bennyboy
Group: Members
Posts: 177
Joined: July 2000 |
 |
Posted: Nov. 01 2000, 05:37 |
 |
In Reply To Archangel Foster:
Hmmmmmmm...
I personally tend to judge different types of music by different standards.
Each different album starts off with a different goal in mind, a different kind of audience to reach, and a different set of standards to be measured against.
For instance, I quite like the music produced by Vanessa Amorosi and The Backstreet Boys. Now, I've said elsewhere that this kind of music is very formula driven and that Mike is more talented. However, what these artists set out to achieve (entertaining, catchy, harmless pop) they did achieve, and although it may be formula, they are quite talented, judged within the context of that formula. So I can feel justified giving their respective albums "The Power" and "Backstreet's Back" 4 out of 5.
...and yet I would only give "The Millennium Bell" 3 out of 5. This is because I don't think Mike achieved all that he set out to do (a moving journey through 2000 years of human history) and the result feels somewhat rushed and pretentious to my mind. Also because "The Millennium Bell" (and most of Mikes work in general) can't be easily pidgeonholed into a recognisable genre format, one has to judge it in comparison to his most recent work. Again, it pales in comparison to less ambitious, less showy work like "Guitars" and "Voyager", which weren't trying to be so important . Nor does it have the same verve and energy that so characterized "Tubular Bells III". Yet there are bits that I really like ("Amber Light", "Lake Constance", "Pacha Mama") so it gets a nice three from me.
...and yet this should not be taken to mean that I think Mike is less talented than Backstreet . I am just assessing them both in a different way. Which type of talent you prefer is very much a matter of personal preference, and this can be very subjective. I personally loathe the music produced by Public Enemy (I don't like rap and hip-hop), and yet I acknowledge that they are one of the most talented and influential groups in their field.
Do you see what I'm getting at? To make a statement like "Mike is the all reigning god of music" or "No music is as perfect as Mikes", these are BIG WORDS indeed. There are different measures of perfection, and I think if you look at certain works of music in the appropriate way there are many many many works by other artists which are just as "perfect" as Mikes.
I once posted a topic to the "Criticism & Humour" section called "Do Fans Expect Too Much?" and I made the mistake of comparing the work of Mikes to the work of different (more commercially successful, more mainstream artists) artists. I said that in my humble opinion "These artists can't hold a candle to Mikes talent...their music is much more commercial...". It sounded like I was trashing them, because I was putting them up against Mike, judging them by the wrong standards...
Perfection is a subjective thing indeed.
I do not think Mike is the all reigning god of all music on earth...I think that is a presumptuous statement to make...
However in the field of progressive music (the only field I think he truly belongs to be pidgeonholed into) he is king...
So there you go!
|
!
]
(the concept-album-type symphonic-style 1-or-2-track album of almost continuous music (pre-84 interrupted by the side change of the LP)) is also executed well by such people as (dare I say it) JMJ - whose music I also like - Oxygene is a good example of this with two stretches of ~20:00 each in 3 parts. Also, there is Waiting For Cousteau (soundtrack for a documentary of the same name), which is ~45:00 (one part - about the closest to MO's Amarok 'Guinnes length' that I have seen), and comes with the 3-part Calypso.