| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
robot
Joined: 07 Mar 2006
|
 Posted: Tue Oct 27, 2009 1:38 am Post subject: |
 |
|
I'm happy to see so many sensible people who picked Kid A as the tide-turning record of the 2000s.
Is This It?, Relationship of Command, and Funeral (Arcade Fire) were other favorites of mine, but far far far less influential. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
morrisonhotel
Joined: 18 Jul 2009
Location: Gyeonggi-do
|
| Posted: Tue Oct 27, 2009 1:59 am Post subject: |
|
|
| robot wrote: |
| Relationship of Command, but far far far less influential. |
I'll give you that Relationship of Command isn't (broadly) the most influential album in the last decade. In terms of the impact on the genre and wider than that (alt. rock/hardcore/emotional hardcore), I'd say it has had more of an impact than Kid A. I'd say it is the most influential album in the genre since In on the Kill Taker or, possibly, since Daydream Nation. I'd argue that despite it being less influential than Kid A that Relationship of Command is a far superior album. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
AmericanExile
Joined: 04 May 2009
|
| Posted: Tue Oct 27, 2009 5:12 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Tycho Brahe wrote: |
well there is a difference between importnat and well known ... i took important to mean that people actually took what someone was doing and progressed.
the beatles were ridiculously popular but stand on a street corner and sing their most important songs and people would just get wierded out. i'm refering to tomorrow never knows and day in the life .... not songs so bland that everybody everywhere has covered them -- like yesterday for example. But songs that pushed what could be done with recording techniques at the time, songs that went beyond simple pop structures, this is what i mean by ''important''
and the same comments refer equally well the the other albums in my list of most important albums of all time --- kid a, pet sounds, and forever changes. |
I reject your definition of important as narrow and in the interest of the band you are trying to promote. Your underlying justification for what is important is impact, but you only want progressive impact to count. There is no justification for that limitation. It would be justified if the entire point to music was to progress music. It isn't. Music has many purposes. One is the celebration of the human experience. Yesterday captures a particular experience perfectly. That experience means nothing to you. Okay. John was jealous that Paul wrote it because he believed it was a great song. John Lennon's opinion on music trumps Tycho Brahe's opinion. It is indeed the most covered song in history. You try to play this off as proof of weakness when it is a strength. It has been covered by thousands of musicians because they love it. They get why it is great. Some of these musicians, like Ray Charles, are way FN cooler than you and your hundred closest friends. It was and is an important song because of the impact it had on people because of its perfect expression of a universal human emotion. See Edgar Allan Poe.
In 1994, many people would have included Nirvana in a list of the top 5 most important bands all time. 15 years later how many people would place them there? In 15 more years will they even remember Nirvana? How many stories like this have happened while the Beatles continue to be loved? Don't be so sure Radiohead isn't that story waiting to happen all over again. That is much more likely than that they are the next Beatles.
In short, have some perspective and a little respect for a band whose greatness is well and long establish. You have the band of the moment. Enjoy it. This too shall pass. Then you'll be some nutjob who won't stop talking about some band noone really cares about. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
BobbyOrr
Joined: 01 Jun 2009
|
| Posted: Tue Oct 27, 2009 7:13 am Post subject: |
|
|
My fav of the decade is You Forgot it in People - Broken Social Scene. I won't say it's the most influential, although it was a big album for the Canadian indie scene, which certainly made its mark in the decade.
I can't be the only one who loved Kid A, but is now completely bored of it? I will say though, that it did help push my musical tastes into different areas and for that reason, I'd say it probably is the most influential.
But to be honest, I'm far more interested in discussing favourite albums. And there's been some beauties this decade. It's been a great decade for music. The ipod and internet have done so much for music. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Tycho Brahe
Joined: 15 Jul 2009
Location: Suwon, SK
|
| Posted: Tue Oct 27, 2009 7:54 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| Your underlying justification for what is important is impact, but you only want progressive impact to count. There is no justification for that limitation. It would be justified if the entire point to music was to progress music. It isn't. Music has many purposes. One is the celebration of the human experience. Yesterday captures a particular experience perfectly |
the only way then to settle such a line of thought is to try to come up with objctive markers; capturing the human condition --- can't possibly work as one because really it relies on emotional resonance. which is pointless to argue about.
so well done. you give out to me for setting up baseless limiting factors and launch straight into one --- a fine argument.
come up with something thought out. instead of accusing someone of fanaticism and then spouting hyperbole about something as insipid as yesterday |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
AmericanExile
Joined: 04 May 2009
|
| Posted: Tue Oct 27, 2009 9:05 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Tycho Brahe wrote: |
| Quote: |
| Your underlying justification for what is important is impact, but you only want progressive impact to count. There is no justification for that limitation. It would be justified if the entire point to music was to progress music. It isn't. Music has many purposes. One is the celebration of the human experience. Yesterday captures a particular experience perfectly |
the only way then to settle such a line of thought is to try to come up with objctive markers; capturing the human condition --- can't possibly work as one because really it relies on emotional resonance. which is pointless to argue about.
so well done. you give out to me for setting up baseless limiting factors and launch straight into one --- a fine argument.
come up with something thought out. instead of accusing someone of fanaticism and then spouting hyperbole about something as insipid as yesterday |
Universality and timelessness are the two standards that are even remotely objective when it come to artist works. They are traditional. I appealed to both. I even sent you on the path of justification with Edgar who was a major proponent of art being about universal human experience. An entire school of thought trumps your opinion about what is a worthy justification.
I have used no hyperbole in regards to Yesterday. I have been 100% accurate. It is the most covered song of all time. It has been covered by thousands of musicians including Ray Charles. John Lennon did express jealousy over Paul's writing it. It is much beloved worldwide. Deal. In the face of all this evidence you have offered nothing but your opinion that the song is bad. No evidence - just a claim. Mere claims are supported by authority of the person who makes the claim. You put your authority on the line. I trumped it with John Lennon, Ray Charles, and thousands of musicians all of whom have greater authority on the subject of music than you.
I'm sure there are things you understand better than me. Music may be one of them. Argumentation is not likely one of them.
Further, my remark about the word fan deriving from fanatic is both true (it is derived from fanatic), and was meant as a gentle way of suggesting you consider the possibility that your love of Radiohead may have caused you to lose perspective. If you choose to be upset by that it is your decision. I was being playful not hostile. It is easy to assume hostility on the net because many people do tend to take that tact. In this case that assumption is mistaken. That is not to say I am above being an a$$hole. I will not hesitate when I think I am justified. It simply was not the goal here.
The only thing I have said for which I think you have any cause to be annoyed with me is when I said Ray Charles is cooler than you and your 100 closest friends. I stand by it. I would add he is cooler than me and my 100 closest friends. He's Ray FN Charles. The day somebody writes a hit single about either of us that may change. Until that day. the hierarchy is the hierarchy.
Now, consider that I am not your enemy. Consider that I have said nothing negative about Radiohead. I just ask for perspective.
I was in the stadium when Michael Johnson ran in Atlanta. It was amazing. He was the best and that was clear to everyone. The odd thing was I was saddened as I watched because I suddenly realized it wouldn't last. It was a perfect moment. It would fade. Nothing for it.
You may not want that to happen to Radiohead. It may not happen to Radiohead. The most likely thing is it will happen to Radiohead. It is too early in the game for you to be claiming all time greatness for Radiohead. When you do so, you sound like a silly fan and not like a person with a serious musical opinion. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Tycho Brahe
Joined: 15 Jul 2009
Location: Suwon, SK
|
| Posted: Tue Oct 27, 2009 10:52 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
Universality and timelessness are the two standards that are even remotely objective when it come to artist works. They are traditional. I appealed to both. I even sent you on the path of justification with Edgar who was a major proponent of art being about universal human experience. An entire school of thought trumps your opinion about what is a worthy justification. |
fair enough one school disagrees with my opinion. one very very ignored school in todays discussion of aesthetics. and even then
1) universality doesn't apply to pop music, why? because pop is in-itself a measure of transcience - it fluctuates on given tastes. the beatles were popular. now they are outsold by lady gaga, if universality is a measure of objective quality in art this would imply lady gaga is better than the beatles as she appeals to more today than the beatles ...
(not that i'm interested in getting into a statistical argument I'm just pointing out the fallacy of using universality --- you could substitute nirvana in the 90s if it you want ....)
and 2) timelessness ... well you believe yesterday is timeless, i disagree ... stalemate - and therefore not objective. for someone professing a good understanding of argumentation you really aren't very good at reading the opposing argument or thinking through you ideas. but if you want lessons in philosophy pm me sometime.
| Quote: |
| You put your authority on the line. I trumped it with John Lennon, Ray Charles, and thousands of musicians all of whom have greater authority on the subject of music than you. |
yes lets mention dead people as having a greater understanding of the importance and legacy of the beatles....
| Quote: |
I have used no hyperbole in regards to Yesterday. I have been 100% accurate. It is the most covered song of all time |
a quick tip on arguing; there's a very common and easy to point fallacy in arguing. its where you choose to answer a question, or reply to a comment that was never made. i think if you go back and READ what i said it clearly indicates that it was the quality of the song, not the quantity of covers that i was disagreeing with you on. well done.
and yes capturing an experience perfectly is hyperbole. i refer you here to the works of david chalmers, w benjamin, m heiddegger's later works .... pretty much everyone who has actually thought about the nature of experience.
oh something you have failed to notice --- alot --- is that i am not a fanatic of radiohead. yes i probably now more about contemporary music than you, i'm guessing that because you think that radiohead are the band of the moment, when the album in question is nearly ten years old ... and as such i really don't listen to radiohead much anymore. They're last two albums did nothing for me. if i was really going for the band of the moment I'd be arguing for merriweather post pavillion or bitte orce or vecktimest ....
of course radiohead will fade.... as the beatles already have ... but we're talking about importance not your feelings about a band and time and again your arrogance is deluding you into thinking you are talking rationally about critical objectivity. .... when the only rational way to do so is either in terms of craft, and influence. and when you talk influence you are talking about progression - because imitators are not artists.
and you can mention all the artists you want. but you are failing to see that its a critical stance that we're arguing over here. not periodic biases. so if you want to persist in quoting lennon and charles and poe fine. but go look at something like the culture industry reconsidered by adorno.
he's a good bit respected in music criticism than poe ever was. you might also learn something about arguing |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
AmericanExile
Joined: 04 May 2009
|
| Posted: Tue Oct 27, 2009 7:58 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Universality applies to all art forms. It would not suggest Lady Gaga is better for two reasons. First, she is not as big now as the Beatles were at their most popular, so if it was meant as a measure of comparison she would lose. Second, it isn't meant to be used comparatively. Both can be universal. One does not effect the other. Universality establishes greatness. That is what it does. Noone has suggested using it by freezing a moment in time and comparing who is more popular in that moment. You're breaking new ground. Part of universality has always been unbounded time and place. If something is universal it shouldn't matter when or where.
Timelessness isn't me v. you. The Beatles had the best selling album worldwide in 2000. 30 years after they breakup and people remain in love with their work. That is timelessness. Neither of our opinions matter. It is an established fact.
Band of the moment referred to the fact that Kid A has clearly been picked on this thread as the most influential of the decade. This moment. Right here.
You're trying to fake a knowledge of argumentation you don't have. I know because I actually know argumentation. Unless you have some childish need to know more about everything than everybody, let it go.
You want to give special status to critics. I give special status to musicians. A critic is just a person with an opinion. A musician is someone who lives music. They understand things about it then the average person never will. They have earned their special status.
Influence is not about progression. All artists steal. All musicians imitate cultural idioms. Many great artists have admitted they steal. For them it is a question of who you steal from. You should know this. Many artists look backwards to go forward. If you add jazz from 50 years ago to your music as could be said about Radiohead, and other people like it and are inspired by it then you have influence but no progression. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
tefain
Joined: 19 Sep 2007
Location: Not too far out there
|
| Posted: Tue Oct 27, 2009 8:45 pm Post subject: |
|
|
This thread's really taken a nosedive.
I didn't know this was a "what does influential mean?" thread.
I think you both need to let this one go!
Although Tycho Brahe did at least add some albums to the original thread. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
DWAEJIMORIGUKBAP
Joined: 28 May 2009
Location: Electron cloud
|
| Posted: Tue Oct 27, 2009 10:24 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Can those in the know please explain to me WHY Kid A was soo infulential or important?
I loved most of OK computer but Kid A sounded like a mess.
Am I missing something? I'm not trained in music or anything. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
vincentmiser
Joined: 14 Jan 2009
Location: Everywhere
|
| Posted: Tue Oct 27, 2009 10:32 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| DWAEJIMORIGUKBAP wrote: |
Can those in the know please explain to me WHY Kid A was soo infulential or important?
I loved most of OK computer but Kid A sounded like a mess.
Am I missing something? I'm not trained in music or anything. |
Well, in my opinion, it was an album released by a band that used to be 'pop'py. With this album it was a more obvious move toward creating music that appealed to them, rather than the label/public. (this statement is very open to criticism, and many arguments could come out of this, but try see the main point)
And I think individuals hear Kid A differently. For me, the same happens with "Mellon Collie" or "Supermassive Black Holes".
I have had times when I thought very little of the album, and some others when it blew me away.
Having said that, my copy was lost in a move and I haven't listened to it in years. Somehow, mp3's off the internet won't do it justice.
Another favourite was 'Hail to the Thief'. Probably my fav radiohead album. Ever. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
AmericanExile
Joined: 04 May 2009
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 28, 2009 6:48 am Post subject: |
|
|
| tefain wrote: |
This thread's really taken a nosedive.
I didn't know this was a "what does influential mean?" thread.
I think you both need to let this one go!
Although Tycho Brahe did at least add some albums to the original thread. |
So did I. Look again. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
tefain
Joined: 19 Sep 2007
Location: Not too far out there
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 28, 2009 4:53 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| AmericanExile wrote: |
| tefain wrote: |
This thread's really taken a nosedive.
I didn't know this was a "what does influential mean?" thread.
I think you both need to let this one go!
Although Tycho Brahe did at least add some albums to the original thread. |
So did I. Look again. |
OK, still nothing from this decade except a mention of The Beatles collection, Lady Gaga, and a reference to Kid A for arguements sake. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bloopity Bloop
Joined: 26 Apr 2009
Location: Seoul yo
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 28, 2009 6:29 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Radiohead is okay. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
AmericanExile
Joined: 04 May 2009
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 28, 2009 6:29 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| tefain wrote: |
| AmericanExile wrote: |
| tefain wrote: |
This thread's really taken a nosedive.
I didn't know this was a "what does influential mean?" thread.
I think you both need to let this one go!
Although Tycho Brahe did at least add some albums to the original thread. |
So did I. Look again. |
OK, still nothing from this decade except a mention of The Beatles collection, Lady Gaga, and a reference to Kid A for arguements sake. |
Wrong again. I did mention an album from this decade in my first post on this thread. Stop being lazy or stop acting like a know-it-all. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
