How do you define a 10?

>>68414627
It needs to be made out of some sense of fatalism. Formally speaking, rock music is doomed and hopeless, by nature, next to the superior forms of music. From a technical perspective, the strives made in classical and jazz have rendered rock music absolutely superficial - great rock music has a modicum of awareness over this reality, and chooses to exist, heroically, in spite of it all.

I can't say that all bad albums sound the same - there's no sound necessary to badness. What all bad albums do have in common is that they don't understand their fatal nature, and therefore their existing isn't heroic.

This is abstract, but if you get any more explicit, it becomes more difficult to avoid subjectivity.

>>68414725
To add to/clarify this:

Rock music is stupid and pointless. The best rock music not only understands this - it absolutely glorifies itself in it.

>>68414768
This is a great response, and an interesting opinion.

Can you further explain what you mean by "Fatalism"? Do you mean that a perfect record would need to acknowledge itself as the logical progression within its genre, and execute it fearlessly?

>something that perfects an established style, so that there is literally no room for improvement

Mostly this. I don't care if it revolutionized music, though it's cool if it did, or if it compares to what others percieve as masterpieces. It's subjective as fuck, but I don't care.

>From a technical perspective, the strives made in classical and jazz have rendered rock music absolutely superficial

What did you mean by this?

>>68414725
>dismissing 90% of popular music made since the 50s

I'll never understand anti-rockists.

>>68414725
>it becomes more difficult to avoid subjectivity.
but taste is purely subjective in nature. Even you thinking this is entirely subjective

>>68414877
Not that guy, but I think I can explain:

Jazz and classical music, by their nature, thrive in a continual evolution of technical advancement, and musical thought. Rock is, also by its nature, a genre that was created specifically to be more self-indulgent in its "simplicity", more likable by the masses, very seldom willing to take bold risks. This guy is basically saying Rock is held back by its inherent qualities of, well, not wanting to go forward.

>>68414725
I think it's fair to add that this thread is trying to look for what makes music "objectively good", so while these kinds of responses will get lots of hate, they're kind of necessary in discussing controversial topics such as this.

File: 1472416594566.jpg (72KB, 723x598px) Image search: [Google]

72KB, 723x598px

>>68414725
damn where did that guy go he was so cool and smart

>>68414946
So rock music that tries to incorporate things more suted for classical, jazz or avant-garde would inherently be poor rock music because it doesn't adhere to the original ethos?

>>68414725
>>68414768
itt no taste

I don't like putting numbers on albums because that sort of lends itself to comparison when not all albums aren't comparable to one and other. Pet Sounds is a common choice for a perfect album. It was innovative, well written, revolutionary. On the other hand a lot of people think Pinkerton is a perfect in the way it so precisely captures an emotion. Pinkerton never set out to be revolutionary though. It's not comparable to Pet Sounds.

I just judge an album on a case to case basis. I don't use a rating scale but I'll often refer to an album as "perfect". Basically just means that it the album excels at what it was set out to be.

File: image.jpg (143KB, 400x400px) Image search: [Google]

143KB, 400x400px

Mine is "an album I love"

The demonstratably better way of doing things is not grading things at all. Not creating a scale.

It's hard to describe. When you let go of your biases and think of an album as just as this thing in space-time, it suddenly seems unnatural to have a this 1-dimensional spectrum which all music exists along.

I've found that letting go of whether not x album is a 9.23 or 9.24 has let me enjoy music more.

>>68416115
I guess that's why everybody praised the rise of punk music in the late 70s to counter the pomposity of lots of the prog that was around

>>68414725
I actually enjoyed reading this. It's a lot of fluff making a completely arbitrary claim but it's poetic.

No album has ever been a 10/10