Important Data For Use In Listening To My Greatest Albums List
Submitted by AfterHours on Sat, 07/07/2007 - 12:26
Tags:
- INTRODUCTION:
- The following are key points that are all helpful, and in large part necessary, towards successfully listening to, understanding, and greatly enjoying, the albums on my greatest albums list. See my "Greatest Albums of All Time (Reviewed)" and/or my "Greatest Albums of All Time (Rated)" lists on this site. Combined with ascending the list in my recommended order (see "Recommended Order You Should Follow When Tackling My Greatest Albums List"), and you are virtually guarenteed to find from my list extraordinary music that will forever change the way you view art, and that will have a profound impact on your life.
- 1. YOU SHOULD UNDERSTAND WHAT 'GETTING' AN ALBUM MEANS AND ENTAILS.
- I didn't fully realize it until this morning but this has been wildly misinterpreted (probably my fault) at least a few times. 'Getting' each and every album is what you're striving for in listening to my list, so it is important one knows what the heck that really means.
- 'Getting' an album means the following: "the result of the listener having arrived at a position of very thorough understanding of the artists' expressed emotions, then willingly and intentionally assuming commensurate position as the artists' own, willingly and intentionally adopting and experiencing the artists' personal vision, and thus experiencing commensurate emotional power as the artist felt upon creation of the work itself."
- So, you see, it is not just listening to an album until you know it cold. It is a phenomenon that requires participation from you. Once you know it cold, you must then decide that this is a place you want to enter, and then willingly and intentionally do so. Then it is up to you to experience the artists' emotions, and if this is something you want, it will then natuarally occur. The ability and potential to do that is built up simply by listening to the album over and over again until thorough understanding is achieved. After this, the action of experiencing the emotions commensurate to the artist, is always at the listeners' disposal, but will only happen if he wants it to without reservation. And if he wants it to happen, it will happen at will. For easier albums it will take less listens to build up to this point. For challenging ones it will take more listens. This is because the more a person confronts something, the more he gains the ability to understand it. The more he understands it, the more sensitive he becomes to be able to experience it and make it his own. Usually a person will just naturally want to experience that thing if he has already confronted it for so long, already worked up all this understanding, this affection for it. And in all cases so far, this has eventually held to be true, 1 for 1. But it should be noted that underscoring all of those cases was a listener who already wanted to do so, and already had adopted all of the prerequisites as described in this list/article, as well as following my advice on the order they should listen to the albums in. So, this all harks back at why the 'prerequisites' detailed in this list/article are so important and also illuminates why my greatest albums list is certainly not for everyone. Not everyone is willing to delve straight into the emotional experiences of others. There is too much vulnerability there, or it reveals too much about themselves. Or, it's too strange or frightenening. However, if they do want to, they will experience the emotions being expressed. It is integral to want to do this in order to 'get' the full results of the albums on this list. And doing so is a power of choice that only you can decide whether or not to do. Your ability or potential to understand could be said to be infinite. Your willingness to experience potentially is too, but it is an active decision first requiring that willingness.
- I want to give some examples to shed further light on these phenomena. I will take Rock Bottom, an album that has been the subject of much deliberation between some members of this site and myself recently. I want to illustrate precisely what I mean here, and the difference between "duplicating an album" and "getting an album".
- I've listened to Rock Bottom about 200 times. I first really 'got it' on the level described in the definition above, by about the 35th listen. At this point after 200 listens I love it more than ever. But, there have been many times since first 'getting it' where I haven't 'got it'. Huh? Let me explain. About 3 weeks ago I was listening to the album at work. I heard all of it, I knew it was there playing, but nothing really came of it for me. I wasn't moved or inspired by it. The album came out of the speakers, I listened, and it passed me by, and I put on another album. What happened? Well, during that particular listen I was distracted by work and was not "willingly and intentionally assuming commensurate position as the artists' own, willingly and intentionally adopting and experiencing the artists' personal vision, and thus experiencing commensurate emotional power as the artist felt upon creation of the work itself." I sure as hell had the first part of the definition down pat: "...the listener having arrived at a position of very thorough understanding of the artists' expressed emotions..." I arrived at that way back on the 35th listen, but for this particular listen of Rock Bottom I was not 'getting' it. I was listening to it and duplicating it and nothing more. Without your willingness and intention towards 'getting' the albums, nothing is likely to happen except for some great and interesting music playing.
- It is like this with any album. Some are much easier to be willing to delve into than others because there are less complications, they are already familiar and safe emotionally, and so forth.
- Let's take my position with The Beatles for instance. I certainly understand them and have listened to their albums hundreds of times. I used to 'get them' but now I no longer do. I could if I wanted to but I am no longer willing. I've been exposed to music that is far more important and worthwhile to me, and so consider it mostly to be a waste of valuable time to sit down with a Beatles album and go 'get it'. I don't consider the emotional experience they are communicating to be astonishing or profound enough to be worth 'getting it'. Someone else however could really want to hear and experience the type of music the Beatles play, and find that experience very worthwhile, so they, being willing, will now listen to The Beatles and not only understand them, but will 'get them' and have an experience commensurate to the emotion in which The Beatles are playing with (usually enthusiasm or the playful thrill of discovery). I could easily do the same, but I'd simply rather spend my time with new or singular emotions that are harder to come by. Because of my unwillingness to 'get' a Beatles album nowadays, I will almost uniformly find their music to be boring if someone were to play them in my vicinity, whereas if I chose to be willing to 'get it', I would then find the album to exhibit its actual emotional qualities. I would find A Hard Days Night to be fun, instead of boring. I would find Abbey Road, especially in the medley, to hold a build up of rather momentous excitement and eventual emotional release, instead of being boring. I know and have experienced the qualities in The Beatles albums (which is how I base my ratings of them), but I am no longer willing to spend the time and involvment 'getting them'. Pretty much any album rated a 7.25/10 or below in quality by me, despite being a good album, and my knowing this and having experienced it, is still so far below what I now want to spend my time experiencing with music, that instead of sounding as good as their rating to me, they will be boring due to my unwillingness to 'get them', as I sit there feeling that I could be using my listening time much more valuably.
- 2. YOU MUST BE WILLING AND DETERMINED TO 'GET' EACH AND EVERY ALBUM BEFORE BEGINNING THE LIST.
- It is important that you do not start off as a skeptic or someone who is "just trying to see if there is anything here that might be good". There are some who have tried it this way and it just doesn't work. Their first taste of failure and then cynicism kicks in, skepticism reigns, and they're toast. They will never make it since their skepticism grows by the mile as soon as they find an album difficult. So it is imperitive that you dedicate yourself beforehand to the list, because there are going to be bumps in the road. 'Getting' all these albums is no easy feat, but is extremely worthwhile to the wanting music listener. As you are the one who will be listening to the albums it is especially important that you have no back off on going up the list. You must be determined to experience and push through the barriers of 'getting' certain albums that have little prerequisite within your listening history. You must trust that there is an end in sight that each and every album holds the potential to sooner or later reveal itself to be amazing for you. Until 'getting' an album you should choose someone who's walked the same path with these albums. IMPORTANT NOTE: If you absolutely cannot put this much trust in my list before dedicating yourself to it, you should choose one of the easier albums from the list, such as The Doors, or Blonde On Blonde or maybe one you haven't heard, such as Spiderland or Desertshore (I've found Nico's Desertshore and Slint's Spiderland to both be somewhat unchallenging to most, as well as excellent representations for what kind of unique and profound music is in store for you on the list). Then, truly dedicate yourself exclusively to that album, listening to it as many times as necessary in a time span of relatively short succession, until you really 'get it'--until it blows you away, until it becomes a profound work of art for you. Then use this as motivation to do the rest of the list, preferably in the "recommended order". You should know that all of the albums are based on the same ratings scale so, while each and every one is quite different from the last, the same factors have been taken into account for each when determining their level of genius. This means that if you fall in love with one of them it is very reliable to expect to eventually fall in love with all of them.
- 3. YOU SHOULD ADOPT A PURPOSE FOR LISTENING TO MUSIC THAT IS FAR ABOVE MERELY "GETTING A KICK OUT OF IT" OR "HAVING A NICE TIME". WHILE THE ABOVE AREN'T BAD PURPOSES AT ALL, THEY ARE NAMBY-PAMBY COMPARED TO WHAT YOU SHOULD BE SHOOTING FOR ON THIS LIST. YOUR PURPOSE SHOULD BE IN LINE WITH OR SIMILAR TO THE FOLLOWING: "WANTING TO TRULY EXPERIENCE THE EFFECTS OF THE MOST SINGULAR, PROFOUND AND ASTONISHING JAZZ AND ROCK ALBUMS EVER CREATED".
- The reason why it should be this or something like this is because THAT is what these albums represent, so if this isn't what you're looking for, you shouldn't waste your time with my list. If it already is what you're looking for, then by all means, get moving on it. You will eventually be fulfilled more than you can probably imagine.
- 4. YOU MUST BE A SERIOUS ENOUGH MUSIC LISTENER TO WHERE YOU ARE WILLING AND INTERESTED IN DEVOTING A PORTION OF TIME FROM YOUR LIFE TO ATTENTIVELY LISTEN TO THESE ALBUMS.
- The less time you have the harder it is to truly move up the list. If you transport by riding the bus, bring a portable CD player and listen to these albums. If you have a CD player in your car, do the same. Listen to the music when you get ready in the morning...or in the evening, when you're cleaning your room, doing the dishes, etc. And by all means, make it go right and set aside some time to sit down and really listen to each and every album in an undisturbed environment where you can really focus on the music.
- 5. YOU MUST UNDERSTAND THE EMOTIONS IN MUSIC EXPRESSED THROUGH THE USE OF UNCONVENTIONAL AND FREELY COMPOSED SONG/TRACK STRUCTURES.
- Most commercial music, such as that found on the radio, is in predictable structures: verse-chorus-verse-chorus-bridge-chorus-repeat-end...or something like this. Songs usually have a few lines, one shift in momentum that leads into the chorus, and then a catchy chorus. It is important when doing this list to be willing and interested in taking unexpected detours and trips from these conventions, and to be willing and interested in engaging in much longer compositions on the norm. There are few common structures in the songs/tracks on this list. And there are many songs that extend past the 7 minute mark. I recommend you learn to take this as a blessing to experience more emotion from the artist. A long song can be a thing of awe and wonder, as incredible changes and moments of power often result when there is more room to speak artistically. Additionally, the following should be noted and understood: I find unconventional songs and structures to usually be far more emotional than songs that are short and conventional. With these you can tell that the artist put a lot more attention into the composition and it seems to be a much more personal communication to the listener as a result, since the detail he applies to making it different is a revelation of his own individuality. Compare this to a pop song where the performer often places basic melodies and less thought-provoking ideas into a rigidly formed structure that seems to limit his expression. An unconventional songs' structure is usually produced by and based on the emotional expression of the artist, whereas the emotional expression of the artist of a conventional, predictable song tends to be sacrificed in order to fit into its rigid structure and limited format. Simply put, uncoventional songs/tracks often allow an artist to truly express himself.
- 6. YOU SHOULD ALWAYS KEEP THE FOLLOWING DATA IN MIND WHILE LISTENING TO THESE ALBUMS. THIS POINT IS VERY IMPORTANT!
- Emotion will come out of all of these albums in the following ways:
- (A). INGENUITY: The albums will possess striking originality and unprecedented emotional capacity that will frequently be wholly new, and oftentimes completely outside regular human experience and interaction. IMPORTANT: This is something you should learn to cherish. There is a certain awe to an artist who is willing and dedicated to saying something that is truly original and totally his own. There is a sense of unveiled secrecy and awe towards something that is happening that has never happened before, that is a new discovery or feeling. When experiencing this, realize you are potentially having a new experience as regards art, and that you are adding to your life experience by now establishing new boundaries for yourself for what you are willing to experience.
- (B). EXPANSION OF CONTENT: The albums will often have songs/tracks and structures within songs/tracks that will shift and change and transform and take you to unexpected places, expounding on their emotional content the further they go. IMPORTANT: This is something to behold in awe and wonder. It is an incredible thing for an artist (whether a poet, writer, filmmaker, musician) to take an idea or theme and expand on it so thoroughly and continuously, as in an unrelenting stream-of-consciousness that causes each added, continuation and idea to become a new revelation that each previous idea seems to add to the power of a now massive thought which has unfolded with the power of a domino effect. There is an overwhelming nature and emotional depth that can be built up and experienced through change of pace, change of direction, and change of methods and ideas within the same song, track or album.
- (C). PROFUNDITY These albums will all have a certain profundity to them. They are either particularly powerful instrumentally, particularly powerful vocally, or both. By powerful or profound, I specifically mean "the degree and depth with which a musical expression affects one personally." Furthermore, it is characterized by: "the intensity of force or beauty as expressed from the artist vocally and/or instrumentally". IMPORTANT: You should constantly be attempting to experience the power/profundity in the music. The most tremendous, thunderous force is a thing of great power or profundity. The most tremendous, breathtaking beauty is a thing of great power and profundity. Either one could be considered equally desirable. You should look for each throughout these albums. A famous example of masterful power or profundity as expressed through tremendous force could be the first movement of Beethoven's 5th Symphony. A famous example of masterful power or profoundity as expressed through tremendous beauty could be the final movement chorale, "Ode To Joy", from Beethoven's 9th Symphony. If you haven't heard either of those examples by Beethoven, please find them on the internet or elsewhere, and listen to them so you get where I am coming from. It is especially vital you understand this.
- 7. YOU SHOULD LISTEN TO EACH AND EVERY ALBUM ON A GREAT SYSTEM AS MANY TIMES AS POSSIBLE.
- Listening to them on crappy systems or off low budget computer speakers is really a degrade to the quality of musical works you are encountering. I would never recommend listening to them this way, but if you must, I would only recommend doing so after you've reached a point where you thoroughly enjoy the album. Otherwise you are liable to ruin the experience beforehand and create an unnecessary hurdle in your road towards enjoying the album more. You should not only listen to them on a great system, you should enhance the listening experience at every opportunity by putting it at the correct settings and a loud, powerful volume. You should get as close as possible to feeling as if the artist is close to you without having it at a volume that is so loud it hurts your eardrums. You should also make sure you listen to the best version possible, such as those on SACD, the remastered version, or vinyl--whichever offers the highest quality and is the most user friendly for you (for instance, not everyone can play vinyl). If you are uncertain about the best versions, try to go to a place that offers free test listening before purchasing, so you can assess the quality of sound. Additionally, those albums that haven't been remastered and/or exhibit underwhelming punch in their recording, should be listened to extra loud or closely so as to more accurately bring out the fullness and dexterity of the music. Some current examples of this are Spiderland, Astral Weeks, Velvet Underground & Nico, The Modern Dance and Parable of Arable Land. The current CD versions of these would benefit with an upgrade in sound quality, but until that happens I suggest you crank up the volume or listen to them loud and close on headphones.
Author Comments:
TO BE CONTINUED...
You are aware that quite often, the latest remaster is absolutely not the best sounding version of an album, yes?
Shalom, y'all!
L. Bangs
Never happened to me but I don't doubt it. I'll edit as necessary. Thanks for the input LB.
No problem.
Some recent remasters are excellent, but some older CDs trump more recent fare. It is a hit and miss situation...
Shalom, y'all!
L. Bangs
Interesting. Do you know of any albums from my list that you feel have better previous versions than recent versions on CD?
I've heard there is a stellar original issue of A Love Supreme with a black triangle on the front, but I've not heard that one. The current issue sounds good to me, and the SACD is even nicer (I've both, as this is also one of my favorite records!).
The best Velvet Underground & Nico is the Mobile Fidelity Gold Disc, and the best Doors is easily the DCC gold disc (unfortunately, the current issue is a remix).
A number of your titles were issued on SACD, and I believe for all of them, that issue is the best sounding, but of course, many folks don't have an SACD player.
I've heard of an 1991 Japanese import of Ascension that trumps all other, but again, I cannot personally attest to that. It has both the original and the Coltrane-approved later take, as the current issue does.
Boy, for Soft Machine's Third, though, you certainly want the latest remaster...
Almost all audiophiles favor the original CD issue of Dolphy's Out to Lunch over the current issue, but again, I haven't heard the original. The current one does sound extremely over-bright to me, and that seems to be the common complaint.
Well, there's a few examples and opinions. For the rest, I don't know, I prefer the current issue, or I'm just lazy! :)
Shalom, y'all!
L. Bangs
L. is right. I don't know if it's true for specifics on your list, but CDs have a history of being poorly mastered. In the beginning, engineers were simply transferring the recordings using the same levels as the vinyl, but since analog and digital would produce different kinds of sound, doing this would result in a bad mid-range, and then the engineers overcompinsated and made it worse. So CDs that were put out in the mid-80s usually don't sound very good. Recently there's a similar trend where a sound engineer will simply turn up all the levels to give the listener a "powerful sound" instead of letting them turn up the volume. This results in a pretty murky and distorted sound. This is why I'm usually skeptical of recent remasters...some are really great (the Can remasters), but sometimes they just kill the sound and you're better off with the originals. Look up "loudness war" on wikipedia if you want more info.
Thanks LB and thanks JAMOOL. I am hoping to make a list of all the best CD versions of the albums so as to further help people do the list, so your help will likely assist with this.
"And in all cases so far, this has eventually held to be true, 1 for 1"
Of course it's eventually held to be true all the time. Because the only people who get the album are the people who listen to it enough times, and your definition of "enough times" is as many times as it takes to get the album!
Nevermind. I can't keep arguing with you over this. It's evidently impossible for any Scaruffi skeptic to ever understand what the hell you're talking about, because they don't have the willingness or intention to "get" the albums, and I'll never be able to come up with a counterexample you accept because you'll just say that whoever doesn't agree with you just hasn't listened to the albums enough, because you believe if they listened to the albums enough they would agree with you. It's maddening to try to argue with such circular logic, so I'm shutting up now.
That's good because I don't want to argue about it anymore either. I think we've used enough print on a subject that doesn't need it.
It might help you to know that I don't think this is the only way to listen to the list. You can listen to it any which way you want, or not at all. But it is just the only 100% successful way that I've observed. If the goal is to 'get' every album then why not write up how to be successful in doing that? That's the purpose of this list/article. This doesn't mean that being a skeptic or not applying the points listed above makes you wrong or anything of the sort. Noone has to follow what I've written. Anyone can do the list and only get some or half of the albums--the ones that immediately appeal to them. I don't really mind if that's what they want to do. But I think it's important to guide others that do want to 'get' every album in a direction that I've seen to be successful. If you don't 'get' an album than you've simply proven that these albums and my list aren't for everyone, which I've already stated. It is only 100% successful for those that want to do it the way I've described above, which obviously isn't everyone.
Have you ever considered or already tried 'getting' one of the easier albums to see if they could win you over and gain some trust in the rest of the list? Have you then tried doing the list in the recommended order, 'getting' each album as you go along?
Well, I'm certainly glad that there are many different paths to agreeing with you, even if the only way to ensure everyone agrees with you is to use your prescribed method.
I'm pretty sure I get Blonde on Blonde - I've certainly listened to it enough times. On the other hand, I can't be sure I experience the same thing you do when you "get" an album, so maybe I've never gotten it or any albums on your list. After all, while I do love "Sad-Eyed Lady of the Lowlands," it is not my favorite song on the album, and Scaruffi says it is his favorite Dylan song and thus it must be so, which according to you means I haven't listened to it enough. Even if I was sure that I "got" it, though, that wouldn't give me any faith in the rest of the list because it's not just the emotional content of music that impact whether or not I like it. There are other factors involved. Besides that, Blonde on Blonde has a pretty widespread appeal, unlike many of the other albums on your list. So no, I haven't tried doing the list in your recommended order. I'm personally frustrated enough talking to you about your perceived universality of your opinions, that I don't feel I need extra frustration trying to listen to Trout Mask Replica enough times for me to think it's the greatest rock album ever made. Perhaps I'll never get the the intense emotion conveyed by Robert Wyatt's line "trip trip pip pippy pippy pip pip landerim," nor will I willingly and intentionally experience the sucking on my ding-dong that is commensurate with the works of Lou Reed.
The answer to your question of whether you get Blonde On Blonde or any other album is:
(1) Whether or not you understand the emotions of the album.
(2) Whether or not you have experienced those emotions from a commensurate viewpoint as the artist.
The best way to answer this for yourself is to ask what Dylan is expressing and see if that is what you experience. But, neither I nor Scaruffi can give this or take this away from you. It is a personal thing.
I personally don't want to talk about the subject anymore either, except as concisely as necessary to address your own communication to me, including your perception that I perceive my opinions to be universal. I simply think everyone has the ability to understand and then 'get' any album, and that this is a choice of theirs. This has nothing to do with everyone agreeing with my opinion. This has everything to do with the ability of an individual to recognize, duplicate, understand and then experience another individuals' experience. This is a basic, and extremely important, human ability. It is a "skill" that everyone has, whether they use it or not.
I only made that first comment about agreeing with you because you're basically directing people to an experience and saying that once people have this experience, they'll have no choice but to agree with your opinion. I mean, you instantly assumed Feif Umgotnn didn't get Rock Bottom for no reason other than he didn't agree with your opinion that Rock Bottom is one of the greatest albums ever made. I didn't mean to imply that your only goal in all this is to get people to agree with you just for the sake of saying these people agree with you.
As for Blonde on Blonde, I don't know how you can simplify getting the album so much. While many aspects of Blonde on Blonde make it a unified album, I don't think that the emotions expressed in every song are in the same vein. I don't think "Rainy Day Women #12 and 35" expresses the same emotion as "Just Like a Woman," for example. Hence, how can I tell if I've experienced the album's emotion if some songs express different things than other songs, and some songs ring truer for me than others? If "Visions of Johanna" causes me to have an emotional experience but "Obviously Five Believers" doesn't, does that mean I don't get the album according to you? If I think "One of Us Must Know (Sooner or Later)" is a gorgeous song, and its beauty pleases me, and hence I feel happy, but the lyrics express the emotions of an aching heart, does that mean I don't get the album?
No, I instantly assumed he didn't get the album because he said that the 2nd and 3rd tracks don't work for him, which says to me that he isn't willingly and intentionally experiencing those emotions (this doesn't mean that he has to think they are masterpieces, just feel what Wyatt has felt. I am sure they were emotional for Wyatt, as they would be for Feif if he 'got' them). More importantly, he said that he didn't find the album to be complete, an indication that he hasn't yet understood the stream-of-consciousness and linear transformation of the emotional content which very clearly completes itself perhaps more thoroughly than any album ever created. I doubt he'll ever agree with me exactly on the album. He'll likely have a different experience towards it and in his own way share this with Wyatt. Saying our experiences would be exactly the same would probably be an absurd expectation (though I should note that all experiences I've observed of the album once 'gotten' have been very similar). I have no doubt that if he does 'get' the album he will find the emotional experience spiritual, miraculous, mysterious and overwhelmingly transforming on multiple levels, just as Wyatt has--but only because this is what Wyatt has experienced--not because it is my experience.
I never simplified Blonde On Blonde at all. I said emotions (pluralized). There are many different emotions in that album throughout each and every song. If you don't have an emotional experience at all with Obviously 5 Believers than yea, I would say that constitutes not 'getting' that song, but if your emotional experience is commensurate to that of Dylan's during that song, even if it is less relevant than that of Visions of Johanna, that would be 'getting' the song. Re: One of Us Must Know...I think it is clearly expressing both sadness and admiration of beauty equally so in my opinion you have or could 'get' that song, as it seems you do infact understand it.
As a note, lyrics can be important, but it is much more vital that one derives the emotion from the vocal or instrumental force or beauty than that of what the lyrics are saying. Infact, lyrics can be very misleading towards understanding the emotion, and they are often completely unnecessary even. It is important to go for understanding the emotion first, before worrying much about the lyrics. Only after understanding the emotions will the lyrics be read correctly. A lot like the difference between a great public speaker and a horrible public speaker delivering the same public address, yet both being a completely different experience. Someone who says "I love you" without conviction, gives the words little or even negative meaning. Someone who says it with conviction communicates the words as they're meant. Hence, the emotional delivery is much, much more important than the lyrical content.
I am getting the sense more and more that your definition of "getting" an album is very close to the definition of loving an album, so we are back to the circular logic again, where you are basically telling people to listen to an album until they think it's a masterpiece, and if they haven't listened to it enough times to think it's a masterpiece, they don't "get" it and hence their opinions aren't relevant. But you have a 100% success rate because everyone who has listened to an album enough to love it does love it, and anyone who hasn't listened to an album enough to love it just hasn't listened to it enough. Mind-boggling. Why didn't I stick to my word to stop talking about this?
Let me ask you this though. Isn't it easier to get what an artist is conveying if you know more about their personal life? I mean, when you were talking about Wyatt comparing his wife to his mother, I looked up more information about him and read a little more about the story of making Rock Bottom, which helped me understand it all a little better. Hell, if I had just known his wife's first name, it would have helped. This basic research I did, knowledge I gleaned from materials having nothing to do with the experience of actually listening to the album, would probably be more helpful in "getting" an album than simply listening to it over and over. But take Don Van Vliet on the other hand - I'm not aware of any story behind the emotions he is expressing on Trout Mask Replica; the same basic research I did for Wyatt proves fruitless for Van Vliet; and on top of that, Van Vliet liked to create myths about himself which would make it even harder to discover the truth. Don't these factors complicate your prescribed techniques?
I think I may put more emphasis on lyrical content than you, but for the most part I agree wholeheartedly with your third paragraph. If you meant that to respond to my constant citations of Robert Wyatt's gibberish and Lou Reed's ding-dong, you're right that my lyrical examples are less strong when taken in the proper context. I was being half-sarcastic anyway.
where you are basically telling people to listen to an album until they think it's a masterpiece, and if they haven't listened to it enough times to think it's a masterpiece, they don't "get" it and hence their opinions aren't relevant.
You know, you can stick to this for time immemorial if you want. I think I've done more than enough to explain this, and I've run out of ways to repeat myself. It's all up there on this list/article, #1 above. And like you said, I don't want to argue about this anymore. If you disagree, you disagree.
But you have a 100% success rate because everyone who has listened to an album enough to love it does love it, and anyone who hasn't listened to an album enough to love it just hasn't listened to it enough. Mind-boggling
I'm glad you don't think it's very complex as it was never meant to be. It really is very simple, and it is simply because what one confronts he will sooner or later understand. What one undestands he can experience. I have personally followed through on albums that I didn't like much at all when I first started, and come through to 'getting' them. I still have some I'm working on, but I've completed most of these. Others doing my list have done the same in many cases. I once had someone who didn't like Spirit of Eden much at all, after having listened to it a bunch over 2 months. I finally mentioned something about the emotion to him, and he then made sense of it. He listened to it a couple more times and was blown away. Similar thing just happened with another guy doing my list where he didn't favor Astral Weeks and Loveless. I had him start over on the list and do it in the recommended order (whereas before he'd just been borrowing randomly from me). When he got to Astral Weeks he got it in a few listens and then did the same with Loveless. He now considers each to be masterpieces and Astral Weeks one of the greatest albums of all time. Though of course helpful it is not necessary to even like the album at first, it is only necessary to be determined to 'get it' so initial impressions don't stop you from eventually doing so by listening to it as many times as necessary.
Let me ask you this though. Isn't it easier to get what an artist is conveying if you know more about their personal life?
Perhaps it could help. If it helps you to do that you should do it. But all there really is to it is understanding and experiencing the emotions being conveyed during the album, whether you know where they are derived from or not.
I think I may put more emphasis on lyrical content than you, but for the most part I agree wholeheartedly with your third paragraph. If you meant that to respond to my constant citations of Robert Wyatt's gibberish and Lou Reed's ding-dong, you're right that my lyrical examples are less strong when taken in the proper context. I was being half-sarcastic anyway.
Understood.
hahaha. I've been somewhat reading this discussion on the existence of objective masterpieces and Scaruffianism via the 'Recent Activity' page, and I've found the whole thing silly.
Metal is my thing. In my view, Burzum's Filosofem is one of the best metal albums of all time. But there's no way I would assume that if someone listened to it enough times they would like or 'get it'. Though the human mind is fairly adaptive. Someone could probably force/trick themselves into liking the album if they listened to it enough. However, I'm sure I can provide a list to ease you into it. Start you off with some later Metallica maybe work into some Dark Angel then into some early Bathory and Possessed; from there, we could go into second wave black metal like Mayhem and Emperor, then we'll take a detour into Ulver and some Bethlehem with some later Joyless/Forgotten Woods and early Graveland just for some laughs (early Graveland has the best sloppy drumming ever!), some Depresy for good measure, and, I don't know, Sunn O))) for some ear bleedage. After listening to each album by each band 666 times and Burzum's Filosofem on repeat for a year, then you'll 'get it' - maybe.
Well, I have too many albums to get to these days but I may take you up on your offer at a later time. Feel free to remind me a few months down the road.
I think you're misduplicating 'getting' the album. I guarentee you anyone that listened to it enough would understand the emotion of the album and be able to decide whether or not they wanted to experience that emotion. And I guarentee you that if they wanted to experience that emotion, and did so, that they would enjoy the album.
Why is this so difficult to come to grips with, even after I've written it in explicit detail above? Please tell me and perhaps I can edit as necessary.
Lucid, very lucid. Thanks. Indeed, the list isn't for everyone. I am glad I read this before starting out with your list. However...
I do beleive that music is a highly personal and objective experience, with no absolutes. It can't be treated with the same kind of clarity and ruthlessness like ..say, mathematics. With the same number, the sum adds up differently, depending on what theorem you use to solve it. In this sense, probably your statement that the ability of an individaul to experience emotions out of music is absolute makes more sense. If someone applies AfterHours' approach to listen to music, he is bound to arrive at the same conclusion as yours. If he uses AJ's way of listening and approach to music, he is bound to come to his conclusion. Everybody uses his theorem based on past experiences and current motives. What you are suggesting here is a detailed breakdown of your style of listening to music, to arrive at the same degree of appreciation as you. Correct me if I am wrong, but are you suggesting that this is the only way to arrive at the same love/appreciation of the album?
Also, the technical nitpicker in me is having a hard time to have any predispotion or pre set notion that 'I am going to love this album' before starting out. As AJ said, with that in mind , you are of course going to like it. For me, that is deceiving myself. It doesn't work for me, it might work for somebody else (..to say whether it is 'right' or 'wrong' is stupid). Music, for me, has always generated my love for it by itself. I can't go into listening music with a notion that I am going to like this.
That said, I DO beleive that a great number of re-listens are sometime essential to grasp and understand the artist's stlye of expression. Once you're past that stage, it is then you can appreciate the beauty of the music. Probably this will earn your displeasure, but my approach to the list will be : be blank, have NO expectations. Listen and re-listen till the style of the album is familiar to me. In that realization, try to experience what is beautiful about it. In a nutshell.
The example with your recent Rock Bottom experience resonated. I also pretty much agree with what you say about your Beatles expeience. However, I am curious - Did understanding the simpler emotions of the Beatles help you tackle the more complex ones of your 7+ albums?
I do beleive that music is a highly personal and objective experience, with no absolutes. It can't be treated with the same kind of clarity and ruthlessness like ..say, mathematics. With the same number, the sum adds up differently, depending on what theorem you use to solve it. In this sense, probably your statement that the ability of an individaul to experience emotions out of music is absolute makes more sense.
I agree with you here except where you say that "and objective experience". Was this a typo, meant to say "subjective"?
If someone applies AfterHours' approach to listen to music, he is bound to arrive at the same conclusion as yours.
No, he is bound to understand and end up experiencing the emotions of the artists at or near full capacity, and so it would be more accurate to say that he has arrived at commensurate conclusions/emotions as them.
Correct me if I am wrong, but are you suggesting that this is the only way to arrive at the same love/appreciation of the album?
I never suggested anything, except that it is the only way I've found that has always worked.
Also, the technical nitpicker in me is having a hard time to have any predispotion or pre set notion that 'I am going to love this album' before starting out. As AJ said, with that in mind , you are of course going to like it. For me, that is deceiving myself. It doesn't work for me, it might work for somebody else (..to say whether it is 'right' or 'wrong' is stupid). Music, for me, has always generated my love for it by itself. I can't go into listening music with a notion that I am going to like this.
All one needs to do is be determined to 'get' the album. It's a decision to be determined without reservation, not a decision about how you are going to feel. With many of these albums you will probably be astonished at how much they will change for you as you listen to them more and more, so to already have a preset condition on how you are going to feel would not work in most cases. All 'determined to get' the album implies is that he would be determined to listen to it numerous times (or as many as necessary) to reach a complete understanding, and then decide to experience that. If you want to 'get' every album you should have this mindset otherwise you will likely give up on some or many of them. They can be very challenging and unique.
That said, I DO beleive that a great number of re-listens are sometime essential to grasp and understand the artist's stlye of expression. Once you're past that stage, it is then you can appreciate the beauty of the music. Probably this will earn your displeasure, but my approach to the list will be : be blank, have NO expectations. Listen and re-listen till the style of the album is familiar to me. In that realization, try to experience what is beautiful about it. In a nutshell.
If your approach works, you should definitely use it. What works is all I am interested in. What works at as high percentage as possible is what I am most interested in.
However, I am curious - Did understanding the simpler emotions of the Beatles help you tackle the more complex ones of your 7+ albums?
No. The albums on this list bear virtually no resemblance to the Beatles, and it wouldn't have made an inkling of difference as to whether or not I heard them beforehand. Classical music masterpieces prepared me best. And then I had the intuition to listen to these rock/jazz albums in a fairly comfortable order. Above all, I was extremely determined from the outset towards 'getting' each one, and still am.
Was this a typo, meant to say "subjective"?
objective subjective. Yes, typo it was. I am glad you think so (about subjectivty of music that is) as well.
No, he is bound to understand and end up experiencing the emotions of the artists at or near full capacity, and so it would be more accurate to say that he has arrived at commensurate conclusions/emotions as them.
I daresay that IS your conclusion. Either way, you are right, I am right and we are saying the same thing. End of.
...except that it is the only way I've found that has always worked.
Ah, ok. That clears up any confusions I had.
On a wholly unrealted note - have you ever tried listening to electronic music seriously?
Was this a typo, meant to say "subjective"?
objective subjective. Yes, typo it was. I am glad you think so (about subjectivty of music that is) as well.
Good then, that makes sense.
No, he is bound to understand and end up experiencing the emotions of the artists at or near full capacity, and so it would be more accurate to say that he has arrived at commensurate conclusions/emotions as them.
I daresay that IS your conclusion. Either way, you are right, I am right and we are saying the same thing. End of.
Great. I am glad we have arrived at this conclusion.
...except that it is the only way I've found that has always worked.
Ah, ok. That clears up any confusions I had.
Excellent.
On a wholly unrealted note - have you ever tried listening to electronic music seriously?
Yes. You will find a handful of albums on the list that share electronic influences. You will also discover what I consider the greatest electronic album of them all: Irrlicht by Klaus Schulze. An astonishing masterpiece that actually manages to convey the mesmerizing beauty of the universe, as well as apocolyptic angst.
I think that both AfterHours and AJ make good points, but I am a serious skeptic of anyone who claims Limp Bizkit's Significant Other is as good as Abbey Road and better than Revolver, Sgt. Pepper, the White Album, and all the rest.
I do think that music can be more than just a quick fix and there are some amazing albums out there that are pretty obscure, but I wonder if "getting it" seems to mean "listening enough times that you can attribute vast emotions to the music". Here's one for you AJ - somewhere out on the internet lies a 7-page paper on the deep meaning of "Particle Man", how it represents the universe, religion, humanity, and everything. I remember reading something like 10-15 interpretations of the song, all wildly different and deep and emotional, but I think Linnell himself caught wind of all of this and said something completely different, that the song really didn't have a meaning, and was just a catchy song with silly lyrics.
AfterHours talks a lot about how you "get" an album when you understand all of his emotions that went into making the music. I can understand it in some cases such as Rock Bottom or VU & Nico, but some of it like Faust or Irrlicht I don't quite understand. Do you think all the members of Faust even really understood what they were doing? Do you think they spent any serious time even arranging the album, or just decided to let it come out as formless and random as they could make it? Like the people finding the meaning in Particle Man, I wouldn't be surprised if AfterHours or Scaruffi attributes more meaning to the songs than is really there, and thus, I begin to wonder...if Scaruffi took any avant-garde, cryptic, and obscure album, and sent it to the top of his list, how long before the Scaruffists here add it to the top of their lists as well?
I think that both AfterHours and AJ make good points, but I am a serious skeptic of anyone who claims Limp Bizkit's Significant Other is as good as Abbey Road and better than Revolver, Sgt. Pepper, the White Album, and all the rest.
Even if he is wrong here (and I will probably never find out, due to my natural aversion to a band like Limp Bizkit), his batting average is extremely high.
I do think that music can be more than just a quick fix and there are some amazing albums out there that are pretty obscure, but I wonder if "getting it" seems to mean "listening enough times that you can attribute vast emotions to the music".
I'm not surprised in your skepticism, but really, you're way off. It's obvious when looked at statistically: the only ones who feel this way are those who haven't 'got' the albums. They are either unwilling, or through various considerations, life experiences and so forth haven't developed or wanted to develop a mindset that would allow them to do so. This can be done by dropping the skepticism and going for it. Or it could probably be achieved very slowly (perhaps 10x longer) even with the skepticism. Using my "Recommended Order..." is an effective tool in gradiently getting into the albums, as long as one is honest with himself when doing so.
Here's one for you AJ - somewhere out on the internet lies a 7-page paper on the deep meaning of "Particle Man", how it represents the universe, religion, humanity, and everything. I remember reading something like 10-15 interpretations of the song, all wildly different and deep and emotional, but I think Linnell himself caught wind of all of this and said something completely different, that the song really didn't have a meaning, and was just a catchy song with silly lyrics.
I know this one is to AJ, and I am too busy to take the time to research what you're talking about, but I do want to say that the ultimate experience of the albums has little to do with the lyrics. The lyrics are a part of it, as the artist intended, but it is probably 50X more important to focus on the emotions--then the lyrics will be able to be looked at in the correct light, especially with albums such as Not Available, Rock Bottom, Trout Mask Replica--well actually, all of them really.
AfterHours talks a lot about how you "get" an album when you understand all of his emotions that went into making the music. I can understand it in some cases such as Rock Bottom or VU & Nico, but some of it like Faust or Irrlicht I don't quite understand.
You shouldn't even bother with these albums until you've amassed a better background in the avant-garde. This can be accomplished by going through the list as per the "Recommended Order..."
Do you think all the members of Faust even really understood what they were doing?
It is very clear that they did. The construction of the album is astonishing, in the form of a very fully conceived black mass. The miraculous logic of the album and its flow is one of the great wonders of musical history. This sort of thing cannot be done by accident, no more than Beethoven or Bach couldn't have composed a Catholic mass by accident.
Do you think they spent any serious time even arranging the album, or just decided to let it come out as formless and random as they could make it?
Once you 'get' it, it will take shape and won't seem so accidental. It is obvious by your comments that you've hardly listened to it.
Like the people finding the meaning in Particle Man, I wouldn't be surprised if AfterHours or Scaruffi attributes more meaning to the songs than is really there, and thus, I begin to wonder...if Scaruffi took any avant-garde, cryptic, and obscure album, and sent it to the top of his list, how long before the Scaruffists here add it to the top of their lists as well?
I think you have been very quick to assume things you haven't yet given much effort to. I think your questions would dissipate altogether if you dedicated yourself to the list, and honestly did it, preferably in the recommended order as I've posted. It's not worth wondering about something you haven't experienced, when you could just go experience it, which would in turn stop you from wondering about it. There's my token circular logic for the day (inspired by AJ of course).
Whatever an artist says or does, it is entirely upto you JAMOOL to take it the way you want to. So are you saying that if the makers of Faust told you that they made Faust as a theme song for castration of horses, you'll believe them? Maybe you will, I dunno. Whether or not the Faust band spent 'serious' time making it, the only thing of consequence is whether you like it.
I agree, and I'm not asking for him to change the things that he likes, but I think if the makers of Faust DID say they really didn't know what they were doing, or it was about ponies, or whatever, then it's interesting to see how much one person can seem to enjoy a work that even the artist doesn't think makes any sense.
However I don't quite "get" comments like "It's obvious according to your comments that you've hardly listened to it". Not so, according to iTunes I've listened to each track at least nine times, as well as twice in the car. It's not like I just heard it once in the background and decided it was crap. After all, I do like Faust quite a bit, I just think So Far and IV are a lot better.
The point I'm trying to get at here; and I apologize if this is mean-spirited, I really don't want to offend anyone, we're all music fans here, but I can't help but wonder if people think these albums are great merely because they're told so. An album like Pet Sounds or OK Computer or Revolver are easy to enjoy on one listen, and after several can become apparent as works of genius. But what of works like Faust, Irrlicht, Twin Infinitives, or Trout Mask? Much harder to comprehend. I put on Faust and hear some 'musical' elements, like a silly trumpet melody, a nice guitar solo, a short jam, but it's all kind of just thrown together with a bunch of feedback and other noise. Are all the songs on Trout Mask really provocative or is the only thing to the album just the overall wonky sound of it? Did the artists intend for these albums to be intense outpourings of emotion and spirit or did they just sort of throw them together randomly? I think the conclusion you reach is ultimately influenced by how you come across it. When AfterHours, the people who do his list, or anyone who reads Scaruffi or his followers hear of Faust, they hear it is a work of genius and they insist that if you don't like it you have "barely listened to it". When I heard of the band, all I knew about their first album was that it was very random and experimental, kind of fun, and Julian Cope loves it. Maybe if I had first heard of the album as, you know, one of the absolute greatest albums ever, maybe I would listen to it 400 more times and think, "okay, I think I understand it now...."
Personally, I feel like "Sing to God" by Cardiacs and "Point" by Cornelius are some of the greatest albums ever made, if you listen to them once and don't like it I'll say you should listen once or twice more, and if you still don't after that, I'm not going to insist that you have only scratched the surface and that it's a vast emotional outpouring that you can't understand. Take "Point"...when I listen to it, I can get very emotional. There's some real beautiful music on there. Now I love this album, but I can't say things like, "if everyone listened to it enough times, they would agree it's one of the best albums ever made". If I listened to Linkin Park a hundred times under the guise that it's a genius masterstroke I would probably wind up agreeing after a while, because I'm looking for the genius. If I listened to it a hundred times having been told over and over again that it's contrived, commercialized garbage, I would hate it.
Well, the reason I say this about Faust is because it is among the most challenging and confounding albums there is. When I first heard it, and even by the 9th time I didn't think it was a masterpiece, so to point this out to you is not meant as a degrading statement. It is merely to tell you that you're not alone. It is an incredible album if you:
a) become more acclimated to avant-garde by going through all the albums listed (or at least most of them)
b) listen to it a lot more on a great system (not your computer). Something 300+ watts really brings out the emotional force. Headphones are good too.
Okay so a few weeks later I'm still not sold on these albums entirely, but I did read the whole post again. I think this is just something that has to do with the things you value in music. Something I get when reading Scaruffi is that he seems to think it unfair that Beefheart and Schulze and Faust are fairly unknown while the Beatles are huge. AfterHours suggested that if everyone had given Beefheart a chance, he would certainly have been seen as one of the best musicians of all time, if not the best. Scaruffi states over and over on his Beatles page that they were still writing pop songs while Zappa and the Velvets and Pink Floyd were composing longer, more experimental pieces, as if THIS is the 'correct' way for music to be made. There's no denying that the Beatles are so widely acclaimed for their appeal, but I feel it is an art form in itself. I feel as though advertising is an art form too.
I think it takes a lot of talent to make music that is easy to enjoy. Lots of bands write simple tunes, but they're not very enjoyable. Music is either a way to make a living or entertainment, even if you do consider it 'high art'. I do think that the 'recommended order' to these albums is useful and can open up a whole different branch of music. The problem I have with it is that there seems to be this insistance that it will make 'pop' music seem worthless.
So let me pose a question, AfterHours - I have no idea how many copies Trout Mask has sold, but I'm guessing it's doing fairly well. Pretty much everyone 'well-versed- in music knows what it is. I know there are SOME that claim it the best album ever, but not all of them do. Do you think those people just need to listen more? Or do they just not understand it?
Well I am excited that you are diligently looking into this.
As for the Trout Mask question, I don't know, since I've never talked to these people. What I do know is that I am aware of about 5 or 6 people personally who've gone all the way with it, 'gotten' it and each one of them considers it one of the very best albums ever made, and The Beatles vastly inferior. Now, I doubt everyone will do this because each of those people who have seem to have a particular diligence, and an insatiable desire to experience very emotional, original and in-depth music. Somebody championing the Beatles is looking for something else.
If I may...
I have an album I would like you to hear. I think it's a pretty amazing album, and I'd like you opinion on it. Presumably, your methodical approach to listening -- close listening -- will bring you to the same conclusions regarding this work as I.
The album is "As the Roots Undo" by Circle Takes the Square. I've uploaded it here. If you'd be so kind...
Before I link to this, is this legal? If so, I wouldn't mind checking it out at all.
Also, a precaution: I will be overt and honest with how I feel about the album, and realize I will be comparing it to an extraordinary set of masterpieces I've exhaustively dedicated my time and energy to, as ranked on my greatest albums list. I've disappointed many when rating, reviewing or discussing their favorites, so please realize that I am extremely picky and if I don't feel it's a masterpiece, you shouldn't take it negatively. Yours, anyones, opinion is just as valuable and just as correct as mine.
So now, the original question: is it legal?
Link's only live for seven days. And I can squash it before then. So basically, it's the same as if I'd sent you a burned CD copy of it. No intent to distribute for profit, no intent to disseminate on a mass scale. Just a guy sharing something he likes with another guy.
And I'm merely interested in how your criteria apply to something that might be, say, outside your typical field. I honestly don't expect you to see it the way I do. But I might be surprised, who knows.
For whatever reason, when I tried to download it, it didn't show up on my computer afterwards. So I checked out some 30 second samples at allmusic.com and it sounded like it has some potential. Just based on those samples it sounds like it was heavily influenced by Type O Negative. It sounds pretty emotional, at least on a visceral level. Does it culminate in something particularly powerful or profound or is it mainly for thrills alone? Is it multi-dimensional emotionally or is it pretty much raucous doom metal plain and simple?
I downloaded it, though, of course, it wasn't meant for me. :)
I've listened to a couple songs so far. It's not too bad. I'm surprised I like it as much as I do after I saw the genre listed on Wikipedia as 'screamo'. It sounds like a hardcore equivalent of post-black metal. "Same Shade as Concrete" especially sounds like a post-black metal song. I'm not fond of some of the emo/screamo style vocals, but not too shabby.
You might be interested in checking out Ihsahn's solo album The Adversary. It's a post-black metal album that pulls from various other styles. It kind of grew on me after a while. If you can't find it floating around, I'll see about uploading it.
I think you are overrating the difficulty of these records.
The only "Scaruffi" albums that should take more than one or two listens to get are Parable, TMR, Faust, Y and Twin infinitives.
Even albums like Well oiled and Fare forward voyagers who are very diffirent than most are really easy on the ears, my girlfriend descriped Well oiled as background music when i was listening to it the other day.
I have to agree, that album has no difficult content.
I think your method, listening to the same album 200 times to fully get it, is not the best way to understand them.
Scaruffi knows why Faust/Rock bottom/TMR are so great not because he has listened to them 1000 times but because he has listened to other 1000 artist and probably never heard anything else like them.
I mean how can you give rating to say Nail without having heard Hole or better yet how can you rate Meredith Monk a 9/10 without having heard hundreds of avant garde artists?
It probably is true that if you don't like most of them within about three listens then more avant-garde rock albums are probably just not your thing. Although I would add The Modern Dance, Irrlicht and maybe Lorca because of the first half to that list that may take a few more listens. If, having come back to the albums having ditched them for a while a few times, you still don't like them, then it's probably best to just give up on them and move on. Better than listening to an album that does nothing for you hundreds of times.
The funny thing is, "WANTING TO TRULY EXPERIENCE THE EFFECTS OF THE MOST SINGULAR, PROFOUND AND ASTONISHING JAZZ AND ROCK ALBUMS EVER CREATED" has always been the same to me as "HAVING A NICE TIME" or "GETTING A KICK OUT OF IT". Maybe my idea of a nice time is different than some people's?