GOAT music debate stuff

[Badlittlekitten]

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.

[S.L.L.]

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.

[El-P]

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.)

[JerryvonKramer]

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.

[Dylan Waco]

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.

[tomk]

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.

[JerryvonKramer]

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.

[tomk]

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.

[tomk]

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".

 

[tomk]

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.

[goodhelmet]

Keep posting Jerry. I got your back.

[jdw]

the Beatles are in the conversation with him because as far as I can see, they only made great albums. There are a handful of other bands with shorter runs -- Talking Heads, The Smiths, a few others -- who also only have great (or interesting) albums.

I like the Beatles a lot. I don't think they made only great albums.

[jdw]

I was named after Bob Dylan, but I like Phil Ochs better as a songwriter from that era.

 

I will not discuss The Beatles as I don't want Will to have a stroke.

I just want to make sure that jdw doesn't compare himself to the Beatles again or I might have that stroke.

 

Did I do that?

 

John

[Childs]

Wow, this thread got delightfully unhinged. I've never much enjoyed arguing about music, because honestly, I'm terrible at articulating the reasons why I like particular artists. But I do enjoy reading others' explanations for why they love given bands or albums. For example, I really like Lucero -- own a couple of albums and have dug them as a live act. But I'd be interested to read Dylan's argument for why they're the best band of the last 15 years, because I'd probably learn something and be turned on to a few recordings.

[blueminister]

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?

Yeah, at least until recently the album format has never favored rap as much as pop-rock a Measure of Greatness because of the omnipresence of skits. I can think Biggie is right up there with rock greats without trying to argue that a skit of him getting blown by Lil' Kim is as powerful a transition as From a Buick 6 -- just two different worlds, really. If you're judging, say, "flow of a 45+ minute extended work" I'd have to give it to other genres but at the same time it seems to largely miss the point of hip-hop.

 

El-P is right that art can't be quantified and it's all subjective.

That's funny, because half of my big arguments on this board can be whittled down to "pro wrestling is performance art, and if anyone has ever successfully created their intended impression for a mass audience then they're doing their job a lot more effectively than people who can fake crisp execution of a style of folk grappling that doesn't actually exist." close board lol

[Dylan Waco]

Wow, this thread got delightfully unhinged. I've never much enjoyed arguing about music, because honestly, I'm terrible at articulating the reasons why I like particular artists. But I do enjoy reading others' explanations for why they love given bands or albums. For example, I really like Lucero -- own a couple of albums and have dug them as a live act. But I'd be interested to read Dylan's argument for why they're the best band of the last 15 years, because I'd probably learn something and be turned on to a few recordings.

 

First of all I like all the Lucero records. You could argue weaknesses in all of them, but everyone is a little bit different and themed in a different way. Nobody's Darlings is a VERY guitar heavy album that really plays up their punk roots. Self Titled is very much a modern take on drop dead drunk country. Rebels, Rogues and Sworn Brothers has a very heavy Springstein influence. Et. Et. Et. They aren't afraid to introduce new instruments and sounds and play with traditional themes. They incorporate accordian into songs and it fucking works outstandingly well. I've seen hundreds of live bands (it's scary to think or say this, but it's probably over four figures to be honest) and they are at worst one of the five best live bands I've ever seen. I know Nichols voice annoys some people and the horns section on the last two album has alienated some long time fans, but I like Nichols voice and think the horns enhanced both records (particularly Overton Park which is one of the better beginning to end albums I can remember). I may be going to see them at the 9:30 club when they play with Shovels and Rope in a few months and I NEVER travel to see shows anymore....unless it's a Lucero show.

[S.L.L.]

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.

If you were aware you were doing it, you probably would've stopped a long time ago. Like I said,I don't think it's something you do deliberately. I'm sure you're intentions are good. Honestly, these are all things I thought would go away on their own, like the whole "80's/early 90's WWF is the only wrestling that ever mattered" attitude you copped when you first showed up here (yes, I know that's a gross oversimplification, but just go with me here). I thought you'd shed some other traits that rubbed me the wrong way just like you did with that once you got accustomed to the climate of the board. But you still have a tendency to post in this overbearing, patronizing tone, and I'm getting really sick of it. So en lieu of waiting any longer for you to figure it out on your own, I'm just gonna say it to your face and hope you finally get the message.

 

I'm sorry it came to this, but you needed to hear it from someone. Might as well be me.

 

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.

Oh, now don't do that. Subjectivity is the beginning of the discussion, not the end. Wrestling is no less subjective than music. Are you going to walk away from the board entirely just because something about defending Dylan makes you uncomfortable? The last time I saw a guy this shook up over defending a point of view was WildPegasus in the Ayn Rand thread at DVDVR. This is not a road you want to go down. You can't let your aesthetic attachments become so overwhelming that they eat at you like this. You say defending Dylan is bad for you. I say being in a state where defending Dylan is bad for you is bad for you. You are not your taste in music. You are bigger than that. Be bigger than that, damn it!

 

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?

This is two separate issues, isn't it? Agreed that albums shouldn't be the only metric, but acts like The Zombies being penalized for not getting the same opportunities as more successful bands...isn't that the same argument we had when talking about Sting as a potential HOFer? I thought we were all more or less in agreement: just because you didn't get the opportunities others did doesn't mean you should be rewarded for what you might have done if things had gone differently. We can only judge performers for what they actually did, regardless of the circumstances effecting them. I think The Zombies were awesome, but I can't pretend they stayed together after Odyssey & Oracle, nor can I pretend they had a boatload of great singles pre-Odyssey & Oracle. Odyssey & Oracle plus "She's Not There", "Tell Her No", and "Whenever You're Ready", plus some other good but lesser singles is a nice little legacy, but the fact that they were probably capable of more doesn't actually put them on the level of guys who actually did more.

[jdw]

Wow, this thread got delightfully unhinged. I've never much enjoyed arguing about music, because honestly, I'm terrible at articulating the reasons why I like particular artists. But I do enjoy reading others' explanations for why they love given bands or albums. For example, I really like Lucero -- own a couple of albums and have dug them as a live act. But I'd be interested to read Dylan's argument for why they're the best band of the last 15 years, because I'd probably learn something and be turned on to a few recordings.

 

First of all I like all the Lucero records. You could argue weaknesses in all of them, but everyone is a little bit different and themed in a different way. Nobody's Darlings is a VERY guitar heavy album that really plays up their punk roots. Self Titled is very much a modern take on drop dead drunk country. Rebels, Rogues and Sworn Brothers has a very heavy Springstein influence. Et. Et. Et. They aren't afraid to introduce new instruments and sounds and play with traditional themes. They incorporate accordian into songs and it fucking works outstandingly well. I've seen hundreds of live bands (it's scary to think or so this, but it's probably over four figures to be honest) and they are at worst one of the five best live bands I've ever seen. I know Nichols voice annoys some people and the horns section on the last two album has alienated some long time fans, but I like Nichols voice and think the horns enhanced both records (particularly Overton Park which is one of the better beginning to end albums I can remember). I may be going to see them at the 9:30 club when they play with Shovels and Rope in a few months and I NEVER travel to see shows anymore....unless it's a Lucero show.

 

First thing that popped up in the search that I did:

 

 

And that's some good shit. Learn something new all the time... and who says wrestling fans are a bunch of morons.

 

Thanks for the discussion, Dylan and Childs.

[Dylan Waco]

Glad you enjoyed it John. "Nights Like These" is a great song. They have a lot of them. I'll shill "The War" here. Ben Nichols wrote it about his grandfather's experience in WWII.

 

 

Live versions include Rick Steff on accordian which is shockingly great.

[Johnny Sorrow]

I still don't get why albums are the metric.

Yeah, to a lot of people, including your's truly, live performance is the most important aspect.

[Cross Face Chicken Wing]

I haven't read any posts in this thread yet, but I'll say this: If all of you have yet to reach a consensus that Slayer is the greatest band of all time, the thread should be closed.

[BrickHithouse]

I haven't read any posts in this thread yet, but I'll say this: If all of you have yet to reach a consensus that Slayer is the greatest band of all time, the thread should be closed.

Well it's about time someone said it

[Grimmas]

I just discovered this thread and I can`t believe there is not more Beach Boys discussion. Take a look at Pet Sounds! That may be the greatest album ever and it has ``Wouldn`t it Be Nice`and `God Only Knows``, that is insane. Add to that all the other great songs on their.

 

Smile, if it was finished at the time, would had been just as great too. Good Vibrations is about as good as a pop song can be.

 

Not to mention their amazing harmonies on their earlier stuff and some great songs like "In my Room". Then the stuff post Smile isn't so great due to Brian Wilson's melt down, but there is some great stuff mixed in their too.

 

Anyway, I think the Beach Boys are right up there with The Beatles and Bob Dylan.

[Smack2k]

I just discovered this thread and I can`t believe there is not more Beach Boys discussion. Take a look at Pet Sounds! That may be the greatest album ever and it has ``Wouldn`t it Be Nice`and `God Only Knows``, that is insane. Add to that all the other great songs on their.

 

Smile, if it was finished at the time, would had been just as great too. Good Vibrations is about as good as a pop song can be.

 

Not to mention their amazing harmonies on their earlier stuff and some great songs like "In my Room". Then the stuff post Smile isn't so great due to Brian Wilson's melt down, but there is some great stuff mixed in their too.

 

Anyway, I think the Beach Boys are right up there with The Beatles and Bob Dylan.

Just finding this thread...

 

Grimmas, I am with you..Pet Sounds deserves a TON more respect...They were the first group to put the word God in a popular song, a BIG risk..plus, that whole album is soo well made and so deep...I think that its the "Beach Boys" and their years since then and some before makes a lot think "Surfer Music, that's it..." kind of thing...

 

Pet Sounds is a top 5 Album EVER and was a heavy influence for the Beatles Sgt. Pepper album...Pet Sounds was influenced by Rubber Sole by the Beatles as well as Brian Wilson heard it and wanted to make something like it, but better...and he succeeded...

 

And Parv...BIG is a LOT better than you give him credit for I think...Ready to Die is an amazing album with crisp lyrics and great storytelling....

[Death From Above]

The other big problem with this topic is getting people that are actually capable of separating record sales from quality is next to nil. That's kind of obvious every time people draw wrestling/music comparisons on this forum.