puntiniCAZpuntini

Josi_, it depends on the genre. The Daleks today are the best in Eminem's rap because they use violent sounds in contrast to a slow and fluid metric, something never seen or heard before. They employ unconventional tempos and have an incredible variety of beats, in addition to dealing with interesting and public domain themes. Eminem has been using the same meter for five albums; the beats are always the same ones that Dr. Dre has been making for 20 years, and he talks about the girls he sleeps with and how much he can’t stand his mom, which he couldn’t care less about. So now, the Daleks are the best, let’s say... but the Heads are also the best Acid Rockers... and how the hell do you compare Heads & Dalek? On tastes, which are subjective, so: pippone.

Mr. Green, you’re still not here... I was just giving an example. It’s not like I’m putting the helicopter on Coltrane, come on, lighten up a bit. We’re trying to reach a galactic brainstorm of absolute value systems here and you take every bullshit literally? Come on :D /// Antimo, I’m not getting it at all, but I’m glad you’re with me; wanking by myself is so sad, with group wanking it feels like going back to the good old middle school days.

And anyway, Aeneas, I want to make it clear that I've never ranked anything from two different contexts, not even jokingly. I give a solid 5 to Mos Def, 5 to Meshuggah, and 5 to Miles Davis, all undisputed maximum scores. Then I can give 4 to Cypress Hill, 4 to Slayer, and 4 to Wayne Shorter, but I still compare every musical proposal on the same ground. You suggest an absolute ranking, and in my opinion, it doesn’t exist.

How can you set logical boundaries to music when Matteo Brutal shows up and says, "damn, these guys are crushing it, masterpiece damn!". You can't, come on, and then you have more fun with the pipponi.

Well, Antimo, you're right when you talk about axioms. In music, indeed, there are no axioms. There is no 1+1=2. Let's give some examples, shall we? Medicine: if your heart stops... you die. Seems like a pretty proven point to me. In music, the only proven point is that if you don’t play, you don’t produce any sound. Doesn’t seem like much of an axiom, does it? :D

Green, I specified clearly: SOUNDS. I’m not saying that a computer sounds better than Coltrane; I'm talking about sound. Coltrane, as much as he was a God on earth, couldn’t reproduce the sound of a helicopter; a computer can make the sound of a helicopter, a rubber duck, and a kalamazoo. You take a live recording of Coltrane, plug it into a computer, and modify it by layering things on top that Coltrane couldn’t do because he was a human being... and I like it more. But that doesn’t mean a computer is better than Coltrane; they are just two different things. Coltrane with the Sax couldn’t do a "gwwwiooon gwwwiiuuuigfnwiiewwonnfff," but I’m not judging him from that perspective. That’s why I can’t compare Faust with Coltrane; they are two Gods in two different fields of action. Neither is better than the other; they are different.

No, Aeneas, my analyses can be serious just like yours and Hal's, but they are not serious evaluations or serious discussions in general. For me, the lack of a fixed scale of values on which to base assessments cannot lead to a serious discourse. To me, they are all mental masturbation. Beautiful, fantastic, fabulous, and indispensable, but still, just mental drivel.

No Hal, for me musical analyses can be interesting perspectives, they can lead to wonderful intelligent discussions, they can have a logical beginning and end, but they are not serious discussions. The fact that someone can analyze innovations and all the points of comparison between one music and another will never lead to a decree that one is better than the other. What I mean to say is that there is nothing in music that is objectively better than another; it remains a subjective matter.

Then, regarding the orchestra: you can have an orchestra play for four years straight and have them produce every possible and imaginable sound (sound, not note compositions, just sounds) until they run out... even if it takes them 2000 years to exhaust the available sounds. Then, after 2000 years, you put those sounds into a computer and from there you start generating things that human fingers and classical instruments cannot produce. And I’m not saying that the computer is better than the orchestra, but only that the sound of a computer resonates with me more. The beauty is that I can’t explain why, and the fact that I can’t explain it makes me think that even if I try hard, I can’t make a serious argument based on objective data. I fully agree that without classical predecessors, music today would be very different. But different, not better or worse, just different.

No, no Josi_, Enea was indeed talking about a true music, about objective data and a scale of absolute values. As for whether Zappa is better than Robbie Williams, no, that can't be said. To someone who doesn't appreciate complex music, like Francis, Zappa is terrible, and Robbie Williams appeals to him. I wouldn't know the evaluation terms of Pop-Rock, but I can tell you the evaluation terms of other genres I’m more familiar with. In a very broad sense of pop-rock, I reach dEUS and similar bands; it’s not that I’m very knowledgeable, but there are evaluation terms among similar records. Since they are similar, you compare them based on what they have in common... but they always remain mental exercises, they are not objective data and there are no absolute value scales.

Talking seriously about music in an absolute sense is, in my opinion, a load of crap, because you simply don't have objective points to base it on; there's always the "de gustibus" that limits you anyway, so it's more or less a "waste of time" when viewed from the "serious" side. If someone wants to talk about it, that's great, but it's not a "serious" discussion because there's no absolute right or wrong. Then, regarding the variety of sound, I misspoke initially but then I explained better: it doesn't have the variety of sound that music composed with electricity or electronics can have since, with a technological instrument, you can reproduce every classic sound and multiply it by thousands of distortions. Also, the issue of seminalness is always restricted to the "field of action." Bach was a god, but when it comes to the innovations in rap metrics or the guitar distortions of Hendrix, he doesn’t come into play. These are three different fields with three different innovations; there's no absolute, just the necessary differences. As for the rest, I agree with you; what's important is that you also don't consider one music as "true" and others as "second-rate stuff" :D