Hahaha. You would. I'm a bit surprised that you threw A Lesson in Crime in there, as much as I love that little 15 minute album.
[Edit] I disagree with a lot more of that list, by the way, but I won't go into them because TPC is the only one that really surprised me coming from you.
Honestly, ranking this kind of stuff is really kinda stupid. I mean, how can you quantify "greatest"? And I'm kinda depressed no Dead Milkmen stuff got on. Not even Big Lizard in my Backyard or Beelzebubba.
Honestly, ranking this kind of stuff is really kinda stupid. I mean, how can you quantify "greatest"?
This is how you evaluate art academically. You might not enjoy the Mona Lisa. You might not get good feelings looking at it. You might even think it's ugly. Even if you hate it, you still need to be able to evaluate it from an academic perspective, and realize why it is so great, and so famous. The same goes for things like Citizen Kane, The Godfather, Watchmen, Mozart, and The Beatles. You might hate all of these, but you must recognize their greatness and importance.
Art is intent and execution. The artist intends to create something that will instill certain feelings and thoughts within the people who experience the work of art. They then use their artistic skills to create the work that will achieve their intent. You might disagree with the intent. You might get terrible feelings when you experience the work. You need to separate your personal feelings from your academic evaluation of the work.
If you don't like the Beatles, and you like your punk kid bands instead, that's fine. Make sure you say "I don't like the Beatles." Nobody will have a problem with that. If you start saying stupid shit like "The Beatles aren't great." or "They don't deserve to be high up on lists of great music." People will come down on you like a ton of bricks. The Beatles are great for many of the same reasons that the Mona Lisa is great.
Learn to critique art academically instead of just trying to claim that your personal feelings are the correct measure of greatness.
Why is everyone talking about the beatles like they are mozart? I like the beatles, but they only played with experimental music that others of their era did far better and to greater extremes. I am not saying their music isn't good, but none of them were that great at playing their instruments or singing and all of the songwriting besides John's was average at best. John's song writing was really the only above average aspect in the band and even that wasn't a mozart level of talent.
Why is everyone talking about the beatles like they are mozart? I like the beatles, but they only played with experimental music that others of their era did far better and to greater extremes. I am not saying their music isn't good, but none of them were that great at playing their instruments or singing and all of the songwriting besides John's was average at best. John's song writing was really the only above average aspect in the band and even that wasn't a mozart level of talent.
Does it have to be a Mozart level of talent to be worthwhile?
Talent aside, you can't deny the influence that the Beatles had on modern music. That's really what makes them so great. It goes back to The Velvet Underground and Nico; other people have done that better now, but the album's influence has been pervasive.
That's really what makes them so great. It goes back toThe Velvet Underground and Nico; other people have done that better now, but the album's influence has been pervasive.
I don't think anyone else was making the same sort of noise rock as the Velvets in the late 60's. If bands were, I want to know.
Edit: never mind, I didn't notice the post said "better now."
I'm a bit surprised that you threw A Lesson in Crime in there, as much as I love that little 15 minute album.
Most of it is nostalgia, A Lesson in Crime being one of my first indie records along with Aeroplane and Who Will Cut Our Hair, but Cheer it On is still one of the greatest songs ever made.
Does it have to be a Mozart level of talent to be worthwhile?
Talent aside, you can't deny theinfluencethat the Beatles had on modern music. That's really what makes them so great. It goes back toThe Velvet Underground and Nico; other people have done that better now, but the album's influence has been pervasive.
I can understand appreciating music for being influential, but how do you feel about people who will appreciate aspects of music that are just flat out bad? I have people who will send me lyrics and say that "OMG THESE LYRICS ARE PURE SHAKESPEARE" and I'm like, "...these are lyrics a third grader could write."
I can understand appreciating music for being influential, but how do you feel about people who will appreciate aspects of music that are just flat out bad?
It's difficult to evaluate lyrics when they are outside of the song. Lyrics aren't poetry. Lyrics should be appreciated for fitting with the mood of the song and sounding nice and maybe making you think a little, while poetry should be read on it's own. One of my favorite bands, No Age, has great songs and lyrics that really fit with their style but if you take the lyrics out of the song, they read like a shitty poem.
"I see rivers in my sleep they're filled with blood Don't you count me cause my home's a desperate one I got time but not for you the trouble is This agenda's life and life is a new win"
Could have been written by a third grader right? However, it carries the mood of the song really well:
It's difficult to evaluate lyrics when they are outside of the song. Lyrics aren't poetry. Lyrics should be appreciated for fitting with the mood of the song and sounding nice and maybe making you think a little, while poetry should be read on it's own. One of my favorite bands, No Age, has great songs and lyrics that really fit with their style but if you take the lyrics out of the song, they read like a shitty poem.
"I see rivers in my sleep they're filled with blood Don't you count me cause my home's a desperate one I got time but not for you the trouble is This agenda's life and life is a new win"
Could have been written by a third grader right? However, it carries the mood of the song really well:
Okay, but the people I am referring to, do exactly that and take the lyrics out of the song. I've found that people who only listen to crappy mainstream rap do this. They'll say that rock or metal is just trash and will say that lyrics along the lines of, "and I raped dat ho, I slap her with ma cock" are deep and meaningful lyrics. Sometimes I will get somewhat smarter examples of lyrics and they'll be like "check it out, this is a metaphor for X" and I just feel like "WOW LITTLE JIMMY, YOU KNOW WHAT A METAPHOR IS! GOLD STAR FOR YOU!" I just can't stand when illiterate people think they're my English teacher, when it seems like they struggle to decode the meaning of a stop sign. Maybe I'm being a little harsh. ^-^
Does it have to be a Mozart level of talent to be worthwhile?
Talent aside, you can't deny theinfluencethat the Beatles had on modern music. That's really what makes them so great. It goes back toThe Velvet Underground and Nico; other people have done that better now, but the album's influence has been pervasive.
To be one the top 500 of albums of ALL TIME, yes, a band should have to be Mozart level of talented. I don't deny their influence, but consider that is has only been a few decades since they made music and the surviving members continue to make music. Let's wait a bit longer (like say 50-100 years after the last surviving members stop making more music, and then their influence can truly be measured on anything other than a contemporary level.
To be one the top 500 of albums of ALL TIME, yes, a band should have to be Mozart level of talented. I don't deny their influence, but consider that is has only been a few decades since they made music and the surviving members continue to make music. Let's wait a bit longer (like say 50-100 years after the last surviving members stop making more music, and then their influence can truly be measured on anything other than a contemporary level.
That's a fallacy of antiquity. Not everything is like wine that needs to age before you know it is good. Some things are just so obviously the win right away that you only need a limited amount of waiting. As our society moves faster and faster, and media is produced in greater quantity and speed, the amount of time needed to judge whether something has lasting quality decreases. We already can safely put Portal in the top 5 video games of all time. We don't need to wait. We can already put the Beatles, Zeppelin, Elvis, The Rolling Stones, Pink Floyd, Black Sabbath, and The Who on the list. We don't need to wait for anything.
To be one the top 500 of albums of ALL TIME, yes, a band should have to be Mozart level of talented. I don't deny their influence, but consider that is has only been a few decades since they made music and the surviving members continue to make music. Let's wait a bit longer (like say 50-100 years after the last surviving members stop making more music, and then their influence can truly be measured on anything other than a contemporary level.
That's a fallacy of antiquity. Not everything is like wine that needs to age before you know it is good. Some things are just so obviously the win right away that you only need a limited amount of waiting. As our society moves faster and faster, and media is produced in greater quantity and speed, the amount of time needed to judge whether something has lasting quality decreases. We already can safely put Portal in the top 5 video games of all time. We don't need to wait. We can already put the Beatles, Zeppelin, Elvis, The Rolling Stones, Pink Floyd, Black Sabbath, and The Who on the list. We don't need to wait for anything.
When you are judging influence over time, then time is necessary to judge, that was all I am saying. If you are saying a contemporary band's influence over its contemporaries, then there is some validity. Also, how is society moving any slower or faster than it ever did before? This is a very relative idea.
Not really. After around the turn of the 20th century, everything there was to music had been discovered/invented. There is nothing new about 20th century rock and roll that wasn't already known. The only thing new was different instrumentation and aesthetic. If you were to write down the sheet music for your favorite bands, I can guarantee you that there is nothing new about it and that it's just a rehash of music from 100-200 years ago.
We already can safely put Portal in the top 5 video games of all time.
The reason why this analogy doesn't work is because the VG industry is relatively new (speed of information/technology arguments aside). We are still working out different ideas and concepts behind video games, which is not true for music anymore.
You have to separate the idea of influential, or inventive, from quality. I know that just about everything there was to know about music has been known for over a century. Knowing perfection and achieving perfection are completely different stories. Sports are a perfect example. In most existing sports, we already know the perfect technique. There is nothing new to learn. We can see perfection, recognize it, and calculate it. The problem is making it happen in real life. As we go on, people get closer and closer to actually making the perfection on paper into reality.
Rock and roll is just blues music which is just classical music. Even though the underlying idea is the same, each revision puts on a little more polish.
World of Warcraft is the same as Everquest is the same as DikuMUD isthe same as D+D first edition, etc. As bad as WoW is, it is much more polished and much better than its predecessors. The problem in that case is that the underlying idea is poop to begin with.
Rock and roll is just blues music which is just classical music. Even though the underlying idea is the same, each revision puts on a little more polish.
If you think modern rock and roll is a polished version of Classical/Romantic/Baroque music, you must be fucking insane.
I think what some people need to realize is, respect other peoples' opinions, but your opinion is the only one that should matter. If a song is so beautiful that it could make you cry, then it's beautiful and no one else's opinion should sway you otherwise. The same thing goes for every type of media.
I think what some people need to realize is, respect other peoples' opinions, but your opinion is the only one that should matter. If a song is so beautiful that it could make you cry, then it's beautiful and no one else's opinion should sway you otherwise. The same thing goes for every type of media.
That's the issue with "Top 500 Albums of All Time". If you are going to make a claim like that, it MUST be objective. Objectively, the list presented is shit.
That's the issue with "Top 500 Albums of All Time". If you are going to make a claim like that, it MUST be objective. Objectively, the list presented is shit.
Objectively, you can't base the Top X of Y on much, aside from sales and influence.
Top 5, really now? It didn't do anything new. If you don't believe me, check out the developers' previous projects.Here
Actually, the sum of its parts was new and good, and the main aspect, portals, was new to the majority of people. Who on these forums heard about Narbacular Drop before Portal?
If you think modern rock and roll is a polished version of Classical/Romantic/Baroque music, you must be fucking insane.
Maybe not as "polished," but modern music is just as valid an art form as classical/romantic/baroque. Death metal is as valid an art form as Italian opera; it's just a different sort of art.
Actually, the sum of its parts was new and good, and the main aspect, portals, was new to the majority of people. Who on these forums heard about Narbacular Drop before Portal?
Being new in the sum of its parts, and to a lot of people, does not make it new or innovative in my eyes. Using that logic, Spaces for the Mac was new because the Mac didn't have it, and a lot of people don't run Linux or the Power Toy for Windows.
Comments
[Edit] I disagree with a lot more of that list, by the way, but I won't go into them because TPC is the only one that really surprised me coming from you.
And I'm kinda depressed no Dead Milkmen stuff got on. Not even Big Lizard in my Backyard or Beelzebubba.
You might not enjoy the Mona Lisa. You might not get good feelings looking at it. You might even think it's ugly. Even if you hate it, you still need to be able to evaluate it from an academic perspective, and realize why it is so great, and so famous. The same goes for things like Citizen Kane, The Godfather, Watchmen, Mozart, and The Beatles. You might hate all of these, but you must recognize their greatness and importance.
Art is intent and execution. The artist intends to create something that will instill certain feelings and thoughts within the people who experience the work of art. They then use their artistic skills to create the work that will achieve their intent. You might disagree with the intent. You might get terrible feelings when you experience the work. You need to separate your personal feelings from your academic evaluation of the work.
If you don't like the Beatles, and you like your punk kid bands instead, that's fine. Make sure you say "I don't like the Beatles." Nobody will have a problem with that. If you start saying stupid shit like "The Beatles aren't great." or "They don't deserve to be high up on lists of great music." People will come down on you like a ton of bricks. The Beatles are great for many of the same reasons that the Mona Lisa is great.
Learn to critique art academically instead of just trying to claim that your personal feelings are the correct measure of greatness.
Talent aside, you can't deny the influence that the Beatles had on modern music. That's really what makes them so great. It goes back to The Velvet Underground and Nico; other people have done that better now, but the album's influence has been pervasive.
Edit: never mind, I didn't notice the post said "better now."
"I see rivers in my sleep they're filled with blood
Don't you count me cause my home's a desperate one
I got time but not for you the trouble is
This agenda's life and life is a new win"
Could have been written by a third grader right? However, it carries the mood of the song really well:
Rock and roll is just blues music which is just classical music. Even though the underlying idea is the same, each revision puts on a little more polish.
World of Warcraft is the same as Everquest is the same as DikuMUD isthe same as D+D first edition, etc. As bad as WoW is, it is much more polished and much better than its predecessors. The problem in that case is that the underlying idea is poop to begin with.