THESE FORUMS NOW CLOSED (read only)
Fun Stuff => BAND => Topic started by: Spartan Pho3nix on 17 Jan 2006, 23:39
-
What seperates a GREAT album from a PRETTY GOOD album?
What's that extra step that makes a great album so great and memorable and perfect?
A great album is the sort of album that you stay up an extra hour to listen to. It's an album that doesn't LET you turn it off.
What makes "In The Aeroplane Over the Sea" catchy and perfect everytime you hear it?
What makes "Loveless" the ideal noise record?
What makes "The Soft Bulletin" such a bundle of perfect pop?
What makes "Slanted and Enchanted" so catchy a perfect amoung all it's imperfections?
All of these albums are GREAT. But what makes them so? Some changes here and there, and there albums would just be "very good." This can be illustrated in other albums by these artists, amoung other things.
What gives these perfect albums that little extra that just gives them endless replayability of perfect music?
-----
London Calling. That's a fricken perfect album. 19 songs of perfect perfection. Everything's ideal. 27 years after it was released, it's still great.
-
Great albums have uniform quality. Not that every track has to be a classic, but when listening to a great album you should never have the urge to hit the 'skip' button.
-
A great album feels cohesive. It lacks the feeling of "Hey these songs will be singles and the rest will be filler" that commercial bands try to push these days
-
Yes guys, having lots of good songs can make an album great, well done!
I like originality, I like it when you can barely describe how a band sounds without referencing four or more other bands. I've been listening to TV On The Radio recently (thanks tinjessla!) and I looked them up on LastFM and it comes up with the most similar artist as being The Shins, they're nothing alike! That's one of the things that makes an album 'great' for me, if it fills a particular niche that nothing else can fill. I mean, if I wanted some indie-ish folksy stuff I could listen to Iron And Wine or Elliott Smith or Sufjan Stevens or Bonnie 'Prince' Billy, maybe even some Brighteyes. Those artists are all good, I would even say they are great, it's just that they're not 'Great' great.
-
A great album feels cohesive. It lacks the feeling of "Hey these songs will be singles and the rest will be filler" that commercial bands try to push these days
Ugh, you're right, I hate it when bands do that. As songwriters ourselves, my band and I have never once written songs that we found to be disposable. If we don't like it, it doesn't go on the albums. Simple as that. I wish people would do that more nowadays, 'cause I know most of my favourite bands did it that way.
-
I like originality, I like it when you can barely describe how a band sounds without referencing four or more other bands.
That statement does not compute.
-
I think he means as opposed to bands you can just say 'it sounds like [insert random band here]', so instead you have to mix a crapload of bands together to get a sound even remotely similar.
But yeah, the comment doesn't make a lot of sense.
-
True originality is when you have to reference four other bands that also have to have four bands each reference to describe him
"Whoa, dude! This sounds like Nurse With Wound vs Current 93 fighting ...And Oceans on an icy slope whilst Ulver urinates on them, all to a backing by Captain Beefheart!"
-
Great albums have uniform quality. Not that every track has to be a classic, but when listening to a great album you should never have the urge to hit the 'skip' button.
This is true but that would make an excellent album not a GREAT album IMO.
GREAT albums just have that extra something.
-
I think he means as opposed to bands you can just say 'it sounds like [insert random band here]', so instead you have to mix a crapload of bands together to get a sound even remotely similar.
But yeah, the comment doesn't make a lot of sense.
Yeah, that's what I meant and I think it does make sense. I'm just kinda basing it on the assumption that no music is really that original, you can always compare it to something, it's just the really 'original' stuff takes lots of different bands.
That's what I think makes an album 'great', an indisposability that comes with originality.
-
"What makes "In The Aeroplane Over the Sea" catchy and perfect everytime you hear it? "
I found myself asking that today, again! I mean I can't imagine how many times I've listned to that album, but today it just struck me again how AMAZING it really is. I was just blown away like I was the first time.
-
"Aeroplane" blows.
There, I said it.
-
"Aeroplane" blows.
There, I said it.
There's no doubt about it, if I could find you I might make an attempt on your life.
-
I think he's kidding. Either that or stupid.
I don't care if you fricken only listen to hip hop. Aeroplane doesn't blow.
Aeroplanes use JET PROPULSION. Get it straight.
(and, yes, I too would kill you if I met you)
-
On a more on-topic note, a great album certainly has good songs on it, and it certainly represents a synthesis of influences that is unique and diversely cultivated, but I think it's gotta go farther than that. Over the course of a really great album, the listener must be exposed to an array of emotional or sonic experience, but should come away with a sense that the work is ultimately and essentially cohesive. On an album like Loveless, I feel like I'm taken by the music into its own little world and shaken around like a little doll, thrown up, thrown down, and finally left to float on my own. I guess a really great album has to have a real arc, a well-struck balance of variety and unity. That, and having the songs and sounds to keep me reeled in, are of utmost importance.
Oh, and Here you go (http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&hl=en&q=san+francisco,+ca&btnG=Search&ll=37.744657,-122.24762&spn=0.481061,1.18103). Come an' git me.
(edit, having now seen the above post) I must say that yes, I am one of those who really, truly does not like In the Aeroplane Over the Sea for my own rather well-articulated reasons that I will not share here because they are not on-topic and further discussion on this specific subject could degenerate into at least a modest flame-war. I rather bluntly gave my opinion of Aeroplane in the hope to quell what as I saw as a shared opinion here that the term "classic album" can be used objectively. I've never been too huge on Slanted & Enchanted either, but that's neither here nor there. If there is any place in this thread for "maybe classic, but I can't stand it," I would appreciate more discussion on the subject; otherwise, let's drop it.
-
You didn't want to do that. I'm twenty minutes away. Here I come.
(Emeryville? Lier. I'll be there in 5)
(Seeing above post)
Can I see that argument? I'd be fun to read.
-
A great album is one where you never think "That could be shorter" or "I wish they hadn't included that". The only dissapointment a great album should offer is when it finishes and you realise it's over.
-
GET A TOPIC, GEEZ GUYS, WE DON'T WANT TO SEE YOUR NASTY AEROPLANE BUSINESS HERE
"Whoa, dude! This sounds like Nurse With Wound vs Current 93 fighting ...And Oceans on an icy slope whilst Ulver urinates on them, all to a backing by Captain Beefheart!"
If that's a description of an actual band, tell me it now so I can explode from amazingasms.
-
Not to try and ruin your thread, but I'm sure a big part of what makes those albums great is what the listener brings to the experience...unconscious biases and such driven by definitely non-musical inclinations, like the desire to fit into a certain culture. If we accept this, then I guess what makes those albums great for a lot of people is that they present interesting problems which aren't easily solved.
-
Tago, I'll agree with you on the more holistic view of "greatness", but is the album really "great" because of the issues they present, or is the album "great" as because of listener response as a result of the listener being immersed in those issues?
-
The only dissapoint a great album should offer is when it finishes and you realise it's over.
I'll drink to that.
-
Quality is a factor, of course, but I like to describe music with the phrase "Beauty is in the eye of the beholder." Different people have different tastes. Ultimately, it's the person who's listening that deems an album as "great"
-
i hate to sound too rediculous, but i think a great album is any album that is so impressive (and i truly mean this word - it impresses its self upon the listener), that it feels like some place you've been, and after you listen to it enough, it can feel like home.
i studied photography for two years (before i dropped out), and when editing, i could always tell the photos that i could lean on and they'd still stand straight. of course they'd have their place, but they would hold a certain strength that would just make you want to look at it longer, and months after, you'd still have the highlights and shadows imprinted in yer mind.
i think there are all sorts of technical qualifications and stylistic seasonings that can make the production great, but as others have said, a truly great album captures a feeling (and within it compiled many emotions) and a moment. like a photograph.
mellon collie and the infinite sadness
trout mask replica
pink moon
o
13 songs
you forgot it in people
loveless
hatful of hollow
funeral
all these albums i save to listen to on rainy days. cos they take me somewhere.
-
A band's entire discography is really just a biography, and each album is a paragraph of that biography. A paragraph has each of its different sentences, and they all say something different each time, but when it boils down to it, they all focus on one main point. That is what a great album should do. A prime example: Presence by Led Zeppelin is the midlife crisis of their biography. Robert's son Karac had just died, Bonham was starting to drink even more heavily than before, Page was becoming more and more addicted to heroin, and JPJ was getting very homesick for his family. But their earlier album, Led Zeppelin II, goes off to show you their earlier life, their rowdy 'let's party' attitude.
Sorry if that's too much for y'all to read. :B
-
Blanketarms: Bonus Points for the Captain Beefheart! That album is seriously one of my favorite albums of all time.
-
SOLOS!
-
Oh yeah and an album is PERFECT if it was written entirely on LSD, cocaine, heroin, and PCP combined.
Hence, the Beatles > God
-
anuses.
-
Oh yeah and an album is PERFECT if it was written entirely on LSD, cocaine, heroin, and PCP combined.
Hence, the Beatles > God
And, by intractable logic, Hawkwind > All
-
It's rather hard to hit that magic number of drugs that constitutes a good album. I don't think anyone -but- the Beatles knew that number.
-
i agree with paper rock beats, a great album has to do something that no other album has really done. it doesn't even neccasarily need to cover new ground musically, just evoke a new feeling. loveless is wonderful to me because it takes me somewhere, i listen to the whole thing with my eyes closed. it's noisy and sometimes unmusical, but it's beautiful too, and when i listen to it i go on journeys. same with jane doe, it's even noisiser and unmusical than even loveless, but i think it's maybe the most beautiful record ever. it's just something that, when i listen to it, goes beyond being music.
that's my two cents right there.
-
Thing is, part of what makes a great album great is the 'not being able to explain why you love it so much' aspect of it.
-
Bonus points for JOHNNY QUEST AVATAR
-
I love how this thread is boiling down into non-seriousness -_-
Ficus, that's exactly right. I guess I couldn't name it before. :P
-
anuses.
i thought it was "ani."
-
unless we're talkng more than one kind of anus, then it's anuses.
-
Something else would be at least one classic song. I've heard albums that are fairly solid through and through, but not completely essential if there is not one song you can come back to over and over and still be blown away every time you hear it.
-
As others have said I think it is very much a subjective thing; it boils down to opinion. You can say that they are good musicians or this singer can sing 2000 oktaves but that does that necessarily mean a great album?
Not really, take Houses of the Holy for example, a masterpiece to some, but I am pretty indifferent towards it. That, and I don't like Robert Plant's voice. Someone else said originality and breaking grounds can constitute a great album. Sure but it only needs to be original in the ears of the listener, take the whole retro thing with garage and post-punk. They are original and maybe even breaking grounds for unseasoned ears, who have never heard the bands' inspirations.
In the end I don't really care if it is original, if I like it a bunch then that's it. A great album.
I know with this line of thinking it would mean Christina Aguilera and others have made great albums. And they have in some people's ears.
But the problem is, if this is the case, then what isn't a great album?
-
james blunt. nobody actually likes him.
-
Bonus points for JOHNNY QUEST AVATAR
What can I say, Hadji owns me
Ficus, that's exactly right. I guess I couldn't name it before. :P
Yeah, that's basically the gist of what one of your posts said.
-
Yeah, well, you condensed it to a much shorted way :P
-
A great album feels cohesive. It lacks the feeling of "Hey these songs will be singles and the rest will be filler" that commercial bands try to push these days
I agree with you, but it's wrong to add the "these days."
The notion of the album as a singular piece of work is a relatively recent one. (I'm speaking here of pop music, as classical and jazz have had their own roles for the album) Prior to sometime in the 1960s, an album was just that -- a collection of songs, some of which were understood to be the singles which would make the label money, and others that pretty much existed to fill the sides of an LP. I'm not sure who pioneered the concept of the album as a cohesive whole, but my money's on Dylan, as with most other things.
-
A great album has to be of good quality, but it must also be a symbol. It has to represent itself, a really good album, but also something more. When you can take an ambiguous feeling and assign it to the album and not feel like you're stretching anything, I'd say you have one part of the criteria for a great album. Slanted and Enchanted represents the quintessential Indie album. A bunch of guys who can't even afford a bass guitar getting together in a basement and making music they like, then reaching a level of success. It's representitive of it's genre and of the spirit of the genre.
-
I think another important aspect is the track arrangement. It's what makes some of my favorite albums such as "Loveless" "Funeral" "Illinois" and dare I say it "De-loused In The Comatorium"(even if Frances just blows....). The fact that every song seems like it should be just where it is.
What if "Loveless" opened with "When You Sleep"? The album wouldn't flow as well into each song like it does.
What if "The Seer's Tower" was thrown into the first half of "Illinois" instead of being one of the final non-instrumentals? "Tallest Man, Broadest Shoulders" wouldn't be as impactful as the albums "closing track" and the album's progression just wouldn't be as dramatic.
If "Funeral" didn't close with "In The Backseat"? How else would it end and still feel as fulfilling?
De-Loused.... I just like to rock out to it since it pretty much hauls through.
-
Track ordering certainly exerts a heavy influence on the feel of an album, but it's not always the case that a mixed-up track ordering would be inferior to the given track ordering. I own two versions of XTC's Drums and Wires, one of which (the vinyl copy) with a slightly different track order from the other. The feel of the album is certainly changed by moving a song or two from the beginning to the end, but I wouldn't say it's all the worse for it, it just spreads things out and puts some upbeat tracks farther back. I can't honestly say which track order I prefer and I love that album.
It's possible that our personal identification with great albums exerts the same order of influence as the tracklisting chosen by the artist or production team. While we can easily argue that some songs are best served as "killer openers" or "great closers" and we can accept that some albums were conceived in a linear fashion, we shouldn't limit ourselves to that way of thinking. Part of our enjoyment of the order might have to do with the anticipation of the next track and the knowledge of where we are in the song cycle (since we normally don't have to deal with variations like my XTC example). We buy an album, become familiar with it, and develop an attachment based on the linear structure with which we are acquainted.
Try someday to put one of your favorite albums on Random and listen to it like that for a while. It'll certainly be jarring, but after a while you'll start hearing new things in the songs that you didn't hear before. It's fun!
-
I certainly agree. If track ordering had been diferent from the start, we would efinately view our favorites differently.
However, I like to view albums as they are because I like to think that the artist/group arranged them in just that way to achieve their desired effect. I'm a very arty-fartsy person like that, because I realize that a lot of the time it's nothing like that. :-\
-
i think track order is significant too. if done correctly it makes the record seem fuller. for one thing, i think the right running order can make the difference between an album being just a collection of songs and being oebn long, cohesive work.
-
I'm not saying you should try to re-arrange the album from the way it was originally intended and only attempt to enjoy it as such. Certainly we have the convenience and perhaps even obligation to enjoy long-form pieces primarily in their given form. As I said, we can even accept that some albums were even conceived in a linear fashion, which likely gives us the prerogative to follow that linear progression in passing judgement on the album. I'm just saying that often you can appreciate different nuances of the songs on an album when you hear them in a different context, whether you change that context or the artist does.
I seem to remember at least a few albums where I found import releases of the albums that featured subtle rearrangement of tracks (not just tacking "bonus tracks" at the end) and I enjoyed having listened to those artist reinterpretations. I think one is Les Rhythmes Digitales' Darkdancer and one is definitely Drums and Wires but I can't recall the others that I'm thinking of. Anyway, I think it's limiting to say that Song X on an album only should only ever go right before Song Y and after Song Z just because the artist made it so, though in an album format I will often listen to it as such.
Again I say, give it a try. Even try it on a concept album with a stronly predefined narrative! It is an ear-opening experience.