will admit that the average hip-hop album does have less objective value in my eyes than most rock genres, but, as has been established, even objectively evaluating an album has some level of subjectivity. But my list doesn't attempt to rank albums objectively. I include an album on my list if and only if it elicits a strong emotional response from me.

I agree with your last point, which is largely the reason I created this thread. So many users seem to include some classic albums because, like you said, of their importance as opposed to their "goodness".

Bork
Executive Hillbilly

Location: Vinson Mountain, GA

Just extending my thanks for bringing up System of a Down. Haven't listened to them for a long time but returned due to this post. They are one of the few bands that proudly keep the metal banner flying high.

gussteivi

Bork wrote:

Just extending my thanks for bringing up System of a Down. Haven't listened to them for a long time but returned due to this post. They are one of the few bands that proudly keep the metal banner flying high.

They are a fantastic band.
And I'm saying that as someone who by no means would call himself a metal-head.

Xavygravy

I don't think I'd like to deny an incredibly influential album's place in a 'greatest ever' list, just because 'better albums' have come out that are just 'building blocks' on the foundations made by these albums.

I think these 'foundation albums' should always be valued, but should be kept entirely separate in a list based purely on listening experience.

e.g. Trans-Europe Express. Don't like it, but I don't disregard "one of the most influential records of the decade."

Guest

gussteivi wrote:

Bork wrote:

Just extending my thanks for bringing up System of a Down. Haven't listened to them for a long time but returned due to this post. They are one of the few bands that proudly keep the metal banner flying high.

They are a fantastic band.
And I'm saying that as someone who by no means would call himself a metal-head.

They do happen to be my favourite behind Queen and Soundgarden. And I'm certainly no metal-head, either...

vesander

I disagree with most on here I guess. Influence is not overvalued. First you start with what you like but most "experts" are always going to heavily consider what they think other artists are influenced by. It might depend on how you define "influence" but it's clearly a major criteria.

Meanwhile I couldn't give 2 squirts about some of the other criteria you mentioned. Technical proficient (and complexity too) is grossly overrated by many fans. If anyone cared about such things then we'd all still be talking about classical and opera way more. None of the rock vocalists can sing by comparison. Many of the great rock vocalist blow technically... Win Butler? Get real. Technically Thom Yorke, Black Francis, Ian Curtis, Iggy Pop.... 1,000 more revered rock singers later.... all suck technically.

Guitarists? Is anyone on here praising the greatness of Steve Vai just because he could play well? His music sucks regardless.

Originally, how it sounds, intelligence and influence are the biggest factors. If the technical stuff mattered the Pixies wouldn't be relevant (and neither would any punk band for the most part).

Last edited by vesander on 02/02/2012 22:40; edited 1 time in total

Guest

vesander wrote:

I disagree with most on here I guess. Influence is not overvalued. First you start with what you like but most "experts" are always going to heavily consider what they think other artists are influenced by. It might depend on how you define "influence" but it's clearly a major criteria.

Meanwhile I couldn't give 2 squirts about most of the other criteria you mentioned. Technical proficient is grossly overrated by many fans. If anyone cared about such things then we'd all still be talking about classical and opera way more. None of the rock vocalists can sing by comparison. Many of the great rock vocalist blow technically... Win Butler? Get real. Technically Thom Yorke, Black Francis, Ian Curtis, Iggy Pop.... 1,00 more revered rock singers later.... all suck.

Guitarists? Is anyone on here praising the greatness of Steve Vai just because he could play well? His music sucks regardless.

Originally, how it sounds, intelligence and influence are the biggest factors. If the technical stuff mattered the Pixies wouldn't be relevant (and neither would any punk band for the most part).

You couldn't give two squirts about the criteria I mentioned? Originality, how it sounds, and intelligence were all either included or implied on the list of criteria I mentioned. In fact, the only criterion that I listed that you addressed was technical proficiency, which I only included because it's an objective criterion that can be used to evaluate music, not because I think it's especially important.

vesander

Yeah, and they're all subjective and hard to measure. Who cares really? All I'm saying is the subjective things matter most.

Robert Anton Wilson
Epic Proghead

Gender: Male
Age: 56
Location: Inside

swedenman wrote:

... influence. It's the only quality listed above that cannot be objectively evaluated quite literally on the day of an album's release.

I would disagree with that. Most of the albums that end up on the top of the charts are the kind of albums which at first listen you know you jus experienced something you never had before. When it is good it is good and you know it. If you need to examine technical proficency, flow, lyrical depth, blabla bli blabla bla before knowing it is a good album, then it can be a good dran top 100 album, but it is not top 10 of BEA list material... Sgt Pepper and Pet Sounds did not become influential in the 70s, they became influential upon release. Some albums are sometimes influential even before release.

swedenman wrote:

The Who, Black Sabbath, and Led Zeppelin will always be considered legendary. Why? Well, some of them arguably score pretty high on the other criteria (particularly The Beatles), but had any of these artists not had the influence they had on the music industry, none of them would have the legendary status they have today.

This sentence makes no sense to me. Are you saying that if these bands would not be legendary then they would not be legendary. But they are legendary and that is why they are legendary. System of a Down may be quite excellent but thye are not legendary so that is why they are not a legend. The fact that some old bands are legendary does not prevent new bands that are the stuff of legen from becomig legend. Elvis becaime legendary in the 50s, the Beatles in the 60s, Led Zep in the 70s, U2 in the 80s, Radiohead in the 90s and so on ...

swedenman wrote:

So why is it so damn important?

Because the gutsy "I never heard that" sometimes hits deeper than the intellectual "I've never heard it done that well". The grand era of classical music and opera composer is past so new classical album are usually evaluated based on the proficency of the conductor, the soloist, the orchsstra, the recording. Rock/pop music is still being composed as we go ... it is not yet a style of music where proficency wins over originality because it is still a music style where playing your own composition is the main medium instead of interpreting someons elses...

swedenman wrote:

Is this really fair?

The reason an album is at the top is because more people like it and put it at the top of their chart. Being in number one position does not mean an album is better per se, it means more people consider it is the best for them. It could be done differently but that is the way it is being done. The hope is that if so many people consider a given album to be their favorite it means something. What it means is up to you to interpret.