Riot grrrl is crazy underrated. I'm not sure where this is going related to sacrilege, I just wanted to say that. Bikini Kill > [universally acclaimed indie or classic rock band]

quote:

Originally posted by odysseyandoracle:
Riot grrrl is crazy underrated. I'm not sure where this is going related to sacrilege, I just wanted to say that. Bikini Kill > [universally acclaimed indie or classic rock band]

Sleater-Kinney > Bikini Kill > [universally acclaimed indie or classic rock band] ;-)

quote:

Originally posted by PaddyG:

quote:

Originally posted by MilotheMayor:
Achtung Baby, Zooropa AND Boy>The Joshua Tree
Just my personal preference being a big U2 fan myself.

Achtung Baby is my favorite.

Check out Achtung Bono by Half Man, Half Biscuit.

quote:

Originally posted by MilotheMayor:
How about this bit of blasphemy?
XTC has written better pop songs than The Beatles, The Beach Boys and The Kinks combined.

This not blasphemy! I totally agree.

quote:

Originally posted by JGlass:
I don't really think anyone who is on these boards regards it that highly. I enjoy it, but I've yet to see anyone go absolutely crazy on the forums about it.

It's one of those albums that seems overrated because the people who are ga ga over it are people just starting to explore music; it's fresh and new to them. Then they explore, find new music, and it becomes a good album but it's no longer a masterpiece.

Lol, it's in my top ten all-time. But whatever.

quote:

Originally posted by brainofp:

quote:

Originally posted by odysseyandoracle:
Riot grrrl is crazy underrated. I'm not sure where this is going related to sacrilege, I just wanted to say that. Bikini Kill > [universally acclaimed indie or classic rock band]

Sleater-Kinney > Bikini Kill > [universally acclaimed indie or classic rock band] ;-)

Now, I can agree with that!

As far as U2 is concerned. The only reason Joshua Tree is considered a masterpiece is because the first three songs are three of the best songs ever recorded. I've never seen anyone very impressed with the rest of the album. It really should be an EP, or at least it should have spread out it's best songs a bit more rather than loading them right at the beginning.

On a side note, I personally really love "Exit".

I don't know if this really counts as sacrilege (yet), but here goes. I've been listening to She & Him a little bit. I hate to say this, because I think Zoey Deschanel is super cute and a fine actress, but she's not a very good singer. There I said it.

quote:

Originally posted by odysseyandoracle:

quote:

Originally posted by Dork:
I didn't say it was the "Best" album since 1973.

Glad to see that I'm not the only person who uses "best" and "favorite" in different ways.

I still say this is utterly ridiculous. To say that "best" and "favorite" are different is claptrap.

quote:

Originally posted by RavingLunatic:
I still say this is utterly ridiculous. To say that "best" and "favorite" are different is claptrap.

The best baseball player ever was probably one of Babe Ruth, Ty Cobb, or Honus Wagner. But my favorite was Scott Brosius.

Does that still sound like claptrap?

OK, completely different kind of thing. But it'd be insane to suggest that, I dunno, the Ramones were "better" than Charles Ives, even though I listen to the former far more often and I'm much more likely to put them on any sort of "favorite" list. Saying that "best" and "favorite" are the same thing is all well and good when we're talking about the narrow confines of pop music, but for music in general...just doesn't work.

Then there's emotional resonance and things like that. Don't you have any bands that you just grew up with and feel nostalgic for, or the singer or the way the band plays connects with you in some way? Haven't you ever found a band that just completely reflected the way you felt at a particular time, and the band remained a favorite afterwards for that reason? Or a book, or a movie, or any piece of art? I don't know, the fact that these things are different from being "the best" (which implies some sort of objective standard that probably doesn't include subjective emotions) just seems really obvious to me.

I think you nailed my point when you said that to say something is the best "implies some sort of objective standard." There is no objective standard to music. We judge music by how much we enjoy it, which is entirely subjective. To say the Ramones are better than Charles Ives, though you prefer the latter, is simply to take the word of others that it is so; it's not some kind of objective decision that we can make on our own. If the Ramones did not receive the adulation and acclaim from others, there is no way you would listen to the Ramones and say "this band is better than Charles Ives." In saying that they are better, you're just accepting a critical consensus.

quote:

Originally posted by RavingLunatic:
I still say this is utterly ridiculous. To say that "best" and "favorite" are different is claptrap.

I concur.

My favorite album from last year was also the best album from last year, in my opinion. I think people just like to say that "favorite is not the same as best" as a cheap cop-out.

quote:

Originally posted by RavingLunatic:
I think you nailed my point when you said that to say something is the best "implies some sort of objective standard." There is no objective standard to music. We judge music by how much we enjoy it, which is entirely subjective. To say the Ramones are better than Charles Ives, though you prefer the latter, is simply to take the word of others that it is so; it's not some kind of objective decision that we can make on our own. If the Ramones did not receive the adulation and acclaim from others, there is no way you would listen to the Ramones and say "this band is better than Charles Ives." In saying that they are better, you're just accepting a critical consensus.

No, that isn't what I meant; it's actually the other way around. I meant that I liked the Ramones better, even though critical consensus is that Ives was a greater ("better") figure. But critical consensus really has nothing to do with it in this case; I simply recognize that Ives composed far richer and more enlightening music.

But that was a bad example because the Ramones have a pretty universal appeal, so let me try again. There are certain albums and bands that I like more than I would otherwise, due to the way their music has intermeshed in one way or another with events in my life. If those events had not happened, I wouldn't like it so much. To me this is not good grounds to relate that music to someone else. To use the Magnetic Fields as an example, certain songs on 69 Love Songs have acquired meanings for me that were not intended and would not be perceived by someone else, simply due to the accident of when I first listened to it and what was going on in my life at the time. Here's another one: compare "God Only Knows" and "100,000 Fireflies." There is probably not a single person in the world who would not find the former song touching - its message is universal. If someone didn't like it, I would think there was something wrong with their ears. But the meaning I've gotten from "100,000 Fireflies" is much more idiosyncratic and personal, and if someone didn't "get" the song in the same way I do I wouldn't find it terribly unusual.

When I say that something is the "best" I am trying to separate those peculiar personal events from my evaluation. You say that enjoyment of music is entirely subjective, and that's mostly true, but there's also evaluation, and evaluation is purely social - I already know what I think of an album before I write it down, of course - the point of it is to convince others to listen to that music and appreciate it in their own way. If I say that I really love "100,000 Fireflies" because it reminds me of a girl when I first heard the song, that really doesn't tell you anything. Part of why I like it so much has to do with reasons that have nothing to do with music.

Or another example - the band Lifetime. Part of the reason I like them so much is that listening to them makes me nostalgic for New Jersey (believe it or not). This is a feeling I like, and it's a feeling I don't get from music of a similar quality and type. But if I hadn't grown up in New Jersey, it wouldn't have the same effect. The fact that they have a very essential "Jersey sound" and I grew up in Jersey is just an accident, and not really a meaningful part of rating and comparing music - for other people. Like I said, there's no point in rating and comparing it for myself, because I already know how I feel about it. The "favorite" is for me, the "best" is for other people. I have several "favorites" that I rarely recommend to other people, because I know they wouldn't like it as much as I do - how could they, when x has never happened to them?

That was terribly sloppy, so I hope it makes sense. The truth is that "best" and "favorite" really do have different meanings in the English language (you can look it up, as they say), and music (and maybe art in general) is the only field where anyone ever complains about it. Your favorite town might be your hometown, but most wouldn't say that their little corner of earth is the best place in the world. I'm sure you can think of lots of other examples where "best" and "favorite" are used to mean different things. I don't see why music should be different. You may not see it this way, but there is a meaningful distinction here.

I should also note that I don't mean that best and favorite are never one and the same. Like FKA, my favorite album of last year is also what I'd call the best. Of course they can coincide; they do a lot of the time, and maybe for you they *always* do. For me, they don't always. I have sentimental favorites; my mind and ears tell me one thing while my heart (or whatever you want to call it) says another. I don't think it's that strange. Isn't that the only explanation for our softness towards things from our childhood that would have been not-so-interesting had we first encountered them as adults?

I realize what you're saying, that for certain peculiar personal reasons, certain music may appeal to us in ways that it won't appeal to others. But when you say some album is "better" than your favorite, all you're saying is that other people think it is better. You know what the general critical opinion is on that "best" album and you're just repeating it when you say it is better than your favorite. I think where we disagree is that I contend that if you had no idea what the critical opinion was on music, if you had never heard anyone else's opinion on music, that you would not be able to distinguish between the "best" and your favorite. I'm guessing that you would say that you would be able to recognize some music as "better" even though it doesn't sound as good to you. I disgree.

What I'm doing is basically trying to divide myself into two personas:

1. The "core listener" me. My ears, my brain, what I tend to like, whatever.
2. My accidents. The events of my life, where I grew up, the way I feel, etc.

The "best" music is just the music that my core listener likes the best. It has nothing to do with others' opinion; I apologize if I gave that impression. It's just my opinion, separated from my peculiar accidents. My "favorite" music is the music that resonates so much with my accidents that I like it more than I normally would if that resonance were not there. Everything's still about what I like; e.g., Radiohead might be the most universally praised while still active band ever. But I probably wouldn't put a single Radiohead album on any "best" list I could think of, because I just don't like them that much. On the other hand, with the Lifetime example - if I were suddenly struck with selective amnesia and I could not remember a single thing about my time growing up in New Jersey, I would not enjoy them quite as much as I do now. To me that's grounds for not calling them definitely "better" than a theoretical equivalent band, like a "Lifetime" formed of exact clones of the actual Lifetime except in Arizona, or something.

It sounds silly when put into writing, but it's not like this is something I'm doing consciously. Just trying to explain the way I think I approach rating music. I understand your position, but I think taking it this way is more useful when reviewing an album for others. I think of a hypothetical observer with identical tastes but a different background who agrees with everything I say until I come to this one particular "favorite" band. He would be disappointed if he bought that album based on my recommendation, I think, and if I could prevent that I'd like to try. Not that anyone's buying albums based on my recommendation.

quote:

Originally posted by odysseyandoracle:
What I'm doing is basically trying to divide myself into two personas:

1. The "core listener" me. My ears, my brain, what I tend to like, whatever.
2. My accidents. The events of my life, where I grew up, the way I feel, etc.....

I'll give you this, that's a more sophisticated and sensible argument than I normally hear for this topic. I can understand where you're coming from, and if you're approaching rating music with a view to recommending it to others I think it makes sense.

But on the larger issue I still disagree, mainly because I don't think you can distinguish between your "core listener" and "accidents." Your core listener is determined by the kind of life you live, where you grow up, the music you were exposed to growing up, life experiences, etc. Accidents basically.

Anyways, it's nice to have a civil debate that doesn't descend into bickering and flared tempers.

quote:

Originally posted by RavingLunatic:
But on the larger issue I still disagree, mainly because I don't think you can distinguish between your "core listener" and "accidents." Your core listener is determined by the kind of life you live, where you grow up, the music you were exposed to growing up, life experiences, etc. Accidents basically.

That's exactly what I would say if I were on your side. And you're right; the way we perceive every single thing we listen to is influenced by our prior experiences. Some cases are clear-cut, like my Lifetime one, and so I could at least account for that as a "favorite" and not a "best." There's a hell of a lot of poppy hardcore in Jersey, and not all of it effects me like Lifetime. But in my "core listener" argument I'm still assuming some sort of shared musical background, at least; I can't imagine your average person randomly picking up and digging a Venetian Snares record.

It would be interesting to see what a person with no musical experience at all would think of what we take to be extremely accessible music. Of course, to create that person would be unimaginably cruel. Don't they say that even distinguishing between two different pitches has to be learned?

quote:

Anyways, it's nice to have a civil debate that doesn't descend into bickering and flared tempers.

Agreed. This touches on some pretty interesting issues, too. I happen to agree with you that personal enjoyment should be the only thing that matters when evaluating music, but there are other criteria people sometimes use, like intellectual edification or technical complexity. I'd like to say that all musical taste is subjective, but that doesn't seem to square with the fact that people mostly like the same things. If it's entirely subjective, why does almost everyone like the Beatles more than, say, Herman's Hermits? At the very least we have to say that there's something real in the Beatles that makes them more appealing, if not "better."

The weird thing here is that I totally agree with RavingLunatic, on principle. I don't beleive there's a way to separate out this supposed "core listener" from the other elements of your brain. It's a futile and ultimately silly effort in self deception.

The difference between "Best" and "favorite," in my opinion, is that the former expresses a more dismissive position; "This is better than what you like," not "I like this better than what you like." One puts forth the opinion that your viewpoint is superior. The other is simply subjective. Both are expressing the same viewpoint, but "best" expands it to a universal status.

That's why I don't expect anyone else to have Yoshimi Battles The Pink Robots as their third favorite album. Because it's my favorite, not some ridiculous, nonexistent definitive album.

Not to muddy the discussion you guys are having, but I would describe my views a little differently.

I always thought the main difference between "favorite" and "best" was solely a distinction between our subjective and objective viewpoints. We are fully capable as humans to view things in two different ways. Something could affect us more because of very personal reason, but really be much less artistic than something that affects us less. This means we can say one song is our "favorite" (the lyrics relate to our life, location, personality, remind us of a friend, was first heard on a day that was really special to us, makes us want to dance and feel good), but a different song could be "better" (more artistic, unique, complex, original, forward thinking). You can decide this all internally, without anyone telling you that the one is better (however, universal effectiveness is part of rating something objectively).

Personally I end the year with two separate "best album of the year" lists in my head. One is the list of my "favorite", most listened to albums that really put together all of the things I most enjoy about music, and the other is the list of the albums I think are the "best", which really took the most effort, thought and creativity to produce. My brain then combines the two lists into one.

I think everyone does this to some degree, whether they admit it or not. This happens in every aspect of life. Jobs don't always go to the person that is most qualified, they go to the person that the employer likes the most while still meeting the qualifications. You don't typically buy the finest, most creative piece of art for your kitchen, you buy the one that matches the color of your stove. Just because it takes a master chef two hours to prepare a perfect piece of orange snapper, you might just prefer to eat Mac and Cheese.

quote:

Originally posted by RavingLunatic:
In saying that they are better, you're just accepting a critical consensus.

That may be true, but does that mean that "critical consensus" cannot have any meaning or merit behind the evaluation. I'm not sure why art and in particular music can't be judged at least somewhat on objective criteria. I don't mean to go for a popularity contest to determine quantitatively the overall quality of something, but saying that an individual should always refer to their preferences in terms of 'best' rather than 'favorite' comes across as if it's an objective evaluation. That being said I can understand RL's point that the subjective experiences that influence our musical tastes are inseparable in an indistinguishable way from our "core listener". This core listener can only exist in theory...unless we build some autonomous music judging robot replicant with consciousness that is free of personal bias and history. But then it would just end up trying to kill us, and the debate would continue to rage - can there be a best of the best?

Also, if you disagree with me you are an ignorant relativist asshole.

EDIT: Okay, so when I started writing this the 3 comments above me were not there yet. Then I went to dinner, came back, and submitted it. Essentially I'm just echoing what you all have said above (minus the replicant part). GMTA right? Ya'll just think faster.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: La La Love Pixies,