Jump to content
IGNORED

Article: Easily My Album Of The Year


Recommended Posts

4 hours ago, hopkins said:

Hope its ok to give a more "nuanced" appreciation of this album. Her singing is really not my cup of tea ! It sounds "strained", and everything is "over sung". This type of singing is unfortunately popular nowadays (see, for example,  Cecile McLorin Salvant). Every track is an opportunity for the singer to demonstrate her prowess, with completely unnecessary shifts in octaves from one note to the other, that really don't add anything and do not convey any real "emotion".

 

The Bandcamp notes state: "Reflecting influences as varied as Billie Holiday, Gladys Knight, Tina Turner and Chaka Khan...". Really ? The results are very very far from the performance of any of those singers.

 

Moreover, the music is not terribly exciting...

 

All this seems like a very well packaged product, but without much substance behind all the hype.

 

We can't all like the same things 😁

 

 

Although, with all due respect, this is not really a nuanced critique--it's just a pan with no recognition of it's strengths. 

 

When you say unfortunately "popular" like Cecile McLorin Salvant, you confuse me--there is no one else on the planet who sings like Cecile.  

 

"Unnecessary"?  It's art--it's all unnecessary.  But you are right that it's showing off--in the same way that all memorable lead musicians show off.  It's just that almost none of them can jump octaves with their voices as if they were piano keys.

 

Perfectly fine for this to not be your cup of tea.  But there's no reason to disparage her or the world's greatest living jazz singer

 

 

Link to comment
2 minutes ago, AudioDoctor said:

While I'll admit she has an amazing voice... how she uses it and how the music is performed are not to my liking. I only say this to highlight the fact that which artist or music someone likes is 100% subjective and none are better or worse. There are people who actually like Nickelback... As hard as that is for me to comprehend.

This is a "nuanced" review of Cecile.  Cheers!

 

But I disagree that "none are better or worse".  You've noted that Cecile is far more skilled that most...and that Nickelback are far less

Link to comment
50 minutes ago, hopkins said:

Sorry, one last post to clarify things. It is easy to confuse technique with artistry. I'm not saying Salvant does not have technique! Here's a glaring contemporary example: Lady Gaga and the great Tony Bennett. I'm sure a lot of people consider Lady Gaga to be a good singer, but she is horrible in this version of "Cheek to Cheek" and destroys the song with her operatic delivery and lack of "swing". It is comical, but in fact sad to see that in his old age Bennett does not have the lucidity to avoid being involved in this. However much I like Lady Gaga, she should back off and show more respect.. 

 

Cecile has clear influences, such as Ella, but no one else doing what she does, so it baffles me that you could suggest she's not an artist, even if you do not like her.  

 

Baffled again on why you would reference Tony and Gaga--both have wonderful style, but I have never thought of either for great artistry or technique.  

Link to comment
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...

 

Link to comment
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

Link to comment
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?

Link to comment
44 minutes ago, MarkusBarkus said:

Honestly, no offense intended, really...but this is a very Western/intellectual position.
 

I have no axe to grind with either group, or with the estate of Mr. Rothko, but would it be a reach to think it would be easy to find "humans" from various cultures and backgrounds that wouldn't think any particular piece of art (including music here since we're in this thread) was...artful, beautiful, exciting, etc.? 
 

Art and culture and intelligence and emotion are a real jumble to decipher.

 

 

 

No offense here either, but this is wrong in a Western-centric sort of way.

 

One of my caveats in one of the first posts on this theme was that a person had to have an understanding and appreciation of modern music--anyone who had this understanding would concede The Beatles were among the very best.  So I agree that a person from another culture might not find Western art great. 

 

But it is not the case that non-Westerners cannot differentiate or rank art--they would have their own culture, art, and history behind them.  They would be able to differentiate and rank their own culture's art. 

Link to comment
10 minutes ago, MarkusBarkus said:

I ran a race in the 70s and the prize was Born to Run. I was crushed. I put it in my mom's oven on a cookie sheet and melted it. And I never really liked the Beatles either, since I'm sharing.

 

Let's say we agree on the cross cultural post.  I would have liked your whole post, but I think Born to Run may be the greatest pure rock record of all time.  It captures the angst and hope, the despair and the dream,  in every one of us

Link to comment
1 hour ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

Hi Peter, this is a good place to dig in. If The Beatles were among the best, what were they best at and what are the judging criteria?

 

Serious. It's an interesting thing to look at. 

 

OK, I agree.  But they did so much so well, and it may be too complex for me to articulate.  How about I start with an easier, because it's much narrower, example--Bob Dylan's lyrics.

 

They have spoken to millions about deep important themes, central to us in a wide variety of ways.  They did this in a way that nobody else did before, or has been able to reproduce since.  They resonate both emotionally and intellectually.  It's especially cool that so many are ambiguous and open to interpretation.  Among the people they have inspired are a seemingly endless stream of artists and other experts. 

 

(Ok, as I write this, maybe I'll apply the previous paragraph as my answer to The Beatles)

 

A few examples just off the top of my head--you could dive into these and not ponder for hours:

 

Like a Rolling Stone

Highway 61

Desolation Row

A Hard Rain's A Gonna Fall

Blowin in the Wind

Blood on the Tracks (all of it)

Visions of Johanna

Hurricane

 

Looking forward to your and others' thoughts

 

Link to comment
2 hours ago, Jud said:


Well of course there *is* nothing objective about art. (Yes, the last chord of the Beatles’ “She Loves You” hadn’t been heard in popular music before, and there are other examples of their innovations. But lots of artists tried innovations over the years that weren’t accepted.)

 

Art is simply what inspires. It can be joy, like rock ‘n’ roll; it can be anger and tears, like Picasso’s “Guernica.” So the only measure of art is people’s subjective reactions. Looking for some objective, unemotional measure is not only fruitless, it’s wrongheaded because objective unemotional measures can’t tell us whether what we’re seeing, hearing or reading is art, let alone good art.

I agree with what you've written, but you've kind of straw-manned me twice.

 

First, if The Beatles had stopped at "She Loves You", I would not have used them as models of innovation.  I'm pretty sure that's obvious.

 

Second, I did not propose that we could measure art or emotional reactions.  But as others have noted above, I believe we can rank art, at least in broad strokes, from better to worse.

 

I also notice that you use the phrase "good art".  If some art is "good", I hope you'll agree that some other art is better, and some is best.

Link to comment
5 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

To some people, absolutely. 

A little ironic from a person who makes his living in part by opining on the relative beauty of sound.

 

If someone told you at a cocktail party that Bose speakers are awesome, my guess is that you'd smile politely, but tell yourself that they do not understand what awesome really is, or even what hifi is in 2021.  If you liked them, maybe you'd invite them over for a listen.

 

I have a similar reaction when someone lauds Britney as a great singer

 

 

Link to comment
4 hours ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

Dylan, one of my favorites, and not only because he is from Minnesota :~)

 

I agree he did all of those things and many of us think his lyrics are fantastic. However, we haven't established objective criteria that makes his lyrics better than any other lyrics. Or at least I didn't see that in your post. I am a bit slow sometimes :~)

 

If we take some of your items like 1) they have spoken to millions, did it in a way nobody else did, etc... I see these as facts describing what he did, not objective criteria with which to judge art. 

 

Dang he is good :~)

 

It is those "facts describing what he did"--the ability to speak to millions...deeply...emotionally... intellectually...for an extended period of time--that make Dylan, The Beatles, Nina Simone, Picasso, Hemingway... great artists.  Britney Spears may speak to millions, but she does not speak deeply or intellectually.

 

These are objective criteria.  We may debate how each "scores" on each of them, but we do have a general consensus on who's at the top, middle and bottom of the rankings.  

 

 

Link to comment
10 hours ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

 

I think my major hold up is that in order for something or someone to be better at something than another, both must be attempting the exact same thing. For example, if two artists are asked to paint the Eiffel Tower on a 24x36 canvas and make it look as realistic as possible, using the exact same materials and tools. Then, we may find out who is better at painting the Eiffel Tower on a 24x36 canvas and making it look as realistic as possible, using the exact same materials and tools. 

 

This is more literal and strict than I meant.  I agree that art is not a competitive sport, and that we cannot be precise.  So on Dylan vs Lennon, just for example--I'm with you, completely subjective.  But that does not mean it's difficult to say that both are in the top 1% of songwriters of the past 100 years, and are easily ranked ahead of over 90% of the others

Link to comment
9 hours ago, Iving said:

btw - I know very little about Britney Spears, but I do think she is an incredibly good-looking woman.

 

Great analogy!  Britney is beautiful by pretty much any American standard.  So are Alicia and Taylor.  And Denzel and Brad, to keep the sexism out of this.  The obese guy from Minnesota that Chris referenced is probably not in this league.  We can rank art the same way we rank physical appearance within a given culture--not with super precision, but most definitely within broad categories

Link to comment
1 hour ago, JoshM said:


I’m an enormous fan of both Dylan and The Beatles, but I do think there’s a difference between “most influential”/“most revolutionary” and “better.” 
 

In terms of who shaped modern rock/pop songwriting, Dylan and Lennon/McCartney are tops, but overall I prefer Van Morrison to Dylan, to take just one example. 
 

Historical analysis and fandom are two different things. 

 

That's fair.  Van the Man is awesome, no doubt. Absolutely one of the best, and reasonable people can disagree between Van and Bob.  Also, I tried to be clear that I think it is Dylan's lyrics that are almost untouchable by other mortals, not his overall performance.

 

One aspect of what I've been trying to say though is that a person can have a favorite band that they do not believe is the greatest band of all time.  My favorite band is Steely Dan.  But I think the best rock/pop band of all time is The Beatles.  

 

 

 

 

Link to comment

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now



×
×
  • Create New...