Discussion Forums

best(?!) debut.
Last Post 16 May 2003 02:31 PM by joedolan. 18 Replies.
Printer Friendly
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
Sort:
PrevPrev NextNext
You are not authorized to post a reply.
Author Messages
joedolanUser is Offline
Basic Member
Basic Member
Send Private Message
Posts:102
joedolan

--
16 May 2003 02:31 PM
    i don't mean to come over all new agey on you, but how does one actually define the "best" when it comes to music? biggest-selling is a measurable thing(although not very important methinks). most influential is also sort of quantifiable. to say that something is an idividuals "favourite" album makes sense. but this gack about the "best" albums that magazines regularly print really boggles me. "your art is BETTER than the other guys". music is not sport, listen to what you like.
    conor-immediateUser is Offline
    Basic Member
    Basic Member
    Send Private Message
    Posts:100
    conor-immediate

    --
    16 May 2003 03:16 PM
    But opinion is all that exists. Therefore IN MY OPINION _________ is the best debut album. And IN MY OPINION __________'s art is better than __________'s art. Some artists are better than others.
    ellieUser is Offline
    New Member
    New Member
    Send Private Message
    Posts:4
    ellie

    --
    16 May 2003 09:53 PM
    Opinion is all that exists yeah, but so many people give some journalists/experts TOO much credit for their opinion. They can make or break an artist. And at the end of the day, if one supposed 'expert' has an opinion it doesn't mean anything. That leads to the whole music snobbery thing, which really bugs me. That music is tiered and classed by opinions. Surely it should exist outside that, holding something for everyone and not just the elite few who know all.
    conor-immediateUser is Offline
    Basic Member
    Basic Member
    Send Private Message
    Posts:100
    conor-immediate

    --
    17 May 2003 06:28 AM
    Well, if we're talking about journalists, that's a different thing. But I don't think joedolan was referring to that. He was referring to the "best debut album" debate on this site, wasn't he? I think that it is true that music journalists have too much power, since it IS only one person's opinion, etc. but I don't like putting music above, or "outside" other things. I think that's a mistake, which has undesirable consequences. (such as Glen Hansard).
    conor-immediateUser is Offline
    Basic Member
    Basic Member
    Send Private Message
    Posts:100
    conor-immediate

    --
    17 May 2003 06:29 AM
    uh oh. I took the piss out of shiny-faced Glen on an Irish music site. I'm in for it now.
    klootfanUser is Offline
    Advanced Member
    Advanced Member
    Send Private Message
    Posts:851
    klootfan

    --
    17 May 2003 08:53 AM
    Im a frames fan myself, but this website is all about free opinion, unlike the frames messageboard, which is one big clique of agnst filled teenagers.....where simply failing to mention god in the same sentence as glen, is considered a sin....
    joedolanUser is Offline
    Basic Member
    Basic Member
    Send Private Message
    Posts:102
    joedolan

    --
    19 May 2003 01:27 PM
    hmmmmmm. granted, by saying "best" one is expressing opinion. the thread here was the catalyst for my rant, but i did refer to "magazines", and by implication, journalists. those all time best of poles seem especially silly, even the ones voted for by "the people". just coz more people like an album doesn't mean that it's the "best". (whatever that actually is)... by that definition, robbie williams is "better" than godspeed or miles davis. i think that the urge to be better in music leads to things like linkin park. hit the notes perfectly!! have "better" production than the other guys!! make it sound expensive!! be bigger and better in everyway!! whereas stuff like palace is clearly not preoccupied with this competetive view of music. this is not directly critical of the thread on this board, it's just an observation.
    joedolanUser is Offline
    Basic Member
    Basic Member
    Send Private Message
    Posts:102
    joedolan

    --
    19 May 2003 01:42 PM
    ps: i am aware of the hipocritical statements i've made there, and of the implicit musical snobbery in the statements. to get back to my original question, could someone define for me what specfically the "best" means (in music), as distinct from "favourite". i'd be interested to hear it.
    king of nailsUser is Offline
    New Member
    New Member
    Send Private Message
    Posts:85
    king of nails

    --
    19 May 2003 09:20 PM
    i reckon the 'best' music is the music that can be identified as most real, honest, impassioned, original, inspiring...in whatever field...i.e. if it's clear that the music is created for the right reasons...er, i dunno if that makes sense...
    conor-immediateUser is Offline
    Basic Member
    Basic Member
    Send Private Message
    Posts:100
    conor-immediate

    --
    19 May 2003 09:50 PM
    Yeah, I agree with both joedolan and king of nails. In terms of joedolan's point, I DESPISE music/musicians that emphasise technical expertise etc. It's just so VACANT. There are so many bands that are more interesting which, although they COULD show off their technical skills, they don't - and the music is great because the listener can almost hear the space that has been left by what the musician has NOT played. Also, there are some artists who I think are far superior than most, even though they can hardly play a note - has anyone heard The Shaggs? I'm just wary of placing music outside of everything else - in a sort of wishy-washy "everything is beautiful" kind of way. 'Cos everything is NOT beautiful. A lot of stuff is ugly. But sometimes ugly is beautiful i suppose.... I'm gonna stop typing now
    king of nailsUser is Offline
    New Member
    New Member
    Send Private Message
    Posts:85
    king of nails

    --
    20 May 2003 10:21 PM
    i get you conor...it's better to hold back than show off...set yourself limitations...eg. i'm a huge r.e.m. fan and when peter buck decided he was getting too competent on guitar he decided to try the mandolin and the results were astounding (hairshirt, wrong child, you are the everything, losing my religion etc)... it's true in terms of singing too...eg. i like jeff buckley when he doesn't batter the s**t out of his vocal chords... and home-produced demo-sounding albums tend to sound a lot better than studio-perfected records... less is more, to put it simply!
    conor-immediateUser is Offline
    Basic Member
    Basic Member
    Send Private Message
    Posts:100
    conor-immediate

    --
    21 May 2003 03:39 PM
    yeah. sorry, don't have time to answer properly at the moment
    duncanUser is Offline
    New Member
    New Member
    Send Private Message
    Posts:56
    duncan

    --
    21 May 2003 06:21 PM
    Less can be more but thats not always the case. If Jimmy hendrix held back and played the recorder would he be the legend he is now? Some people have the rigth to let rip and some dont thats what makes pioniers and legends simple as that....
    conor-immediateUser is Offline
    Basic Member
    Basic Member
    Send Private Message
    Posts:100
    conor-immediate

    --
    21 May 2003 09:59 PM
    But Jimmy Hendrix DID hold back. DEFINITELY. His guitar playing was NOT indulgent, quite the opposite. He did not w**k with his guitar. He made love. w**king is weedling: WEEDLY WEEDLY WEEDLY WEEDLY! he did not do this. His playing ducked and jumped and rested and raced - it was all done with restraint - A man with HIS technical skill, if he just let go, it would have been horrible. But he didn't. He played what was needed in the moment
    conor-immediateUser is Offline
    Basic Member
    Basic Member
    Send Private Message
    Posts:100
    conor-immediate

    --
    21 May 2003 10:02 PM
    At the moment, I'm typing this with that "Songs From a Room" program in the background, and, i'm sorry, I'm NOT saying this to offend anyone, but that Glen Hansard fellow makes me want to get physically sick. He's like the Bertie Aherne of music: EVERYTHING about him is fake
    conor-immediateUser is Offline
    Basic Member
    Basic Member
    Send Private Message
    Posts:100
    conor-immediate

    --
    21 May 2003 10:07 PM
    And another thing, Duncan have you heard "The Wind Cries Mary" by Hendrix? that is like the musical equivalent of a perfect watercolour painting! All the touches are there, and anything else added would have ruined it and the empty spaces make the space in which the beauty of it is formed
    DromedUser is Offline
    Advanced Member
    Advanced Member
    Send Private Message
    Posts:900
    Dromed

    --
    22 May 2003 09:23 AM
    Jimi playin the recorder.....ha ha ha ha ha No seriously...the man was a legend and it was quite well known that he wasn't an overly confidant guy, so I'd imagine he did restrain himself somewhat, but in the struggle between harnessing his genius and letting the emotion flow out of his fingers what beauty was made? I like your analogy of 'The Wind Cries Mary' being like a watercolour painting Conor, although for much of the rest of his music I think it would be more vibrant and erotic in parts.
    conor-immediateUser is Offline
    Basic Member
    Basic Member
    Send Private Message
    Posts:100
    conor-immediate

    --
    22 May 2003 07:27 PM
    I like the idea that some one can live and died and have played the guitar and someone could have described it as "erotic". very very cool
    DromedUser is Offline
    Advanced Member
    Advanced Member
    Send Private Message
    Posts:900
    Dromed

    --
    23 May 2003 12:01 PM
    It's pure erotic i think....Jimi is the best music to have sex to...without a doubt (closely followed by Iassac hayes, in particular his version of 'The Look Of Love', sooo sultry) and I'd have to say the Doors are good for that too. Kinky.
    You are not authorized to post a reply.


    Active Forums 4.3