Actually I think it's only going to be artists with very few albums that are going to qualify - no artist with a huge discography is going to be completely flawless. Even if someone hasn't made an outright bad album, there are going to be some weaker points.
So very , very true .
The Beatles are a good example in my view . 70% is amazing , 25% is good but there's around 5% of absolute DROSS !
I'd say that Coldplay are pretty flawless , just a couple of tracks actually grate with me out of about a hundred or so.
The Beatles are a good example in my view . 70% is amazing , 25% is good but there's around 5% of absolute DROSS !
I'd say that Coldplay are pretty flawless , just a couple of tracks actually grate with me out of about a hundred or so.
I like both bands and I have albums by both but there is a gulf in quality and influence between them. The Beatles have a huge catalogue of quality songs much superior to almost anything by Coldplay..so what do you mean by flawless?
James Last was pretty flawless but all the tracks were the same old MOR!
1980- Dirty Mind
1981- Controversy
1982- 1999
1984- Purple Rain
1985- Around The World In A Day
1986- Parade
1987- Sign 'O' The Times
1988- Lovesexy
1989- Batman (admittedly includes some duff tracks but there's still some gold here!)
1980- Dirty Mind
1981- Controversy
1982- 1999
1984- Purple Rain
1985- Around The World In A Day
1986- Parade
1987- Sign 'O' The Times
1988- Lovesexy
1989- Batman (admittedly includes some duff tracks but there's still some gold here!)
Your right, god wasn't Prince amazing at that time though? He Produced, arranged, composed and performed his music and released an album every year from 1978 to 1993 with one exception, not counting B-sides and unreleased material.
He was back then, but then again even now he still produces the odd moment of genius.
Now if it was for a flawless live act, then I can't think of anyone better than Prince.
I like both bands and I have albums by both but there is a gulf in quality and influence between them. The Beatles have a huge catalogue of quality songs much superior to almost anything by Coldplay..so what do you mean by flawless?
James Last was pretty flawless but all the tracks were the same old MOR!
Well , they both have many stand out tracks but the Beatles did quite a few crappy ones like Yellow Submarine and others whereas Coldplay have more or less done either great or good tracks and only a couple I will "fast forward" - Fix You being the main one that I simo,h don't care for .
Well , they both have many stand out tracks but the Beatles did quite a few crappy ones like Yellow Submarine and others whereas Coldplay have more or less done either great or good tracks and only a couple I will "fast forward" - Fix You being the main one that I simo,h don't care for .
Like so many here, you are confusing what you like with what is quality. Just because you like the songs doesn't make them flawless. Flawless is a statement of high quality and that needs some objective, critical measure as well as you actually liking them.
Also Yellow Submarine isn't crappy, it's a novelty song!
Like so many here, you are confusing what you like with what is quality. Just because you like the songs doesn't make them flawless. Flawless is a statement of high quality and that needs some objective, critical measure as well as you actually liking them.
Also Yellow Submarine isn't crappy, it's a novelty song!
I thought we were in a forum giving opinions !?
Yellow Submarine is total crap which ever way you look / listen / analyse it , IMHO.
PJ Harvey - every single album is vastly different to the last but oh so brilliant. Not an instantaneous artist though and without a single radio hit.
Every time she releases an album critical praise ensues. The only possible exceptions would be Uh Huh Her and A Woman A Man Walked By which got just good rather than orgasmic reviews. Only artist to win the Mercury music prize twice.
My favourites would be To Bring You My Love, Is this Desire? and Let England Shake.
Just because you like the songs doesn't make them flawless. Flawless is a statement of high quality and that needs some objective, critical measure as well as you actually liking them.
So what do we use to measure it, or how is it measured, or how do we discover what is flawless?
Although I'd disagree with chunks of what has been written on this thread I don't believe in any concept of a measurable flawlessness that would be of any value to the individual and unique listener/ music appreciator.
I suspect you'd probably agree that mediocre musicians can make great tracks at times and vice versa.
Just how does one escape from this confusion? What and who determines quality?
So what do we use to measure it, or how is it measured, or how do we discover what is flawless?
Although I'd disagree with chunks of what has been written on this thread I don't believe in any concept of a measurable flawlessness that would be of any value to the individual and unique listener/ music appreciator.
I suspect you'd probably agree that mediocre musicians can make great tracks at times and vice versa.
Start with something like this.
Would you have any difficulty saying why you thought The Beatle's 'Strawberry Fields' is a better song than say Black Lace's 'Agadoo'? Or say Oasis's 'Wonderwall' over 'The Ketchup Song'?
There are a number of criteria you can apply:
- technical ability in terms of musicianship and performance;
- technical complexity in terms of the composition, including lyrical quality and form;
- contextual qualities, does the song relate to something personal or social? does it have a story to tell? Does it connect with the listener? Does it provide some insight into the world not otherwise available?;
- Innovation, how does it relate to the music that comes before? Is is of a genre or cross genres?;
- influence on other artists- usually a good indicator of quality;
- popular appeal, do many people like it? This doesn't always matter immediately but rather over time;
- all music is written for people to listen to but some music conveys more than other music.
People actually apply these kind of critical factors without thinking for the most part.
People like music because they connect to it in some way, that's fine but all art has a canon of what is good about it.
This idea that quality is just what you like is too simplistic.
And it's not that I think people shouldn't offer opinions and express what they like, they'll do it anyway.
The majority of my favourite singers/bands have the odd song or two I don't like. But I'd say Missy Higgins. I'm yet to hear a song of hers I don't like.
Your right, god wasn't Prince amazing at that time though? He Produced, arranged, composed and performed his music and released an album every year from 1978 to 1993 with one exception, not counting B-sides and unreleased material.
There are one or two tracks I'm not wild about,but as we're basing this on consistent quality and not our personal likes/ dislikes, I think ELO more than qualify.
Comments
So very , very true .
The Beatles are a good example in my view . 70% is amazing , 25% is good but there's around 5% of absolute DROSS !
I'd say that Coldplay are pretty flawless , just a couple of tracks actually grate with me out of about a hundred or so.
I like both bands and I have albums by both but there is a gulf in quality and influence between them. The Beatles have a huge catalogue of quality songs much superior to almost anything by Coldplay..so what do you mean by flawless?
James Last was pretty flawless but all the tracks were the same old MOR!
Even his below par material was still good.
When was good the same as flawless????
Oh look at this good quality diamond, it must be just as valuable as this flawless one............
But music is always going to be subjective, what somebody likes someone else will not.
1980- Dirty Mind
1981- Controversy
1982- 1999
1984- Purple Rain
1985- Around The World In A Day
1986- Parade
1987- Sign 'O' The Times
1988- Lovesexy
1989- Batman (admittedly includes some duff tracks but there's still some gold here!)
You forgot The Black Album
Your right, god wasn't Prince amazing at that time though? He Produced, arranged, composed and performed his music and released an album every year from 1978 to 1993 with one exception, not counting B-sides and unreleased material.
From 1979 until about 1995 Prince was a genius!
Now if it was for a flawless live act, then I can't think of anyone better than Prince.
I'm not having a go at the song writing but musically and production wise, a lot of his stuff sounds very dated now,
Thriller has a drum machine all the way through, rather than a real drummer, and sounds pretty flat in places.
Well , they both have many stand out tracks but the Beatles did quite a few crappy ones like Yellow Submarine and others whereas Coldplay have more or less done either great or good tracks and only a couple I will "fast forward" - Fix You being the main one that I simo,h don't care for .
Like so many here, you are confusing what you like with what is quality. Just because you like the songs doesn't make them flawless. Flawless is a statement of high quality and that needs some objective, critical measure as well as you actually liking them.
Also Yellow Submarine isn't crappy, it's a novelty song!
I thought we were in a forum giving opinions !?
Yellow Submarine is total crap which ever way you look / listen / analyse it , IMHO.
So very true !
I've only just discovered a song by him called "I was alone in the dark ". Simply amazing !
Even some of my all time favourite artists (Madonna, MJ, Kylie, PSBs, Pink, Garbage) have released a few crap albums or songs over the years.
Every time she releases an album critical praise ensues. The only possible exceptions would be Uh Huh Her and A Woman A Man Walked By which got just good rather than orgasmic reviews. Only artist to win the Mercury music prize twice.
My favourites would be To Bring You My Love, Is this Desire? and Let England Shake.
Kate Bush
So what do we use to measure it, or how is it measured, or how do we discover what is flawless?
Although I'd disagree with chunks of what has been written on this thread I don't believe in any concept of a measurable flawlessness that would be of any value to the individual and unique listener/ music appreciator.
I suspect you'd probably agree that mediocre musicians can make great tracks at times and vice versa.
Start with something like this.
Would you have any difficulty saying why you thought The Beatle's 'Strawberry Fields' is a better song than say Black Lace's 'Agadoo'? Or say Oasis's 'Wonderwall' over 'The Ketchup Song'?
There are a number of criteria you can apply:
- technical ability in terms of musicianship and performance;
- technical complexity in terms of the composition, including lyrical quality and form;
- contextual qualities, does the song relate to something personal or social? does it have a story to tell? Does it connect with the listener? Does it provide some insight into the world not otherwise available?;
- Innovation, how does it relate to the music that comes before? Is is of a genre or cross genres?;
- influence on other artists- usually a good indicator of quality;
- popular appeal, do many people like it? This doesn't always matter immediately but rather over time;
- all music is written for people to listen to but some music conveys more than other music.
People actually apply these kind of critical factors without thinking for the most part.
People like music because they connect to it in some way, that's fine but all art has a canon of what is good about it.
This idea that quality is just what you like is too simplistic.
And it's not that I think people shouldn't offer opinions and express what they like, they'll do it anyway.
Agreed 100%
There are one or two tracks I'm not wild about,but as we're basing this on consistent quality and not our personal likes/ dislikes, I think ELO more than qualify.