"So good it's bad"? "Perfect" albums and songs which don't connect with you
"So good it's bad"? "Perfect" albums and songs which don't connect with you
Hello, today I'll be trying a topic that might sound puzzling, and I actually think it is a weird concept in itself, but why not?
I just watched Doug Walker's video of the week about movies which are "so good they're bad": in it he tries to sort out the reasons why such acclaimed films as The Truman Show, or even E.T. the Extra-Terrestrial aren't as emotionally involving with some people as they should be, or why films which tried so hard like Bram Stoker's Dracula to be great ultimately became flawed just because they pursued that goal. He comes up with interesting theories - the fact that the lack of flaws in a film makes it feel so lean and predictable you just don't feel any connection with it, for instance. I decided to try to apply this question to music: is there a music album or song "so good it's bad", that is, so successful in achieving its goal I just don't get it?
Well, the ultimate example for me, is of course OK Computer. Everyone's raving about it, people are just talking at length about how it's expressing the alienation of modern life, how the pressure of society and consumerism tries to build artificial happiness in people, how it finds new ways of exploring the expression of depression... And music-wise, it is acclaimed for the way it uses the possibilities of post-hardcore to create an unbearable tension in the compositions, while at the same time relieving this tension with a clever use of synths, which round out the melodies and make the album far more accessible. Then how come, as I'm a slightly depressed person myself, I just don't connect with it? It just doesn't find its way into my mind; every time I listen to it I carefully listen to every note, examinate the nooks and crannies of its production, and in the end I feel it's a stunning achievement. But I feel just that. Nothing more. So why? I've tried to follow the reasoning of Doug Walker for films and it actually doesn't work completely: I find flaws in the album, the lyrics which I find excessively self-indulgent, the "Fitter Happier" track which is a list track with hardly any music, and ultimately comes up as lazy to me... The issue is therefore elsewhere: I think it doesn't connect with me because today I think I belong to the kind of people who are so conscious of how society tries to influence everyone, or at least believe they are so, that such works as OK Computer, which hit all the right notes and point at all the issues with modern society, ultimately end up pointless to them. Such works are of course always essential, but I just don't feel them anymore. What they're telling, I already know, and since I don't feel any enjoyment or relief in hearing them anymore, then why bother? OK Computer is a work I admire, and if I had to make a list of the best albums ever it would be near the top, but I don't love it, and it will never appear in a list of albums which are my favourites.
Other example: my favourite album is Loveless, but some people just don't like it at all. Honorio made a great post in the Rank the Tracks topic about why he doesn't like this album. Basically, aside from people who feel it's just 50 minutes of noise, it seems to be an excessively self-indulgent and pretentious work, made by a person who's looking at his navel and believing there's a fascinating world growing there. OK, why not? Given its extremely, obsessively, produced sound, it's an album which lends itself well to analysis, and it's true that some of this production is so buried under layers of other sounds you just lose it, no matter how hard you try to grab it. Lyrics-wise, it's hardly any better than OK Computer: all of what you can understand is basically an ode to letting everything go in the arms of your lover in bed. But that may be why I love this album so much: it's the ultimate escapist, relieving album, when you listen to it, you can easily get lost in it, into over-analyzing its music which you can never get entirely or simply into the psychological comfort it brings, and its celebration of love and dreams as the most enjoyable things in life. Basically, I need it more than I need OK Computer. It is my perfect album. For other people it's an artificial, self-indulgent and bloated perfection, but for me it's my ultimate refuge.
To be more precise, I believe that both albums are perfect, but so perfect in achieving their goal they ultimately become impossible to connect with for people who don't "feel" their point. Therefore, do you guys have an album or a song which is widely acknowledged as "perfect" and you don't get for some reason? Or you believe it's so perfect it gets artificial or self-indulgent because of how hard it tries to achieve its goal? I'd like to read your opinions
I just watched Doug Walker's video of the week about movies which are "so good they're bad": in it he tries to sort out the reasons why such acclaimed films as The Truman Show, or even E.T. the Extra-Terrestrial aren't as emotionally involving with some people as they should be, or why films which tried so hard like Bram Stoker's Dracula to be great ultimately became flawed just because they pursued that goal. He comes up with interesting theories - the fact that the lack of flaws in a film makes it feel so lean and predictable you just don't feel any connection with it, for instance. I decided to try to apply this question to music: is there a music album or song "so good it's bad", that is, so successful in achieving its goal I just don't get it?
Well, the ultimate example for me, is of course OK Computer. Everyone's raving about it, people are just talking at length about how it's expressing the alienation of modern life, how the pressure of society and consumerism tries to build artificial happiness in people, how it finds new ways of exploring the expression of depression... And music-wise, it is acclaimed for the way it uses the possibilities of post-hardcore to create an unbearable tension in the compositions, while at the same time relieving this tension with a clever use of synths, which round out the melodies and make the album far more accessible. Then how come, as I'm a slightly depressed person myself, I just don't connect with it? It just doesn't find its way into my mind; every time I listen to it I carefully listen to every note, examinate the nooks and crannies of its production, and in the end I feel it's a stunning achievement. But I feel just that. Nothing more. So why? I've tried to follow the reasoning of Doug Walker for films and it actually doesn't work completely: I find flaws in the album, the lyrics which I find excessively self-indulgent, the "Fitter Happier" track which is a list track with hardly any music, and ultimately comes up as lazy to me... The issue is therefore elsewhere: I think it doesn't connect with me because today I think I belong to the kind of people who are so conscious of how society tries to influence everyone, or at least believe they are so, that such works as OK Computer, which hit all the right notes and point at all the issues with modern society, ultimately end up pointless to them. Such works are of course always essential, but I just don't feel them anymore. What they're telling, I already know, and since I don't feel any enjoyment or relief in hearing them anymore, then why bother? OK Computer is a work I admire, and if I had to make a list of the best albums ever it would be near the top, but I don't love it, and it will never appear in a list of albums which are my favourites.
Other example: my favourite album is Loveless, but some people just don't like it at all. Honorio made a great post in the Rank the Tracks topic about why he doesn't like this album. Basically, aside from people who feel it's just 50 minutes of noise, it seems to be an excessively self-indulgent and pretentious work, made by a person who's looking at his navel and believing there's a fascinating world growing there. OK, why not? Given its extremely, obsessively, produced sound, it's an album which lends itself well to analysis, and it's true that some of this production is so buried under layers of other sounds you just lose it, no matter how hard you try to grab it. Lyrics-wise, it's hardly any better than OK Computer: all of what you can understand is basically an ode to letting everything go in the arms of your lover in bed. But that may be why I love this album so much: it's the ultimate escapist, relieving album, when you listen to it, you can easily get lost in it, into over-analyzing its music which you can never get entirely or simply into the psychological comfort it brings, and its celebration of love and dreams as the most enjoyable things in life. Basically, I need it more than I need OK Computer. It is my perfect album. For other people it's an artificial, self-indulgent and bloated perfection, but for me it's my ultimate refuge.
To be more precise, I believe that both albums are perfect, but so perfect in achieving their goal they ultimately become impossible to connect with for people who don't "feel" their point. Therefore, do you guys have an album or a song which is widely acknowledged as "perfect" and you don't get for some reason? Or you believe it's so perfect it gets artificial or self-indulgent because of how hard it tries to achieve its goal? I'd like to read your opinions
- spiritualized
- Full of Fire
- Posts: 2848
- Joined: Mon Dec 24, 2012 4:45 pm
- Location: Near Montpellier, France
Re: "So good it's bad"? "Perfect" albums and songs which don't connect with you
After reading your post, I had a quick look at the top 20 most acclaimed albums - which most would consider "perfect" in every sense. And yet, I don't project myself in some of them - and rather than albums, it's more artists who I don't connect with at all, in spite of my total respect for these works.
Amongst the culprits :
Marvin Gaye What's Going On
The Jimi Hendrix Experience Are You Experienced?
Van Morrison Astral Weeks
Bruce Springsteen Born to Run
and yet I completely adhere to your view of "Loveless" - a perfect piece of art in its imperfections. It's so engrossing that you get past the "noise" (a flaw which I never saw and yet I was lucky enough to see them live with their 20 mins of pure feedback in "You Made Me Realise")
Amongst the culprits :
Marvin Gaye What's Going On
The Jimi Hendrix Experience Are You Experienced?
Van Morrison Astral Weeks
Bruce Springsteen Born to Run
and yet I completely adhere to your view of "Loveless" - a perfect piece of art in its imperfections. It's so engrossing that you get past the "noise" (a flaw which I never saw and yet I was lucky enough to see them live with their 20 mins of pure feedback in "You Made Me Realise")
Re: "So good it's bad"? "Perfect" albums and songs which don't connect with you
The primary issue for me is artists who are talented but for the most part create music that I just don't particularly enjoy listening to. In most cases there are at least a few songs by these talented artists that do work for me, but far fewer than those which are very highly acclaimed or otherwise loved by others.
Primary examples of these artists include:
1) The Velvet Underground (AM artist rating=15/ 2016 artist poll ranking=11/ my artist ranking=642)
2) Bjork (61/16/961)
3) Kanye West (21/21/688)
4) Nirvana (20/23/628)
5) Pixies (43/32/836)
6) Kraftwerk (51/42/965)
7) PJ Harvey (50/44/1025)
8) Nik Cave (36/45/927)
9) Kendrick Lamar (275/52/1024)
10) Leonard Cohen (69/53/1131)
Primary examples of these artists include:
1) The Velvet Underground (AM artist rating=15/ 2016 artist poll ranking=11/ my artist ranking=642)
2) Bjork (61/16/961)
3) Kanye West (21/21/688)
4) Nirvana (20/23/628)
5) Pixies (43/32/836)
6) Kraftwerk (51/42/965)
7) PJ Harvey (50/44/1025)
8) Nik Cave (36/45/927)
9) Kendrick Lamar (275/52/1024)
10) Leonard Cohen (69/53/1131)
Re: "So good it's bad"? "Perfect" albums and songs which don't connect with you
I wish to see them live one day. Unfortunately, i missed their last world tour. I hope that I'll have an occasion for their fourth album, a decade from nowspiritualized wrote: and yet I completely adhere to your view of "Loveless" - a perfect piece of art in its imperfections. It's so engrossing that you get past the "noise" (a flaw which I never saw and yet I was lucky enough to see them live with their 20 mins of pure feedback in "You Made Me Realise")
I can see why you don't like them, but do you think their acclaim is justified, even if you don't like their works? Or to stick with the topic, do you think for instance that's there's something genuinely wrong with The Velvet Underground and Nico or do you think it's just your personal tastes preventing you from liking it?Henry wrote:The primary issue for me is artists who are talented but for the most part create music that I just don't particularly enjoy listening to. In most cases there are at least a few songs by these talented artists that do work for me, but far fewer than those which are very highly acclaimed or otherwise loved by others.
Primary examples of these artists include:
1) The Velvet Underground (AM artist rating=15/ 2016 artist poll ranking=11/ my artist ranking=642)
2) Bjork (61/16/961)
3) Kanye West (21/21/688)
4) Nirvana (20/23/628)
5) Pixies (43/32/836)
6) Kraftwerk (51/42/965)
7) PJ Harvey (50/44/1025)
8) Nick Cave (36/45/927)
9) Kendrick Lamar (275/52/1024)
10) Leonard Cohen (69/53/1131)
Re: "So good it's bad"? "Perfect" albums and songs which don't connect with you
This is hard for me, since I find it comes down to simply not caring for their genre. Eric Clapton has always been the obvious one for me - outside of his work with Cream, I've found most of his work boring. His work seems to put technique above everything else, and though he's obviously an outstanding guitarist, I can never hold much interest in his songs. I guess I could compare it to how we describe certain pop singers. A few singers have absolutely phenomenal voices; their vocal range is beyond comprehension. However, the way they use their voices is sometimes overdone; they hit high notes purely because they are able to. This is how I feel about Clapton; a lot of his work comes off as showing off. There are of course other acts that are dominated by guitar, but for whatever reason, they don't give me this same feeling.
Re: "So good it's bad"? "Perfect" albums and songs which don't connect with you
First, I do not think that there is anything "wrong" with any of the above artists.Pierre wrote:I can see why you don't like them, but do you think their acclaim is justified, even if you don't like their works? Or to stick with the topic, do you think for instance that's there's something genuinely wrong with The Velvet Underground and Nico or do you think it's just your personal tastes preventing you from liking it?Henry wrote:The primary issue for me is artists who are talented but for the most part create music that I just don't particularly enjoy listening to. In most cases there are at least a few songs by these talented artists that do work for me, but far fewer than those which are very highly acclaimed or otherwise loved by others.
Primary examples of these artists include:
1) The Velvet Underground (AM artist rating=15/ 2016 artist poll ranking=11/ my artist ranking=642)
2) Bjork (61/16/961)
3) Kanye West (21/21/688)
4) Nirvana (20/23/628)
5) Pixies (43/32/836)
6) Kraftwerk (51/42/965)
7) PJ Harvey (50/44/1025)
8) Nick Cave (36/45/927)
9) Kendrick Lamar (275/52/1024)
10) Leonard Cohen (69/53/1131)
However, in my view, acclaim without popularity is somewhat hollow.
If an artist is never particularly popular, then I tend to question their acclaim and not attribute my lack of enjoyment to merely personal taste.
I am not sure which of the ten artists listed above have been particularly popular or not. My present understanding is that perhaps the most popular artists on the list include Kanye, Kendrick Lamar and Nirvana.
The Velvet Underground clearly had plenty of talent and was ground-breaking. But, their music does not particularly impress me from a compositional basis or an enjoyment basis. Please note that my current lack of impression of the compositional strength of their music is not based on a thorough understanding of how they created their songs. Perhaps other forum members (e.g., Honorio) can help be develop a better appreciation for the song-writing/creation that led to VU's most highly acclaimed songs. My present perspective is amenable to change through further development of my knowledge of VU.
Re: "So good it's bad"? "Perfect" albums and songs which don't connect with you
I think all of those bands are pretty popular. Just because they don't have the biggest radio hits doesn't mean they don't have a larger fan base. Kanye West, Nirvana, and Kendrick Lamar are incredibly popular, and I don't believe I've ever met anyone who doesn't at least recognize Bjork. The other artists you've listed, if not cultural phenomenons, they're at least the type of bands that are popular enough to headline festivals throughout the world.
And I don't get what popularity adds to a band's quality, anyway. If The Velvet Underground were the biggest band in their day, would that change the quality of their current music? I don't get what popularity has anything to do with the quality of art. And how do you measure popularity, anyway? Because even if The Velvet Underground and Leonard Cohen aren't mainstream acts, their influences on modern music is undeniable (The Velvet Underground even invented multiple genres on their debut album; does a later band that does the same thing deserve more credit because they landed a better contract and wanted to be famous?). You also need to account for the fact that a lot of artists aren't looking for popular attention.
To call acclaim without popularity 'hollow' is kind of insulting; like, what, the hundreds of artists who were influenced by their style don't matter? Their millions of fans (because I'm pretty sure all of those acts you listed are at least at that level) are wrong because one of their favorite acts doesn't appeal to random radio listeners? Exactly how popular does an act need to be if someone with 24 million twitter followers isn't enough?
And I don't get what popularity adds to a band's quality, anyway. If The Velvet Underground were the biggest band in their day, would that change the quality of their current music? I don't get what popularity has anything to do with the quality of art. And how do you measure popularity, anyway? Because even if The Velvet Underground and Leonard Cohen aren't mainstream acts, their influences on modern music is undeniable (The Velvet Underground even invented multiple genres on their debut album; does a later band that does the same thing deserve more credit because they landed a better contract and wanted to be famous?). You also need to account for the fact that a lot of artists aren't looking for popular attention.
To call acclaim without popularity 'hollow' is kind of insulting; like, what, the hundreds of artists who were influenced by their style don't matter? Their millions of fans (because I'm pretty sure all of those acts you listed are at least at that level) are wrong because one of their favorite acts doesn't appeal to random radio listeners? Exactly how popular does an act need to be if someone with 24 million twitter followers isn't enough?
Re: "So good it's bad"? "Perfect" albums and songs which don't connect with you
Please note that the title of this thread is "albums and songs which don't CONNECT WITH YOU." I have departed from the title by discussing artists rather than albums and songs. My interest in providing my list is not to defend my lack of connection as being correct in any objective manner.
For the most part, I am not fixated on popularity, but instead my own personal enjoyment. Said enjoyment is clearly subjective.
That said, please note that "quality" can be measured in terms of many parameters. Some of these parameters, such as those related to widespread enjoyment, can be reasonably expected to have a reasonable degree of correlation with popularity.
Popularity takes into account the tastes of millions/billions of potential listeners and can therefore serve as a proxy for one or more objective measures when evaluating just how great a particular artist is or was. Clearly other factors including influence can be much more important for critics and those who want to align their tastes with a more canonical perspective.
Personally, I do not care for unresolved dissonance and vocals that irritate me. I am also not a big fan of rap generally. These are my subjective tastes and I am not attempting to claim that they are "correct" or "right."
For the most part, I am not fixated on popularity, but instead my own personal enjoyment. Said enjoyment is clearly subjective.
That said, please note that "quality" can be measured in terms of many parameters. Some of these parameters, such as those related to widespread enjoyment, can be reasonably expected to have a reasonable degree of correlation with popularity.
Popularity takes into account the tastes of millions/billions of potential listeners and can therefore serve as a proxy for one or more objective measures when evaluating just how great a particular artist is or was. Clearly other factors including influence can be much more important for critics and those who want to align their tastes with a more canonical perspective.
Personally, I do not care for unresolved dissonance and vocals that irritate me. I am also not a big fan of rap generally. These are my subjective tastes and I am not attempting to claim that they are "correct" or "right."
Re: "So good it's bad"? "Perfect" albums and songs which don't connect with you
Henry wrote:Please note that the title of this thread is "albums and songs which don't CONNECT WITH YOU." I have departed from the title by discussing artists rather than albums and songs. My interest in providing my list is not to defend my lack of connection as being correct in any objective manner.
For the most part, I am not fixated on popularity, but instead my own personal enjoyment. Said enjoyment is clearly subjective.
That said, please note that "quality" can be measured in terms of many parameters. Some of these parameters, such as those related to widespread enjoyment, can be reasonably expected to have a reasonable degree of correlation with popularity.
Popularity takes into account the tastes of millions/billions of potential listeners and can therefore serve as a proxy for one or more objective measures when evaluating just how great a particular artist is or was. Clearly other factors including influence can be much more important for critics and those who want to align their tastes with a more canonical perspective.
Personally, I do not care for unresolved dissonance and vocals that irritate me. I am also not a big fan of rap generally. These are my subjective tastes and I am not attempting to claim that they are "correct" or "right."
Sorry, I think it was the way you initially worded it that made it sound like you were dismissing bands entirely if you didn't like them and they weren't mainstream. I think I better understand what you were getting at now.
Re: "So good it's bad"? "Perfect" albums and songs which don't connect with you
First of all, this topic is derailing into the good ole "critical acclaim vs. popularity" question. Tale as old as time, blah blah blah. However, since it's been brought onto the table, I'll explain my own viewpoint on popularity. Basically, I've almost entirely stopped considering popularity as a valid factor to evaluate the quality of an artist. There's a lot of reasons why, here are some I have on my mind at the moment I write this message.
First of all, I think there exists something of an unconscious template that is almost universally and subconsciously present in people when it comes to look for pop songs: a basic verse-chorus-verse-chorus structure with little variation: two verses at the beginning, more choruses at the end, maybe a bridge or instrumental solo (as short as possible, or it ought to be very melodic). It has to be danceable when it's a midtempo or uptempo song, and "emotional" if its a downtempo one; but in all cases, as catchy as possible. The arrangements have to underline the melody and push it to the forefront. It's of course a caricature, but from an empirical approach, it's more or less true. Also some may argue that it's instinctive, others that it's a social construct, but that's not very important. No matter what, acts who choose to fit this mold as much as possible to be commercially successful may produce genuinely fantastic music (Madonna or early Beatles for instance), but to quote a not-so-stupid remark from Bruce, we're then talking more about craftsmanship that artistry. Where I disagreed with Bruce was that according to him, critics should concentrate on acclaiming craftsmen and ALWAYS give the backseat to artists who are trying to sound more idiosyncratic. Why so? I'll come back to it later.
Second point: for some reason (again, instinct or social construct), singers who manage "plastic" vocal prowesses tend to be more popular than others. Apparently, they're catchier to the ear and more emotionally involving. It's difficult to argue with the legitimacy of such a reaction and after all, the entire soul music genre is based on the vocal capacities of the singer. But it creates two major issues: 1. to me, the success of such singers as Mariah Carey, Céline Dion or Ariana Grande, or in another field Cassandra Wilson and Dinah Washington, is unjustified because their voices do not always actually convey emotions to my ears, but when I see videos of their audience crying tears during their live performances, I have no choice but to conclude that doing vocal prowesses is enough to entice emotional connections with them. Does it mean that I'm insensitive or that the distance I keep with these singers prevents me from reacting the same way? I can't be conclusive, but the fact that I'm moved by the singing of Otis Redding, Marvin Gaye or Frank Sinatra, Ella Fitzgerald or Billie Holiday makes me think that at least I'm not insensitive. 2. some singers are born with a shitty voice. Think Lou Reed, Mark E. Smith, Stephen Malkmus, John Lydon, even Bob Dylan. Now does this mean that the "reasonable" course of action for them would be to always let a singer gifted with a great voice handle their lyrics, or just do rap? I can't help but feel it would be sick. You can't force people to like listening to them, but do you have to forbid people with a "bad" voice from singing? Certainly, they will never be as popular as Céline Dion, but they have the right to sing just like anyone else.
Third thing: marketing, radio and TV exposure, financial resources from major labels, all that stuff. You know where I'm getting: an act with more exposure will necessarily have bigger chances of scoring big than another who doesn't enjoy the same popularity. There are anomalies of course, like Nirvana, but I'll get back to them in my next point. Some acts don't enjoy much support from their label, others have to stick to indie labels because the heads of major labels don't believe they have commercial potential, and there are even a LOT of acts who choose to remain indie because of their ethos, political or ideological, and just don't want to be famous. Does this make them better artists? Of course not, but does this mean they should be less acclaimed because, unless there's an accident, they will inevitably be less commercially successful? My answer is, again, no. The quality of someone's artistry doesn't lie in a person's ethos and choices, but in how successful they are in translating it into an œuvre, if such is their choice.
Fourth, and last point: fashion and trends, and community and peer pressure. They are roughly the same issue, even though fashion and trends are usually used to describe influences that affect society as a whole instead of a subset. The fact that the youth of America suddenly felt a widespread discontent and unhappiness with their situation at the point when "Smells Like Teen Spirit" hit the waves is generally considered the factor why Nirvana scored so big despite a generally rough and aggressive sound. This pushed grunge to the forefront and helped the genre be successful for several years before fading back into obscurity. But this kind of event, just like rock'n'roll did in the 50s-60s to jazz when it exploded, tends to push the popularity of other genres back. Jazz was big once, now it's next to never aired. Does this mean the pool of jazz artists from today is less talented than it was back in its golden age? I can't tell as a whole, but if artists like Kamasi Washington are any indication, that's not necessarily the case. Community/peer pressure influences, in my opinion, more directly what people are likely to listen to. Video game fans show general disdain for pop music while claiming that Nobuo Uematsu is the greatest composer ever. Who knows him outside their sphere? Does this mean that Uematsu is overrated by them or that he is unfairly ignored by the wider public? The answer is, as often, somewhere in between, but it illustrates at a lesser scale how societal pressure can shape the tastes of people. Another example is how rap and modern r'n'b are more likely to be extremely popular with suburban communities and hipsters, and less so with wealthier or countryside, predominantly white, people, both in America and in Europe, of course always with exceptions. Again, does this mean that the latter are wrong not to listen to "urban" music styles, or that the former are excessive in their love for these styles? Again, I think the answer is somewhere in between. The main point I want to make is that social pressure sometimes dictates how popular some music styles or productions get.
There are other factors, like the language barrier or the fact that people can acquire tastes through repeated listenings, but I'll leave them aside this time. All that I was trying to demonstrate is that there are a lot of very important reasons why commercial appeal and popularity are not necessarily demonstrative of how successful an artistic work is. Now to come back to the definition of a successful artistic work and the difference with craftsmanship: for me, a really successful creation is one that best translates the artist's intention, while at the same time holding some significance for some reason. In this light, The Velvet Underground is a major achievement, as it translated the obsessions of Cale, Reed & Co. with the shady sides, sexuality and interests of New York in the late 60s-early 70s in their uncomfortable lyrics and nasty arrangements, and in doing so they were not only revolutionary for trying ideas that no one attempted before but by also showing fantastic musical skills (Reed was a great guitarist and Cale a talented multi-instrumentalist, no matter how unpleasant the sounds they produced were). They were also significant because their influence reaches far into subsequent "underground" music, from art rock to post-punk to post-hardcore to the Subpop sound to the neo-psychedelia of American indie rock up to this day. Their actual commercial success has no influence whatsoever on their subsequent acclaim, the VU's legacy is an established fact. They didn't score big hits because they failed to push all the buttons I listed above, but that doesn't stop them from deserving their acclaim. Now, let's talk about Madonna or Taylor Swift. Such acts fall more into the "craftsman" category to me, than the "artist" one. Their music is shaped to turn into hits, through the work of their producers and their own vocal performance. Contrary to the most extremist hipsters, I think their works deserve acclaim too, but as a combined achievement of both the singer's performance and the work of their producers. Now do the most popular "craftsmen" deserve more acclaim than the "artists"? My personal opinion is no, because I believe that artists who try to break out of the formulas/templates of pop music that are popular at some point to achieve something at least a bit groundbreaking should be rewarded more for their creativity and courage than those who perfect these formulas/templates. I still try to remain pragmatic enough to think that experimentalism which exists just for the sake of experimentalism is no good either, but it's where you need to be a really competent and experienced reviewer to perceive where artists cross the line into self-indulgence.
Anyway, all of this has nothing to do with my initial goal when I created this topic. But I feel better now that I put this out of my system.
First of all, I think there exists something of an unconscious template that is almost universally and subconsciously present in people when it comes to look for pop songs: a basic verse-chorus-verse-chorus structure with little variation: two verses at the beginning, more choruses at the end, maybe a bridge or instrumental solo (as short as possible, or it ought to be very melodic). It has to be danceable when it's a midtempo or uptempo song, and "emotional" if its a downtempo one; but in all cases, as catchy as possible. The arrangements have to underline the melody and push it to the forefront. It's of course a caricature, but from an empirical approach, it's more or less true. Also some may argue that it's instinctive, others that it's a social construct, but that's not very important. No matter what, acts who choose to fit this mold as much as possible to be commercially successful may produce genuinely fantastic music (Madonna or early Beatles for instance), but to quote a not-so-stupid remark from Bruce, we're then talking more about craftsmanship that artistry. Where I disagreed with Bruce was that according to him, critics should concentrate on acclaiming craftsmen and ALWAYS give the backseat to artists who are trying to sound more idiosyncratic. Why so? I'll come back to it later.
Second point: for some reason (again, instinct or social construct), singers who manage "plastic" vocal prowesses tend to be more popular than others. Apparently, they're catchier to the ear and more emotionally involving. It's difficult to argue with the legitimacy of such a reaction and after all, the entire soul music genre is based on the vocal capacities of the singer. But it creates two major issues: 1. to me, the success of such singers as Mariah Carey, Céline Dion or Ariana Grande, or in another field Cassandra Wilson and Dinah Washington, is unjustified because their voices do not always actually convey emotions to my ears, but when I see videos of their audience crying tears during their live performances, I have no choice but to conclude that doing vocal prowesses is enough to entice emotional connections with them. Does it mean that I'm insensitive or that the distance I keep with these singers prevents me from reacting the same way? I can't be conclusive, but the fact that I'm moved by the singing of Otis Redding, Marvin Gaye or Frank Sinatra, Ella Fitzgerald or Billie Holiday makes me think that at least I'm not insensitive. 2. some singers are born with a shitty voice. Think Lou Reed, Mark E. Smith, Stephen Malkmus, John Lydon, even Bob Dylan. Now does this mean that the "reasonable" course of action for them would be to always let a singer gifted with a great voice handle their lyrics, or just do rap? I can't help but feel it would be sick. You can't force people to like listening to them, but do you have to forbid people with a "bad" voice from singing? Certainly, they will never be as popular as Céline Dion, but they have the right to sing just like anyone else.
Third thing: marketing, radio and TV exposure, financial resources from major labels, all that stuff. You know where I'm getting: an act with more exposure will necessarily have bigger chances of scoring big than another who doesn't enjoy the same popularity. There are anomalies of course, like Nirvana, but I'll get back to them in my next point. Some acts don't enjoy much support from their label, others have to stick to indie labels because the heads of major labels don't believe they have commercial potential, and there are even a LOT of acts who choose to remain indie because of their ethos, political or ideological, and just don't want to be famous. Does this make them better artists? Of course not, but does this mean they should be less acclaimed because, unless there's an accident, they will inevitably be less commercially successful? My answer is, again, no. The quality of someone's artistry doesn't lie in a person's ethos and choices, but in how successful they are in translating it into an œuvre, if such is their choice.
Fourth, and last point: fashion and trends, and community and peer pressure. They are roughly the same issue, even though fashion and trends are usually used to describe influences that affect society as a whole instead of a subset. The fact that the youth of America suddenly felt a widespread discontent and unhappiness with their situation at the point when "Smells Like Teen Spirit" hit the waves is generally considered the factor why Nirvana scored so big despite a generally rough and aggressive sound. This pushed grunge to the forefront and helped the genre be successful for several years before fading back into obscurity. But this kind of event, just like rock'n'roll did in the 50s-60s to jazz when it exploded, tends to push the popularity of other genres back. Jazz was big once, now it's next to never aired. Does this mean the pool of jazz artists from today is less talented than it was back in its golden age? I can't tell as a whole, but if artists like Kamasi Washington are any indication, that's not necessarily the case. Community/peer pressure influences, in my opinion, more directly what people are likely to listen to. Video game fans show general disdain for pop music while claiming that Nobuo Uematsu is the greatest composer ever. Who knows him outside their sphere? Does this mean that Uematsu is overrated by them or that he is unfairly ignored by the wider public? The answer is, as often, somewhere in between, but it illustrates at a lesser scale how societal pressure can shape the tastes of people. Another example is how rap and modern r'n'b are more likely to be extremely popular with suburban communities and hipsters, and less so with wealthier or countryside, predominantly white, people, both in America and in Europe, of course always with exceptions. Again, does this mean that the latter are wrong not to listen to "urban" music styles, or that the former are excessive in their love for these styles? Again, I think the answer is somewhere in between. The main point I want to make is that social pressure sometimes dictates how popular some music styles or productions get.
There are other factors, like the language barrier or the fact that people can acquire tastes through repeated listenings, but I'll leave them aside this time. All that I was trying to demonstrate is that there are a lot of very important reasons why commercial appeal and popularity are not necessarily demonstrative of how successful an artistic work is. Now to come back to the definition of a successful artistic work and the difference with craftsmanship: for me, a really successful creation is one that best translates the artist's intention, while at the same time holding some significance for some reason. In this light, The Velvet Underground is a major achievement, as it translated the obsessions of Cale, Reed & Co. with the shady sides, sexuality and interests of New York in the late 60s-early 70s in their uncomfortable lyrics and nasty arrangements, and in doing so they were not only revolutionary for trying ideas that no one attempted before but by also showing fantastic musical skills (Reed was a great guitarist and Cale a talented multi-instrumentalist, no matter how unpleasant the sounds they produced were). They were also significant because their influence reaches far into subsequent "underground" music, from art rock to post-punk to post-hardcore to the Subpop sound to the neo-psychedelia of American indie rock up to this day. Their actual commercial success has no influence whatsoever on their subsequent acclaim, the VU's legacy is an established fact. They didn't score big hits because they failed to push all the buttons I listed above, but that doesn't stop them from deserving their acclaim. Now, let's talk about Madonna or Taylor Swift. Such acts fall more into the "craftsman" category to me, than the "artist" one. Their music is shaped to turn into hits, through the work of their producers and their own vocal performance. Contrary to the most extremist hipsters, I think their works deserve acclaim too, but as a combined achievement of both the singer's performance and the work of their producers. Now do the most popular "craftsmen" deserve more acclaim than the "artists"? My personal opinion is no, because I believe that artists who try to break out of the formulas/templates of pop music that are popular at some point to achieve something at least a bit groundbreaking should be rewarded more for their creativity and courage than those who perfect these formulas/templates. I still try to remain pragmatic enough to think that experimentalism which exists just for the sake of experimentalism is no good either, but it's where you need to be a really competent and experienced reviewer to perceive where artists cross the line into self-indulgence.
Anyway, all of this has nothing to do with my initial goal when I created this topic. But I feel better now that I put this out of my system.
- prosecutorgodot
- Keep On Movin'
- Posts: 1551
- Joined: Tue Apr 14, 2015 5:53 am
- Location: SF Bay Area, California
Re: "So good it's bad"? "Perfect" albums and songs which don't connect with you
"Acclaim vs. Popularity" must be the most overplayed hit song of all time. I truly am sick of it. Just like what you like!
If someone prefers the craftsmen, they have the right to worship the craftsmen!
And of course if you prefer the artists, worship the artists!
That's all there is!
I agree with popularity not being a factor. In fact, nothing should be a factor but how "throwaway" it is.
I'm of the mind that you should never be trying to put together, on your own, a list of the "greatest" artists/musicians. Beyond your own personal tastes, a single person cannot have an "objective" view of music.
Sorry, I just spewed a bunch of sentences and piled them together, but I hope it made you think a little bit.
If someone prefers the craftsmen, they have the right to worship the craftsmen!
And of course if you prefer the artists, worship the artists!
That's all there is!
I agree with popularity not being a factor. In fact, nothing should be a factor but how "throwaway" it is.
I'm of the mind that you should never be trying to put together, on your own, a list of the "greatest" artists/musicians. Beyond your own personal tastes, a single person cannot have an "objective" view of music.
Sorry, I just spewed a bunch of sentences and piled them together, but I hope it made you think a little bit.
Re: "So good it's bad"? "Perfect" albums and songs which don't connect with you
Pierre - Thanks for your latest comment, especially the line:
"Where I disagreed with Bruce was that according to him, critics should concentrate on acclaiming craftsmen and ALWAYS give the backseat to artists who are trying to sound more idiosyncratic. Why so? I'll come back to it later."
I love many artists that would not be deemed particularly popular and may even be considered idiosyncratic, including the following from my favorite artists list:
1) Todd Rundgren
2) The Style Council
3) Yes
4) Steely Dan
6) Utopia
15) Joe Jackson
17) Donald Fagen
18) Chick Corea
81) John Coltrane
88) Sufjan Stevens
While I respect the efforts of other performers to experiment, if the result is many songs that I find barely listenable I cannot say that I have particular affection for said performers and I can clearly state that said songs do not connect with me. This is what I thought you were looking for. If I was mistaken, please help me understand how I was mistaken.
"Where I disagreed with Bruce was that according to him, critics should concentrate on acclaiming craftsmen and ALWAYS give the backseat to artists who are trying to sound more idiosyncratic. Why so? I'll come back to it later."
I love many artists that would not be deemed particularly popular and may even be considered idiosyncratic, including the following from my favorite artists list:
1) Todd Rundgren
2) The Style Council
3) Yes
4) Steely Dan
6) Utopia
15) Joe Jackson
17) Donald Fagen
18) Chick Corea
81) John Coltrane
88) Sufjan Stevens
While I respect the efforts of other performers to experiment, if the result is many songs that I find barely listenable I cannot say that I have particular affection for said performers and I can clearly state that said songs do not connect with me. This is what I thought you were looking for. If I was mistaken, please help me understand how I was mistaken.
Re: "So good it's bad"? "Perfect" albums and songs which don't connect with you
No, I understand your viewpoint completely. It took me a while to like the artists who experimented the most with dissonance and atonality (except the VU for the reasons exposed in the best VU song thread) both in rock and in jazz, and I understand that these sounds can never connect with some people. When I started the thread, I thought about mentioning the case of "Trout Mask Replica", precisely as an example of that. It's a completely acquired taste for me, mostly because I stupidly challenged myself into forcing me to like it some years ago, listening to it again and again until it broke through But since it's such an extreme case, I thought this would be irrelevant.Henry wrote:Pierre - Thanks for your latest comment, especially the line:
"Where I disagreed with Bruce was that according to him, critics should concentrate on acclaiming craftsmen and ALWAYS give the backseat to artists who are trying to sound more idiosyncratic. Why so? I'll come back to it later."
I love many artists that would not be deemed particularly popular and may even be considered idiosyncratic, including the following from my favorite artists list:
1) Todd Rundgren
2) The Style Council
3) Yes
4) Steely Dan
6) Utopia
15) Joe Jackson
17) Donald Fagen
18) Chick Corea
81) John Coltrane
88) Sufjan Stevens
While I respect the efforts of other performers to experiment, if the result is many songs that I find barely listenable I cannot say that I have particular affection for said performers and I can clearly state that said songs do not connect with me. This is what I thought you were looking for. If I was mistaken, please help me understand how I was mistaken.
- Maschine_Man
- Unquestionable Presence
- Posts: 643
- Joined: Wed Dec 05, 2012 4:42 am
Re: "So good it's bad"? "Perfect" albums and songs which don't connect with you
I guess I can kinda see why people like Sister Ray (and really the rest of White Light/White Heat), but I can't deal with any of it. It sounds like a lot of mess to me.
I think song for song, Exile On Main Street is the worst of The Rolling Stones 4 album hot streak.
Don't get me started on Random Access Memories. It's such a lazy attempt at an album for Daft Punk. I guess people think they hit their mark, but I'm listening right now and it already feels like it's beginning to date.
With all three, (I think) I can see what the goal was, and I would say they all achieved it. I'm just not on board with what that that was and think some of their other work was better.
I think song for song, Exile On Main Street is the worst of The Rolling Stones 4 album hot streak.
Don't get me started on Random Access Memories. It's such a lazy attempt at an album for Daft Punk. I guess people think they hit their mark, but I'm listening right now and it already feels like it's beginning to date.
With all three, (I think) I can see what the goal was, and I would say they all achieved it. I'm just not on board with what that that was and think some of their other work was better.
Re: "So good it's bad"? "Perfect" albums and songs which don't connect with you
I love Pink Moon. I adore Bryter Later. Five Leaves Left? Meh.
Re: "So good it's bad"? "Perfect" albums and songs which don't connect with you
Fleetwood Mac - Rumours
Flawless? Maybe. Acclaim justified? Yes. Do I like it? Only a few seconds here and there. Otherwise please turn it off. It is simply not me, even though I appreciate that it is just right for many other people.
The issue here isn't 'So good it's bad', but so perfect for some people that it simply can't also give pleasure to other people in our (gloriously) diverse human race.
Flawless? Maybe. Acclaim justified? Yes. Do I like it? Only a few seconds here and there. Otherwise please turn it off. It is simply not me, even though I appreciate that it is just right for many other people.
The issue here isn't 'So good it's bad', but so perfect for some people that it simply can't also give pleasure to other people in our (gloriously) diverse human race.
Re: "So good it's bad"? "Perfect" albums and songs which don't connect with you
Actually, I used the "So good it's bad" as a catchy hook in the title, otherwise you understood the point of my topic perfectly Thanks!DaveC wrote: The issue here isn't 'So good it's bad', but so perfect for some people that it simply can't also give pleasure to other people in our (gloriously) diverse human race.
Re: "So good it's bad"? "Perfect" albums and songs which don't connect with you
Paul's Boutique. According to allmusic "Many critics in fact thought that Paul's Boutique was a muddled mess upon its summer release in 1989, but that's the nature of the record -- it's so dense, it's bewildering at first, revealing its considerable charms with each play." I've listened to it three times and I'm still not charmed.
Re: "So good it's bad"? "Perfect" albums and songs which don't connect with you
For me the definition of a 'So good its bad' album is an album so polished it lacks emotional distinction. I strongly disagree that OK Computer is one of those albums, but I feel that way about a lot of Paul McCartney's post-Beatles work.
There's technique and there's charisma. Technique is often treated as the 'official' judge of how good music is. Somebody sings with perfect pitch, great technique. Charisma is injecting emotional content around the technique, which may mean a couple notes aren't quite directly on pitch or delivered perfectly with the beat. Auto-tuned music often lacks emotion because every note and every loop sounds exactly the same. A really great pop song has to have enough technique to sound good but enough charisma to connect with the audience.
There's technique and there's charisma. Technique is often treated as the 'official' judge of how good music is. Somebody sings with perfect pitch, great technique. Charisma is injecting emotional content around the technique, which may mean a couple notes aren't quite directly on pitch or delivered perfectly with the beat. Auto-tuned music often lacks emotion because every note and every loop sounds exactly the same. A really great pop song has to have enough technique to sound good but enough charisma to connect with the audience.
Re: "So good it's bad"? "Perfect" albums and songs which don't connect with you
Sorry that you feel this way. "Paul's Boutique" has always been an album that I've liked, but over the past month or two I've fallen head over heels in love with it. It's now in my top 50 albums of all time. There's just something about the massive kitchen sink full of samples that are thrown in the album that invites constant repeated listens for me, as if every time I listen to it I discover some small sonic detail that I'd never noticed before (similar to another sample based album, The Avalanches' "Since I Left You"). The album also has this charmingly informal atmosphere to it, a place where samples of bong hits, old movies, and Sly and the Family Stone songs can coexist. It has a serious groove to it, which I feel is most noticeable on songs like "Hey Ladies" and "Shadrach", and this groove makes it easy to see why Miles Davis called it one of his favorite albums of all time in the last months of his life. As fun as the brick to the face, beer chugging sound of "Licensed to Ill" is, that album just can't compare to "Paul's Boutique" in terms of pure dance-ability, pure funkiness, and overall sonic diversity. If "Licensed to Ill" is akin to doing a keg stand at a frat party, then "Paul's Boutique" is a sonic amusement park ride through the cultural detritus of the 1970s and 1980s. And of course there's the MCs themselves, which litter the album with hilarious pop culture references and jokes. Listening to the Beastie Boys on this album is akin to spending a day and a night with three of your funniest, quick witted friends, just overhearing them shit talk and crack jokes.Dexter wrote:Paul's Boutique. According to allmusic "Many critics in fact thought that Paul's Boutique was a muddled mess upon its summer release in 1989, but that's the nature of the record -- it's so dense, it's bewildering at first, revealing its considerable charms with each play." I've listened to it three times and I'm still not charmed.
If you don't like it, you don't like it though. Just trying to offer up my own defense of the album.
Re: "So good it's bad"? "Perfect" albums and songs which don't connect with you
I love Pink Moon. I adore Five Leaves Left. Bryter Later ? Meh.DocBrown wrote:I love Pink Moon. I adore Bryter Later. Five Leaves Left? Meh.
Re: "So good it's bad"? "Perfect" albums and songs which don't connect with you
It's not that I don't like it but it is not the masterpiece that I read it to be. I agree that it deserved praise for its "everything but the kitchen sink" approach in sampling which cannot be duplicated today due to sampling costs but as a musical experience it did not give me the exhilaration as the other albums tagged as classics. Maybe it's because I am not all that familiar with the references and jokes (the tone of some I find borderline sexists) or maybe it's because of all that info and the density of the music, it just did not "grab" me.Nick wrote:If "Licensed to Ill" is akin to doing a keg stand at a frat party, then "Paul's Boutique" is a sonic amusement park ride through the cultural detritus of the 1970s and 1980s. And of course there's the MCs themselves, which litter the album with hilarious pop culture references and jokes. Listening to the Beastie Boys on this album is akin to spending a day and a night with three of your funniest, quick witted friends, just overhearing them shit talk and crack jokes.
If you don't like it, you don't like it though. Just trying to offer up my own defense of the album.
Re: "So good it's bad"? "Perfect" albums and songs which don't connect with you
This thread is conducive to negative posts, so I apologize in advance to the fans of the songs and artists I'm about to criticize, but I'm mostly just trying to learn why people like certain ones that I don't get anything out of.
Maybe someday I'll come around, but to me, easily the best embodiment of this thread's concept is Joy Division, particularly "Love Will Tear Us Apart." I appreciate almost all of the most critically acclaimed songs, and I really try to give them all a chance, but I can't get behind this one. Ian Curtis was a good lyricist, and the song came out under tragic circumstances, but those are the only redeeming qualities I can see. His performance seems totally flat to me; given the circumstances, it's obvious that he was experiencing some powerful emotions, but he completely fails to convey them to me with his listless performance (given the ranking, I'm sure he somehow does to others). I don't enjoy the melodies, and besides the frenetic drumming there's not much to latch onto with the instrumentation. I felt similarly about The Smiths until recently, with their depressing lyrics, low-energy sound and jangly instrumentation, but at least in addition to their well-written lyrics, they did make some great tunes, and Morrissey has the ability to sing well when he wants to. I don't think that's the case with Curtis, and I feel the same way about Joy Division's other songs, minus the redeeming qualities. Sorry to Joy Division fans, but they stick out like a sore thumb to me to be listed alongside all these other bands that I love.
Other songs from the AM Top 100 that I understand but don't personally like:
Anything by the Sex Pistols - yes, they were politically influential, but was their music actually that great? Divorced from politics, they're left with almost nothing, as far as I'm concerned.
Strange Fruit - Another politically charged song, and a lot of people think Holiday was one of the great singers, but I don't hear it. I think her voice sounds odd, and I feel like there's very little structure or melodic interest in the song.
Good Times - Good bass riff, but I don't think it's enough to set it that far apart from all the other cheesy '70s disco songs
One I don't like and really don't get at all:
Unfinished Sympathy
Ones I like somewhat but am baffled about why they would be in a top 100:
Blue Monday
Ghost Town
This Charming Man
I consider myself very open-minded about music, so maybe one of you can shed light on one of these songs and help me to better appreciate it.
Maybe someday I'll come around, but to me, easily the best embodiment of this thread's concept is Joy Division, particularly "Love Will Tear Us Apart." I appreciate almost all of the most critically acclaimed songs, and I really try to give them all a chance, but I can't get behind this one. Ian Curtis was a good lyricist, and the song came out under tragic circumstances, but those are the only redeeming qualities I can see. His performance seems totally flat to me; given the circumstances, it's obvious that he was experiencing some powerful emotions, but he completely fails to convey them to me with his listless performance (given the ranking, I'm sure he somehow does to others). I don't enjoy the melodies, and besides the frenetic drumming there's not much to latch onto with the instrumentation. I felt similarly about The Smiths until recently, with their depressing lyrics, low-energy sound and jangly instrumentation, but at least in addition to their well-written lyrics, they did make some great tunes, and Morrissey has the ability to sing well when he wants to. I don't think that's the case with Curtis, and I feel the same way about Joy Division's other songs, minus the redeeming qualities. Sorry to Joy Division fans, but they stick out like a sore thumb to me to be listed alongside all these other bands that I love.
Other songs from the AM Top 100 that I understand but don't personally like:
Anything by the Sex Pistols - yes, they were politically influential, but was their music actually that great? Divorced from politics, they're left with almost nothing, as far as I'm concerned.
Strange Fruit - Another politically charged song, and a lot of people think Holiday was one of the great singers, but I don't hear it. I think her voice sounds odd, and I feel like there's very little structure or melodic interest in the song.
Good Times - Good bass riff, but I don't think it's enough to set it that far apart from all the other cheesy '70s disco songs
One I don't like and really don't get at all:
Unfinished Sympathy
Ones I like somewhat but am baffled about why they would be in a top 100:
Blue Monday
Ghost Town
This Charming Man
I consider myself very open-minded about music, so maybe one of you can shed light on one of these songs and help me to better appreciate it.
Re: "So good it's bad"? "Perfect" albums and songs which don't connect with you
To me, Ian Curtis doesn't sound listless but empty, which I can imagine sounding pretty similar. It's not that he doesn't put energy into this song, but that he can't put in that energy you would expect from other artists. What makes Joy Division's work so haunting to many people is how clearly this comes through in many of their songs; Ian Curtis sounds defeated. While there are plenty of artists we know to have suffered from depression, especially in retrospect, Curtis is a rare artist that wore that identity in his work.
"Love With Tear Us Apart," to me, seems to come from a place of irony. I didn't like it when I first found this site; it seemed cheesy, both between Curtis's vocals and what appeared to be mismatched instrumentation. It has since grown on me a lot, in part because of the dissonance between Curtis's dire vocals and the rather upbeat music that surrounds it. In many ways, "Love Will Tear Us Apart" is a musical suicide note; it's one of those moments in art where the artist exposes their inner thoughts entirely. To me, it's a perfect embodiment of depression; it doesn't come off as particularly sad (Joy Division certainly hasn't brought any tears to my eyes, while artists like Sufjan Stevens can easily pull it off), but instead feels like nothing in particular. The glistening melodies create the all-too-familiar sensation of depressed people wearing a mask to cover their feelings, but here it exists in a way to expose itself. Many great works of music define themselves through their seamless mixture of sounds; "Love Will Tear Us Apart," on the other hand, doesn't quite find perfect unity. It's certainly not an avant-garde work, but the experience of listening to it is always jarring. It comes from a place of artifice, presenting itself as more innocent than it really is.
It's interesting to compare this song to both "Transmission" and "Atmosphere." "Transmission" is an earlier song that shows Curtis at perhaps his most energetic, as he demands us to dance, dance, dance. It creates this heavy contrast to show how quickly Curtis's approach to music changed. "Atmosphere" is Curtis at his most immediately visible state of depression. Where "Love Will Tear Us Apart" relies on irony, "Atmosphere" is straightforward. What's interesting to note here is how much force he puts into his voice as the song comes to its close. Where "Love Will Tear Us Apart" seems to be Curtis accepting his fate, "Atmosphere" finds him begging for something to hold on to.
So, while I can't explain why you should like them, I hope this gives you a better understanding of why the people who like Joy Division put them on such an elevated level. Though we only had the band for two short years, there are few artists who have made such intimate works. I feel like I understand Ian Curtis more with two albums and a handful of singles than I do with Bob Dylan or David Bowie after about 50 years. Contrast this with New Order, which lost the intimacy of Joy Division but evolved its sound. Even with a lot more time, New Order appears to have only matched Joy Division's legacy. Joy Division captured an emotional state perfectly, in a way that few bands before or since have even attempted.
"Love With Tear Us Apart," to me, seems to come from a place of irony. I didn't like it when I first found this site; it seemed cheesy, both between Curtis's vocals and what appeared to be mismatched instrumentation. It has since grown on me a lot, in part because of the dissonance between Curtis's dire vocals and the rather upbeat music that surrounds it. In many ways, "Love Will Tear Us Apart" is a musical suicide note; it's one of those moments in art where the artist exposes their inner thoughts entirely. To me, it's a perfect embodiment of depression; it doesn't come off as particularly sad (Joy Division certainly hasn't brought any tears to my eyes, while artists like Sufjan Stevens can easily pull it off), but instead feels like nothing in particular. The glistening melodies create the all-too-familiar sensation of depressed people wearing a mask to cover their feelings, but here it exists in a way to expose itself. Many great works of music define themselves through their seamless mixture of sounds; "Love Will Tear Us Apart," on the other hand, doesn't quite find perfect unity. It's certainly not an avant-garde work, but the experience of listening to it is always jarring. It comes from a place of artifice, presenting itself as more innocent than it really is.
It's interesting to compare this song to both "Transmission" and "Atmosphere." "Transmission" is an earlier song that shows Curtis at perhaps his most energetic, as he demands us to dance, dance, dance. It creates this heavy contrast to show how quickly Curtis's approach to music changed. "Atmosphere" is Curtis at his most immediately visible state of depression. Where "Love Will Tear Us Apart" relies on irony, "Atmosphere" is straightforward. What's interesting to note here is how much force he puts into his voice as the song comes to its close. Where "Love Will Tear Us Apart" seems to be Curtis accepting his fate, "Atmosphere" finds him begging for something to hold on to.
So, while I can't explain why you should like them, I hope this gives you a better understanding of why the people who like Joy Division put them on such an elevated level. Though we only had the band for two short years, there are few artists who have made such intimate works. I feel like I understand Ian Curtis more with two albums and a handful of singles than I do with Bob Dylan or David Bowie after about 50 years. Contrast this with New Order, which lost the intimacy of Joy Division but evolved its sound. Even with a lot more time, New Order appears to have only matched Joy Division's legacy. Joy Division captured an emotional state perfectly, in a way that few bands before or since have even attempted.
Re: "So good it's bad"? "Perfect" albums and songs which don't connect with you
Thanks for the thoughtful response, as always, BleuPanda! I just listened to all the songs you mentioned with your ideas in mind, and I did appreciate Atmosphere and Transmission more than I remembered. Curtis does show more of a dynamic range in Transmission than usual, and Atmosphere embodies its title with an interesting ambiance, and I would really like it if someone other than Curtis were singing it...it's still going to be a struggle for me to come around on him. And it's not that I only like upbeat music. A lot of my favorite songs and artists do a good job representing a depressed state, and the best ones can really connect with me emotionally; Joy Division still doesn't do that for me.
To each his own! I haven't totally given up on them yet though.
To each his own! I haven't totally given up on them yet though.
Re: "So good it's bad"? "Perfect" albums and songs which don't connect with you
This is what I think the original intention of this post is. A lot of people seem to be just citing songs/albums that are acclaimed that they don't really care for.Jirin wrote:For me the definition of a 'So good its bad' album is an album so polished it lacks emotional distinction. I strongly disagree that OK Computer is one of those albums, but I feel that way about a lot of Paul McCartney's post-Beatles work.
There's technique and there's charisma. Technique is often treated as the 'official' judge of how good music is. Somebody sings with perfect pitch, great technique. Charisma is injecting emotional content around the technique, which may mean a couple notes aren't quite directly on pitch or delivered perfectly with the beat. Auto-tuned music often lacks emotion because every note and every loop sounds exactly the same. A really great pop song has to have enough technique to sound good but enough charisma to connect with the audience.
There are a few examples of "so good, it's bad" that come to mind in pop - a really catchy earworm that is nonetheless completely annoying. The pinnacle of this for me is Aqua's "Cartoon Heroes" - it's easy to remember and catchy as hell, but my God do I hate it.
Click at your own risk:
If we just want to bag on stuff we don't really care for that is generally well-received, here are my ratings of 3 or below for songs ranked in the top 1000 by AM so far (I haven't gotten around to listening to/rating everything yet):
[1] Bob Dylan - Like a Rolling Stone: 3
[3] The Beatles - A Day in the Life: 3
[8] The Beatles - Strawberry Fields Forever: 0
[9] Aretha Franklin - Respect: 2
[14] The Who - My Generation: 1
[22] Led Zeppelin - Stairway to Heaven: 1
[25] John Lennon - Imagine: 1
[40] The Beatles - Hey Jude: 2
[44] R.E.M. - Losing My Religion: 3
[45] The Beatles - I Want to Hold Your Hand: 0
[48] Beyoncé - Crazy in Love: 0
[61] Beck - Loser: 1
[74] Eagles - Hotel California: 0
[93] Led Zeppelin - Whole Lotta Love: 2
[96] Bob Dylan - Tangled Up in Blue: 3
[103] Oasis - Live Forever: 1
[106] Rod Stewart - Maggie May: 3
[113] Bob Marley and the Wailers - No Woman No Cry: 0
[114] The Beatles - She Loves You: 1
[116] Oasis - Wonderwall: 0
[117] The Beatles - Yesterday: 2
[119] Johnny Cash - I Walk the Line: 2
[128] The Who - Won't Get Fooled Again: 2
[140] Bob Dylan - Subterranean Homesick Blues: 3
[152] Van Morrison - Brown Eyed Girl: 1
[155] The Beatles - Penny Lane: 2
[170] The Beatles - Tomorrow Never Knows: 2
[184] Johnny Cash - Folsom Prison Blues: 3
[186] The Beatles - Eleanor Rigby: 3
[189] The Beatles - Help!: 0.5
[191] The Beatles - Let It Be: 2
[194] Pink Floyd - See Emily Play: 3
[195] Amy Winehouse - Rehab: 3
[212] The Troggs - Wild Thing: 3
[218] Marvin Gaye - Sexual Healing: 3
[225] The Who - Baba O'Riley: 2
[242] The Who - I Can't Explain: 3
[250] The Beatles - Ticket to Ride: 2
[282] The Beatles - Come Together: 3
[284] Lynyrd Skynyrd - Free Bird: 1
[294] Bob Dylan - Visions of Johanna: 3
[301] Bob Dylan - Blowin' in the Wind: 1
[308] Pink Floyd - Wish You Were Here: 2
[318] Jay-Z - Empire State of Mind: 2
[353] Neil Young - Heart of Gold: 3
[368] The Beatles - A Hard Day's Night: 1
[372] The Who - I Can See for Miles: 2
[386] AC/DC - Back in Black: 1
[401] R. Kelly - Ignition (Remix): 2
[406] Elton John - Your Song: 2.5
[433] Lynyrd Skynyrd - Sweet Home Alabama: 0
[445] R.E.M. - Everybody Hurts: 2
[458] Lorde - Royals: 3
[464] AC/DC - Highway to Hell: 1
[467] The Beach Boys - California Girls: 3
[469] Beck - Where It's At: 3
[497] Led Zeppelin - Dazed and Confused: 2
[498] Oasis - Supersonic: 1
[501] Coldplay - Yellow: 3
[503] Don McLean - American Pie: 1
[510] Cee-Lo - Fuck You!: 3
[542] Bob Dylan - Just Like a Woman: 3
[569] Pixies - Gigantic: 3
[587] The Beatles - Here Comes the Sun: 1
[601] Coldplay - Viva La Vida: 2
[603] Justin Timberlake - Cry Me a River: 1
[664] Carly Simon - You're So Vain: 2
[670] Justin Timberlake - My Love: 3
[684] Oasis - Don't Look Back in Anger: 3
[685] Pink Floyd - Comfortably Numb: 3
[693] Bob Marley and the Wailers - I Shot the Sheriff: 3
[715] Pearl Jam - Alive: 2.5
[724] AC/DC - You Shook Me All Night Long: 0
[737] Pink Floyd - Another Brick in the Wall, Part 2: 2
[754] Pink Floyd - Money: 3
[783] 50 Cent - In Da Club: 1
[785] The Beatles - Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds: 1
[811] The Beatles - I Saw Her Standing There: 3
[827] Bob Dylan - I Want You: 3
[841] Coldplay - The Scientist: 2
[844] Jay-Z - IZZO (H.O.V.A.): 3
[847] Joni Mitchell - Big Yellow Taxi: 2
[880] Coldplay - Clocks: 2
[902] Green Day - Basket Case: 0
[929] Bob Dylan - Highway 61 Revisited: 3
[937] The Beatles - With a Little Help from My Friends: 1
[958] Elton John - Tiny Dancer: 3
[979] Elton John - Rocket Man: 2
Re: "So good it's bad"? "Perfect" albums and songs which don't connect with you
I like every single one of those songs, Moonbeam. For two people who care as much about music as we both clearly do, it's pretty amazing that we have tastes that almost couldn't be more different. You named about half of my favorite songs.
Re: "So good it's bad"? "Perfect" albums and songs which don't connect with you
I'd guess most people like a majority of those songs, given that they are so acclaimed. I think if each of us made a similar list, the rest of us would have a similar reaction! We are all probably more unique based on what we dislike than based on what we like. Of the ones you had mentioned, I really like "Love Will Tear Us Apart", "Good Times", "This Charming Man", "Ghost Town" (the only Specials song I like, it seems), and especially "Blue Monday". Nevertheless, I'm sure we have lots in common as well!andyd1010 wrote:I like every single one of those songs, Moonbeam. For two people who care as much about music as we both clearly do, it's pretty amazing that we have tastes that almost couldn't be more different. You named about half of my favorite songs.
Re: "So good it's bad"? "Perfect" albums and songs which don't connect with you
So far, I have noticed a few things we have in common. We have roughly the same opinion of R.E.M., and we are both fans of Life on Mars? and Aladdin Sane (the album). I have been nonstop listening to Moonage Daydream and Lady Grinning Soul since the Bowie poll results came out, and they know have a rock-solid place in my top 15, so I regret not voting for them. Lady Grinning Soul is fantastic.Moonbeam wrote:I'd guess most people like a majority of those songs, given that they are so acclaimed. I think if each of us made a similar list, the rest of us would have a similar reaction! We are all probably more unique based on what we dislike than based on what we like. Of the ones you had mentioned, I really like "Love Will Tear Us Apart", "Good Times", "This Charming Man", "Ghost Town" (the only Specials song I like, it seems), and especially "Blue Monday". Nevertheless, I'm sure we have lots in common as well!andyd1010 wrote:I like every single one of those songs, Moonbeam. For two people who care as much about music as we both clearly do, it's pretty amazing that we have tastes that almost couldn't be more different. You named about half of my favorite songs.