Support NeoGAF

[reilo]

No, I like them. So, you better shut up.

It's okay. I won't torture you any longer. It's not your fault that you have a malfunctioning brain that makes you think Battles makes good "music."

Spoiler

This is fun!

 

[Patrick Bateman]

It's okay. I won't torture you any longer. It's not your fault that you have a malfunctioning brain that makes you think Battles makes good "music."

Spoiler

This is fun!

Torture with what? Your subjective opinion opposing mine?

 

[Peru]

They're good on record and AWE-inspiring live. A tighter band on stage with more complex synchronized playing you won't find. Every dude was doing three things at once.

 

[reilo]

Torture with what? Your subjective opinion opposing mine?

I guess. Then again, there can't be worse torture than listening to Battles.

 

[Flynn]

I guess. Then again, there can't be worse torture than listening to Battles.

I was with you on being bored by Fleet Foxes, but you're dead wrong on Battles. They're exactly the kind of shit I go for. I loved when they popped up in LittleBigPlanet.

 

[KilgoreTrout]

For some reason I thought Bon Iver was released in 07...

Time to change my list before the due date for my magazine's publication.

 

[KilgoreTrout]

Coke Machine Glow posted their 50-26 today.

http://www.cokemachineglow.com/feature/4098/top50albums-2008?pg=1

They nailed it a lot more than Pitchfork, at least so far. With the exception of Evil Urges, HEALTH\\Disco being on their list, and Fleet Foxes's placement, I pretty much agree with the albums on there and their placement.

 

[Mutagenic]

Fleet Foxes, on the other hand, bored me to all mighty hell. It felt like I was listening to the same song over, and over, and over again. There was little to no diversity nor musical progression and the style of the music wasn't that interesting to begin with.

Honestly, I have to be in the right mindset to appreciate Fleet Foxes. Driving around the last few days out in the snow with them playing has been an extremely peaceful experience.

Oh, and a bit of good news: my brother lives in Corvallis and has been working with a number of different musicians down there at OSU. He met this one student who made Sufjan art based around Oregon for a final art project, and contacted Sufjan to show him what he had done. Sufjan ended up coming to Oregon later in the year and contacted this student to see if he could use some of the art for the Oregon album he was working on. So it could very well be out this next year. =]

 

[Dr. Strangelove]

Nice. Coke Machine Glow showed some love for the final Yellow Swans album. Awesome record.

 

[KilgoreTrout]

For the argument going on about music, and not being able to approach it objectively, that's bull shit.

That's basically saying Soulja Boy has the same artistical merit as the Beatles.

People can have different opinions, but to say that you can't look at music, evaluate it, and compare it is bunch of lies.

EDIT:
I really need to proof read what I just typed before posting. My last 3 posts made almost no sense. :lol :lol :lol

 

[boredofcanada]

Also, what's with Pitchfork's fascination with Li'l Wayne? Do they just not know any better rappers or does he really appeal in some way that's beyond me?

Completely agree...lil wayne fucking sucks and by pitchfork putting him in the top ten shows how full of shit they really are.

 

[Flynn]

For all the argument going on about music and not being able to approach it objectively, that's bull shit.

That's basically saying Soulja Boy has the same artistical merit as the Beatles.

People can have different opinions, but to say that you can't look at music, evaluate it, and compare it is bunch of lies.

You can do it. And you can be successful at the objective, measurement and comparison of music (or any art for that matter). You'll just wind up being a boring jerk, though.

 

[Karma Kramer]

You can do it. And you can be successful at the objective, measurement and comparison of music (or any art for that matter). You'll just wind up being a boring jerk, though.

Only to those who aren't passionate about the subject. And to them, I don't bring up my cynical judgmental side... cause as I said earlier, there is no point.

 

[reilo]

Only to those who aren't passionate about the subject. And to them, I don't bring up my cynical judgmental side... cause as I said earlier, there is no point.

Whatever you say, you boring jerk.

 

[Karma Kramer]

Whatever you say, you boring jerk.

 

[diffusionx]

I really wasn't a fan of Dear Science, though Return to Cookie Mountain is one of my all-time faves. Maybe I just haven't listened to it enough. As is the usual, mainstream acclaim comes 1 album too late (though I am referring more to RS than Pitchfork, obviously). I wasn't crazy about Portishead's record, either.

I think this overall was a pretty bland and weak year for music, at least the music that is able to get to at least Pitchfork recognition. There's always gonna be some dude making great music in his basement but whether or not its heard is a totally different story.

Onward to 2009, I say.

 

[Flynn]

Only to those who aren't passionate about the subject. And to them, I don't bring up my cynical judgmental side... cause as I said earlier, there is no point.

Well I think there's a big difference between cynicism and judgment (both valid approaches towards criticism) and the belief that you can actually measure quality.

 

[KilgoreTrout]

You can do it. And you can be successful at the objective, measurement and comparison of music (or any art for that matter). You'll just wind up being a boring jerk, though.

True.

I don't think anyone can approach any art form in a completely objective manner. Everyone still has their subjective, bias experience with it. Everyone doesn't work in the same critical manner.

I'm not one to say everyone has to agree Sgt. Pepper is one of the greatest albums of all time, but to say that I'll respect that differing opinion is a completely different thing.

 

[Karma Kramer]

Well I think there's a big difference between cynicism and judgment (both valid approaches towards criticism) and the belief that you can actually measure quality.

Everything is subjective... but in time true greatness stays. Thats how critics measure quality. If it can stand the test of time.

And in my opinion, Pitchfork and other critics have a stronger ability to determine this in comparison to the average listener.

 

[Flynn]

I'm the kind of guy who is immediately suspicious of people who continue to trot out The Beatles. Their amazingness is like fucking Planck's constant or something -- no need to study it further. Just plug the value into the formula and move the fuck on to new, more interesting stuff.

 

[Flynn]

Everything is subjective... but in time true greatness stays. Thats how critics measure quality. If it can stand the test of time.

And in my opinion, Pitchfork and other critics have a stronger ability to determine this in comparison to the average listener.

Does the music stand the test of time, or is it the work of critics and musical obsessives that drags the music out of obscurity over and over again? Critics, through their arguments, convince us that art is worthwhile. I'd argue that all art is worthwhile. And the best critics can see that worthiness and share it with us.

 

[Otheradam]

i sort of agree with this, there's a lot of stuff that can be summed up with "nasally white guy singing over out of tune guitars" but the solution is usually to listen to better albums

So true. As with any genre of music, there are a lot of garbage to wade through, but also a lot of really good stuff.

 

[Karma Kramer]

I'm the kind of guy who is immediately suspicious of people who continue to trot out The Beatles. Their amazingness is like fucking Planck's constant or something -- no need to study it further. Just plug the value into the formula and move the fuck on to new, more interesting stuff.

The Beatles are timeless though. They will always be used as a measurement of quality.

You can not be a fan of the Beatles, but you can't disagree that they basically shaped everything. They started it all and for that they will always be at the top.

 

[Karma Kramer]

Does the music stand the test of time, or is it the work of critics and musical obsessives that drags the music out of obscurity over and over again? Critics, through their arguments, convince us that art is worthwhile. I'd argue that all art is worthwhile. And the best critics can see that worthiness and share it with us.

How else would it last? If there was no one passionate enough about music to care enough to look back... then the history of music and the progression of music would be completely forgotten.

So much was influenced by the Beatles, that its absurd to not show respect towards the music they created.

How are blockbuster films art forms, when they are created by a mass amount of people with no singular focus besides profit?

Its all about passion in my opinion, and because critics do what they do, because they have passion... they can relate with the artists that put soul and passion into their art.

 

[Kastro]

I'm a pretty big 'Ye fan but 808s is quite bad. I tried to be open-minded but he just doesn't even use auto-tune good at all. It's worse than Wayne's use of it by a fair margin.

At the same time I'm not surprised they like it though, given the backlash against it. Like they feel its some kind of misunderstood masterpiece that nobody "gets".

 

[KilgoreTrout]

I'm the kind of guy who is immediately suspicious of people who continue to trot out The Beatles. Their amazingness is like fucking Planck's constant or something -- no need to study it further. Just plug the value into the formula and move the fuck on to new, more interesting stuff.

People use the Beatles as an example because they've withstood the test of time.

Critics are nothing but fortune tellers. They're trying to guess whether or not their subject will make it in the future.

The only true critic is time.

For instance:
When In an Aeroplane Over the Sea was first released, Pitchfork gave the album a 8.7. Seven years later, after seeing its continuing impact on the industry, Pitchfork awarded the album a 10.

That's why Kramer is right when he said people passionate about the subject are the best critics. They're the most sensitive to its impact.

 

[Mutagenic]

By the way, my little spiel yesterday about music being subjective was only to a certain extent. I understand that music can and does have various layers of quality. But it isn't always so black and white, and nobody's opinion is solid fact. Personally, I think both Kanye and Lil Wayne are lacking and never should have made the list.

 

[Borgnine]

For some reason I thought Bon Iver was released in 07...

Time to change my list before the due date for my magazine's publication.

My post from earlier in the thread:

He self-released that album last year, which is why it's not on this year's list. It was #29 on their list for 2007 (which is where I first heard about it).

 

[KilgoreTrout]

My post from earlier in the thread:

Ah, I see. It was released on self-released last year, and then re-released under Jagjaguwar in March of this year.

Glad I wasn't just imagining things.

 

[Flynn]

People use the Beatles as an example because they've withstood the test of time.

Have they really? Is forty or fifty years really that valid of a test considering that they also had the best media exposure ever granted to a musical artist?

What happens 1000 years from now when (just a hypothetical) China wipes us off the planet and all pop culture evolves in a different direction?

Are forgotten musics not as good as the Beatles because the culture they were attached to weren't as powerful?

And why dismiss pop as art just because commerce is one of its concerns. It's not like the Beatles weren't and aren't immune to the draw of consumerism. The album itself is a form of marketing. It's a Happy Meal with eight or ten songs crammed into the box so the listener will spend more and buy songs they may not have wanted. And yet we've gotten to the point where we consider this crass form of salesmanship an expression of art.

To dismiss blockbusters, pop music, comic books, commercials, billboards and whatever as separate from art is to miss the point and to not clearly see the current state of art.

 

[reilo]

Plus, if we don't have the "bad", how can we determine what's "good"?

 

[Karma Kramer]

Have they really? Is forty or fifty years really that valid of a test considering that they also had the best media exposure ever granted to a musical artist?

What happens 1000 years from now when (just a hypothetical) China wipes us off the planet and all pop culture evolves in a different direction?

Are forgotten musics not as good as the Beatles because the culture they were attached to weren't as powerful?

And why dismiss pop as art just because commerce is one of its concerns. It's not like the Beatles weren't and aren't immune to the draw of consumerism. The album itself is a form of marketing. It's a Happy Meal with eight or ten songs crammed into the box so the listener will spend more and buy songs they may not have wanted. And yet we've gotten to the point where we consider this crass form of salesmanship an expression of art.

To dismiss blockbusters, pop music, comic books, commercials, billboards and whatever as separate from art is to miss the point and to not clearly see the current state of art.

They are the top listened to artist on last.fm... a site comprised of younger music listeners that only came into existence within the last 5-6 years.`That right there is a tremendous fete for a band that no longer releases new music. Radiohead only managed to out scrobble them when they released In Rainbows (which was as everyone knows free to download).

No one is saying that the Beatles are the best because of their music. It more has to do with their influence on the industry.`

You should read the book written by the Beatles head sound engineer called, "Here There and Everywhere." He talks about how the Beatles were the only band/group in the business that had complete control over their label. They made all the calls and they had ulimited funds and time to create whatever they wanted. Their goal was to simply create the best music that they could... profit and money had little to do with it.

In fact that is why they started up Apple Studios and launched a worldwide search to find unique and interesting musicians. By no means was it a good idea financially, but they did it anyway cause they were passionate about the future of music and music in general.

 

[GoutPatrol]

They are the top listened to artist on last.fm... a site comprised of younger music listeners that only came into existence within the last 5-6 years.`That right there is a tremendous feat for a band that no longer releases new music. Radiohead only managed to out scrobble them when they released In Rainbows (which was as everyone knows free to download).

No one is saying that the Beatles are the best because of their music. It more has to do with their influence on the industry.`

You should read the book written by the Beatles head sound engineer called, "Here There and Everywhere." He talks about how the Beatles were the only band/group in the business that had complete control over their label. They made all the calls and they had ulimited funds and time to create whatever they wanted. Their goal was to simply create the best music that they could... profit and money had little to do with it.

In fact that is why they started up Apple Studios and launched a worldwide search to find unique and interesting musicians. By no means was it a good idea financially, but they did it anyway cause they were passionate about the future of music and music in general.

They only had complete control later because they were so profitable in the first place.

 

[Karma Kramer]

They only had complete control later because they were so profitable in the first place.

And I think when people refer to their timeless music they refer to their later years (Sgt. Peppers, Abbey Road)

 

[Flynn]

They are the top listened to artist on last.fm... a site comprised of younger music listeners that only came into existence within the last 5-6 years.

Young listeners who had the music force fed down their throats by a previous generation.

I'm not really interested in arguing about the canonization of The Beatles, that's why I'm in a thread that's concerned with music being made by people who are alive now and making good music now.

But I'd just warn against looking back at these four guys as the purest musicians who ever lived. They're nothing of the sort -- just more than a little talented and really damn lucky.

 

[GoutPatrol]

And I think when people refer to their timeless music they refer to their later years (Sgt. Peppers, Abbey Road)

If you don't like Help!, fuck you.

 

[Karma Kramer]

Young listeners who had the music force fed down their throats by a previous generation.

I'm not really interested in arguing about the canonization of The Beatles, that's why I'm in a thread that's concerned with music being made by people who are alive now and making good music now.

But I'd just warn against looking back at these four guys as the purest musicians who ever lived. They're nothing of the sort -- just more than a little talented and really damn lucky.

You were the one who brought this whole thing up in the first place.

Also you can not like their music fine... but the music that Pitchfork is reviewing today... would not be what it was if it wasn't for the Beatles. (I can see you cringing reading that last sentence)

Hell Pitchforks album of the year for 2007 (Person's Pitch) gives thanks to the Beatles and other artists. At least in the LP version that I own.

 

[Karma Kramer]

If you don't like Help!, fuck you.

No Help is amazing too... as is Revolver and Rubber Soul (my personal favorite). Shit even Let it Be manages to be amazing, even when they pretty much all hated each other during that recording.

 

[Flynn]

You were the one who brought this whole thing up in the first place.

Also you can not like their music fine... but the music that Pitchfork is reviewing today... would not be what it was if it wasn't for the Beatles. (I can see you cringing reading that last sentence)

Hell Pitchforks album of the year for 2007 (Person's Pitch) gives thanks to the Beatles and other artists. At least in the LP version that I own.

I never said I didn't like them. I'm just sick of them being them treated like the alpha and omega of music. Because, frankly, they aren't.

 

[Learn2read]

I never said I didn't like them. I'm just sick of them being them treated like the alpha and omega of music. Because, frankly, they aren't.

Someone is always gonna be considered top dog, even in something as subjective as music. If you can make a case for a group/artist other than The Beatles, fire away.

 

[KilgoreTrout]

Back on topic, at least kind of, the top 25 of Coke Machine Glow's list is a joke.

Maybe it's just coming from an angry and bitter Deerhunter fan...

 

[KilgoreTrout]

So true. As with any genre of music, there are a lot of garbage to wade through, but also a lot of really good stuff.

Sturgeon's Law: 90% of everything is crap.