When an album's importance is better than the album's music, even tough the album's music still being at least very good

Post Reply
mat.bez.lima
Let's Get It On
Posts: 170
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2016 11:39 pm

When an album's importance is better than the album's music, even tough the album's music still being at least very good

Post by mat.bez.lima » Fri Nov 04, 2016 2:17 am

Some albums are really important, I like them and they deserve respect and acclaim, but listening to them, I can't help that feeling that the same artist have better albums not so acclaimed just because aren't so important, but are better if you take away context and historical importance. Or In other cases, I feel that the album wouldn't be so acclaimed if was made by another artist.
I will say some examples:
1-Sgt. Peppers is a good album at least, let's no doubt about this. I know all the impact that Peppers had, I know that Peppers probably was the album that definitively imortalized and consolidated The Beatles in public and critic, I know also that was the first rock album that won a Grammy for album of the year and I know all the cultural context in that the album was released. I like Peppers, but I can't help that, considering just the music, Peppers is irregular and has many banal songs. This album would rate higher for me if The Beatles hadn't excluded Penny Lane and Strawberry Fields of the album just because these songs were already released as singles. Frankly, Revolver is much more consistent and impressive and it's their best album, only not having 5 stars because of Yellow Submarine.
2-The White Album have many great songs, principally While My Guitar Gently Weeps (the best song of the album) and Blackbird, a simple, but beautiful song. But the album have many crap songs that easily rank as his worst songs. I know, respect and understand the album as an image of how the band, and why not also the world in that year, was really with many discussions and problems and I doubt that any other band would still release so much good material with so much internal problems. The album shows how the band was prolific, and versatile. The album shows, like no other Beatles album, the individual personality of every menber of The Beatles. I respect the important role that the album had in studying the band history, but I doubt that would be so acclaimed if was by other band.
3-In The Wee Small Hours is a good to great album, in my top 5 Sinatra's album, but if wasn't the, in the opinions of many, the first concept album, I don't believe that this album would be so frequently considered his best album, nor would be by far the most acclaimed and remembered Sinatra's album (see Acclaimed Music). But I always felt that the song selection, tough good and with many great songs, could be better, some songs aren't bad, but aren't really great. In fact, of all his great sad ballad albums in the 50s, In The Wee Small Hours was the hardest to really like all the songs, that are good, but not all songs are really great to the point of justify the big lenghty of the album. In my opinion, there isn't problem in doing an album with all songs sharing the mood and style, in fact this is good because the album really sounds as an album with no separate songs, but this only is completely justificable if all the songs are at least excellent. Only The Lonely have a bigger lenghty than In The Wee Small Hours and all the songs also share the same mood and style, but all the songs are so fucking spectacular that time stops when I listen Only The Lonely. Where Are You, tough the Jenkin's arrengements aren't for every taste, have a great song selection that surpasses In The Wee Small Hours. Maybe it's also because while In The Wee Small Hours have 16 tracks, Only The Lonely and Where Are You have each one 12 tracks, even with Only The Lonely being lenghtier than In The Wee Small Hours. Another reason why I prefer these albums than In The Wee Small Hours is Sinatra's voice: in 1955 Sinatra's voice, tough great, was still too sweet and not sufficiently resonant in dark ballads in comparison with later years. Don't understand me wrong: the album still have many spectacular performances, but his voice timbre and tone became more richer, balanced and impressive in 57 and 58, his peak period in voice, phrasing, in voice's personality, in everything.
What do you think about what I said? Do you agree? Please, tell also your own cases when you thinked that the importance of an album was bigger than the album's music by itself, even tough the album's music still being at least very good?
Last edited by mat.bez.lima on Tue Nov 08, 2016 3:37 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User of RYM #507651

Jonathon
Different Class
Posts: 252
Joined: Sun Feb 12, 2012 11:13 am

Re: When an album's importance is better than the album's music, even tough the album's music still being at least very

Post by Jonathon » Sun Nov 06, 2016 3:21 pm

Massive Attack- Blue Lines comes to mind. Always liked it, never saw it as a top 40 or even top 100 album of all time.

Post Reply