Somebody mentioned earlier the fact that they didn't neccesarily enjoy MBV's Loveless, but good still recognize it as a good album, then others sorta accused him of not just wanting to say he doesn't like it, or it's bad, then someone else said that you shouldnt just follow critic's opinions.

I would have to agree with the person who said they don't enjoy it, but that they see it's a good album. I've owned Loveless for over a year, and I enjoy it just as much as the day i bought it; that is to say, I don't really enjoy listening to it at all. I can, however, tell that from the very original way it sounds and was constructed, the talent and emotion and time put into it, that while my ears may not think it's good, that it is actually a good album. For me though, the vocals are just too wishy washy and non descript, and after a little while of listening, it starts to bother me.

I did have one glorious day a couple months ago where i decided to give it a listen, and it actually connected. Not like epiphany connected, but i was listening and enjoying. Sadly, a friend came over, interupted my listening, we left, and when i came back and tried to listen, it was gone again.

quote:

So you're right, in the sense that if I don't like something, I won't recognize it as greatness, unless a large, diverse, trustworthy section of people tell me so. If they do, I feel I have to take their word for it.

Thank you, Dubs. I'm glad one person understands what I'm trying to say.

quote:

I can, however, tell that from the very original way it sounds and was constructed, the talent and emotion and time put into it, that while my ears may not think it's good, that it is actually a good album.

See, now that's what I simply cannot believe. I don't believe that if you (or anyone else who doesn't like Loveless) had never heard any of the critical praise for Loveless that you still would've recognized it as a great album. Do you really believe that? Does anybody?

quote:

Next, do you consider the sound of a refrigerator motor to be beautiful, and would you listen to it all day long? How about a guy scratching his fingernails up and down on a chalkboard and calling it music? Since I'm going to make the assumption that the answer is no to those, and that most people would say no, then does this mean that there is some sort of standard outside of individuals by which music can be judged? Such as say, rhythm, mood, melody, lyrical structure, motif, compositional depth, originality, etc.?

I of course agree that no one enjoys fingernails on a chalkboard, but I don't consider it bad "music" because it lacks rhythm, melody, originality, etc. I consider it bad because it sounds awful. I agree that there are certain elements in music that people find appealing, but I do not agree that by analyzing those elements alone you can determine the greatness of a piece of music.

quote:

Isn't the purpose of a critic to make sweeping statements about what is good and what is not? Aren't critics (professional or just your everyday appreciators) the ones who say "this is a great album and it should be recognized as such"? And isn't this how our culture comes to define what we consider the great albums?

If that's your criteria for what a great album is (ie that many critics praise it), then I'm fine with that. But that's not what we've been debating. What we've been debating is if you personally can recognize that an album is great, even if you don't like it and you are unaware that is has received any critical praise. I posed that question earlier, and you never really answered it. I maintain that it's impossible.

quote:

See, now that's what I simply cannot believe. I don't believe that if you (or anyone else who doesn't like Loveless) had never heard any of the critical praise for Loveless that you still would've recognized it as a great album. Do you really believe that? Does anybody?

Honestly, I'm not lying when i say that I actually did hear the album, originally, with little to no idea of its "importance," I had simply read somewhere that MBV sounded like Sonic Youth, and i was going through a Sonic Youth Phase, so I picked it up. This was before I read any online publications(especially pitchfork) or any music magazine that wasn't Rolling Stone, so I recognized the name, but didn't really know of the reputation, and I thought of it then the same as I do now, even after hearing its "importance." I don't know why it's hard to believe, but i offer you this: Why in God's name would I come on to a forum under complete anonymity and lie? Am I getting money? Who is taking note of cool points? It seems ridiculous to say you don't believe me when my opinion is so blasse and the stakes are so low. I actually do hear it and think "This is good, I just don't like it." I wish i liked it, but so it goes.
Of course I'm affected by critical opinion. There is no way i would have listened to Silent Alarm trying to get something out of it (sadly, to absolutely no avail) if it didnt get such glowing praise. But in this case, I'm not lying to myself like you might suspect, that actually is how i feel.

I think that to have been able to immediately perceive the greatness of Loveless, that is, as probably one of the 5 best albums of a decade, you would have to understand its context and be familiar with shoegaze. When I first heard it, I was unfamiliar with that particular genre, and my immediate reaction was, "this is virtually impossible to listen to." But now that I've heard some other shoegaze and understand that movement, and I understand that this album was basically the end (since no one including MBV could live up to it), and I understand the profound effect that the album still has on many musical genres, it's much easier to appreciate as a great album. But it's virtually impossible to understand an album's context before you hear it. In the example of Loveless, if you were a huge shoegaze fan today, and you hadn't heard it, that would be, well, uncommon. And if you were a huge shoegaze fan then, you'd have no idea what the album would come to mean.

And if you don't think context is important, just imagine if Revolver had dropped in 1977 or 1992. Off the top of my head, only one widely-acknowledged-as-great album, OK Computer, transcended its place in time, since it sounded like nothing before or since. Radiohead themselves haven't even bothered trying to approach it (for which they should be commended).

Wow, this is a close one. After I voted, which brings the total votes up to 25, Illinois is in 1st with 8 votes and Z is in 2nd with 7 votes.

With that said, I voted for My Morning Jacket. I have listened to all of the albums but own only 3 of them (My Morning Jacket, Sufjan Stevens and The New Pornographers.) On my list I have Z and Illinois at 1 & 2 respectively, and I think I have Twin Cinema at 8 right now I. Like I have said before, isn’t The Woods just a bunch of loud, obnoxious noise with an annoying voice behind it? And I listened to Wolf Parade’s album over and over but couldn’t get past its mediocrity—its not even in my top 20.

Illinois was number 1 for a long time on my list and as much as I like it I just love Z so much more. It’s tight and concise yet it’s sprawling with different styles of rock, pop, ska and ballads. And on top of that, the ordering is just brilliant. Out of the ten songs on the album, 5 or 6 have to easily be some of the best overall songs of the year and the music is incredibly smart and creative. Illinois—in all its glory—meanders a little bit and becomes a tad unfocused towards the muddled middle, but it’s still very strong. Stevens is writing some of the best music of our time, all while doing it very quietly, but I just thought Z was better.

On a side note, it kind of shocks me that no one has voted for Twin Cinema. I don’t think it’s the best album of the year but, contrary to popular belief, it is the best album that gets better and better each time you listen to it. I really like it a lot and it is moving up on my list—even though we are in 2006 already—every time I listen to it.

I pick Sleater-Kinney just barely over Sufjan.

Because..when I listened to them back to back over and over at the end of the year, I decided back then I enjoyed it slightly more.

quote:

What we've been debating is if you personally can recognize that an album is great, even if you don't like it and you are unaware that is has received any critical praise.

I'd say this depends both on who that "someone" is, and what your definition of great is.

To dispose of the latter first, I'd argue that no one can truly know whether an album is great without the benefit of hindsight, because in my view the greatness of an album depends in part on its influence on the music that follows it.

However, as to whether someone can judge an album to be excellent without personally liking it, that depends entirely on the person. For someone with two decades of diverse and abundant listening behind him, I see no reason why not. That person would have built up some means of comparison. If you had just bought, say, Wolf Parade, and it's your second album ever, and your first was Hilary Duff, it seems unlikely you'd find much to praise in the Wolf Parade. I guess this isn't too different from the whole rats and Mozart experiment.

From a personal perspective, and I'm not going to use Loveless as an example, because my experience with that album is somewhat limited, I definitely believe that I can gauge the relative merits of an album without liking it myself. Sufjan Stevens' Illinoise is a good example. My friends all love it, can't get enough, but for me, it really does nothing. In fact, it kind of bugs me. BUT, I sure as hell can see, intellectually, why it's good. The arrangements are unbelievable, the writing is great, etc., etc. It just doesn't give me that emotional wallop that some music does, though I know it does for others, and if I try to listen to it for more than about 20 minutes, I start to feel sort of itchy.

i think your point is valid, Jorge, and I think it's applicable to most anything. My example, for instance, is the movie Pulp Fiction. I hated it, but I can certainly see why people love it. It certainly was original.

I have all those five albums, and I would probably say the order for me goes:

1) Sufjan
2) New Pornographers
3) Wolf Parade
4) S-K
5) My Morning Jacket

As for Loveless, that has always been an album that I can only listen to all the way through. I rarely, if ever, would just listen to one track, which is probably an indication that I appreciate the overall sound/originality more than I appreciate the actual songs.

I just rewatched Lost In Translation, and when the Kevin Shields tunes came on, my mind just floated by to the images of the Movie and reminded me of the genius of Loveless. It certainly is a great work that stands out and I could lose myself in the first few seconds of that album.

As for the Poll. New Pornographers came just before Wolf Parade in my year end list, but, I've listened to Wolf more since and give it the edge.

Wow, that's a tough one. I'd put Twin Cinema #1, but Illinois and The Woods were in my top 20. I like "Off The Record" from My Morning Jacket and might enjoy Z. Wolf Parade's album is one I want to get.

Just to add a different perspective, since in the first post it was said that everybody should be able to vote for one of these. For myself, I would have to pick which one of these albums/artists I can tolerate the most, or dislike the least. It's a great list of the kind of music I personally can't stand. Of them, Sleater-Kinney are the only ones who I've heard a half-decent song from. These bands/artists, represent the indie rock genre perfectly to me, not good enough to see any mainstream success, but just good enough to make it out of their local bar scene.

quote:

Originally posted by Smenkharon:
Just to add a different perspective, since in the first post it was said that everybody should be able to vote for one of these. For myself, I would have to pick which one of these albums/artists I can tolerate the most, or dislike the least. It's a great list of the kind of music I personally can't stand. Of them, Sleater-Kinney are the only ones who I've heard a half-decent song from. These bands/artists, represent the indie rock genre perfectly to me, not good enough to see any mainstream success, but just good enough to make it out of their local bar scene.

OK. Thanks for your opinion?

quote:

Originally posted by Smenkharon:
Just to add a different perspective, since in the first post it was said that everybody should be able to vote for one of these. For myself, I would have to pick which one of these albums/artists I can tolerate the most, or dislike the least. It's a great list of the kind of music I personally can't stand. Of them, Sleater-Kinney are the only ones who I've heard a half-decent song from. These bands/artists, represent the indie rock genre perfectly to me, not good enough to see any mainstream success, but just good enough to make it out of their local bar scene.

Out of curiosity, I went back through some of your posts, and it seems like most of the music you listen to isn't what I'd call "mainstream" music. Does that mean the music you like isn't "good enough" to achieve mainstream success either?

All of those albums got tons of critical acclaim, so even though they're not everybody's cup of tea, I wouldn't say any of them are lacking in terms of quality. And I'm not sure what the local music scene is like in Vancouver, but any one of them is far more interesting than any bar band I've ever seen.

Well, you used to be able to see the New Pornographers here fairly often at our bars, but they don't draw very well, and haven't been performing as much. I like a lot of mainstream artists, some of my favourite recent releases have been by artists like Nine Inch Nails, System Of A Down, Fiona Apple, heck even Madonna! I think there are lots of good rock bands on indie labels, but they typically get bumped up to a major. I mean, Mastodon recently got picked up by a major! The bands that usually deserve a broader (not necessarily larger) audience tend to get it, record executives aren't that stupid! I'm sure bands like The Arcade Fire and Art Brut will end up on major labels, as they have shown the artistic promise of growth, or the filling of a niche in the music world. Personally I don't feel that any of the bands in this thread have shown that. Just my opinion.

quote:

Originally posted by Smenkharon:
Well, you used to be able to see the New Pornographers here fairly often at our bars, but they don't draw very well, and haven't been performing as much. I like a lot of mainstream artists, some of my favourite recent releases have been by artists like Nine Inch Nails, System Of A Down, Fiona Apple, heck even Madonna! I think there are lots of good rock bands on indie labels, but they typically get bumped up to a major. I mean, Mastodon recently got picked up by a major! The bands that usually deserve a broader (not necessarily larger) audience tend to get it, record executives aren't that stupid! I'm sure bands like The Arcade Fire and Art Brut will end up on major labels, as they have shown the artistic promise of growth, or the filling of a niche in the music world. Personally I don't feel that any of the bands in this thread have shown that. Just my opinion.

The point I was trying to make is that being on a major label has nothing to do with the quality of a band's music. Record labels aren't like baseball, where only the good players get bumped up to the majors. There's a ton of great music on indie labels and a ton of shitty music on major labels.

Many artists actually prefer to work with an independent label, since they're typically treated better, get larger percentages of their album sales, and have more creative freedom over their music.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: EricG75,

Smenk, you sure do put a lot of value on mainstream success for "someone who gets paid to have an opinion on punk." You say you like, for example, Cat Power, who has achieved no mainstream success and remains on an indie even though she's put out, what, seven albums over an eleven-year career? And how could My Morning Jacket and Sleater-Kinney not have shown any potential for artistic growth or have failed to fill a musical niche? The latter is arguable because it's totally unclear what that means, therefore you're welcome to define a musical niche as you please and state that neither band fits one. But those two bands especially of the five listed made an album last year that was in some way a stylistic departure and was extremely well-received by critics. Does that not constitute artistic growth? And certainly past artistic growth indicates the potential for further artistic growth. In fact, I know of few bands that have grown the way Sleater-Kinney has. (To bring up the 'niche,' how many critically acclaimed all-female punk/rock bands are there?) It's fine if you don't like any of the five albums, I don't care in the least, but I'm glad I'm not the one paying for that opinion. But to say that none of them are any good (most laughably, you define quality in terms of mainstream success) does bother me and I'm sure others. Similarly, I don't care if you don't like indie rock, but to dismiss it as the minor leagues of mainstream rock (to borrow ericg's totally appropriate analogy) is absurd. And you know this to be true, so I'm not going to argue the merits of Good Charlotte vs. Spoon.

Concerning Cat Power, the new album was the first sign of growth for me. Dubs, I'm glad you're not paying for my opinion either, I can't imagine it leading to success. How an album is recieved in the consumer marketplace is far more defining to me than what critics think, critics usually don't get feedback on their opinions so they're opinions exist in a bubble. The audience is the only gauge that really matters. Some artists are talented enough to achieve mainstream success, but prefer to avoid it, in that case, kudos to them. I would think that most bands (like most people) would like to be massively successful, and attempt to do that without losing artistic integrity, but if the audience isn't there for them, then it does happen to be like the minor leagues of baseball, you're stuck there! Barry Bonds playing on a minor league team would increase their audience to a major league level, the inverse cannot be said. I feel that would hold true for a major label artist with a large audience transfering over to an independent label.

Also, Good Charlotte are imitators, and anyone can achieve success in the music world through imitation, just look at Coldplay. Spoon have artistic integrity, but a small audience as their music obviously does not appeal to many people. They have artistic success and merit, which GC do not, but I can't even consider imitators to be artists personally.

Your stance seems a tad hypocritical Smenk. I mean if untalented imitators, whom you won't even consider artists, can achieve commercial success, doesn't that render commercial success meaningless as a measurement for artistic quality?

I think commercial success these days is a completely meaningless way to judge quality. Since the mid-90s, you essentially have one company controlling the majority of radio programming around the country. And the most successful music is going to be the stuff that's crammed down most people's throats. If Clear Channel isn't putting Spoon on their playlists, how would casual listeners even know they exist?

I guess the real question is...What's more absurd -- music critics telling people what to like, or Clear Channel telling people what to like?

I sympathize with your coldly capitalist views, but for my purposes as a fan, and yours too as a critic, it's pointless to treat music the same way we treat any other good in the marketplace. It is true that there would be no music industry if there weren't people buying it and making it profitable; there would only be music as a hobby. But you know as well as I do that the music industry is not a meritocracy, in the sense that most successful mainstream music is garbage. Furthermore, music critics shouldn't get feedback on their opinions; they should exist in a bubble. Ideally, they're not even paid (and therefore have no monetary incentive to have the 'correct' opinion). The audience is all that matters, but the size of the audience is not the only important factor.

I thought that people, around here at least, understood that the chain of causality does not run: good music --> radio/MTV play --> good sales --> major label deal --> huge sales --> sold out arena tour/untold riches. Instead, it goes more like: music that sounds like everything else that's already popular --> major label deal --> radio/MTV play --> huge sales. There are a wealth of reasons for this unfortunate situation; most were discussed at length earlier this week. It mostly comes down to one thing: major labels are extremely good at business, while indie labels are not.

As usual, ericg is absolutely right: he has clearly elucidated the astonishingly obvious hole in your whole argument. It's silly that we're even having this debate.

This is unrelated and for my own edification, but what is meant by the quote in your signature? I interpret it, at least the first line, as Jesus' teachings supporting Darwin; if that's what you mean, it's pretty hilarious.