| Author |
 Topic Search  Topic Options
|
Philéas 
Forum Senior Member
Joined: June 14 2006
Status: Offline
Points: 6419
|
 Posted: May 04 2008 at 10:24 |
|
My favourite 1991 album is probably Swervedriver's first full-lenght. Out of those in the poll I went with Loveless. Over all, I think 92 was a better year.
|
 |
BroSpence
Forum Senior Member
Joined: March 05 2007
Status: Offline
Points: 2614
|
Posted: May 05 2008 at 00:02 |
 Pnoom! wrote:
BroSpence wrote:
PEARL JAM WEREN'T GRUNGE! |
wikipedia on pearl jam wrote:
One of the key bands of the grunge movement in the early 1990s |
allmusic on ten wrote:
Nirvana's Nevermind
may have been the album that broke grunge and alternative rock into the
mainstream, but there's no underestimating the role that Pearl Jam's Ten played in keeping them there. |
amazon on ten wrote:
#5 in music > hard rock & metal > Grunge |
beth bessmer, music critic, on Ten, taken from amazon wrote:
Part of the '90s Seattle grunge triumvirate completed by Nirvana and Soundgarden, Pearl Jam debuted with Ten, their most accessible, least self-conscious album. |
Yeah, Pearl Jam are grunge.
|
Yes you know how to go to wikipeida and gather
information on Pearl Jam and grunge. However, that doesn't prove that
Pearl Jam should actually be considered into the horribly titled grunge
genre.
"Using the sludgy, murky sound of the Stooges and Black Sabbath
as a foundation, Grunge was a hybrid of heavy metal and punk. Though
the guitars were straight from early '70s metal, the aesthetic of
grunge was far from metal." (from Allmusic.com)
Pearl Jam did not mix those two elements together as I said before.
Their sound was derived from the likes of The Who, U2, and as time
passed Neil Young, the Dead Boys, the Buzzcocks.....
Pnoom! wrote:
Yes, cultural impact is determined by people's
subjective reactions to the music, but the actual impact of the album
can be measured OBJECTIVELY.
How do you measure the cultural impact of an album? I mean cultural impact could be a lot of things
Yes, popularity is a result of
people liking the album enough to buy it, thereby making it popular,
but measuring popularity is, again, OBJECTIVE.
Yes it is possible to measure the number of copies an album sold.
Yes, even
influence is subjective in the sense that the bands it influences
presumably like the album in question, a subjective reaction, but, yet
again, measuring influence is OBJECTIVE.
Influence would be an offshoot of cultural impact, and you can not objectively measure influence. As we discussed in the "What does influenced by, mean to you" there are many artists that are said to be influenced by another when they actually are not. Then there's there element of being influenced by all that you have experienced be it musically or not. So some that may sound like Metallica might have heard Poison or Quiet Riot, but does not consider them an influence. Yet those two are still technically an influence as the Metallica-like band does not wish to sound like the other two for whatever reason.
There is also the situation of a band that could like an album but not actually be influenced to write songs in the same style or similar style. Like a classical ensemble or symphony could very much like King Crimson, but that doesn't mean their going to go make an album in the vein of ITCOTCK. They're probably going to go record another Schubert symphony or something along those lines.
You could go around asking the millions of artists out there if they are "influenced by the such and such album" but everyone has a different interpretation of influence as well so sure maybe John 5 will say he is influenced by Sgt. Peppers, but maybe his interpretation of "influence" is more along the lines of "likes". There isn't really a way to figure in a margin of error for that kind of large unknown.
Originality isn't
really subjective at all, except for how it's difficult to measure, so
there's inherent subjectivity in how it's determined.
So orginality isn't really subject but how it is measure is? That doesn't make much sense. You also concluded that its subject in its determination which means you are saying you are wrong.
If there is subjectivity in the determination, then you can not measure an album's originality objectively.
As I have
said, the criteria used to determine what albums qualify as
masterpieces on the historical level (not the personal level) are 90%
objective, 10% subjective.
You're numbers are concocted based on your own personal beliefs as is your criteria of determining the masterpiece of an album.
Obviously, objective ratings of
albums mean jack sh*t compared to any given person's subjective
(dis)liking of them. But that's irrelevant. When determining the
best, most, important years, it is important to look at the objective
end. The subjective end does not matter in this case.
Once again you can not determine what years or the best or most important because it is based entirely in subjectivity.
Also when considering that subjectivity is much more relevant and means more as it is based on what the individual believes is most important or the best, and there isn't much more important to one's self, than one's own beliefs.
|
As an example based on your criteria lets look at the Eagles' Greatest Hits compilation. Cultural Impact: unknown Popularity: 1st or 2nd most sold album of all time. (I don't remember which exactly) influence: unknown, but based on the number of copies sold one could say it is very influential. But how many regular people bought it versus how many recording artists? Originality: in the large scope of things, not very. In the rock and "popular" music scope, also not very. So is this a masterpiece? Well I don't know, maybe it is! However, it
isn't really an album considering it is a best of, yet best of
compilations and non-best of compilations are generally considered into
the lists of greatest albums of all time. Hmm... It is also hard to determine some numbers based on the fact that certain albums are not released world-wide. If we are determining whether an album is a masterpiece or what time was the best you can't base the numbers off one city or town or state or even one country considering these subject of consideration applies to all. And finally, sorry for the longest reply "of all time."
|
|
Pnoom!
Forum Senior Member
Joined: September 02 2006
Location: OH
Status: Offline
Points: 4981
|
Posted: May 05 2008 at 11:03 |
How do you measure the cultural impact of an album? I mean cultural impact could be a lot of things
For most albums, it's irrelevant, but when an album captures the national conscience and defines an era (Sgt. Pepper's, for example), it has cultural impact.
Yes it is possible to measure the number of copies an album sold.
And that is how you measure popularity. Are you trying to raise an objection here?
Influence would be an offshoot of cultural impact
Cultural impact measures its influence on the general population, influence measures it within the musical community. They are entirely seperate.
and you can not objectively measure influence. As we discussed in the "What does influenced by, mean to you" there are many artists that are said to be influenced by another when they actually are not.
Obviously measuring it isn't completely objective. That's why it's 90% ojbective, 10% subjective. You look at the techniques and "sounds" that artists pioneered and see how they feature in future music. It's not that hard, really.
Then there's there element of being influenced by all that you have experienced be it musically or not. So some that may sound like Metallica might have heard Poison or Quiet Riot, but does not consider them an influence. Yet those two are still technically an influence as the Metallica-like band does not wish to sound like the other two for whatever reason. There is also the situation of a band that could like an album but not actually be influenced to write songs in the same style or similar style. Like a classical ensemble or symphony could very much like King Crimson, but that doesn't mean their going to go make an album in the vein of ITCOTCK. They're probably going to go record another Schubert symphony or something along those lines.
You could go around asking the millions of artists out there if they are "influenced by the such and such album" but everyone has a different interpretation of influence as well so sure maybe John 5 will say he is influenced by Sgt. Peppers, but maybe his interpretation of "influence" is more along the lines of "likes". There isn't really a way to figure in a margin of error for that kind of large unknown. That's why you look within the music, not what the artists say.
So orginality isn't really subject but how it is measure is? That doesn't make much sense. You also concluded that its subject in its determination which means you are saying you are wrong.
If there is subjectivity in the determination, then you can not measure an album's originality objectively.
You missed the point. The subjectivity is not in determining whether an album is original, it is in determining whether, say, Magma is more original than King Crimson. That both are clearly highly original is obvious (objectively).
Also, I have never claimed that music can ever be evaluated completely objectively; in fact, I have claimed the opposite numerous times. So no, I never admitted I was wrong.
You're numbers are concocted based on your own personal beliefs as is your criteria of determining the masterpiece of an album.
Yes, I pulled those numbers out of a hat, but they are accurate to the degree they need to be. My criteria I did not. Not at all.
Also, you seem to think that I think every historical masterpiece is a masterpiece subjectively as well. Obviously I don't.
Once again you can not determine what years or the best or most important because it is based entirely in subjectivity.
Once again you're wrong.
Also when considering that subjectivity is much more relevant and means more as it is based on what the individual believes is most important or the best, and there isn't much more important to one's self, than one's own beliefs.
And yet people care about lists such as "best albums of the 1990s" which all tend to be fairly similar because they all take into account... wait for it... objective criteria. They are all clouded by subjectivity because that's unavoidable, but they are more informed by objectivity.
For example, look at pitchfork's list of top albums of the 1990s, and you'll notice that most of the entries got 4.5 or 5 stars on the allmusicguide. Odd coincidence, especially given how subjective pitchfork clearly is, eh?
| As an example based on your criteria lets look at the Eagles' Greatest Hits compilation. |
Compilations aren't figured into lists of the most important albums of all time because they figure into the popularity ranking for a band on the whole, but they are not deliberate constructs by the band. But thanks for the irrelevant example anyway.
Yes you know how to go to wikipeida and gather information on Pearl Jam and grunge. However, that doesn't prove that Pearl Jam should actually be considered into the horribly titled grunge genre.
"Using the sludgy, murky sound of the Stooges and Black Sabbath as a foundation, Grunge was a hybrid of heavy metal and punk. Though the guitars were straight from early '70s metal, the aesthetic of grunge was far from metal." (from Allmusic.com)
Pearl Jam did not mix those two elements together as I said before. Their sound was derived from the likes of The Who, U2, and as time passed Neil Young, the Dead Boys, the Buzzcocks |
| the who |
metal
| the buzzcocks |
punk
Edited by Pnoom! - May 05 2008 at 11:07
|
|
Dr. Prog
Forum Senior Member
Joined: April 29 2008
Status: Offline
Points: 306
|
Posted: May 05 2008 at 13:38 |
BroSpence wrote:
Neil Young, |
The Godfather of Grunge baby.
|
|
Dr. Prog
Forum Senior Member
Joined: April 29 2008
Status: Offline
Points: 306
|
Posted: May 05 2008 at 13:39 |
Pnoom! wrote:
| the who |
metal
|
huh? 
|
|
WalterDigsTunes
Forum Senior Member
Joined: September 11 2007
Location: SanDiegoTijuana
Status: Offline
Points: 4373
|
Posted: May 05 2008 at 13:59 |
Pnoom! wrote:
| As an example based on your criteria lets look at the Eagles' Greatest Hits compilation. |
Compilations aren't figured into lists of the most important albums of all time because they figure into the popularity ranking for a band on the whole, but they are not deliberate constructs by the band. But thanks for the irrelevant example anyway.
|
So, the best-selling LP of the 1970s does not matter at all?  Seems like you are foisting some subjective criteria upon us.
|
|
stonebeard
Forum Senior Member
Joined: May 27 2005
Location: NE Indiana
Status: Offline
Points: 28057
|
Posted: May 05 2008 at 14:38 |
Pnoom! wrote:
WalterDigsTunes wrote:
"Best Year For Music" implies preferences. |
But asking for years with landmark albums in multiple genres implies objectivity. 
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. That being said, your list boasts some good stuff. Talk Talk is ace, for instance. Great, great album.
|
Well, you're wrong, but thankfully I don't need your opinion to agree with mine to continue to have my far superior musical taste. 
|
A "landmark" should be an objective thing, but at what point do we determine what a landmark is? There are so many factors: sales, influence (something that can be ridiculously hard to "calculate"), and widespread nostalgia probably factors in as well. So, we can go on Rate Your Music and look at the top rated albums, then cross reference them with sales, etc. and try to objectively determine what a landmark album would be. Then try to analyze the fuzzy connections that may imply influence with subsequent "follower bands." No one does this and it would be really pointless to do so. If you go on multiple professional websites and somehow were to get each's "watersheds" or "landmarks" of a genre, none of them would be exactly the same. Maybe in a perfect world there exists a completely objective list of landmark albums, but a list from anything but a huge conglomerate of sources and cross references would be colored by time, false memories, and omissions. Sure, a landmark album for shoegaze for a year may be determinable, but that that album would be included over an "obvious" neo-pagan-dirge-folk-calypso landmark album belies subjectivity in the selection of the albums included in the poll. One could argue that one album is more of a landmark than another album, but again who does the amount of research to make a statement like that without taking into account personal preference or hazy general consensus? The point: you can try to make it objective as you can, but I don't think it ever will be truly objective--unless you are a freak who cares enough about this sort of thing to do such a big f**king amount of research. ;P RE: Pearl Jam, obviously they were included in the grunge movement, and are thus a grunge band (or at least were). But whereas Nirvana is clearly from a punk-ish background, Pearl Jam are from a classic rock-influenced area. Look at the single "Alive." The amount of complexity in that song is miles above anything Nirvana ever did, and the solo especially is perfectly from a classic rock influence. Indeed, Pearl Jam are now being included at times on classic rock stations where I live, and to me it makes sense. Even though they were out of era, I believe they were mostly a classic rock band with the grunge look...until they dropped the look and started being a classic rock band.
|
|
|
|
Abstrakt
Forum Senior Member
Joined: August 18 2005
Location: Soundgarden
Status: Offline
Points: 18292
|
Posted: May 05 2008 at 14:54 |
From your list, Unquestionable Presence, since it's the only one i've heard.
But my personal favorite from 1991 is probably Ozric Tentacles "Strangeitude".
|
|
Philéas
Forum Senior Member
Joined: June 14 2006
Status: Offline
Points: 6419
|
Posted: May 05 2008 at 16:54 |
The fact that you seem to take Pitchfork Media seriously kind of undermines your arguments, Pnoom. On a serious note, I see the points the people arguing against you are trying to make, however all you seem to do is throw around big words in ways that don't really make any sense. The arrogant tone of your posts isn't exactly making them more convincing either...
Edited by Philéas - May 05 2008 at 16:55
|
|
BroSpence
Forum Senior Member
Joined: March 05 2007
Status: Offline
Points: 2614
|
Posted: May 06 2008 at 04:22 |
Pnoom! wrote:
How do you measure the cultural impact of an album? I mean cultural impact could be a lot of things
For most albums, it's irrelevant, but when an album captures the national conscience and defines an era (Sgt. Pepper's, for example), it has cultural impact.
So YOU are defining cultural impact as the effect on national conscience and defining an era. I mean that is one way of putting it, but there can be so much more, not to mention those are still very broad terms.
Plus adding "defining an era" in there limits album possibilities because albums of the present day do not have as much historical stand due to their date of release versus the time of the "objective study".
Yes it is possible to measure the number of copies an album sold.
And that is how you measure popularity. Are you trying to raise an objection here?
I was agreeing with you.
Influence would be an offshoot of cultural impact
Cultural impact measures its influence on the general population, influence measures it within the musical community. They are entirely seperate.
The musical community is a part of culture. They are not separate at all.
and you can not objectively measure influence. As we discussed in the "What does influenced by, mean to you" there are many artists that are said to be influenced by another when they actually are not.
Obviously measuring it isn't completely objective. That's why it's 90% ojbective, 10% subjective. You look at the techniques and "sounds" that artists pioneered and see how they feature in future music. It's not that hard, really.
OK so, looking at the techniques and "sounds" that artists "pioneered" will determine influence? That is technically true, but that is way oversimplifying it.
Then there's there element of being influenced by all that you have experienced be it musically or not. So some that may sound like Metallica might have heard Poison or Quiet Riot, but does not consider them an influence. Yet those two are still technically an influence as the Metallica-like band does not wish to sound like the other two for whatever reason. There is also the situation of a band that could like an album but not actually be influenced to write songs in the same style or similar style. Like a classical ensemble or symphony could very much like King Crimson, but that doesn't mean their going to go make an album in the vein of ITCOTCK. They're probably going to go record another Schubert symphony or something along those lines.
You could go around asking the millions of artists out there if they are "influenced by the such and such album" but everyone has a different interpretation of influence as well so sure maybe John 5 will say he is influenced by Sgt. Peppers, but maybe his interpretation of "influence" is more along the lines of "likes". There isn't really a way to figure in a margin of error for that kind of large unknown. That's why you look within the music, not what the artists say. No because then you are basing your evidence entirely on your own belief that BANDs X, Y, and Z are influenced by BAND A. Not to mention, BAND A who might have been influenced by BAND 1 who might have been influenced by BAND a1 who might have been influenced by BAND h_1.............and so on.
Just because someone sings vocal harmonies in a song doesn't mean they were influenced by the Beatles. Just because there is a distorted guitar solo at 180bpm with trills sprinkled throughout it does not mean the guitarist was influenced by Yngwie Malmsteen.
So orginality isn't really subject but how it is measure is? That doesn't make much sense. You also concluded that its subject in its determination which means you are saying you are wrong.
If there is subjectivity in the determination, then you can not measure an album's originality objectively.
You missed the point. The subjectivity is not in determining whether an album is original, it is in determining whether, say, Magma is more original than King Crimson. That both are clearly highly original is obvious (objectively).
You were listing the elements in which to determine an album objectively. If you are going to list the elements they must be in reference to the album (as that is the subject) no the artist. You clearly did not mention that.
Also, you are still determining, entirely subjectively whether King Crimson and Magma are original. In any case, the originality of an ARTIST should not be a determining factor in saying one ALBUM is a masterpiece over another.
If you are going to say ALBUM X is better than ALBUM Y then you are arguing about the album not the artist. The artists only inclusion in that argument should be in the by-line. IF you were to argue BAND X is better than BAND Y then it makes sense to reference the "originality" of the artist, and ALBUM X or ALBUM Y in the case.
Also, I have never claimed that music can ever be evaluated completely objectively; in fact, I have claimed the opposite numerous times. So no, I never admitted I was wrong.
You're right you didn't say music could be evaluated completely objectively. You did however say an album's greatness or an era's greatness could be determined "90%"objectively which is what we are currently discussing. You can't actually be objective if there is subjectivity involved. It negates the entire idea of being OBJECTIVE. And in this case especially, even being 50% objective is inaccurate.
You're numbers are concocted based on your own personal beliefs as is your criteria of determining the masterpiece of an album.
Yes, I pulled those numbers out of a hat, but they are accurate to the degree they need to be. My criteria I did not. Not at all.
Yes you pulled them out of a big subjective hat and they are hardly accurate to any degree. Your criteria as well.
Also, you seem to think that I think every historical masterpiece is a masterpiece subjectively as well. Obviously I don't.
I don't know where you got that, or even what you are trying to say in that sentence.
Once again you can not determine what years or the best or most important because it is based entirely in subjectivity.
Once again you're wrong. Once again you make a bad case.
Also when considering that subjectivity is much more relevant and means more as it is based on what the individual believes is most important or the best, and there isn't much more important to one's self, than one's own beliefs.
And yet people care about lists such as "best albums of the 1990s" which all tend to be fairly similar because they all take into account... wait for it... objective criteria. They are all clouded by subjectivity because that's unavoidable, but they are more informed by objectivity.
People care about the lists for the same reason we post on this forum. TO SEE WHAT OTHER PEOPLE THINK. The lists tend to be similar in nature because they are generally created by people voting (be they readers, critics, industry insiders, musicians, etc). Not by some data wizards that scour the nation for information that is then compiled. And if they were more informed by objectivity then they would be more similar than they actually are.
For example, look at pitchfork's list of top albums of the 1990s, and you'll notice that most of the entries got 4.5 or 5 stars on the allmusicguide. Odd coincidence, especially given how subjective pitchfork clearly is, eh?
Pitchfork lists their top albums based on the votes of Pitchfork contributors not based on Allmusic.com's ratings. It isn't that odd of a coincidence considering the top albums listed are probably well liked among critics who run both PITCHFORK and ALLMUSIC. And Allmusic is just as subjective as the next lot of blokes.
| As an example based on your criteria lets look at the Eagles' Greatest Hits compilation. |
Compilations aren't figured into lists of the most important albums of all time because they figure into the popularity ranking for a band on the whole, but they are not deliberate constructs by the band. But thanks for the irrelevant example anyway.
You're sentence doesn't make a whole heap of sense, but I think I get the gist of it. However, greatest hits, and compilations of other varieties are constantly factored into greatest album lists. And compilations are not always put out with just the record company's input. Sometimes the artist puts in their two cents.
Yes you know how to go to wikipeida and gather information on Pearl Jam and grunge. However, that doesn't prove that Pearl Jam should actually be considered into the horribly titled grunge genre.
"Using the sludgy, murky sound of the Stooges and Black Sabbath as a foundation, Grunge was a hybrid of heavy metal and punk. Though the guitars were straight from early '70s metal, the aesthetic of grunge was far from metal." (from Allmusic.com)
Pearl Jam did not mix those two elements together as I said before. Their sound was derived from the likes of The Who, U2, and as time passed Neil Young, the Dead Boys, the Buzzcocks |
| the who |
metal
Not even remotely.
| the buzzcocks |
punk
But where will those Pearl Jam boys find some METAL to fuse it with (post-"grunge" revolution).
|
|
|
Pnoom!
Forum Senior Member
Joined: September 02 2006
Location: OH
Status: Offline
Points: 4981
|
Posted: May 06 2008 at 08:47 |
Philéas wrote:
The fact that you seem to take Pitchfork Media seriously kind of undermines your arguments, Pnoom.
On a serious note, I see the points the people arguing against you are trying to make, however all you seem to do is throw around big words in ways that don't really make any sense. The arrogant tone of your posts isn't exactly making them more convincing either... |
Where did I take them seriously? All I recall is referring to them as a subjective entity whose "best of" lists tend to respect some degree of objectivity.
As for the second point, I think my posts make sense, but maybe they don't. I'm certainly not the one to judge (not objectively at least  )
The arrogance is not intentional. It mostly comes from trying to conserve words.
EDIT: I will point out I am certainly not the only one coming across as arrogant.
Edited by Pnoom! - May 06 2008 at 09:04
|
|
Pnoom!
Forum Senior Member
Joined: September 02 2006
Location: OH
Status: Offline
Points: 4981
|
Posted: May 06 2008 at 09:03 |
So YOU are defining cultural impact as the effect on national conscience and defining an era. I mean that is one way of putting it, but there can be so much more, not to mention those are still very broad terms.
Plus adding "defining an era" in there limits album possibilities because albums of the present day do not have as much historical stand due to their date of release versus the time of the "objective study".
That's why objective value of albums is reevaluated over time.
The musical community is a part of culture. They are not separate at all.
What I meant by this is how it influences the music. That basslines from songs by The Pixies inspired basslines in a significant portion of modern alternative rock bands does not reflect on cultural impact. It reflects on influence.
OK so, looking at the techniques and "sounds" that artists "pioneered" will determine influence? That is technically true, but that is way oversimplifying it.
I would imagine that we're both oversimplifying everything. I'm not a music critic; I don't claim to know everything. I'm just covering the basics here.
No because then you are basing your evidence entirely on your own belief that BANDs X, Y, and Z are influenced by BAND A. Not to mention, BAND A who might have been influenced by BAND 1 who might have been influenced by BAND a1 who might have been influenced by BAND h_1.............and so on.
Just because someone sings vocal harmonies in a song doesn't mean they were influenced by the Beatles. Just because there is a distorted guitar solo at 180bpm with trills sprinkled throughout it does not mean the guitarist was influenced by Yngwie Malmsteen.
But if those techniques were pioneered by The Beatles and Yngwie, respectively, they get credit for influence because they did it first. Even if Bands X, Y, and Z did not specifically take that idea from the Beatles (or Yngwie), their use of it can probably be traced back to a band that indeed WAS influenced by one of those.
You were listing the elements in which to determine an album objectively. If you are going to list the elements they must be in reference to the album (as that is the subject) no the artist. You clearly did not mention that.
You're right, I should've used albums as examples (MDK is equally original as In the Court), but I don't see how it affects my point.
Also, you are still determining, entirely subjectively whether King Crimson and Magma are original. In any case, the originality of an ARTIST should not be a determining factor in saying one ALBUM is a masterpiece over another.
How is that subjective? With both the above-mentioned albums, the bands created new genres that did not exist before. How can they possibly not be original? As for your second point, I already admitted that I should've used albums as examples and I have remedied that.
If you are going to say ALBUM X is better than ALBUM Y then you are arguing about the album not the artist. The artists only inclusion in that argument should be in the by-line. IF you were to argue BAND X is better than BAND Y then it makes sense to reference the "originality" of the artist, and ALBUM X or ALBUM Y in the case.
I have already addressed this point twice.
You're right you didn't say music could be evaluated completely objectively. You did however say an album's greatness or an era's greatness could be determined "90%"objectively which is what we are currently discussing. You can't actually be objective if there is subjectivity involved. It negates the entire idea of being OBJECTIVE. And in this case especially, even being 50% objective is inaccurate.
Obviously you can't be completely objective, that's why no two "best of" lists are the same. BUT, most best of lists are similar. That is a huge coincidence if you're looking at subjective lists.
Yes you pulled them out of a big subjective hat and they are hardly accurate to any degree. Your criteria as well.
No.
Once again you make a bad case.
And you respond in kind.
And yet people care about lists such as "best albums of the 1990s" which all tend to be fairly similar because they all take into account... wait for it... objective criteria. They are all clouded by subjectivity because that's unavoidable, but they are more informed by objectivity.
People care about the lists for the same reason we post on this forum. TO SEE WHAT OTHER PEOPLE THINK. The lists tend to be similar in nature because they are generally created by people voting (be they readers, critics, industry insiders, musicians, etc). Not by some data wizards that scour the nation for information that is then compiled. And if they were more informed by objectivity then they would be more similar than they actually are.
Well, obviously if they were more objective than they are, they would be more similar. The fact that they are already strikingly similar shows that objectivity plays a strong factor in determining them, EVEN IF SUBJECTIVITY CANNOT BE AVOIDED.
Pitchfork lists their top albums based on the votes of Pitchfork contributors not based on Allmusic.com's ratings. It isn't that odd of a coincidence considering the top albums listed are probably well liked among critics who run both PITCHFORK and ALLMUSIC. And Allmusic is just as subjective as the next lot of blokes.
Allmusic is clearly less subjective that pitchfork...
Not even remotely.
You're right. More than remotely. (re the who being metal)
But where will those Pearl Jam boys find some METAL to fuse it with (post-"grunge" revolution).
With The Who
|
|
WalterDigsTunes
Forum Senior Member
Joined: September 11 2007
Location: SanDiegoTijuana
Status: Offline
Points: 4373
|
Posted: May 06 2008 at 14:07 |
This is a riot, keep it up 
|
|
Avantgardehead
Forum Senior Member
Joined: December 29 2006
Location: Dublin, OH, USA
Status: Offline
Points: 1170
|
Posted: May 06 2008 at 14:23 |
|
What is this, I don't even...
|
|
http://www.last.fm/user/Avantgardian
|
|
Pnoom!
Forum Senior Member
Joined: September 02 2006
Location: OH
Status: Offline
Points: 4981
|
Posted: May 06 2008 at 16:12 |
Meh, I'm done arguing this. It's making me look like a person I'm not. I'd prefer to keep what remains of my reputation than to continue an argument neither person can win, because both are approaching it from different mindsets.
BroSpence, I'll grant you the last word if you want it, since it's not really fair to stop arguing after I've had the last word.
|
|
BroSpence
Forum Senior Member
Joined: March 05 2007
Status: Offline
Points: 2614
|
Posted: May 07 2008 at 03:42 |
Pnoom! wrote:
So YOU are defining cultural impact as the effect on national conscience and defining an era. I mean that is one way of putting it, but there can be so much more, not to mention those are still very broad terms.
Plus adding "defining an era" in there limits album possibilities because albums of the present day do not have as much historical stand due to their date of release versus the time of the "objective study".
That's why objective value of albums is reevaluated over time.
Well no, usually media outlets just put out another list with "important" new albums added in, with no real object basis for it except that the album has been enjoyed by many critics.
The musical community is a part of culture. They are not separate at all.
What I meant by this is how it influences the music. That basslines from songs by The Pixies inspired basslines in a significant portion of modern alternative rock bands does not reflect on cultural impact. It reflects on influence. Yet that same bass line is also influential to Average Joe who goes around humming it all day, who may or may not decide to pick up a bass and start a band which would then be contributing to the surrounding culture. Music is an aspect of culture just like art, language, literature, etc.
OK so, looking at the techniques and "sounds" that artists "pioneered" will determine influence? That is technically true, but that is way oversimplifying it.
I would imagine that we're both oversimplifying everything. I'm not a music critic; I don't claim to know everything. I'm just covering the basics here.
More often than not, Music Critics know little about their subject area. I'm pretty sure I'm being relatively specific in my replies which is why they have been kind of long.
No because then you are basing your evidence entirely on your own belief that BANDs X, Y, and Z are influenced by BAND A. Not to mention, BAND A who might have been influenced by BAND 1 who might have been influenced by BAND a1 who might have been influenced by BAND h_1.............and so on.
Just because someone sings vocal harmonies in a song doesn't mean they were influenced by the Beatles. Just because there is a distorted guitar solo at 180bpm with trills sprinkled throughout it does not mean the guitarist was influenced by Yngwie Malmsteen.
But if those techniques were pioneered by The Beatles and Yngwie, respectively, they get credit for influence because they did it first. Even if Bands X, Y, and Z did not specifically take that idea from the Beatles (or Yngwie), their use of it can probably be traced back to a band that indeed WAS influenced by one of those.
Yes, IF they were pioneered by the Beatles or Yngwie. However, most techniques have been around for longer than anyone that posts on this forum. So it makes no sense to credit the Beatles as the influence for BAND X because they use vocal harmonies. For all we know Band X's influence came from Country or Choir music. There have been countless times where artists have attempted to do something based on what someone else was doing, but their efforts ended up in a completely different way.
And in any case, this would be about the influence of an album, so what if BAND X was influenced by the Beatles, but they were more influenced by the vocal harmonies of Rubber Soul and not Sgt. Peppers Lonely Hearts Club Band.
You were listing the elements in which to determine an album objectively. If you are going to list the elements they must be in reference to the album (as that is the subject) no the artist. You clearly did not mention that.
You're right, I should've used albums as examples (MDK is equally original as In the Court), but I don't see how it affects my point.
It affects your point because you were arguing that you can determine what albums are masterpieces, 90% objectively and 10% subjectively. You then created criteria to use as a basis which included:
"Cultural Impact", "Influence", "ORIGINALITY", and "Popularity". Since the subject is the album, then the artist is relatively irrelevant. You are not determining who the greatest artist is, you are determining the album.
See below (a bit) for an example of the difference.
Also, you are still determining, entirely subjectively whether King Crimson and Magma are original. In any case, the originality of an ARTIST should not be a determining factor in saying one ALBUM is a masterpiece over another.
How is that subjective? With both the above-mentioned albums, the bands created new genres that did not exist before. How can they possibly not be original? As for your second point, I already admitted that I should've used albums as examples and I have remedied that.
They both help establish their respective genres but there were others at the time doing very similar things. They are very creative, but not original.
If you are going to say ALBUM X is better than ALBUM Y then you are arguing about the album not the artist. The artists only inclusion in that argument should be in the by-line. IF you were to argue BAND X is better than BAND Y then it makes sense to reference the "originality" of the artist, and ALBUM X or ALBUM Y in the case.
I have already addressed this point twice.
No you have only addressed that your concern was with the originality of the artist not the album, when in fact the criteria created was to be used for deciding what the best albums are, not the greatest artist.
To further explain my point, you could have a band like King Crimson that was quite creative. So based on your criteria they get points for that. Yet when you look at their albums some of them are not nearly as creative as others. Those albums would still get the same number of points though because you say your are basing the "originality" element on the artist not the album. That makes absolutely no sense when something like ITCOTCK is much more creative than ITWOP which was basically the same album, only released later. The artist is obviously creative, yet two albums over time are the same in content, Why should the latter be given the same credit when the creativity is static?
You're right you didn't say music could be evaluated completely objectively. You did however say an album's greatness or an era's greatness could be determined "90%"objectively which is what we are currently discussing. You can't actually be objective if there is subjectivity involved. It negates the entire idea of being OBJECTIVE. And in this case especially, even being 50% objective is inaccurate.
Obviously you can't be completely objective, that's why no two "best of" lists are the same. BUT, most best of lists are similar. That is a huge coincidence if you're looking at subjective lists.
It is a huge coincidence if you are looking at an individual person's list, but not if you have several contributors throwing out their thoughts. And I'm not aware of any greatest albums lists that have been put out by a media source that was written by one person.
Yes you pulled them out of a big subjective hat and they are hardly accurate to any degree. Your criteria as well.
No. Yes.
Once again you make a bad case.
And you respond in kind.
"No."
And yet people care about lists such as "best albums of the 1990s" which all tend to be fairly similar because they all take into account... wait for it... objective criteria. They are all clouded by subjectivity because that's unavoidable, but they are more informed by objectivity.
As I said before, people care about these lists because they want to know what others think because it stimulates conversation and thinking. Not because they believe "oh this list is based on objective criteria, let me see it".
Objective criteria like receiving a majority of votes and "all the songs are good. they were at their peak. the band was happy with the recording..." and "how can we generate more sales of our publication? OH YES, lets create a list that has been done numerous times but only make some minor changes to keep people interested".
People care about the lists for the same reason we post on this forum. TO SEE WHAT OTHER PEOPLE THINK. The lists tend to be similar in nature because they are generally created by people voting (be they readers, critics, industry insiders, musicians, etc). Not by some data wizards that scour the nation for information that is then compiled. And if they were more informed by objectivity then they would be more similar than they actually are.
Well, obviously if they were more objective than they are, they would be more similar. The fact that they are already strikingly similar shows that objectivity plays a strong factor in determining them, EVEN IF SUBJECTIVITY CANNOT BE AVOIDED.
Subjectivity isn't avoided at all though. In the bigger media outlets you have a lot of the same people contributing to the list. In the smaller outlets they don't have as much money and usually get the editors, reviewers and other in-house people to make the lists which is why the end up more varied, or in some cases ridiculous (IMO). Yet, it doesn't matter because each source is still just injecting what it believes.
Pitchfork lists their top albums based on the votes of Pitchfork contributors not based on Allmusic.com's ratings. It isn't that odd of a coincidence considering the top albums listed are probably well liked among critics who run both PITCHFORK and ALLMUSIC. And Allmusic is just as subjective as the next lot of blokes.
Allmusic is clearly less subjective that pitchfork...
I suppose in a way, considering they don't write like a bunch of idiots and use stupid terms like "crescendo mongering", but they both are still writing reviews based on the ears and beliefs off the reviewer and not some universal music greatness basis.
Not even remotely.
You're right. More than remotely. (re the who being metal)
The Who were not a metal band.
But where will those Pearl Jam boys find some METAL to fuse it with (post-"grunge" revolution).
With The Who
Right, if the Who were a metal band.
|
Pnoom! wrote:
Meh, I'm done arguing this. It's making me look like a
person I'm not. I'd prefer to keep what remains of my reputation than
to continue an argument neither person can win, because both are
approaching it from different mindsets.
BroSpence, I'll grant you the last word if you want it, since it's not really fair to stop arguing after I've had the last word. |
Well we had a good run and we did not get out of hand with name calling or other low blows. Which is exactly what these forums are good for. Good discussions.
|
|
Pnoom!
Forum Senior Member
Joined: September 02 2006
Location: OH
Status: Offline
Points: 4981
|
Posted: May 07 2008 at 08:51 |
One last thing. I sent a private message to a member of another forum who is a huge fan of The Who and whether or not they are metal:
The Who are not metal, but they have been considered heavy metal on occasion due to their live sound. I have a heavy metal magazine that lists the 100 greatest heavy metal artists. The Who is one of twenty bands given a full page spread and they say that Live at Leeds is heavier than the heaviest of metal bands. But I wouldn't consider any of their studio work to be heavy metal, with a few minor exceptions like "Trick of the Light" and "The Real Me".
Whether they're a heavy metal band or not, they are a hugely important early influence on heavy metal. The Rock 'n' Roll Hall of Fame has a video montage of the origins of heavy metal. It literally begins with Pete Townshend at Woodstock in 1969. Then it shows Eric Clapton in his Cream days. It bounces back and forth between the two of them ripping it up on electric guitar and then shows Jimi Hendrix. Then it moves to Led Zeppelin and after that, the deluge from Black Sabbath to Alice Cooper to Metallica.
So, the implication is clear: the roots of heavy metal could be considered the guitar playing of Pete Townshend, Clapton and Hendrix in the sixties. A lot of this depends on your definition of hard rock, heavy metal and metal. I think they're three different things. Obviously, The Who is hard rock, their live sound and a few select studio tracks could be considered heavy metal, but I would never consider them metal, which is a late seventies phenomenon beginning with Judas Priest, Iron Maiden, Motorhead and the like.
Also, ask yourself, if Alice Cooper, Deep Purple and so on are considered heavy metal, why wouldn't The Who be? Their seventies sounds are very similar. Sometimes it seems the distinction is based more on image than sound. I think everyone would agree, though, that The Who are more properly classified as a hard rock band. Still, if someone wants to classify their live sound as heavy metal, it would be hard to argue with them. You could still do it, though, by claiming that they don't do the guitar and bass unison riffing type stuff. Which would mean advancing an argument that The Who's live sound is too open and creative to be heavy metal.
It's a tough question. I don't think you could say there is a right answer. It comes down to the definitions of hard rock, heavy metal and metal in the end. |
|
|
crimson87
Prog Reviewer
Joined: January 03 2008
Location: Argentina
Status: Offline
Points: 1818
|
Posted: May 24 2008 at 23:27 |
Wow you really missed the subject here!!!
By the way Loveless is a Masterpiece , Can you imagine Kevin Shields and Robert Fripp doing some soundscapes , that would be great.
|
|
fishsquire
Forum Newbie
Joined: November 24 2006
Status: Offline
Points: 6
|
Posted: May 26 2008 at 19:52 |
|
Spiderland is heavenly
|
|
The Quiet One
Prog Reviewer
Joined: January 16 2008
Location: Argentina
Status: Offline
Points: 15745
|
Posted: May 26 2008 at 19:58 |
|
Dunno none!! Except for the masterpiece of Ten by Pearl Jam..
|
|
/PAlogo_v2.gif "Progarchives.com Homepage")
1991, the best year for music...