Easily My Album Of The Year

3 hours ago, AudioDoctor said:

 

But, that's because it's only my opinion. I know someone who would vehemently disagree with me and think Nickelback is far superior. That was my point.

I understand that's your point, but I disagree.  Mainly because I don't think you're the only one with your opinion, and also that some opinions are worth more than others.

Can we agree that The Beatles and Dylan wrote better songs than just about anybody else?  That Miles and Louis were among the very best horn players?  That Springsteen is transcendent live?  Just about anyone who understands and appreciates modern music would acknowledge these, regardless of their personal taste.  Now we just need a few minutes to rank the next 500 or so...

2 minutes ago, PeterG said:

Can we agree that The Beatles and Dylan wrote better songs than just about anybody else?  That Miles and Louis were among the very best horn players?  That Springsteen is transcendent live?  Just about anyone who understands and appreciates modern music would acknowledge these, regardless of their personal taste. 

I’m being 100% serious when I say that I disagree. Not being argumentative or anything, just that it’s all subjective. Ask the new leaders of Afghanistan what they think about the aforementioned artists. 
 

The Beatles and Dylan wrote songs that many people like. That’s it. They can’t be better because not everyone was playing the same part / role. 

2 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

I’m being 100% serious when I say that I disagree. Not being argumentative or anything, just that it’s all subjective. Ask the new leaders of Afghanistan what they think about the aforementioned artists. 
 

The Beatles and Dylan wrote songs that many people like. That’s it. They can’t be better because not everyone was playing the same part / role. 

You're killin' me...

Taking the easy one first--I did include a caveat on understanding and appreciating modern music.  So the Taliban (and Nickelback fans, haha) don't count.

One way to think about The Beatles, Dylan, Miles, Picasso, Hemingway...is that they created things that touched millions of people in a profound way over many decades; and can also be understood in intellectual, analytical, and historical ways that are deep.  This is very different than selling a lot of records or concert tickets

13 minutes ago, PeterG said:

I understand that's your point, but I disagree.  Mainly because I don't think you're the only one with your opinion, and also that some opinions are worth more than others.

 

Everyone will have different opinions on the worthiness of an opinion as well... where do you draw the line? regarding art/music it is purely subjective.

1 minute ago, PeterG said:

 

You're killin' me...

 

Taking the easy one first--I did include a caveat on understanding and appreciating modern music.  So the Taliban (and Nickelback fans, haha) don't count.

 

One way to think about The Beatles, Dylan, Miles, Picasso, Hemingway...is that they created things that touched millions of people in a profound way over many decades; and can also be understood in intellectual, analytical, and historical ways that are deep.  This is very different than selling a lot of records or concert tickets

Oh no, not trying to kill ya :~)

I love the intellectual conversation. 
 

For every artist like the ones you mention, there are probably several who could’ve touched people equally or even more. Those ones just happened to gain popularity. If the Beatles were 500 lbs. obese men from Minnesota, do you think they would’ve touched as many people?

I agree those artists impacted many people, but that’s what they did. Their art wasn’t better or worse than other art. 

9 minutes ago, AudioDoctor said:

 

Jeff Buckleys cover of Leonard Cohens Hallelujah is a great example of that.

8 minutes ago, kumakuma said:

 

Here's another example of how to transform the familiar into something completely new and original.

 

Anyone who can't see the artistry in this is dead to me... 👺

 

 

She also ruined, uhm, I meant covered, The First Time Ever I Saw Your Face and I don't like it at all despite thinking it had great potential.

Just now, The Computer Audiophile said:

I know which version I like, but I have friends who’d go for this one every time. 
 

 

Definitely my favorite cover of all time.

5 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

Oh no, not trying to kill ya :~)

 

I love the intellectual conversation. 
 

For every artist like the ones you mention, there are probably several who could’ve touched people equally or even more. Those ones just happened to gain popularity. If the Beatles were 500 lbs. obese men from Minnesota, do you think they would’ve touched as many people?

 

I agree those artists impacted many people, but that’s what they did. Their art wasn’t better or worse than other art. 

I enjoy it too.

Mavis Staples is an obese woman from Chicago--she so good she makes me cry.

The role of art is to touch people and bring them deeper understanding and/or joy.  It is the ability to impact a thoughtful person that makes it great art.  Don't people vary in their ability to do this?

5 minutes ago, AudioDoctor said:

 

She also ruined, uhm, I meant covered, The First Time Ever I Saw Your Face and I don't like it at all despite thinking it had great potential.

Just heard for the first time. Certainly a different take on the song.

4 minutes ago, PeterG said:

 

I enjoy it too.

 

Mavis Staples is an obese woman from Chicago--she so good she makes me cry.

 

The role of art is to touch people and bring them deeper understanding and/or joy.  It is the ability to impact a thoughtful person that makes it great art.  Don't people vary in their ability to do this?

Mavis is a dang legend that I can’t live without. Love her. 
 

There is no single role for art. I know the huge role it plays in my life and the roles it has played the world over throughout the ages, but it can’t be distilled down to a single or several roles. 

Art on another level. 
 

33 minutes ago, kumakuma said:

 

The video of Bill Shatner singing is certainly proof of this...

Don't judge me...  ;-)

3 hours ago, AudioDoctor said:

 

Everyone will have different opinions on the worthiness of an opinion as well... where do you draw the line? regarding art/music it is purely subjective.

 If music/art is purely subjective, then what’s the big deal for a given artist to be inducted into the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame?  Are they inducted purely on the subjectivity of the 38 individuals who vote, or do they have some guiding principles, dare I say absolutes in determining who gets inducted?  
    I am not saying subjectivity dose not play a role in determining what I like or don’t like. But there is the reality called talent, a voice being pitch perfect, levels of proficiency in mastering a instrument. In all human endeavors, abilities, talent, giftedness, and discipline is not a matter of subjectivity; otherwise mediocrity would be the standard. 
 Sam

29 minutes ago, shum3s said:

 If music/art is purely subjective, then what’s the big deal for a given artist to be inducted into the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame?  Are they inducted purely on the subjectivity of the 38 individuals who vote, or do they have some guiding principles, dare I say absolutes in determining who gets inducted?  
    I am not saying subjectivity dose not play a role in determining what I like or don’t like. But there is the reality called talent, a voice being pitch perfect, levels of proficiency in mastering a instrument. In all human endeavors, abilities, talent, giftedness, and discipline is not a matter of subjectivity; otherwise mediocrity would be the standard. 
 Sam

Then how do you explain Nickelback? Or any of the awful bands just like them?

17 minutes ago, AudioDoctor said:

otherwise mediocrity would be the standard. 

Actually, it usually is. 

4 hours ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

I agree those artists impacted many people, but that’s what they did. Their art wasn’t better or worse than other art.

I'd say any artist who impacted many people over a long period of time can be said to be "better" than someone who didn't.

Say, compared to "one hit wonders" where almost no one remembers them or their song. 

7 hours ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

It’s art, there’s no such thing as appropriate. 

Then there's no point in reading any music reviews? We cannot express an opinion about "art"?

Maybe mine was not well articulated, or the term "appropriate" was not well chosen. 

Regardless, sharing your enthusiasm about this album is great, but you should be open to reading negative opinions as well. It's all meant to be fun...