Is an album's influence overvalued? - Music

Guest

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. This is all fine and dandy for the most part, but doesn't one of these qualities not quite fit in with the rest?

If you couldn't guess from the name of the thread, I'm referring to influence. It's the only quality listed above that cannot be objectively evaluated quite literally on the day of an album's release. Artists such as The Beatles, The Rolling Stones, 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.

So why is it so damn important? It's true, I won't deny that Sgt. Pepper needs to be recognized as an essential rock album because, without it, the progressive rock genre would have developed in a much different (and likely slower) manner. However, influence aside, I would argue that System of a Down's Toxicity (just one example), which is currently ranked at #221 on our charts, is objectively no less outstanding. Here's why:

Originality - The "nu-metal" genre was virtually non-existent before System of a Down, and they were certainly the first band to successfully integrate Armenian folk music into a metal genre without making it virtually inaccessible to popular audiences.

Technical Proficiency - Serj's voice is extremely powerful and versatile. The album is filled with fast and difficult passages on guitar, drums, and bass.

Flow - The album never lets up. It never fails to grab your attention and keeps your adrenaline pumping throughout.

Lyrical depth - The album's content covers issues such as flaws in the US prison system, drug addiction, police brutality, the Armenian genocide, self-righteous suicide, environmentalism, nuclear war, and idolatry, to name a few. All on one album.

I could keep going, but I think you get the point. Albums such as Toxicity (there are countless others, of course, this is just one of my personal favorites) are ranked below albums such as Sgt. Pepper, Highway 61, London Calling, etc. because they didn't have as notable an impact on the music industry, despite being objectively equal or even superior in several regards. Is this really fair? It's true, the better an album is, objectively speaking, the more likely it is to have a significant impact, but in many cases the effect an album has on the music industry is just luck of the draw, in the same way that a novel can be rejected by hundreds of publishers before finally being published and eventually regarded as a literary masterpiece. Does that truly mean that the albums that are equally original, equally intelligent, and equally well produced that future artists choose not to rip off of deserve to be written off as they so frequently are? I say no, but I'm curious to hear what you guys think.

ShaneSpear
Thread Killah

Moderator

Quote:

Originality - The "nu-metal" genre was virtually non-existent before System of a Down

I could have sworn KoRn, Deftones and Limp Bizkit had albums out around 1995-1997 or so, but that may have been my imagination.

Also, originality and nu-metal should be separated by more than one word in a sentence, and that's speaking as a System of a Down fan.

Necharsian
Best Ever User

Gender: Male

swedenman wrote:

despite being objectively equal or even superior in several regards.

Ugh, not to open this can of worms again, but those qualities you listed are subjective.

As for influence being overvalued: Yes. Who cares if it's influencial? I base music quality on one question:

Do I like this?

Easy.

Mr. Shankly

Gender: Male
Age: 52
Location: Auburn, Washington

Necharsian wrote:

swedenman wrote:

despite being objectively equal or even superior in several regards.

Ugh, not to open this can of worms again, but those qualities you listed are subjective.

As for influence being overvalued: Yes. Who cares if it's influencial? I base music quality on one question:

Do I like this?

Easy.

Yeah, as much as I like to get all analytical about music too, trying to quantify how influential something is by objective analysis is problematic to say the least. Luck of the draw? Partially, but an artist still has to have a wide appeal for people. I think if we're talking about influentialness, we're really talking about groups / artists that are influencing musicians, and this often means not the groups that are currently ubiquitous on the radio, MTV etc. Influentialness usually happens over time too, not on the day of release.

But the answer to why nu metal is not considered influential is a subjective one: It's because it's a stupid genre that mainly appeals to hormonally charged adolescent boys and therefore doesn't have a wide swath of influence.

Guest

ShaneSpear wrote:

Quote:

Originality - The "nu-metal" genre was virtually non-existent before System of a Down

I could have sworn KoRn, Deftones and Limp Bizkit had albums out around 1995-1997 or so, but that may have been my imagination.

Also, originality and nu-metal should be separated by more than one word in a sentence, and that's speaking as a System of a Down fan.

Well yes, the genre did exist before SoaD, but my point was that they took the genre in an entirely new direction. Sorry if that wasn't clear. And though I'll agree that the nu-metal genre is almost always entirely unoriginal, that's not really true with SoaD.

Necharsian wrote:

swedenman wrote:

despite being objectively equal or even superior in several regards.

Ugh, not to open this can of worms again, but those qualities you listed are subjective.

Well yes, but going off that claim I would argue that music can in no way be objectively analyzed. As much as we'd like it to be, music is not a perfect science. Even though we have music theory to attempt to explain music in a scientific light, there will always be a certain artistic flexibility to it that science cannot regulate. Nevertheless, any legitimate ranking system needs some objective basis, even if that basis is "do I enjoy listening to this?", and so we tend to resort to the least subjective qualities (such as the ones I listed) to evaluate them.

Mr. Shankly wrote:

Yeah, as much as I like to get all analytical about music too, trying to quantify how influential something is by objective analysis is problematic to say the least. Luck of the draw? Partially, but an artist still has to have a wide appeal for people. I think if we're talking about influentialness, we're really talking about groups / artists that are influencing musicians, and this often means not the groups that are currently ubiquitous on the radio, MTV etc. Influentialness usually happens over time too, not on the day of release.

I'm not sure what point you're making. The fact that influence is not an objective quality of the music itself and that it happens over time were exactly the points I was trying to make, but it sounds like you're disagreeing with me.

Mr. Shankly wrote:

But the answer to why nu metal is not considered influential is a subjective one: It's because it's a stupid genre that mainly appeals to hormonally charged adolescent boys and therefore doesn't have a wide swath of influence.

I never asked why nu-metal isn't considered influential. Toxicity is just one example of, like I said, many that get so little consideration despite their strengths. The question I'm proposing is why this is the case.

Also, I feel like that assessment, while appropriate for the genre in general, doesn't really apply to Toxicity.

videoheadcleaner
formerly Harkan

Gender: Male
Age: 38

Necharsian wrote:

swedenman wrote:

despite being objectively equal or even superior in several regards.

Ugh, not to open this can of worms again, but those qualities you listed are subjective.

As for influence being overvalued: Yes. Who cares if it's influencial? I base music quality on one question:

Do I like this?

Easy.

Summed up well Necharasian. That's how I feel. I skip over the influentiality of some individuals and bands at times because the main thing is if I like what I am listening to. It doesn't mean it has to be like a blockbuster movie where I can switch off and enjoy the ride. I like substance in my music. Too much analysis in music makes me turn off the music, tyring to forget what I just heard.

Jackwc
Queen Of The Forums

Location: Aaaanywhere Sex: Incredible

Quote:

Originality - The "nu-metal" genre was virtually non-existent before System of a Down

Faith No More were playing what was essentially nu-metal over a decade prior to Toxicity to mass critical acclaim and huge sales.
_________________
A dick that's bigger than the sun.

Music sucks. Check out my favourite movies, fam:
http://letterboxd.com/jackiegigantic/

Facetious

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

Yes, influence is certainly overvalued.

Error Finn

Gender: Male
Age: 54
Location: Finland

When Sgt. Pepper was released in 1967 and dominated the sales lists throughout the world, particularly in the United States / United Kingdom. Album was reflected as soon as contemporaries, namely the entire time in popular music. Other bands also wanted to make "larger than life albums." In addition, Sgt. Pepper is already listened to several rock / pop generation, nearly 45 years. It is, therefore, the so-called "re-declared a classic." When SOAD's brilliant Toxicity was released in 2001, it was also listed number one in U.S. and EU. Times were changed in 1960 so that it could not directly affect the size of popular music. The music world had become so large. In short: no longer can not be affected in the same way as The Beatles did. And also many famous jazz musicians such as Wes Montgomery did a great version, just Sgt Pepper songs. I do not think that SOAD are interested in contemporary jazz musicians such as John Zorn, he does not need.

Wes Montgomery:"A Day In The Life" (1967) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0qJQzK0D8js

John Zorn: Funny Games (1997) Opening Credits http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nsvZXGu-...re=related
_________________
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MNGpsnTCUXM

Guest

Jackwc wrote:

Quote:

Originality - The "nu-metal" genre was virtually non-existent before System of a Down

Faith No More were playing what was essentially nu-metal over a decade prior to Toxicity to mass critical acclaim and huge sales.

This is beside the point. Maybe it's not entirely accurate to say they created the nu-metal genre, but my point still stands. All I'm saying is that there are a number of albums that are original and technically accomplished that fail to receive the credit they deserve because they don't have the same influence as other "classic" albums. Toxicity is just one example of literally hundreds that I chose because it's a personal favorite of mine. And yes, whether SoaD created the genre or not, Toxicity was an extremely original album at the time of its release.