Amazing Studio Albums

[jff]

Easy there. I wasn't attacking you. I'm just saying, an "amazing studio album" is different from person to person. There's no universal definition, which is why this thread is just people listing a bunch of albums they like.

 

We need a thread where we list all the list threads.

[Guest Speed Racer]

well then why don't you pop into the Bad Albums by Good Bands thread and ask them to define what makes an album bad.

 

Look closer and you'll soon realize that most responses to 90% of the threads in SES come down to the following: "these are my favorite albums!" "these are albums I HATE!" "this is a stupid thread because it's all subjective" and "NO, YOU'RE SUBJECTIVE!!" Nothing to take personally.

[Terrapin Ben]

well when i do offer up some sort of criteria for what makes an album good, and you choose to ignore that part and focus on the "it's undefinable man" part, it does seem like an attack. especially when other posters already brought up the same point and i try to respond to it. thansk for sharing your favorite albums with us! i'm glad you like to talk about music.

[Shakespeare In The Alley]

But your criteria was that you just feel it. That's 100% correct, which is why you cannot define it. I agree with all that stuff about tracks in context and whatnot, but it's not a universal thing.

 

Honestly, I was thinking this was a "best sounding album" thread, which is a whole different matter. Still subjective (what about music isn't subjective) but more of a discussion than people's favorite albums.

[Terrapin Ben]

okay okay okay. so music is subjective. people are going to like all sorts of things that other people don't like. this is not news. but what makes a picaso better than hand drawn picture of the anatomy of a bug in a science text book? certainly you aren't going to argue that the bug picture is better art even though it resembles more closely the subject.

 

while art is subjective, there is a a spectrum spanning from really bad to really good. that is hard to argue. all i wanted to do was talk about albums that people on this board feel are great albums from the first track to the last. that is all.

 

if you all think this is such a dumb thread, why are you even posting in it? is the fact that we are discussing a subjective matter bothering you? Ruining your day? Preventing you from enjoying what music you like? If you don't have anything nice to say (or contribute to the thread!) why say it at all?

[Shakespeare In The Alley]

Again, I'm not attacking it. I have no problem posting a list of great albums. Or reading other people's lists of great albums. Why else would I belong to any music message boards? A couple people had pointed out that this was just a bunch of people's lists of favorite albums, which is the case.

 

I apologize if you took offense. But don't feel so attacked.

 

And 1999 is an amazing album.

[Terrapin Ben]

i am toungue tied. and typo ridden. the point was i trying to make in the above post is that while it is universally accepted that a picaso painting a far greater piece of art than a scientific drawing of an animal or a bug, it doesn't mean that you need to like the picaso painting more or that it's your favorite. Even though you might find nature drawings to be more aesethically pleaseing than abstract landscapes or still lifes or whatever, you're not going to claim that the naturalist illustrator is a better artist than picaso. IN MY OPINION, the same can be said of albums.

 

While i do enjoy many of the albums i originally posted and believe to be studio masterpieces by the bands, i don't like all of them. Outkast? No thanks. But it is still hard to argue that stankonia is not an amazing studio album.

 

that is all. //end rant.

[Guest Speed Racer]

but what makes a picaso better than hand drawn picture of the anatomy of a bug in a science text book? certainly you aren't going to argue that the bug picture is better art even though it resembles more closely the subject.

 

Some people DO think that Picasso works are on par with drawings of bugs in science textbooks.

[Shakespeare In The Alley]

Some people DO think that Picasso works are on par with drawings of bugs in science textbooks.

Anytime you bring Picasso into an analogy, you've probably blown your argument.

[Terrapin Ben]

i think arguing at the extremes is a way easier way to make a point. but yeah. this thread took a wrong turn quick. i think i'm just really bored at work today. happy friday everyone.

[Terrapin Ben]

Some people DO think that Picasso works are on par with drawings of bugs in science textbooks.

 

this is true, but do you think any of these people studied art academically? where is the artistic integrity? where is the purpose? where is the desire to creat art and not just a learning tool?

[Guest Speed Racer]

this is true, but do you think any of these people studied art academically? where is the artistic integrity? where is the purpose? where is the desire to creat art and not just a learning tool?

 

Did anyone hear study amazing albums academically? You're talking to a peanut gallery, and some people in the peanut gallery think Picasso did what a third grader could do. I'm not saying I agree, but your crowd thinks about things how they damn well want to - sometimes academically, sometimes emotionally, sometimes without much reason at all.

[Shakespeare In The Alley]

Art is created to communicate. That bug drawing is art. To a realist, the bug drawing is miles better than a Picasso. I don't like realism, so I view a textbook bug drawing as the same as any number of still life drawings or paintings that don't have much thought behind them except rendering the object as realistically as possible. I find them boring, but they're certainly art, and I respect them as such. Many people think differently, and would prefer it. Which is why Picasso is such a polarizing figure in art history.

 

I am studying art, by the way. Well...I'm studying design, which is entirely different. But that's a whole different argument.

[Terrapin Ben]

Art is created to communicate. That bug drawing is art. To a realist, the bug drawing is miles better than a Picasso. I don't like realism, so I view a textbook bug drawing as the same as any number of still life drawings or paintings that don't have much thought behind them except rendering the object as realistically as possible. I find them boring, but they're certainly art, and I respect them as such. Many people think differently, and would prefer it. Which is why Picasso is such a polarizing figure in art history.

 

I am studying art, by the way. Well...I'm studying design, which is entirely different. But that's a whole different argument.

 

what if the "artist" was a scientist? what if his only goal was document and communicate accurately what he found when he disected the bug? What if he was commisioned by a text book company and just needed to get paid. so he put no thought into the picture and just spits out whatever the text book company asks him to do?

 

Is it still art if the "artist" doesn't view it as art?

[dondoboy]

"Art" is a very prolific word.

[Shakespeare In The Alley]

what if the "artist" was a scientist? what if his only goal was document and communicate accurately what he found when he disected the bug? What if he was commisioned by a text book company and just needed to get paid. so he put no thought into the picture and just spits out whatever the text book company asks him to do?

 

Is it still art if the "artist" doesn't view it as art?

I'm studying graphic design. The entire field is based on a designer being paid to do exactly what the client wants, which could be illustrating a bug for a textbook. And that does not take away from it's artistic value. All designers are artists, but not vice versa. Textbook bug illustrator is certainly an artist.

 

I view the "art?" argument simply: if any one person views something as art, then it is. 'Nuff said. Visual communication is an art. An incredibly difficult one to master. But definitely an art.

[dondoboy]

I'm studying graphic design. The entire field is based on a designer doing exactly what the client wants, which could be illustrating a bug for a textbook. And that does not take away from it's artistic value. All designers are artists, but not vice versa. Textbook bug illustrator is certainly an artist.

 

I view the "art?" argument simply: if any one person views something as art, then it is. 'Nuff said.

I'd rather just say "prolific" alot, but the quoted post is bullshit. Illustrating ain't art and illustrators ain't artists.

[Shakespeare In The Alley]

Prolific opinions in this thread.

[Terrapin Ben]

Prolific thread from a bunch of opinion artists.

[Terrapin Ben]

probably could end the thread best by saying beauty is in the eye of the beholder. but yeah. i still have another two hours of work left so... we can keep discussing stuff and things.

[Guest Speed Racer]

Illustrating ain't art and illustrators ain't artists.

 

Wow, that's terribly judgmental and (I really hope, for your sake, it's) uninformed.

 

So, how does one qualify to be an illustrator? Presumably, they are good at creating pictures that look like things. Or pictures that don't look like things, but rather pictures that visually embody ideas. Presumably, they must possess a specific skill set that allows them to produce accurate or desired results.

 

Do you draw many logos for companies? Could you? Could your mother, brother, girlfriend, sister, cousin and uncle? Or, like, do you think those people might, like, have standards? What are those standards? Mere accuracy? Maybe. Creativity and artistic skill? Probably.

[Terrapin Ben]

i bet you could find a number of disenchanted illustrators who don't believe what they do is art. i'm sure all professional illustrators believe there is an artistic element in thier profession, but i doubt they consider every project tehy turn out ot be a work of art.

 

just sayin'.

[Guest Speed Racer]

i bet you could find a number of disenchanted illustrators who don't believe what they do is art.

 

What he said was:

 

illustrators ain't artists

 

Do you think those illustrators might be disenchanted because they are artists doing things they don't consider to be art?

[Terrapin Ben]

i mean i'm a cartographer by trade and am currently employed as a design drafter. i don't think anything i create now has any artistic merit.

[cryptique]

I'm a writer, but a technical writer by trade. What I do sure as hell ain't literature.