1991, the best year for music...

WalterDigsTunes wrote: The objective measurements are still derived from subjective judgments.The historical value can be assessed objectively, but what you're looking at is a mere accumulation of subjective views.

I'm done.  I don't know whether you really don't get it because you don't get it or because you simply refuse to get it, but I'm not going to waste my effort on a lost cause anymore.

No point discussing anything with someone into cultural relativism. But isn't this everyone's taste is equally relevant and its all subjective attitude frustrating at times? I know I would slowly die inside while pretending I actually meant something like that.

People liked the work. It was a subjective exercise on a large scale. This led to the formation of a widespread consensus. The collective agrees that a work is good and then the cultural impact ensues. Its only a "landmark" because people bothered listening to it and proclaiming its good.

You listed 4 factors as being key to a "landmark" album:

-cultural impact of an album
-influence of an album
-originality of an album
-popularity of an album

The amount of people that listen to an album, the amount of people that are influenced by it, the way it affects people... these do happen. How do they happen? Through the subjective appreciation of an album. Heck, even "originality" is subjective. You can always listen to a musical piece and spot aspects that can be derivative of other music. Ultimately, the foundation of a "landmark" album is rooted in loads of individuals agreeing that its good, thereby allowing it to have an impact.

Now, am I saying that everything is patently subjective? No. I just have a problem with equating collectively-conceived "landmarks" with the idea of a pure sort of "best."


Edited by WalterDigsTunes - May 04 2008 at 04:11

It's kind of hard to measure those things anyway, which is why I don't bother.

I never said it had anything to do with liking.

People have different ways of qualifying landmark albums, also! There is no one way to do anything, really.

Pnoom! wrote: WalterDigsTunes wrote: Because it's music. That is incorrect. Music is not 100% subjective, and defining landmark albums is over 90% objective.  The only subjectivity is the weight given to the different objective criteria. One man's "landmark" is another man's "dreadful buffoonery." A record exists and has its own objective characteristics; once we get into ranking it or defining its worth, assessing the value will depend on the listener. It also depends on a general consensus. This can alter the way we rank it. All of those albums you've mentioned have been discussed ad nauseum. But opinions change, and a once-loved album can be consigned to "just okay" status later on.

Edited by WalterDigsTunes - May 04 2008 at 03:07

WalterDigsTunes wrote: Because it's music.

That is incorrect.

Music is not 100% subjective, and defining landmark albums is over 90% objective.  The only subjectivity is the weight given to the different objective criteria.

Rocktopus wrote: WalterDigsTunes wrote: "Best Year For Music" implies preferences. And, in my personal preferences, no post-1989 artist will ever produce anything remotely worthwhile. And no, this has nothing to do with my date of birth. I was born in 1988. I just don't care for 1990s and 2000s methodology and sounds. It just strikes me as vulgar and wrong. You seem to confuse personal preferences with lack of knowledge.

QFT



Edited by Pnoom! - May 04 2008 at 02:53

Because it's music.

"Landmark" is completely subjective.