Jump to content


Photo

GOAT music debate stuff


  • Please log in to reply
110 replies to this topic

#41 ohtani's jacket

ohtani's jacket
  • DVDVR 80s Project
  • 5724 posts

Posted 23 January 2013 - 01:59 AM

I loved your film nerdery comment too. If there's one thing I've learnt it's that there's always someone who knows more about something than you do. Let's not blow our own horns too much.


Is it blowing your horn to say you are a big geek/nerd/whatever of something? I don't know.

There's always someone who knows more, for sure.

I like The Kinks too.


If you're using it as a defence for making contentious statements, I think it is. I'm sure you didn't mean much by it, but there's plenty of people here at this site who are heavily into movies and music. I don't think anywhere here is special in that regard. They won't say so, but there's a few people who posted in this thread who really know their stuff. Don't know that any of us really compare with Dylan, though. Not unless there's someone else who can read a book, watch a movie, do a podcast and write a review at the same time. And he even finds time to watch some wrestling.

#42 El-P

El-P
  • Members
  • 8865 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 23 January 2013 - 05:05 AM

I'm not touching this thread with a ten foot pole...

#43 JerryvonKramer

JerryvonKramer
  • DVDVR 80s Project
  • 11324 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 23 January 2013 - 05:09 AM

This is a little beside the point, but can Dylan really be engaged with the movie if he's doing two other things at the same time? I mean really engaged with it, emotionally engaged. I struggle to think so. I am happy to assume that everyone here is at the same levels as me when it comes to discussing these things. I was simply trying to get over the idea that these aren't lazy opinions I've just come up with on the spot and that maybe I've been down this road before about 100 a times or more. "I been down this road before, Senor".

@ SLL - I've said repeatedly in this thread that I don't want to have the argument so it's no use making long posts. My feeling is that Young, Led Zep, Stones are all tier 2 along with Bowie and a few other people. I have reasons for that. You can disagree, my feeling is that only two acts are in the conversation. I've also said that I consider Dylan an almost Shakespeare-level artist. To justify why I think this would require more words than anyone wants to read. And I'm not willing to put that much effort in when someone is just going to write "oh he can't sing" (another bugbear which is along the lines of "wrestling is fake" as a point) or "oh I'd rather listen to Animal Collective" after it. It's not worth it. It's not worth trying to convince anyone else of the same view. I've said this 6 times now already.

#44 JerryvonKramer

JerryvonKramer
  • DVDVR 80s Project
  • 11324 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 23 January 2013 - 05:34 AM

I also want to address the "Biggie only had 2 albums" talking point. As I said, I only consider one of those "great".

The Zombies have one knockout album (Odyssey and Oracle) that I would consider to be "Beatles level". So does David Ackles (American Gothic), so does Harry Nilsson (Aerial Ballet), so does Randy Newman (Sail Away, arguably Good Old Boys too), so do quite a few other acts.

Are we going to say The Zombies are on par with The Beatles on the strength of that one album? Do we put them in the "tier 2" conversation with Neil Young and David Bowie? Hardly seems fair. Kate Bush has 4 albums on that level, I don't see anyone pushing her case for GOAT.

I don't see why BIG should get a pass and I'd probably argue that Ready to Die is not as good as the albums I've just named. From hip-hop I'd say maybe Liquid Swords is.

There is this also phenomena to consider:

Most hip hop acts make one great album, usually their debut album, then struggle to replicate its success thereafter.


But then as OJ goes on to say:

Some go on a three or four album tear like Boogie Down Productions, EPMD, Kool G Rap and DJ Polo, Big Daddy Kane, Ice Cube, Gang Starr, Scarface, A Tribe Called Quest, De La Soul and whoever else I'm forgetting.


So when you are talking GOAT, I don't see how someone with 2 albums, only one of which is really great is going to get into the conversation.

If that is your bar, your conversation has about 1000 artists in it.

#45 Loss

Loss
  • Admins
  • 43477 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 23 January 2013 - 07:04 AM

It seems like people are being a little too tough on Jerry. He has praised quite a few artists of different genres in this thread. He just has his pick of who he thinks is a cut above the rest, which we likely all have. I don't see him writing off hip hop or jazz as much as I just see him explaining where he's coming from. I don't agree with his opinion necessarily, but just because he has an "obvious" answer doesn't mean he came to that conclusion in an obvious way.

#46 Eduardo

Eduardo
  • Members
  • 705 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Pharr, TX

Posted 23 January 2013 - 07:30 AM

I was going to make a lengthy tongue-in-cheek post about how José Alfredo Jiménez, and his prolific and influential songwriting compares to Bob Dylan but I couldn't phrase it right.

#47 ohtani's jacket

ohtani's jacket
  • DVDVR 80s Project
  • 5724 posts

Posted 23 January 2013 - 07:45 AM

I still don't get why albums are the metric. The Zombies' singles weren't commercially successful which denied them the opportunity to record LPs. Does that mean their singles don't rub shoulders with the Beatles or the Beach Boys? But if we're talking albums, a quick look at All Music Guide reveals: Bob Dylan -- 9 five star albums Miles Davis -- 18 five star albums Now there, that was no contest.

#48 MJH

MJH
  • Members
  • 908 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 23 January 2013 - 10:11 AM

Oh, shit, what the fuck have I started?

OK, a rephrasing: on any Popular music (that is stuff that doesn't have it's own section in an average record store, be it classical, jazz, country, folk, whatever - if someone was to say Miles > Bob I have no problem with that whatsoever) list of "greatest artists", The Beatles and Dylan are the de facto #1 and 2, usually with the former first but Bob might get the odd nod, with the Stones generally taking the third spot. As automatically as a figures-in-literature list would start with Shakespeare, and to put even, say, Homer on there ahead of him would be to court controversy.

#49 JerryvonKramer

JerryvonKramer
  • DVDVR 80s Project
  • 11324 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 23 January 2013 - 10:32 AM

OJ - Albums are not the only metric, but they are a strong metric. Allmusic didn't give Desire, Street Legal, Slow Train, Time Out of Mind, Love and Theft or Modern Times, 5 stars when many many publications did, but then they did give Nashville Skyline 5 stars which it doesn't always get. Jazz is not something I can pretend to understand. I don't understand it. It feels like a totally different ball game to me. I have said since day 1 that if someone wants to argue for Miles Davis, I would not object to him being in the conversation. It's the equivalent of someone arguing for a Lucha star when you haven't enjoyed the Lucha you've been exposed to and you haven't sought out a lot more of it. But I accept that Miles Davis is pimped on that level, that those who know a lot about jazz pimp him on that level, so I don't object to it. When it comes to a lot of the other non-jazz acts mentioned I've rated and assessed them all in time and come to my conclusion. I'm happy to discuss how we go about rating these things. Even happy to discuss other acts and their pro and cons. I don't want to discuss the Dylan GOAT case itself or why I consider him as #1. Simple reason being that I really don't enjoy it. It's as bad for me, as talking to non-wrestling fans about wrestling or nails on a chalk board. I find it actively painful.

#50 El-P

El-P
  • Members
  • 8865 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 23 January 2013 - 11:09 AM

Since when Allmusic's ratings mean anything whatsoever ? I mean, seriously people. And arguing about metrics in art, even popular art, seems totally irrelevant to me. As does GOAT discussion on the matter, really.

#51 Badlittlekitten

Badlittlekitten
  • Members
  • 662 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:London

Posted 23 January 2013 - 11:15 AM

Since when Allmusic's ratings mean anything whatsoever ? I mean, seriously people. And arguing about metrics in art, even popular art, seems totally irrelevant to me. As does GOAT discussion on the matter, really.


I was in the middle of a long winded response but thanks for saying pretty much what I was going for in a succinct way.

You can't measure the quality of music at all which is why the comparison to goat wrestlers is uncharacteristically stupid for this forum.

#52 S.L.L.

S.L.L.

    Grapz Opinionz 4 Y00z From J00z

  • DVDVR 80s Project
  • 2217 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Long Island
  • Interests:The Good and The Beautiful

Posted 23 January 2013 - 11:27 AM

It seems like people are being a little too tough on Jerry. He has praised quite a few artists of different genres in this thread. He just has his pick of who he thinks is a cut above the rest, which we likely all have. I don't see him writing off hip hop or jazz as much as I just see him explaining where he's coming from. I don't agree with his opinion necessarily, but just because he has an "obvious" answer doesn't mean he came to that conclusion in an obvious way.


I don't want to pick on Jerry. He seems like a nice enough guy, and he's capable of contributing positively to the board.

Also - and I shouldn't speak for others - I don't think anyone takes issue to him having obvious answers. I added the Stones, Zep, and Neil Young to the discussion. Those guys aren't really any less obvious than the Beatles or Dylan. A lot of times, answers are obvious because they're right.

I think the problem is this:

I don't want to derail this thread, but I don't think there's any argument at all to put Charles, Brown, Crosby or Armstrong (or indeed Sinatra) in the same conversation as Dylan or the Beatles.


No argument? None at all? That sounds awfully definitive for something that doesn't even begin to look like an open and shut case.

I can see real jazz fans making an argument for Miles Davis, but then you're getting into a different ballpark.


It's "GOAT music". Jazz is a different ballpark than music? You can't compare music to music?

I have listened to every album by all of the people named there and they are not at Dylan levels peak or otherwise. Beatles are a rare case of only being peak.


Albums? Those guys all came to the fore before LPs were the dominant medium in music. Does "listening to all their albums" mean you listened to all their compilations, including the redundant ones? Or does it mean you never listened to Louie's Hot Fives/Hot Sevens? And either way, why would you subject yourself to that much Louie in the first place when....

I can see real jazz fans making an argument for Miles Davis, but then you're getting into a different ballpark.


....not to mention....

(I have no truck with jazz myself, just don't get it)


Louis Armstrong wasn't a jazz musician?

I am the wrong person to try to argue this with since I'm one of the biggest hip-hop fans going.


So other hip-hop fans can't make arguments? Your hip-hop fandom is so far above and beyond that of anyone else on the board that none should even dare discuss the matter without fear of being struck down by your untouchable understanding of the genre?

Also, I think he may have broken WildPegasus' record for the most times someone has "left the thread" without actually leaving the thread:

This is Pro Wrestling Only so I have nothing else to say on music.

I will not discuss music anymore because I believe it's against the rules to go this off topic.

We must stop this now. PM me if you must, but this is going too far. We should stick to wrestling.

I am really not keen to discuss this further.

I've said my piece now.

You know, let's just forget this. It's not worth it.

I've said repeatedly in this thread that I don't want to have the argument so it's no use making long posts.


Then why did you ever post in the first place?

That's a new trick from him. The rest...not so much, and it's showing up in his posts all too often. I disagree with what Jerry has to say often, but I don't object to him having a different opinion than my own. No, it's the tone. Jerry said he's not a preacher, but he sure comes off as one in thread after thread. So often, he comes into a thread trying to position himself as smarter than the room, talking down to us like he's trying to enlighten the unwashed masses, and backing it with an intellectual authority he doesn't actually have ("absurdism" and "Dadaism" do not just mean "weird for the sake of weird", Jerry). The fact that he's still pushing the whole "C'mon, guys! We really have to judge wrestlers' promos and angles equally to their matches!" thing on us after all these years when most would just accept that we have differing views and move on is something I can't see as anything other than preachy, not to mention a little desperate and pathetic.

Again, I don't want to find Jerry so frustrating. He's not WildPegasus. He's not anarchistxx. He's not Rob Bihari. And when he says he's not a preacher, I'm sure he doesn't want to be one. But I emphasize the word "want". I'm sure none of the things I find grating about him are intentional, and if nothing else, that's probably more than can be said about the things people find grating about me. But when people complain about me being a smug douchebag, I can't really argue it's without cause, or that I don't deserve it, or that people are being too hard on me.

It seems like people are being a little too tough on Jerry.


It seems like Jerry is bringing it on himself.

#53 El-P

El-P
  • Members
  • 8865 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 23 January 2013 - 11:32 AM

I'll add that some people are technically able to judge music, and they will tell you that what you think is great is pure crap to their hears. Because they have a totaly different perception. I'm taking about people working in high level music academy for instance. I had tons of exchange with a guy like that. He's classicaly trained, he teaches music at a conservatoire, all kind of musics, he worked with modern composers like Pierre Boulez and such. He can talk heavy metal, techno, pop, hip-hop or jazz, whatever style you want to. Well, that guy just doesn't understand some music because of his actual ability to technically understand composition, some lo-fi stuff like folk or blues or garage punk he just can't handle and think it has zero interest. We never talked Bob Dylan, and maybe he would say good things about him. Maybe he would say his guitar work his shit and totally uninteresting. On the other hand, some stuff he loves I find totally flat and bland and boring, it just doesn't resonate with me on any level, on the contrary I find some of the stuff he loves quite ugly (and I don't mean because I don't feel like I can understand it, no, I mean ugly or bland period). And then we agree and tons of stuff too, especially in the realm of house and techno, despite the fact I have absolutely *zero* knowledge, I mean real technical knowledge, about music and composition. We don't hear the same thing. And sometime we do, in a different way. So yeah, using metrics and star rating for pop-music, or art in general seems just pretty useless to me. There's so much subjectivity in all of this, so much sensitive, social, psychological, sentimental issues that goes along perception of music. (For the record, I couldn't care less about the Rolling Stones or Bob Dylan for instance. I probably love tons of people who love the Stones and Bob Dylan, but as a huge music fan, I have no interest in listening to them directly, really. Maybe one day for some reason I will, and then will love them. But certainly not because Allmusic or Rolling Stones tell me they are the GOAT because of metrics.)

#54 JerryvonKramer

JerryvonKramer
  • DVDVR 80s Project
  • 11324 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 23 January 2013 - 12:06 PM

It's a surprise to me that on this forum I'd I come across "in thread after thread" like I'm trying to put myself over as "smarter than the room". Especially when my general feeling is that I'm posting on a board where everyone knows more about wrestling than I do and this is basically the only time I've ever discussed something outside of wrestling.

#55 Dylan Waco

Dylan Waco
  • Moderators
  • 10173 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 23 January 2013 - 12:12 PM

Too much hip-hop discussion without mention of Poor Righteous Teachers is something I instantaneously find annoying. Arm Leg Leg Arm Head didn't start with Nas or Wu Tang (or arguably even PRT but whatever). Also I'm a good multi-tasker, but OJ is giving me too much credit. Movies are sometimes hard to follow while doing other things, though not impossible depending on the movie. I also don't consider myself a big movie guy even though I have watched a ton and at one point was paid to review them. Books and music? Well yeah on that score I'm pretty insane with what I have read/heard, own and no a good bit about. But I've worked around both for huge chunks of my life and have other advantages. More to the point I generally don't enjoy talking about them online for reasons that are hard to articulate. But that's enough about me. Phil Ochs > Bob Dylan.

#56 tomk

tomk
  • DVDVR 80s Project
  • 1365 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 23 January 2013 - 12:20 PM

BIG made 2 albums in his career. Two.


Cher is the Jumbo Tsuruta of popular music constantly able to adjust her work to stay relevant as popular music styles change.
She is the only artist to have a number one single on a billboard chart in each of the last six decades.

If the metric we want to use is relevant output, than really no one is up at that level.

#57 JerryvonKramer

JerryvonKramer
  • DVDVR 80s Project
  • 11324 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 23 January 2013 - 12:26 PM

El-P is right that art can't be quantified and it's all subjective. That is the ultimate answer. I'm going have a shower and put this thread behind me, regret ever getting involved in it.

#58 tomk

tomk
  • DVDVR 80s Project
  • 1365 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 23 January 2013 - 12:26 PM

Also, Americans obsession with turning music discussions into a race baiting contest is seriously fucking sad.



If this is in response to my initial post, I didn't mean that to be race baiting.

If you would rather I can rewrite that as:

That's if you're too myopic to listen to non-English speaking artists like Chavela or Jacques Brel, or to listen to music from different eras like Bing Crosby or John Phillip Sousa.

The goal should be to expose yourself to a larger net of candidates from variety of cultures and eras

.

The history of popular music world wide is huge.

#59 tomk

tomk
  • DVDVR 80s Project
  • 1365 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 23 January 2013 - 12:30 PM

I do not believe I have ever heard a Bob Dylan song - or if I have I didn't know it was Bob Dylan.


This is Dylan's spectacular cover of "It Must Be Santa".



#60 tomk

tomk
  • DVDVR 80s Project
  • 1365 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 23 January 2013 - 12:40 PM

I still don't get why albums are the metric. The Zombies' singles weren't commercially successful which denied them the opportunity to record LPs. Does that mean their singles don't rub shoulders with the Beatles or the Beach Boys?


Yes this. The LP was something invented originally to play classical pieces and soundtracks, eventually some guy in marketing realized "hey we can charge people more money if we use this LP format to compile pop singles with some filler that wouldn't sell as single". There was then a real brief period where some artists tried to experiment within the album format to make it more than a compilation of singles and stuff that wouldn't work as single. We'll call that period the LP period.

It's a really brief period.

After that people went back into concentrating more of their attention on songcraft for singles, and the real only people who cared about album formating were people who were working in a style that was derivative of/inspired by the LP period. Then of course the dance 12 inch came along and well the casette tape allowed for more music/between song skits/etc.

The LP period is a blip in history of pop music.

If you did a list of best radio dramas, most of them would come from the 40s or be highly derivative of radio dramas from the 40s.

A list of best radio dramas wouldn't really tell you much about the quality of 20th century drama.

Artists whose work is associated with the LP period will have higher rated LPS than folks who arent. Not sure why the artist with the most high star Albums means anything more than the artist with the highest rated 12 inch EPs, best Edison rolls, best cassette only releases, or best flexi-discs.

The Beatles didn't release any highly ranked 12 inch eps or Edison rolls.
The Album period is really a tiny period in the history of pop music, it's like using highest star rating for three way dances as metric for GOAT wrestler.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users