1991, the best year for music...
Printed From: Progarchives.com
Category: Other music related lounges
Forum Name: General Music Discussions
Forum Description: Discuss and create polls about all types of music
URL: http://www.progarchives.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=48286
Printed Date: December 04 2024 at 04:54
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 11.01 - http://www.webwizforums.com
Topic: 1991, the best year for music...
Posted By: Pnoom!
Subject: 1991, the best year for music...
Date Posted: May 02 2008 at 11:21
|
...IMO, in case you didn't know.
Choose your favorite of my favorites from that year. No other option because it's not necessary.
Vote if you've heard at least 3 of them (buy 3 of them if you haven't).
A bit about how I feel about each album:
Talk Talk - Laughing Stock
This is one I've gotten into only recently, but it's already my pick. Listen to it in the dark; it's absolutely sublime. Sure, nothing ever happens, at least not in the purest sense, but in that nothing is the great expanse of everything. This album is an experience like no other. Spirit of Eden was amazing and a masterpiece in its own right, but this one is their magnum opus.
My Bloody Valentine - Loveless
In a manner unlike most other albums, this is an album you either "get" or you don't. There's little in between. Kevin Shields' wall of sound guitar creates an amazing soundscape, and it dominates the gorgeous music. The vocals are present, but they sink into the music, just another layer in perhaps the most perfectly layered album of all time. It's an ebbing, flowing mass of ethereal beauty. Unbelievable.
Atheist - Unquestionable Presence
Being a fan of Death and Cynic, it's only natural I should like Atheist. While this doesn't quite stand up to Cynic's Focus, one of the best metal albums I've heard, Unquestionable Presence is quite the accomplishment. At under 40 minutes, it is one of the shortest, purest metal bursts I know. Concise, powerful, and unquestionably awesome, this album needs to be heard to be believed. Jazz metal near its very best.
Pearl Jam - Ten
I'm sure this album won't get much credit from this site, but it's truly the peak of the entire grunge movement. It seems like all the music inspired by this is terrible (here's looking at you, Nickelback), but Ten itself is incredible. Built from powerful, poignant songs with stellar music backing them, Ten is one of the most heartfelt and well-constructed albums I know.
Massive Attack - Blue Lines
Massive Attack released their masterpiece with Mezzanine in 1998, but Blue Lines, their debut, is their most important album. Pioneering what's now known as trip-hop, Blue Lines mixes soulful female vocals with almost monotone male raps, a perfect contrast only enhanced by the excellent beats and ambience. This doesn't hit home with the power of Mezzanine, but few debuts are as well realized and enjoyable as this. Exquisite.
Primal Scream - Screamadelica
The first song on this album, the gospel-esque "Movin' On Up", opens with a quote from that esteemed Krautrock band, Can. "I was blind, now I can see, you made a believer, out of me" (from "Yoo Doo Right" from Can's debut album, Monster Movie). That certainly applies to my reaction to Screamadelica. I didn't like it at first, but now I am a fervent believer. Perhaps the ultimate psychedelic electronic experience, Screamadelica is, despite its name, a perfect album for a warm summer night, lying in a hammock and letting yourself be absorbed by the power of this fabulous music.
Slint - Spiderland
Like with Laughing Stock, Spiderland is really only possible to describe as sublime. Again like Laughing Stock, it is a key player in the development of post-rock, but it doesn't hold to the cliches so prevalent in modern post-rock bands. Instead, this is skeletal rock, haunting and intense, with spoken word vocals that only enhance the effect. Once again like Laughing Stock, this album requires a good pair of headphones and a dark room. It takes a while, but once it hits, it bowls you over, and then there's no turning back.
A Tribe Called Quest - The Low End Theory
Along with Nas' Illmatic and Public Enemy's It Takes a Nation of Millions to Hold us Back, this is in my top three rap albums. With amazing bass grooves holding down the album, The Low End Theory utilizes choice jazz samples, sparse beats, and, most importantly, two of the best rappers ever to create a nearly perfect listening experience. There are none of the skits that bring down so many rap albums. There is just music that begs to be listened to again and again. And again.
|
Replies:
Posted By: Blacksword
Date Posted: May 02 2008 at 11:52
|
I've not heard the Talk Talk album, or Slint. My vote goes to Massive attack. 'Blue Lines' was an excellent debut, full of atmosphere and attitude. 'Safe from Harm' is a favourite of mine.
'Ten' by Pearl Jam was also a great album. I always thought they had the edge on Nirvana! 'Screamadelica' I have very fond memories of. It was the backdrop to quite a 'hazey' summer... 
Ozric Tentacles, The Orb and Orbital all had excellent albums out that year, as well as Cocteau Twins, The KLF and Depeche Mode...or was that 1990..must have been a good time, I cant remember.. |
Posted By: Equality 7-2521
Date Posted: May 02 2008 at 11:53
|
One of the most abysmal years of music actually I would say. Loveless
is my favorite album from the list, though Savatage's Streets is easily
the best from the year.
------------- "One had to be a Newton to notice that the moon is falling, when everyone sees that it doesn't fall. " |
Posted By: Pnoom!
Date Posted: May 02 2008 at 12:01
How is it abysmal?
I'm not talking about personal preference here. What other years have had so many albums that have gone on to be landmarks in the entire music scene, not just within a small genre (as in, no obscure prog gems)?
|
Equality 7-2521 wrote:Posted By: Pnoom!
Date Posted: May 02 2008 at 12:02
You should definitely check out Talk Talk and Slint. Especially if you have any interest in post-rock. At all. If you have heard one passage in a post-rock album that you like, Talk Talk and Slint are for you.
I'm listening to Spiderland right now, and wow. Just wow.
|
Posted By: Jared
Date Posted: May 02 2008 at 12:07
|
Fates Warning: Parallels
Rush: Roll The Bones
and er....Toto: Kingdom Of Desire....  ------------- Music has always been a matter of energy to me. On some nights I believe that a car with the needle on empty can run 50 more miles if you have the right music very loud on the radio. Hunter S Thompson |
Posted By: Blacksword
Date Posted: May 02 2008 at 12:20
Thanks for the reccomendation. I've just been checking out Slint on Youtube. I listened to 'Good Morning Captain' 'Breadcrumb Trail' and 'Darlene' Good stuff! Alternative music was much better then. I've said it before, and I'll say it again, it all ended with 'Brit-pop' In the UK, it did, anyway. |
Posted By: Pnoom!
Date Posted: May 02 2008 at 12:23
Alternative music is still good
 |
Posted By: Blacksword
Date Posted: May 02 2008 at 12:33
I'm sure it is, but back then you didn't have to go looking for it. It frequently charted and was recognised as good music. Maybe it's just my age. Perhaps if these bands were emerging now I'd hear them differently.. Anyway, these guys were one of my favourite bands back in the early 90's. Cant remember if this song is '91 or 92...but it was around then.. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_4xMR7mYPWU&feature=related - Curve - Horror Head |
Posted By: Pnoom!
Date Posted: May 02 2008 at 12:38
Thanks for the recommendation, I'll check them out.
|
Posted By: laplace
Date Posted: May 02 2008 at 12:49
|
*struggles to agree* this is like my 1991 "sort of want" list o:)
edit: I'll vote for Slint seeing as I find myself listening to more post-rock than usual, this year, even though it's only in the hopes of finding new relevant progitude ------------- FREEDOM OF SPEECH GO TO HELL |
Posted By: Pnoom!
Date Posted: May 02 2008 at 12:57
Come on, lappypoo, get them all. Especially Talk Talk.
Also, new post-rock really isn't relevant, methinks. Sadly.
|
Posted By: Slartibartfast
Date Posted: May 02 2008 at 13:01
 Here's my 1991's, for me it wasn't the best of years, but wasn't the worst (thumbs up for my favorites): Amos, Tori Winter  Belew, Adrian Inner Revolution Bruford, Bill's Earthworks all heaven broke loose Budd, Harold By the Dawn's Early Light Budd, Harold with Zeigeist She is a Phantom Byrne, David Uh-Oh Childs, Toni House of Hope Djam Karet Burning The Hard City Djam Karet Suspension and Displacement Fleck, Bela & the Flecktones Flight of the Cosmic Hippo Fripp, Robert & The League of Crafty Guitarists Inergalactic Boogie Express - Live in Europe 1991 Howe, Steve Turbulence Jackson, Joe Laughter & Lust Lavitz, T Mood Swing Manzanera, Phil Southern Cross McLachlan, Sarah Solace Mitchell, Joni Night Ride Home Morse, Steve Band Southern Steel Mr. Bungle Mr. Bungle Nirvana Nevermind Oregon Always, Never, And Forever Ozric Tentacles Strangeitude Pere Ubu Worlds In Collision Pink Floyd Orchestral Maneuvers Ponty, Jean-Luc Tchokola Porcupine Tree On the First Sunday of Life Primus Sailing The Seas Of Cheese Procol Harum Prodigal Stranger, The Stewart, Dave/Barbara Gaskin Spin Summers, Andy World Gone Strange Tuck & Patti Dream Way, Darryl Under the Soft Wyatt, Robert dondestan (revisitied) XTC Nonesuch (Remaster) Yes Union ------------- Released date are often when it it impacted you but recorded dates are when it really happened... 
|
Posted By: laplace
Date Posted: May 02 2008 at 13:06
my want list extends in other directions o:) having heard these ones I meant "sort of want" in that most of these albums are sort of small positives to me at best, rather than lifechangers. :| and, well, I suspect that post-rock rarely *really* progresses, but there's such a gulf between most of the prog releases this year and my tastes that I find myself gravitating towards it. roll on noise prog ;P ------------- FREEDOM OF SPEECH GO TO HELL |
Posted By: GoldenSpiral
Date Posted: May 02 2008 at 13:15
|
Most of these albums were pretty darn good for their time. If I'm picking one, I'll go with Spiderland, because "Good Morning Captain" defeats most other things from the 90s.
As far as modern post-rock rarely progressing, I'm agreeing with you there. I love the sound, but so many bands are just repetitive these days. Congratulations, you sound like EitS, here's a cookie. Still, I listen to them because the sound is good... but I'd like to hear something along the same lines, but actually different.
Improvised noise is not going to cut it, though. ------------- http://www.myspace.com/altaic" rel="nofollow - http://www.myspace.com/altaic ALTAIC "Oceans Down You'll Lie" coming soon |
Posted By: Pnoom!
Date Posted: May 02 2008 at 13:15
Laughing Stock is lifechanging when you "get" it.
|
Posted By: laplace
Date Posted: May 02 2008 at 13:22
*giggles* I've had similar promises made to me on behalf on some of the worst albums I've ever heard. i'll give it another go because it's you  ------------- FREEDOM OF SPEECH GO TO HELL |
Posted By: The T
Date Posted: May 02 2008 at 14:52
|
Say all you want people, even if you hate it, Nirvana's Nevermind, released in that year, was so much more influential that many of those albums... Yes, TEN was grunge at its best.. but it was Nevermind which broke the genre into the mainstream....
Anyway, from the list, TEN. A great album. I still don't get this anti-grunge thing... ------------- 
|
Posted By: WalterDigsTunes
Date Posted: May 02 2008 at 14:56
Thanks to grunge, I don't listen to any post-1989 bands. Those bands destroyed the musical landscape for me. I will never be able to stomach any of that music. |
Posted By: Avantgardehead
Date Posted: May 02 2008 at 15:15
Maybe people don't like it? That's kind of a reason why people would post negative things about it. ------------- http://www.last.fm/user/Avantgardian |
Posted By: The T
Date Posted: May 02 2008 at 15:20
Well I know it's because they don't like it.. I'm not that  ... What I don't get is what they see that is so awful... there are so many other genres that don't get that hate from non-grunge fans... Understand me: I know people don't l;ike it and that's fine.. I just don't understand why that is so widespread among proggster and metallers... (maybe metallers I understand more)...-------------
|
Posted By: the_binkster
Date Posted: May 02 2008 at 15:20
|
"Nevermind" was influential but certainly not as influential as many give it credit for: the Seattle grunge scene had evolved much before Nirvana brought them to the world's attention (IMO Nirvana are the weak link in the "Big 4" with Soundgarden, Alice In Chains and Pearl Jam). Soundgarden's "Badmotorfinger" and "Ten" were both vastly superior offerings musically. Nirvana inspired many musicians and brought their superiors into the spotlight. "Ten" is the epitome of grunge music, but 90s Electronica was defined by "Screamadelica" and it is now the yardstick to which such albums are compared. It brought a very much underground scene into the mainstream and I would label it as a masterpeice (so that is the one I have voted for).
But there are two albums missing from that list which regardless of your musical leanings most would agree were "good":
Metallica - Metallica: changed metal completely; it was a massive mainstream success and influenced many of the 90s biggest metal bands and on top of that it is populated by some incredible songs.
Achtung Baby - U2: a departure from U2's 'normal' style and summed up the musical world of 1991 completely embracing the alternative rock leanings of My Bloody Valentine and the grunge scene and the electronica "revolution". U2's only true masterpeice.
*cowers*
|
Posted By: The T
Date Posted: May 02 2008 at 15:25
Don't cower man.. you have just reminded me of those important albums.... Both very good... Both essential in the development of pop-rock and metal music in the 90's -------------
|
Posted By: GoldenSpiral
Date Posted: May 02 2008 at 15:27
|
Badmotofinger was amazing, and Soundgarden is by far my favorite band of the genre.
as far as Nirvana goes, I could really take or leave "Nevermind". Maybe it's because it was such a large part of my youth, these days it sounds like a played out pop record.
"In Utero", on the other hand.... quite excellent (though not 1991). ------------- http://www.myspace.com/altaic" rel="nofollow - http://www.myspace.com/altaic ALTAIC "Oceans Down You'll Lie" coming soon |
Posted By: moreitsythanyou
Date Posted: May 02 2008 at 15:27
|
Easily Talk Talk. Haven't heard some options and I actually sort of like 2 but find them vastly overrated (Loveless and Spiderland). And Pearl Jam is horrendous in my opinion.
-------------  <font color=white>butts, lol[/COLOR] |
Posted By: Certif1ed
Date Posted: May 02 2008 at 15:34
|
Nevermind's a cracking album.
I don't like any that are in the list though - Primal Scream are bearable...
The Orb's "Adventures Beyond Ultraworld", "Aubrey Mixes" and "Peel Sessions" are THE albums of 1991 for me, closely followed by The Prodigy "Experience" and XL Recordings - the Second Chapter.
There's also Metallica's self-titled or "Black" album, which I happen to like, The Almighty's "Soul Destruction", and Slayer's "Decade of Aggression" - but the early 1990s were mainly about Rave music to me. ------------- The important thing is not to stop questioning. |
Posted By: stonebeard
Date Posted: May 02 2008 at 16:21
Gotta love 10, it's also the only one I've heard so that's unfair.  And Achtung Baby! is U2's best album and one of the best records of all time. Don't fear snobbo progheads giving you sh*t about liking it.  ------------- http://soundcloud.com/drewagler" rel="nofollow - My soundcloud. Please give feedback if you want! |
Posted By: Pnoom!
Date Posted: May 02 2008 at 16:43
I almost put Nevermind on the list just to spite many of the members here who find it crap, but I've only heard it once, so it hasn't had time to grow on me. That said, it is definitely one more reason why 1991 is such a great year for music. (hey, the T and I agree on something, maybe now he'll like Kayo Dot)  |
Posted By: Pnoom!
Date Posted: May 02 2008 at 16:44
I feel very sorry for you, though I doubt you want my sympathy. |
Posted By: Pnoom!
Date Posted: May 02 2008 at 16:46
Ah, but despite that all the albums on this list are historically important and objectively "great," this is still a list of my personal preferences. Otherwise, Nevermind, the Soundgarden album (forget it's name), the Metallica album, and many others would've made it. |
Posted By: Petrovsk Mizinski
Date Posted: May 02 2008 at 17:47
|
Atheist - Unquestionable Presence gets my vote.
Although generally I'm not a grunge fan, I honestly could never understand why Nirvana got all the fame when clearly bands like Soundgarden and Alice In Chains wrote far better songs (IMO) and unlike Kurt Cobain, Jerry Cantrell didn't play like a horrible sloppy mess when he played guitar. Ten will get second place for me, as it has some well written songs, and was far and away 10000x times better than anything Nirvana did. ------------- 
|
Posted By: Ivan_Melgar_M
Date Posted: May 02 2008 at 17:52
|
1991 was a great year.
In 1991 Par Lindh formed the Swedish Art Rock Society, that lead to Symphonic renaissance, with such excellent groups as Par Lindh Project, Anglagard, Flower Kings, etc.
It was a year of expectation.
Iván ------------- 
|
Posted By: keiser willhelm
Date Posted: May 02 2008 at 19:27
|
Massive Attack's blue lines gets my vote. great CD, spawned an amazing career and countless imitators. I happen to like grunge (apart from nirvana) Alice in Chains remains one of my favorite bands while Soundgarden and Pearl Jam still get some plays every once in a while. Good year, not great. havnt heard talk talk or slint though... ------------- http://www.last.fm/user/KeiserWillhelm" rel="nofollow - What im listening to |
Posted By: Dim
Date Posted: May 02 2008 at 19:33
|
Holy Crap I havent realised how good this year was until seeing this list.
I went with laughing stock, but Spiderland, Ten, and Loveless are all incredible! ------------- 
|
Posted By: The T
Date Posted: May 02 2008 at 23:11
Less than a month away to see if that miracle happens... all we need is at least the same thing as before MINUS the 14 minutes of repetition..   -------------
|
Posted By: Pnoom!
Date Posted: May 02 2008 at 23:16
|
Blue Lambency Downward isn't remotely repetitive, really. Also, reading your reviews of the individual tracks on Blue Lambency Downward, you really think it's a two star album. A one star album doesn't have over half it's tracks be decent or better. |
Posted By: Avantgardehead
Date Posted: May 02 2008 at 23:21
You'll never get the same thing with Kayo Dot. But if you like jazz, I'm sure you'll like this one.  And after hearing Laughing Stock, it's my pick. ------------- http://www.last.fm/user/Avantgardian |
Posted By: Pnoom!
Date Posted: May 02 2008 at 23:26
You are a good person. Isn't it sublime? Also, Teo, if you haven't heard Choirs of the Eye by Kayo Dot, it's almost universally accepted as their best, and it has none of the repetition you disliked in Dowsing. |
Posted By: The T
Date Posted: May 03 2008 at 00:17
That's why I will give The Dot a second try... after all, the whole world can't be always wrong....  And you're right... my Dowsing review really should be a 2 if I averaged my song ratings... ... It's On_limpid form that really kills me and makes me hate the whole damn thing...-------------
|
Posted By: Pnoom!
Date Posted: May 03 2008 at 00:21
So give it the two. You know you want to be fair I still think your second try with Kayo needs to be Choirs of the Eye. |
Posted By: Avantgardehead
Date Posted: May 03 2008 at 00:21
|
I love that song! Those 14 minutes are some of the most thrilling and chilling in my library. The intro part is pretty good, too.
------------- http://www.last.fm/user/Avantgardian |
Posted By: Pnoom!
Date Posted: May 03 2008 at 00:26
Same here. The noodling on Amaranth the Peddler is far more worrisome to me. |
Posted By: Avantgardehead
Date Posted: May 03 2008 at 00:32
|
I don't seem to remember any noodling...
------------- http://www.last.fm/user/Avantgardian |
Posted By: The T
Date Posted: May 03 2008 at 00:47
|
Really... the last two songs take a huge toll on me... it's like "ok, the album is not my thing but it's good, especially track 3 (don't remember the name)... suddenly... riff... cymbal crash.. riff.. cymbal crash... oh man! Track 5! Oh no... more of the same...hell... half of the album is made of these two tracks.... ".. it kills the experience.... It's so much of a trauma for me I will never forget the name of track 4...
I'll listen to it tonight and I'll see if I can raise the rating up one star.... (i've tried that before.. believe me, I've noticed how the average is higher... but I just can't)...
-------------
|
Posted By: Pnoom!
Date Posted: May 03 2008 at 00:48
The first three minutes and the last five or six are kinda pointless. I think that song could've been amazing if it had been turned into a five to six minute song a la A Pitcher of Summer. |
Posted By: Pnoom!
Date Posted: May 03 2008 at 00:50
Try just listening to the first three tracks, and imagine it as a three song EP with a bunch of meaningless filler tacked on Also, get Choirs of the Eye. |
Posted By: Avantgardehead
Date Posted: May 03 2008 at 01:05
Funny, that doesn't bother me one bit. There's not one Kayo Dot song or part of any of their songs that I don't like. [/fanboyism] ------------- http://www.last.fm/user/Avantgardian |
Posted By: BroSpence
Date Posted: May 03 2008 at 01:49
|
Ah man what a ridiculously frustrating poll! MY BLOODY, SLINT, PJ, annnnnd ATCQ??? How am I supposed to decided on one those these amazing albums!?!?! Anyways, I chose ATCQ. Low End Theory is a great album from start to finish and Ron Carter plays some sick bass on that shizzle. |
Posted By: Pnoom!
Date Posted: May 03 2008 at 07:37
| Damn, both the rap and the grunge album got votes even on a prog forum! Good work guys. |
Posted By: Rocktopus
Date Posted: May 03 2008 at 08:00
|
Not really an essential year for me. Still probably better than any other later year in the nineties, I think. I vote for Low End Theory. Both that and Midnight Marauders are fantastic. The Talk Talk album is great as well. I dug Pixies Trompe le Monde (still do), Sepultura Arise and Nirvana Nevermind of albums released that year, the most. ------------- Over land and under ashes In the sunlight, see - it flashes Find a fly and eat his eye But don't believe in me Don't believe in me Don't believe in me |
Posted By: BroSpence
Date Posted: May 04 2008 at 00:53
|
Posted By: Pnoom!
Date Posted: May 04 2008 at 01:06
Yeah, Pearl Jam are grunge. |
Posted By: Equality 7-2521
Date Posted: May 04 2008 at 01:16
1972? That criterion for deeming it the best year is subjective in itself. My criterion is having music I enjoy. So, it's abysmal. ------------- "One had to be a Newton to notice that the moon is falling, when everyone sees that it doesn't fall. " |
Posted By: Pnoom!
Date Posted: May 04 2008 at 01:20
| Meh. |
Posted By: WalterDigsTunes
Date Posted: May 04 2008 at 01:21
1967, 1968, 1969, 1970, 1971, 1972, 1973, 1974, 1975, 1976, 1977, 1978, 1979, 1980, 1981, 1982, 1983, 1984, 1985, 1986, 1987, 1988 and 1989. |
Posted By: Equality 7-2521
Date Posted: May 04 2008 at 01:24
I'll meh you. (I don't know what I mean by it either) ------------- "One had to be a Newton to notice that the moon is falling, when everyone sees that it doesn't fall. " |
Posted By: Pnoom!
Date Posted: May 04 2008 at 01:28
The only problems are that: a) that list is wrong b) that list is clearly clouded by personal preferences and therefore cannot be taken seriously |
Posted By: william314159
Date Posted: May 04 2008 at 01:34
|
laughing stock is my favorite and walter, its ok to like music that came out after you were born. don't worry, your presence on earth didn't banish good music from existence. |
Posted By: WalterDigsTunes
Date Posted: May 04 2008 at 01:40
|
"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. That being said, your list boasts some good stuff. Talk Talk is ace, for instance. Great, great album. |
Posted By: Pnoom!
Date Posted: May 04 2008 at 01:45
But asking for years with landmark albums in multiple genres implies objectivity.
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.  |
Posted By: WalterDigsTunes
Date Posted: May 04 2008 at 01:52
It just implies more subjective judgment being spread over more years and more genres |
Posted By: Avantgardehead
Date Posted: May 04 2008 at 02:39
|
"Landmark" is completely subjective.
------------- http://www.last.fm/user/Avantgardian |
Posted By: Pnoom!
Date Posted: May 04 2008 at 02:42
No.
And no. Why does no one on this site (except me obviously ) understand the difference between when a situation discussing music calls for objectivity and when it calls for subjectivity. |
Posted By: WalterDigsTunes
Date Posted: May 04 2008 at 02:45
| Because it's music. |
Posted By: Rocktopus
Date Posted: May 04 2008 at 02:48
You seem to confuse personal preferences with lack of knowledge. ------------- Over land and under ashes In the sunlight, see - it flashes Find a fly and eat his eye But don't believe in me Don't believe in me Don't believe in me |
Posted By: Pnoom!
Date Posted: May 04 2008 at 02:53
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.
QFT |
Posted By: Avantgardehead
Date Posted: May 04 2008 at 03:04
|
The fact that music is interpreted differently by everyone pretty much kicks any notion of objectivity far, far away. Explain to me, then, how to objectively label something as a landmark album.
------------- http://www.last.fm/user/Avantgardian |
Posted By: WalterDigsTunes
Date Posted: May 04 2008 at 03:05
|
Posted By: Pnoom!
Date Posted: May 04 2008 at 03:18
It has nothing to do with any individual liking an album. it has to do with: -cultural impact of an album -influence of an album -originality of an album -popularity of an album All purely subjective. The only objectivity involved is how you weight each criterion.
|
Posted By: Avantgardehead
Date Posted: May 04 2008 at 03:30
|
People have different ways of qualifying landmark albums, also! There is no one way to do anything, really.
------------- http://www.last.fm/user/Avantgardian |
Posted By: Pnoom!
Date Posted: May 04 2008 at 03:32
That is the accepted way of determining albums that are historically important landmarks (though some lists may use different criteria). Landmark does not indicate liking an album, it indicates how the album has stood the test of time, as seen by the criteria listed above. |
Posted By: Avantgardehead
Date Posted: May 04 2008 at 03:37
|
I never said it had anything to do with liking. ------------- http://www.last.fm/user/Avantgardian |
Posted By: WalterDigsTunes
Date Posted: May 04 2008 at 03:39
Cultural value comes from the fact that blokes listened to it and came up with opinions. |
Posted By: Avantgardehead
Date Posted: May 04 2008 at 03:41
|
It's kind of hard to measure those things anyway, which is why I don't bother.
------------- http://www.last.fm/user/Avantgardian |
Posted By: Pnoom!
Date Posted: May 04 2008 at 03:45
I am very close to facepalming at this. You just completely missed the point. I can't argue with you if you're going to say things like this. |
Posted By: WalterDigsTunes
Date Posted: May 04 2008 at 04:10
|
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." |
Posted By: Pnoom!
Date Posted: May 04 2008 at 04:20
You still don't get it. Yes, cultural impact is determined by people's subjective reactions to the music, but the actual impact of the album can be measured OBJECTIVELY. 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, 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. 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. 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. 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. |
Posted By: Rocktopus
Date Posted: May 04 2008 at 04:27
|
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. ------------- Over land and under ashes In the sunlight, see - it flashes Find a fly and eat his eye But don't believe in me Don't believe in me Don't believe in me |
Posted By: WalterDigsTunes
Date Posted: May 04 2008 at 04:27
| 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. |
Posted By: Pnoom!
Date Posted: May 04 2008 at 04:35
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. |
Posted By: Philéas
Date 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. |
Posted By: BroSpence
Date Posted: May 05 2008 at 00:02
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 http://www.allmusic.com/cg/amg.dll?p=amg&sql=1:THE%7CSTOOGES - the Stooges and http://www.allmusic.com/cg/amg.dll?p=amg&sql=1:BLACK%7CSABBATH - 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.....
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." |
Posted By: Pnoom!
Date 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? 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 http://www.progarchives.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=48286&PN=5# - - 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 http://www.progarchives.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=48286&PN=5# - - 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. 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?
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.
metal
punk
|
Posted By: Dr. Prog
Date Posted: May 05 2008 at 13:38
The Godfather of Grunge baby.
|
Posted By: Dr. Prog
Date Posted: May 05 2008 at 13:39
huh?
 |
Posted By: WalterDigsTunes
Date Posted: May 05 2008 at 13:59
So, the best-selling LP of the 1970s does not matter at all?  Seems like you are foisting some subjective criteria upon us. |
Posted By: stonebeard
Date Posted: May 05 2008 at 14:38
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. ------------- http://soundcloud.com/drewagler" rel="nofollow - My soundcloud. Please give feedback if you want! |
Posted By: Abstrakt
Date 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". |
Posted By: Philéas
Date 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... |
Posted By: BroSpence
Date Posted: May 06 2008 at 04:22
|
Posted By: Pnoom!
Date Posted: May 06 2008 at 08:47
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.
|
Posted By: Pnoom!
Date 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. 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) With The Who
|
Posted By: WalterDigsTunes
Date Posted: May 06 2008 at 14:07
This is a riot, keep it up  |
Posted By: Avantgardehead
Date Posted: May 06 2008 at 14:23
|
What is this, I don't even...
------------- http://www.last.fm/user/Avantgardian |
Posted By: Pnoom!
Date 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.
|
Posted By: BroSpence
Date Posted: May 07 2008 at 03:42
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. |
Posted By: Pnoom!
Date 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:
|
Posted By: crimson87
Date 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.
|
Posted By: fishsquire
Date Posted: May 26 2008 at 19:52
| Spiderland is heavenly |
Posted By: The Quiet One
Date Posted: May 26 2008 at 19:58
| Dunno none!! Except for the masterpiece of Ten by Pearl Jam.. |