Greatest Albums of All Time (Rock & Jazz)

Tags: 
  1. 9.5/10
  2. The Black Saint & The Sinner Lady-Charles Mingus (1963)
  3. In the Aeroplane Over The Sea - Neutral Milk Hotel (1998)
  4. Trout Mask Replica-Captain Beefheart & His Magic Band (1969)
  5. Escalator Over The Hill-Carla Bley (1971)
  6. Rock Bottom-Robert Wyatt (1974)
  7. A Love Supreme-John Coltrane (1964)
  8. Faust-Faust (1971)

  9. 9/10
  10. The Velvet Underground & Nico-The Velvet Underground (1967)
  11. Unit Structures-Cecil Taylor (1966)
  12. Ascension-John Coltrane (1965)
  13. The Doors-The Doors (1967)
  14. Communications-The Jazz Composer's Orchestra (1968) [aka, "The Jazz Composer's Orchestra-Michael Mantler"]
  15. Twin Infinitives-Royal Trux (1990)
  16. Seeds, Visions & Counterpoint-Ivo Perelman (1996)
  17. Parable of Arable Land-Red Crayola (1967)
  18. The Modern Dance-Pere Ubu (1978)
  19. Dolmen Music-Meredith Monk (1981)
  20. Improvisie-Paul Bley (1971)
  21. Lorca-Tim Buckley (1970)
  22. Desertshore-Nico (1970)
  23. Starsailor - Tim Buckley (1970)
  24. Highway 61 Revisited-Bob Dylan (1965)
  25. Astral Weeks-Van Morrison (1968)
  26. Y-The Pop Group (1979)
  27. Exile On Main Street - Rolling Stones (1972)
  28. Cobra-John Zorn (1986)
  29. Lullaby Land-Vampire Rodents (1993)
  30. Slow, Deep & Hard-Type O Negative (1991)
  31. Daydream Nation-Sonic Youth (1988)
  32. From Her To Eternity-Nick Cave (1984)
  33. Sticky Fingers - Rolling Stones (1971)
  34. Horses - Patti Smith (1975)
  35. Yeti-Amon Duul II (1970)
  36. Streams-Sam Rivers (1973)
  37. Lady of the Mirrors-Anthony Davis (1980)
  38. Spirit of Eden-Talk Talk (1988)
  39. Kick Out The Jams - MC5 (1969)
  40. The Ascension-Glenn Branca (1981)
  41. Irrlicht-Klaus Schulze (1972)
  42. Atlantis-Sun Ra (1967)
  43. Blonde On Blonde-Bob Dylan (1966)
  44. Bitches Brew-Miles Davis (1969)
  45. Absolutely Free-Frank Zappa (1967)
  46. Afternoon of a Georgia Faun-Marion Brown (1970)
  47. Nail-Foetus (1985)
  48. Suicide-Suicide (1977)
  49. Spiderland-Slint (1991)
  50. Zen Arcade-Husker Du (1984)
  51. Mekanik Destruktiw Kommandoh-Magma (1973)
  52. Diamanda Galas-Diamanda Galas (1984)
  53. Crystals-Sam Rivers (1974)
  54. Third-Soft Machine (1970)
  55. Epitaph-Charles Mingus (1962)
  56. Free Jazz-Ornette Coleman (1960)
  57. Even the Sounds Shine-Myra Melford (1994)
  58. Yerself Is Steam-Mercury Rev (1991)
  59. White Light/White Heat-The Velvet Underground (1967)
  60. Litanies of Satan-Diamanda Galas (1982)
Author Comments: 

My criteria is basically: how emotionally powerful and/or compelling I consider the album to be from start to finish. By "emotionally" I mean any emotion/experience, from apathy to grief to anger to enthusiasm to spiritual enlightenment -- any emotional content. The rating is the degree in which I felt it was expressed powerfully/compellingly. For the overall rating, all songs/tracks are considered as a whole, for their cumulative impact (or lack thereof).

RATINGS SCALE:

5.0 - AVERAGE
6.0 - GOOD
7.0 - VERY GOOD
7.5 - AMAZING
8.0 - EXTRAORDINARILY AMAZING
8.5 - ASTONISHING
9.0 - ALL TIME MASTERPIECE
9.5 - SUPREME MASTERPIECE
10 - IMPOSSIBLE?

I try to consider my ratings carefully. The ratings are given relative to the greatest works of art in the history of mankind. I am comparing the works to an ideal. For instance, if I am claiming an album is a masterpiece or supreme masterpiece, I am claiming it is a singular, utterly extraordinary achievement in the history of art, as incredible as Beethoven's greatest works, not just a "collection of consistently good songs".

I removed all of the ratings of the songs, continuity, ingenuity, etc., and decided to go with this simpler format. In listening to Rock Bottom and Faust tonight, as well as Trout Mask Replica yesterday afternoon, I was left with the realization that I was going to have to go back and change a bunch of song ratings and expansion of content ratings throughout the list, causing the entire list to shift down about a point per album especially 9.3 and lower (meaning 9.3's were going to drop to 9.2's and so forth). The idea of this task made my head spin. I am a very busy guy and I don't have much time to spend on the internet and it was just too much work to keep all these ratings in line, so here are the albums rated in a much more simplified format. I apologize to anyone who enjoyed the extensive content of ratings I had posted. Hopefully it gave some insight into the absurd "science" I try to use to get these albums rated and ordered as precisely as possible.

hey dude
interesting list man!
lots of people have said it looks like scaruffis? Is Scaruffi a reviewer on listology?

id be interested to read your review of twin peaks... a fascinating terrifying and sometimes stunningly beautiful and complex record. Neil haggerty claimed to be modernising trout mask replica... anyways be cool to see a full review of it man

excellent list choices

Thanks, never heard it. Sounds interesting though.

Wow, I've seen quite some Scaruffi-minded lists, but this one tops them all. I would think you ARE him. The top 5 is identical to Scaruffi's and if you put his rock & jazz lists next to this one, you find very few dissimilarities. This is creepy. Oh, did I mention this is a great list? ;)

Who's Scaruffi?

you know exactly who he is having ripped off his entire "best ever" lists

he's the most important reviewer alive at the moment. Not the best ever...
Lester bangs is the top dog
i find Scaruffis jazz listing is not as favourable to my taste as his rock
his rock reviews are so relevant at the moment
they blow away every pre conceived notion created by magazines such as spin blender Q and nme

but yeah try developing your own taste and not ripping off someone else

and btw you've actually stated below
"my reviews are to say the least indebted to yours"

I can quote you on it lol

To anyone who may take it the wrong way in the future:

"Who's Scaruffi?" was obviously a joke.

Wonderful to see you digging Jazz composer's orchestra by the way. It recently made my top 10, too. The monstrous Communications #11 is without doubt one of the greatest tracks ever.

Yea, that album and track is astonishing. A relentless assault if there ever was one.

where is the melody of Spiritual Unity from? or is it original?

not sure...

It does have a familiarity to it though

The definition of a masterpiece is becoming more strict for me. The following albums, while still incredible, don't quite hold up to such a level anymore, and have therefore been "demoted":

Starsailor, Brilliant Corners, Improvisie, Out to Lunch & Kind of Blue

You can find them newly rated on each of their respective "best of" decade lists.

I'm surprised to see Lorca replace Starsailor on your list. Lorca always seemed to be a kind of warm-up, some vocal exercises and experiments, before he hit it out of the park with Starsailor.

I'm always happy to see TMR get props. Even though I grew up with the album and it means a lot to me, I actually like these a little more:

Captain Beefheart & the Magic Band - Lick My Decals Off Baby (Straight) 70
Captain Beefheart & the Magic Band - Doc At The Radar Station (Virgin) 80

And this one is nearly as good in a completely different, accessible way:

Captain Beefheart & the Magic Band - Clear Spot (Reprise) 72

Others I'd recommend if you haven't already heard them:
The Congos - Heart Of The Congo (Blood & Fire) 77
Brian Eno - Another Green World (EG) 75
Fela Kuti - Zombie (Universal) 77
John McLaughlin - Extrapolation (Polydor) 69
Pere Ubu - Dub Housing (Rough Trade) 78
George Russell - Electronic Sonata For Souls Loved By Nature (Soul Note) 67
This Heat - Deceit (Rough Trade) 81

I'm surprised to see Lorca replace Starsailor on your list. Lorca always seemed to be a kind of warm-up, some vocal exercises and experiments, before he hit it out of the park with Starsailor.

Starsailor is certainly astonishing in its own right. Lorca is still one of the best kept secrets in all of music (not that Starsailor is hugely popular or anything) and I recommend giving it some serious attention if you haven't already especially since you seem to be a fan. One day out of nowhere it hit me like a ton of bricks, and it's only become more incredible since. It's infinite, comatose sighs and profound despair and suspense combine into a thing of awe. Buckley's oblique melodies ascend and stretch back and forth like a pendulum swing, trailing off into some other world, magnifying into momentous, deep-seated releases of intense power.

I'm always happy to see TMR get props. Even though I grew up with the album and it means a lot to me, I actually like these a little more:

The only one I've heard in full is Another Green World, which I think is a very good album (probably 7.25/10 for me). I'll have to check out the others some time. Thanks.

I envy you, I'd love to be able to hear all those for the first time again. And if you haven't heard Wire's Pink Flag/Chairs Missing/154, add those too.

I have. Wire is a great band. Thanks

That's a nice description. I've been listening to both Lorca and Starsailor for I think 19 years. I still prefer Starsailor, but sometimes Lorca can be the perfect companion for a certain mood.

Hey, AfterHours, do you still think Robert Christgau makes credible choices in grading albums?

Sorry to hear Starsailor and Out To Lunch didn't hold up to the level.

It took me a few times perusing through this to find your post!

Anyway, Out to Lunch was on here for years and could easily come back if I listened to it again. And, Starsailor was too for a month or so about 4 years ago, but I doubt it will make it back on - it's close though (8.5/10).

Out to Lunch is one of my fave jazz albums. I hope it does come back.

"The rare multitasker with an instantly identifiable sound on several instruments (flute, bass clarinet, alto saxophone), Eric Dolphy made free jazz that was filled with laughter and contentious arguments and lively expressions of humanity. Early experience playing with Charles Mingus, John Coltrane, and others (and listening to the work of Ornette Coleman, a free pioneer who'd grabbed the spotlight just ahead of him) taught the Los Angeles–born Dolphy that avant-garde jazz had the potential to alienate even a hipster audience. So on his originals, he made sure that the music could lure ordinary listeners—his sound was heady avant-garde cut with a touch of child's play."

This is from the book "1000 Recordings to Hear Before You Die" by Tom Moon, and I think it explains some of the reasons of why I love it so much.

Starsailor, IMO, is even better than Lorca. But it's your opinion :)

That's a great description of Dolphy.

Starsailor is incredible, superior to almost every work of art that's ever existed, but yea, I am 100% certain of my opinion between the two :)

Tom Moon's work is amazing. You should look at his reviews of Tim Buckley's "Dream Letter: Live in London, 1968" ("restless soul Tim Buckley never stayed in one artistic place for long") and Beefheart's TMR ("Those worshippers [the artists influenced by Beefheart] might have started out over in Frownland. But they ended up smiling, in spite of themselves, at Beefheart's delectable absurdities.")

Agree with you there, it's absolutely breathtaking. But for Lorca.....well, it IS your opinion.

Thanks, if I fit the time in to do so, I might

Good. We could have a discussion on his choices for the 1000 Recordings to Hear Before You Die too.

If he lists my favorites then I agree. If not, I still agree...that they are his choices and his opinion is as "correct" as mine.

Some of your favorites are listed (TMR, Zen Arcade, Bitches Brew, Faust, Rock Bottom), and there are some other choices from some of your fave artists (as I mentioned, "Dream Letter" for Tim Buckley, a John Fahey album called "Transfiguration of Blind Joe Death" [your choice was Soldier's Choice])

There are 6 Beatles albums included. One of which is Rubber Soul.

And now to neutralize the effect of that......it is a rare list that includes classical works along with rock and jazz too!

It is his opinion, yes, and there are some surprising choices. Many times I found myself agreeing with him, and he also includes things like "Key Tracks" from the album, "Next Stop" for listeners who might want more. Found some masterpieces through his list, and it's a joy reading it.

afterhours,
why don't you do a list of Greatest Works or something like that instead of Albums if you actually have intimate knowledge of classical music? i think there was something like that here before. you could rate the non-Album material without a number, or in gray , just so people who view this list would have a reference of what classical music plays on your interests.
ex:
Beethoven sym. #9...
Brahms sym. #4
1. Black Saint
Shostokovich sym. #15
2. TMR
3. love supreme
...
4. rock bottom
...

Yep, I have a "greatest musical works" list archived, which you're welcome to check out. It was incomplete at the time and certainly even the ones that are ranked on there aren't totally accurate anymore. As of this moment, there are no 9.75's, not even Beethoven's 9th. I no longer know what would even be #1 overall. I'd have to really take a hard look at it because now Black Saint may still be #1 even after adding all the classical. It's become that extraordinary to me. But, as you've indicated, Brahms' 4th and Beethoven's 9th, as well as Tchaikovsky's 6th would all be at or near the top.

Though I've heard a good deal of classical music, I wouldn't say I have particularly intimate knowledge of the genre. More than the average person, but much less than an expert. I've been consumed by rock and jazz the last 3 years or so, and ever since I've never seriously engulfed myself in classical music like I had years before that, so I am a bit behind these days, and I don't know much about 20th century classical. I've probably heard a majority of the 9.5's but I am sure I've heard only a low percentage of 9.25's and 9.0's. In all likelihood if I were to form a complete list, including classical, the entire thing at 9.0+ would eventually hold hundreds of albums and works. There are significantly more masterpieces in classical than jazz and rock. There are probably 25 or more 9.5's alone, 100 or so 9.25's and hundreds of 9.0's. When I do it, it will be a very time consuming list to compile and listen to--but also very exciting.

I will return to classical music in due time but right now my main concentration is on rock & jazz. I want to listen to and post on my list all the masterpieces of rock and jazz first before returning to classical, and in all likelihood I still have at least 10 more jazz albums to round up in order to achieve this. On the rock side of things, there are currently a number of 8.75's that are very close to entering the list, so on both sides there is "work" to be done.

My comments section used to say the following:

"The differences in rating between each echelon (such as 9.0, 9.25, 9.5) represents a significant gap in greatness."

Countless listens of the entire list have revealed this to no longer be true. There is no longer a significant gap for a .25 difference. Infact, the list now moves upwards in quality in near perfect accumulation, with virtually no difference at all between the top 9.0/10 (currently Neu!) and the lowest 9.25/10, (currently Dolmen Music). Likewise, there isn't a major leap in quality from Velvet Underground & Nico (highest 9.25/10) to Faust (9.5/10).

I would say that there is a significant difference between the lowest 9.0/10's and the higher 9.25's, but that's about as far as that goes towards any longer being a true statement.

To be honest I've felt that statement was a little weird too, that you were able to seperate the quality of all those albums on to such a distinct degree. After all some albums are nearly impossible to compare aren't they? Like, take Trout Mask and Thriller, you can think they're both great albums, but they're so dissimilar that it can seem absurd to even grade them on the same scale. Compare Thriller to Purple Rain however and you could be a lot more objective. I guess any album you put as 9/10 or above is worth checking out anyway (as I can tell you don't take those ratings lightly)

They're simply separated by how profound/emotionally powerful they are. That's all there is too it. I find Thriller to be about as profound as a picnic basket. I find TMR to be one of the most overwhelmingly profound works of art ever created. That's just my scale though, because profundity is what I want out of music. If someone wanted danceable pop R & B tunes then of course Thriller would rate high on that scale. Just not mine. It's all subjective...

Very nice list!

Thank you!

To say the least, my discovery of these albums is indebted to yourself and your site. After 2 years of near constant listening to them the thing that impresses me most about your selections is that they are almost scientific in their accuracy, as if the volume and consistency of emotional power within each album, from one to the next, is a near perfect gradation from the lower 9/10's to the highest 9/10's and then on through the 9.5's.

Therefore, if someone, such as myself, shares the same or similar ideals as yourself in music (meaning, looks for emotional profundity), it is very difficult to disagree much with the logic and placement of your selections, once each album is given the degree of listens and attention required.

Even with the ones I marginally disagree with, this logic is still apparent, and I can tell simply by the volume and consistency of emotion within each that once I fully "connect" with them, I will probably agree with you almost exactly or at least very closely.

That said, the journey has been intense and fascinating. Two years ago I never truly thought I would get as much out of rock and jazz that I have with the great classical works of yesteryear, but your selections have proven otherwise.

No way, is this the real deal? Is this actually Scaruffi himself?

It was only a matter of time...

I doubt it. Doesn't Scaruffi refuse to capitalize his name? "p. scaruffi" instead to "P. Scaruffi" would be far more convincing.

Every one has their opinions and some of the albums on your list are ok. It's certainly not a majority opinion but I respect you have your opinion. I would consider these albums when they came equally if not more influential or greater especially for the future of rock music.

The Beatles were the source that made the Byrds and others go electric. Roger McGuinn studied what made the Beatles sound different. He noticed in their sound was chord changes common to folk music. That combined with a energetic rock band made them sound different. Here are albums and songs that helped shaped folk rock.

The Beatles, Meet the Beatles (1964, Capitol). Not a folk-rock album, but the one record that more than any other awakened young American folk musicians to the possibilities of electric rock music. The Meet the Beatles LP, as opposed to With the Beatles (their second British LP, which has much of the same material and is the one that was reissued on CD), is what's necessary to re-create the impact, as it's almost wholly devoted to original songs, including two great ones ("I Want to Hold Your Hand" and "I Saw Her Standing There") that don't appear on With the Beatles.

The Beatles, A Hard Day's Night (1964, Capitol). Songs from and recorded right after the making of the movie of the same name, which was about as influential on early folk-rock musicians as the Meet the Beatles album was. You can hear some folky influences creeping into their work, too, on songs like "Things We Said Today" and "I'll Be Back."

The Beatles, Beatles for Sale (1964, Capitol). More music that, if only unconsciously, continued to help bring folk and rock closer together, explicitly so on "I'm a Loser" and "I'll Follow the Sun."

The Beatles, Help! (1965, Capitol). A fine album on any terms, as all Beatles albums are. Within the context of folk-rock, it's notable for several songs that show a definite folk-rock influence, like "You've Got to Hide Your Away" and "I've Just Seen a Face," as well as the appearance (not influenced by the Byrds) of a prototypical ringing 12-string electric guitar riff in "Ticket to Ride."

The Beatles, Rubber Soul (1965, Capitol). The Beatles' most strongly folk-rock-influenced album, from Lennon-McCartney songs like "Norwegian Wood" and "I'm Looking Through You" to George Harrison's Byrds homage "If I Needed Someone."

Thanks for the data. The Beatles are a good band and I am pretty well aware of their merits and influence upon pop/rock history. Thanks.

I want to thank you TONS for the work you're doing. It blows my mind. In searching for a list of jazz albums to expand my jazz collection, I stumbled upon your Masterpieces list. I realize you've since re-addressed albums and tweaked the order, but regardless, they're all deserving of masterpieces. Shortly after seeing you list I acquired "A Love Supreme" and "Faust" Both destroyed my brain (positively) and are now in my favourite albums just because of their sheer depth.

Anyway. Basically this is a thank-you for all the hard work and love you put into your musical journey and for sharing it with all of us and making me aware of a great wealth of music I can delve into (Black Saint and TMR are ALWAYS on my radar now) and I look forward to future challenges.

I appreciate your kind words and you're very welcome. I really hope you become a consistently contributing member of this site so myself and others can see your experiences with these albums. I highly recommend you check out www.scaruffi.com as his lists did for me what my lists have now done for you. Best of luck!

Also, check out my own list titled "All You Really Need in Tackling My Greatest Albums List". It gives a recommended order of listening to these albums and seems to help those who use it.

After getting Double Nickels on the Dime on CD finally, I take exception to it not being a 9.0 in your ratings.

In the last couple of days, I've been inundated with good albums, such as Loveless, Double Nickels, The Good Son, and Francis the Mute, so I'm looking forwards to getting a hold of them emotionally.

But I'm having trouble with the Good Son. Now, I see it as a good album, but I don't see anything more. What should I look for?

After getting Double Nickels on the Dime on CD finally, I take exception to it not being a 9.0 in your ratings.

Well I had it at a 9/10 for awhile so I see where you're coming from. I wouldn't be at all surprised to see it come back on the list. I actually expect it to at some point. If you think it's superior to Glenn Branca's The Ascension than let me know (the "lowest" 9/10 possible)--which if you're familiar with the album, only adds to the awe I must feel for the rest of the list.

In the last couple of days, I've been inundated with good albums, such as Loveless, Double Nickels, The Good Son, and Francis the Mute, so I'm looking forwards to getting a hold of them emotionally.

Wow. Superb choices. I LOVE each one. The Good Son is beyond words.

But I'm having trouble with the Good Son. Now, I see it as a good album, but I don't see anything more. What should I look for?

I know exactly what you're saying. I felt the same way for awhile, especially after 'getting' most all of the other Scaruffi albums before giving Good Son a shot--it just didn't seem like anything too special--a very good, consistent album but not much more. I have to go now, but I'll give you the idea of why I love it so much as soon as I get the chance, hopefully later today.

I did re-listen to the Good Son, and enjoyed it even more (except for the Hammer Song).

I'm also having trouble with Loveless, as I just don't see any good stuff in the middle of the album (I love the first and last tracks).

And lastly, a recommendation in the Orb's U.f.Orb. Scaruffi gave it an 8, and it is outstanding.

I did re-listen to the Good Son, and enjoyed it even more (except for the Hammer Song).

I love the whole album. For me, it is one of the most emotional experiences in rock history. Cave's vocal performance (one of the greatest ever) is amazing for its emotional depth/expressive range. He sings as if a beaten, despaired preacher with blood on his hands. All of the tracks have a collective ritualistic energy and rhythm to them. The choruses chant and rise as if sudden calls to arms, as if stricken by a sudden agreement of enlightenment, awed crescendos of delusional spiritual fulfillments. Track to track, as the album builds a persistent, ceremonial momentum, Cave's quivering, lone vocal cries and monstrous, delirious frenzies formulate a devastating drama of both soaring hope and grieving resignation.

I'm also having trouble with Loveless, as I just don't see any good stuff in the middle of the album (I love the first and last tracks).

The middle of the album is the most key part in my opinion (especially tracks 6-8). This is where it enters and succeeds at its most climactic, where it becomes an overwhelming swirling vacuum, a parallel universe caught between heaven and hell, a fourth dimension.

And lastly, a recommendation in the Orb's U.f.Orb. Scaruffi gave it an 8, and it is outstanding.

Thanks! I will undoubtedly check it out (as I plan to with all the 8's I can get my hands on). Lately I have been EXTREMELY busy so have not been searching for any more albums but I'll no doubt get right back at it as soon as I get some free time.

Yerself Is Steam-Mercury Rev (1991), Even the Sounds Shine-Myra Melford (1994) & The Ascension-Glenn Branca (1981) have each been removed. As astonishing as each of these albums are (and you can now find them at or near the top of the 8.75/10's list) they are still an obvious distance behind the rest of the 9/10's, which is a compliment more to the 9's than it is a criticism of these albums. I highly recommend all of them, and of course, I highly highly recommend all the 9/10+ albums.

If you're curious, it was Well Oiled that was the main perpetrator here, virtually forcing the change. Listening to it I realized that it is significantly more incredible than those 3 albums, thus forcing me to listen to the other albums surrounding it (Third, Free Jazz, etc...) and then drawing the conclusion that there was a clear gap that should be closed off.

Now this list starts with Uncle Meat, the perfect entry point (yea right). Fitting...

Hey AfterHours!
I just heard The Parable of Arable Land for the first time and was very impressed. I'd say on first impression probably an 8.75 to a 9.25, though future listens usually prove to increase this rating.
My favourites off the album were War Sucks and Parable of Arable Land, but I enjoyed most of the others equally.
Which albums off this list which I haven't heard are most similar to Robert Wyatt's Rock Bottom?

Hey man!

Parable of Arable Land is incredible! Really glad you enjoyed it. If you continue listening to it I am confident it will become one of the very best albums you've ever heard. Took me a handful of listens. Its recording quality sucks so, if you haven't already, I advise listening to it on a great, high wattage system or a good set of headphones.

That I know of, there is nothing like Rock Bottom really, especially in rock. One has to go into the greatest jazz and classical to even approach its type of compositional expansion and mercurial emotional colors. Mahler's 9th Symphony not only brings a combination of the sort but surpasses it, significantly actually, if that's even imaginable. Without hesitation, it is the greatest work of art I've ever encountered.

Since my last post I've listened to it again twice, and it's definitely growing on me, and perhaps when I finally truly 'get' the album I can have a go at tackling TMR again, as parts of TPOAL remind me of it.
Sounds brilliant, I'll definitely get hold of Mahler's 9th soon.

By the way, was I right in seeing a new 9.5 (tabula rasa (blank slate right?) - part) in your albums of the week list. Did you just happen to discover it, and will it be added to this list?

It's classical so I've added it to my newly updated "Greatest Musical Works" list. It is astonishing. Very highly recommended.

I really like Black Saint & Sinner Lady (even more than A Love Supreme (which I do really like)), is there anymore of that particular style of jazz (assuming jazz is broken down into genres as something like rock is)?

Jazz Composer's Orchestra-Michael Mantler is the closest. It also falls under the title "Communications-Jazz Composer's Orchestra".

Ascension-Coltrane isn't too far off either but it's a bit more free.

Have you heard Chrome Hoof? There making some interesting music right now. I would try their album Pre-Emptive False Rapture.

I haven't but I'll look into it. Thanks ( :

Hey, cheers for recommending The Ascension, it's a surreal experience, nostalgic to the first time I heard Faust or TMR (which at first sounded impenetrable), though because of having heard various krautrock and minimalism it isn't as inaccessible as it would have been say 6 months ago.

It's really decent, it has a curious timbre to it (the guitars sound just a bit weird half the time - which is a compliment) which is a quality I love in music, and the rhythmical and minimalistic genius is obvious from this point. I'm yet to really connect with it on a deeper level, though I wouldn't be surprised if I did on the next listen.

I'm not sure I see the similarity with Rite of Spring though, maybe I'm missing something? Still, an awesome rec so thanks for that!

I get where you're coming from on it. Trust me, listen to it 2 or 3 more times or so and when it opens up for you...oh boy...

You have my word that you will be totally blown away. I can't wait to discuss it with you as it's not only one of the greatest albums of all time, but one of my favorite music listening moments is when it happened for me.

Although I loved Soft Machine beforehand, I only recently got Third on a level comparable to say Faust or TMR and it is just awesome (rivalling even Rock Bottom). Moon In June & Facelift in particular are amazing, and the drumming in the former is mesmorising (as is the singing), the musical world lost really lost one of the best drummers ever back in '73, it would have been amazing to hear him playing more on a full kit.

This is awesome! Third is certainly among the most overwhelming works of art in music history. Believe it or not, this will likely be happening to you with every album on this list; at the rate you're going recently, probably sooner rather than later. It's nice to have another person around who's truly giving this music a serious shot. You are one of a very small percentage and you should feel priveleged--seriously you should. These artists deserve some recognition commensurate to their accomplishments for gawds sakes!

I totally agree with you, I love this music more than I ever have with any style! I will definitely try to acquire all of your list's 9/10s and above sooner rather than later and get back to you with my thoughts on them. :)

I really look forward to it. It's been fascinating so far.

I am revising my lists over the next day or so to be separated ratings-wise only by .5 increments. The reasons are that I am terribly busy these days and it's much easier to think with and I am greedy and simply wanted to add more albums to my 9's (since everything 8.8 and 8.9 rounds up to a 9), and that the additional albums (especially Uncle Meat) are important prerequisites on the "recommended order" list.

When I revise the songs list, it will likely still be divided by .1 increments.

I see Spiderland slipped back into 9.0, just like I told you it would :P.

Lol. Technically it's still an 8.8, it just rounds up to a 9. It deserves the placement anyway though. It's a masterpiece.

Sorry, I would put The Beatles Revolver over Captain Beefhart. What beutiful melody, interesting voicings, interesting chord progressions and innovation don't count. Songs like "Tomorrow Never Knows", "She Said She Said", and "I'm Only Sleeping" sound like what everyone is doing now.

It doesnt take much to look at todays Indie rock scene to seen where The Beatles mark has remained strong. Take in obvious Beatle-influenced acts like Blur, Coldplay, Radiohead or Oasis or even listen to the garage revved sounds of bands like The Hives, The Strokes, Elastica, The White Stripes and the Darkness and then revisit the White Album and you may be surprised at how little things have really changed.

Thank you. Your opinion is totally okay and no less right than my own. You love The Beatles and are certain about this. I love the albums and artists I love and I too am certain about this.

AfterHours isn't interested in "beautiful melody". And all that stuff about voicings and chord progressions and (supposed) innovations doesn't matter to him because that stuff is all just "on paper". What matters to him is not the technical make-up of music, but how it all actually sounds as a result (not just the make-up itself as it stands on paper). More important than that to him would be how that resulting sound "feels" (because innovation isn't totally valuable in and of itself).
Also, it shouldn't matter at all if it's "what everyone is doing now": that doesn't make it necessarily good so it's not really a worthwhile point - and while we're at it the garage rock revival in particular is not Beatle-like at all (not that that's all you said of course, because you mention others).

Why don't you let Afterhours speak for himself or herself? I never agreed when Rolling Stone or VH1 had five Beatles albums in the top 12 album of all time. I thought that was a slap in the face to other musicians.

I also think that not having a Beatles album among the greatest albums of all time is missing the point entirely. You could rant all you want about the Beatles. They more than anyone else made the Rock Album an art-form and made it more of an artistic statement than say Bob Dylan.

To many of us, it was Blonde on Blonde which was the first full bleown artistic statement in rock . And, to many of us by, the end of their career, the Beatles made two more or less valid artistic statements (Sgt. Pepper's, abbey road), which compared to others, were not major contributors to this renaisance.

To many like Brian Wilson it was Rubber Soul who thought it was Rock first great original album. I guess you forgot to include Revolver or the White Album. I notice you only comment when the Beatles are invovled.

See? It's just a difference of opinion. What's the big deal.

There's nothing left to say than what I've already said to you above including what is in my author comments section. If you can't understand that this list is merely a subjective exercise, an opinion, and is simply my list of greatest albums, and that "missing the point" is fundamentally impossible due to that, than what am I to do except watch you guys argue and ramble on about your opinions and random facts when the truth is that you wouldn't give a damn about how they did it if it didn't sound good to you (just as you don't care about Beefheart's supposed "genius" for that reason). That's all that stands in the middle of this infinite argument into opinionated oblivion--I don't care much about how the Beatles produced their sounds because the sounds hardly move me. The albums above move mountains for me. Why is this so difficult to grasp and accept? Explain to me in detail how this is "missing the point"? Am I supposed to place music here that I don't love? Should I lower my standards, degrade my integrity? Wouldn't that infact be "missing the point"? Could it be that you, the one going around to other peoples lists (maybe just my own, I don't know) and derailing their own opinions, is the one "missing the point"? Can you allow others to be individuals and to think for themselves, to love the music they want to love and not what you want them to love?

"What beutiful melody, interesting voicings, interesting chord progressions and innovation don't count."

It seems like they count a lot:

Interesting "voicings": McCartney and Lennon had pretty good voices but Beefheart had a SEVEN AND A HALF octave vocal range. What did the Beatles singers have, like two? Three maybe? Advantage: Captain Beefheart.

Interesting chord progressions: The Beatles had a knack for melody. Beefheart practically wrote his own scales. Advantage: Captain Beefheart.

Innovation: The Beatles kickstarted a revolution but many of the "innovations" weren't very substantial and just involved the use of new instruments and were generally being done by most of the musicians of the times anyway. As good as they are there is little that makes the Beatles stand out from the Kinks, the Zombies, Byrds, Who, Stones...better production values perhaps. On the other hand it's been nearly 40 years and STILL nothing sounds anything like Trout Mask. It's a one of a kind. Advantage: Captain Beefheart.

Beautiful melodies: Okay, this one is pretty easy. Advantage: Beatles.

You must be joking.

Analyzing the Beatles solely on the basis of their harmonic/Melodic sophistication fails to explain their huge appeal (noting that Step Inside Love McCartney’s White Album outtake modulated through 6 keys, jazz like as means not and end in itself) or the public’s ongoing fascination with their music. Rather it's one element. In reviewing the Beatles music it's amazing to note is that for 5 years the songwriting of Lennon and McCartney constantly developed and improved. The Beatles had that talent, rare these days in Pop music to surprise, live up to the hype and exceed expectations and surpass their past musical accomplishments.

First Captain Beefhart voice is one of the worst voices I have ever heard in my life. So yeah he has interesting voicings but come on I meant interesting voicings that sound good.

So Captain Beefhart sounded like no one else that does not mean innovation. Have you heard how different some of the Beatle songs sounds like to everyone one of their peers. I challenge you to find songs that sound like "A Day in the Life" or "Tomorrow Never Knows". Maybe no one sounds like Captain Beefhart because no one is really that influenced by him.

The Kinks, The Who, The Byrds have no songs that sound at all like "Eleanor Rigby", "Love You Too", "A Day in the Life", "Tomorrow Never Knows", "I am the Walrus" who are you kidding. As for the Beatles chord progressions it is pretty well known the Beatles chord progression were quite unique.

Man the Beatles were experimenting with Classical Indian music using genuine instrumentation and structure. They mixed that with Avant styled musique concrete,backward tape, dissonant string orchestration and tape loops. The Who, The Byrds, The Kinks, The Zombies and the Stones were not experimenting with this before the Beatles. Please the Beatles influenced folk rockers, Indie Rockers, Progressive Rockers to pop artists. Who is influenced by Captain Beefhart? I bet you it's about 5,000 to the Beatles to what 300 to Captain Beefhart.

It's totally alright that you're criteria includes "sounding good" while being interesting. But keep in mind that a lot of us here don't associate for "sounding good" in the tradiational sense of the phrase with artistic achievement, so we're not impressed by that distinction.

And it makes no sense to say that sounding like no one else does not mean innovation. Those concepts mean the exact same thing.

Also, regardless if what you think of the validity of "sounding like no else" or "innovation" to begin with (whether or not they mean the same thing), it makes no sense at all to say that Beefheart's music didn't/wasn't.

And while we can all acknowledge that the Beatles too were innovative in some ways (and that they have several songs which were unique and even more that were completely different than anything which bands such as the Kinks, Who, and Byrds ever tried)... it's all a matter of degree.

I think the discussions about "influence" really have no place here, by the way. This thread is about great artistic achievements - and influence on others is not a measure of this kind of achievement.

Can I just say, I love the Beatles, but I don't understand how their rabid fans can say that they influenced every musical artist ever. Honestly, it's like you people think the Beatles were the first group who came up with the idea to be a band. Or write a song. Whenever pressed for their actual innovations, you come up with stuff like mixing Indian music with rock or tape loops. Yeah, sure, the Beatles experimented with combining Indian instruments with traditional rock songs, but how did that actually influence other artists? Are you saying that all other artists that used sitars must have been influenced by the Beatles (probably a spurious claim, not that I can think of a ton of rock artists who used sitars anyway)? Or are you implying that it's the idea behind this experimentation that results in influence, that any artist who uses instruments that don't seem to go together carries the Beatles' influence (just markedly untrue, as the Beatles certainly weren't the first artist to combine different sounds)?

I'm really just trying to understand. I'm not that knowledgeable about how rock artists influence other rock artists, and I don't usually use influence in deciding which artists deserve my highest praise. But since there are so many arguments to be had about this, tell me: how did the Beatles actually influence other artists? Do you really think the use of backward tape proved to be a significant influence on other artists? The Beatles did this a few times during their entire career, and yeah, some other artists dabble in it at times, but since it rarely provides actual structure to a song, does this really have a big impact on the course of rock music? Really??

Take even a band like Oasis, which everyone seems to think is influenced by the Beatles, so it should be a no-brainer. Like I said, I'm just trying to understand, but I have no idea how one can claim the Beatles influenced them. Did Oasis lift the Beatles' idea of being an extremely popular British pop-rock band? Was Oasis influenced by the Beatles' significant in-fighting? How can a band really be influenced by a band that existed 30 years before they were formed? It seems to me that everything the Beatles did that Oasis also did has been done thousands of times in the intervening 30 years, to the extent that one could say these things are just part of the rock music lexicon, making it rather inaccurate to say that Oasis was directly influenced by the Beatles. If I'm wrong, tell me what Oasis actually took away from the Beatles.

Or if you think the songs you mention were influential, give me direct musical links. I'll make it easy for you, just fill in the blanks: "Eleanor Rigby was the first song to ___(do something)___, which was later copied by ___(name of song)____, ___(name of song)____, ___(name of song)____, and ___(name of song)____."

Not that I'm claiming Beefheart was particularly influential.

I love the Beatles and musically influenced by them. Do I like everyhting they did no? Look I came up with more than just the Beatles use of foreign influence with rock music. They were other musicians doing these things in other genres but in rock music no the Beatles were creating a new sound.

The Beatles use of folk with rock influenced the Byrds. The Beatles use of circular 12 string jangle sound influenced the Byrds and the Who. The Beatles use of feedback with a recurring guitar riff on "I Feel Fine" predates the Stones "Satisfaction" and it influenced them. The Beatles started the British Invasion and had the first major hits of Merseybeat. Their influence on Progressive Rock with Revolver and Sgt Pepper. Thats just a starter.

Here are some of the people who have cited the Beatles as a influence.

www.answers.com/topic/the-beatles

Here are the people who cite Captain Beefhart as a influence.

www.answers.com/topic/captain-beefheart

Oh yeah by the way "Eleanor Rigby"influenced Radiohead and Pete Townsend in his autobiography said it was a major inspiration in his music.

Yeh in terms of rock music their music is legendary. I am hardly the first to think so.

http://www.icce.rug.nl/~soundscapes/DATABASES/AWP/awp-beatles_projects.s...

It's a website with complete chordal analysis of each Beatles Song by renowned musicologist Alan W. Pollack.

I find it absolutely fascinating how they twisted the accepted rules of composition to their own means, all without a clue as to the why or wherefores of the "rules". They just put chords together that worked for them.

Pick any song, it is a study in compositional technique. Chordally, structurally, melodically, rhythmically...they were like no one else. There is a treasure trove of knowledge here.

All music is subjective (In my opinion, and AfterHours), and so you can't say your view is better than mine (or his, or anyone's) just because yours is more popular, or whatever reason you come up with.

Anyway, the Beatles can influence a million artists who I don't like, but if Beefheart influenced Royal Trux (whom I like), then that one artist trumps almost any numer who the former influenced. With everything being subjective, it doesn't matter how many artists you can come up with.

Your obsession with the Beatles is ok, I don't disrespect you or think any less of you, but please, stop spamming unless you have some other points to make. :)

Aha - but even if something has never been done before, what should matter is: what that thing actually is, how it affects the way the music sounds/feels and whether that sound/feel is interesting to listen to. Otherwise we're just talking about how maybe the mere *fact* that something is done is interesting (something you can gather from reading about it rather than listening).

To many of us, all of the interesting musicological aspects of the early Beatles' music (such as are explained in the Pollack link, and I've read the whole thing) don't really amount to much. "Newness/Originality" does not inherently create great art: afterall, many would see the same "new" thing as just a "new" kind of trivial-sounding music.

Like whatever. Your hero Dylan said that the first thing he noticed about the Beatles music was their outrageous chord progressions. Yeh The Beatles Newness/Originality was heard by one of the most influential musicians of the 20th Century. Also need I remind you again?

Roger McGuinn : "The words weren't so meaningful but the chord changes really had magic in them" (Muni, Somach & Somach, 1989: 168). Bob Dylan reacted in a similar way, by remarking: "They were doing things nobody was doing. Their chords were outrageous, just outrageous, and their harmonies made it all valid ..."

Once again man...you're misintrepreting my post.

I know that some aspects of the Beatles music was original. I also know that Dylan and the Byrds agreed (and I know those quotes).

I'm just saying that aspects of originality-in-and-of-itself is not what I see (and others see) as making great art. To me, regardless of the Beatles' occasional interesting chord changes, Blonde on Blonde was the first true artistic triumph in rock.

Nice post, but I can definitely see how Oasis was influenced by the Beatles - if you grow up listening to them and write songs in an attempt to replicate their melodic sense, there's a clear influence. I don't know enough about Oasis to really make an argument there. I know bands like XTC grew up with the Beatles, the Kinks, Pink Floyd, etc., and as a result they started look to that as the "standard" of rock music.

That said while I think that the Beatles definitely were very important in the formation of rock music, there were many more influential bands that shaped the landscape of the late 60's and early 70's (the Kinks, Led Zeppelin, Pink Floyd, King Crimson, hell, even the Nice). The Beatles perhaps innovated a little more but not many of their innovations took off in a meaningful way, as you've said.

I'm just going to throw this out there, that in terms of influence, perhaps the most influential artist of the last 40 years was Kraftwerk. I think the most influential single track of that period was "I Feel Love" by Donna Summer. Simply put, THEY changed everything. The Beatles certainly inspired many but their influence is nowhere near as far-reaching as Kraftwerk's was, and unlike the Beatles, they're still being pretty much imitated DIRECTLY, meaning that they're still, in 2008, being sampled more than anybody else. Perhaps they weren't very famous really, but they directly inspired a lot who were, and without them I'd say the musical landscape of the 80's and 90's looks a lot different.

I think "Tomorrow Never Knows" predates what Kraftwerk did. I remember reading this was the most influential track in Modern Dance music. It's all there sampling, electronica, one note bass lines and drum & bass sound. You know acts like the Chemical Brothers and Kraftwerk covered the songs.

The Beatles influence is more far reaching than Led Zeppelin or the Kinks. The Beatles influenced more than say rock music. The Beatles influenced pop music much more than Led Zeppelin. The Beatles influence is felt in multiple genres the Kinks had nil influence on the start of Progressive Rock or Folk Rock. So I disagree. Bands like Pink Floyd, Nice and King Crimson were influenced by the Beatles listening to albums like Revolver and Sgt Pepper.

Any musician can be influenced by the Beatles melodic and interesting chord changes. Musicians with the Beatles sense of melody rarely come along. The list of bands directly influenced by the Beatles today is amazing. Oasis, Radiohead, Death Cab for Cutie, Kaiser Chiefs and even Dream Theatre.

Good to see you compare the Beatles influencing a few indie rock bands and one progressive metal one, verses Kraftwerk influencing house, trance, synthpop, hip hop, regular pop and basically anything with a keyboard in it.

Yawn! Yeah people over hype them if they call them the sole influence to every band in music. But to counter act that and say they are not one of the greatest bands ever is ridiculous. They changed how we wrote and recorded music.

What sparked that original creative spark that
became prog rock?

Bill Buford: The Beatles. They broke down every barrier that ever existed. Suddenly you could do anything after The Beatles. You could write your own music, make it ninety yards long, put it in 7/4, whatever you wanted.

Karl Bartos of Kraftwerk

"Sampling has been around since the Beatles they did it all. There is no difference between using tapes and digital machinery." Yawn again

Almost all early electropop artists were English, and were inspired by innovative artists such as Thomas Brown and the Bowie/Eno 'Berlin' albums Heroes and Low, and also by the German pioneers Kraftwerk, Neu!, Cluster, and CAN (all of whom had been heavily influenced by The Beatles' Tomorrow Never Knows). Basically invented the Chemical Brothers thirty years before they recorded music.

One need look no further than The Beatles for examples of classic electronic music techniques and analog synthesis in rock music. On "Tomorrow Never Knows" The Beatles constructed a layer of looped sounds and played them backwards, forward, and sped up. The psychedelic lyrics, the low, repeating rumbling bass and heavy drums, the tape looped-sounds; all hallmarks of what is now called "Trip Hop" and much of today's Modern music. Once again, the Beatles were decades ahead of their time. Oh yeah before the Silver Apples by more than a year.

"Revolution #9 is contructed by using sampling and looping again in popular music album.

I hate burst your bubble

www.rocklistmusic.co.uk/muzik.htm

The 50 Most Influential Records of All Times
Under the Influence - How This List Was Made
Muzik wanted to define the records that had shaped the music we love today. The music that made Basement Jaxx, The Chemical Brothers, Roni Size and System F all possible. Not necessarily the best records ever, although they were hardly going to be stinkers, but the ones which pushed forward a genre, or fused styles to create a new hybrid. The qualities we were looking for were:

Effect on today’s music - Originality
Fusing of existing genres to create new musical styles Music that changed the club scene as well as the sound.

Chosen and written by Ben Turner, Frank Tope, Rob da Bank, Calvin Bush, Dorian Lynskey, Tom Mugridge and Michael Bonner The most important music of the 20th Century. The records which have shaped the music we hear today, from trance to trip hop, from big beat to Basement Jaxx. Everything starts with these...

1. The Beatles “Tomorrow Never Knows” (EMI 1966)(Revolver L.P.)

The Beatles use of drone along with the Velvet Underground which surfaces first on "I Feel Fine" and in its most concentrated in 1965-1966 influenced many forms of rock genres.

terry riley??? isn't he classical?

Perhaps, but no more so than Klaus Schulze in my estimation

right thats true

But I think I may remove him from the list, simply because he is always considered a classical artist while Schulze is barely considered "rock" (electronic).

I'll do a little bit of research and draw a conclusion...

Yea, after doing some research I'm going to remove Riley from this list. I don't know exactly why he is considered classical while Schulze isn't quite but it seems to be expert consensus for which I will just trust until I have the time to learn more thoroughly about the details that govern that distinction. He will definitely be featured on any of my classical masterpieces lists as Rainbow in Curved Air is an all time masterwork.

I made some minor changes to the definitions of my ratings (7.5, 8, 8.5) now reflecting more descriptively which adjectives best define those levels of greatness. 7.5 is now defined as amazing, instead of an 8. I applied new definitions to 8 and 8.5 as well (see author comments section)

mate seriously
theirs 1 reviewer in the entire world (you not inclusive) who rates black saint and the sinner lady and a love supreme back to back

the only reason why some jazz critics rate black saint as the best ever is because it revolutionised jazz composition in the sense that it was less improvisation orientated.
so each songs were meticulously constructed. Im not saying it isnt incredibly powerful, but there are superior jazz albums
even scaruffi says so. Hes rated it top for its significance. A love supreme, a kind of blue, bitches brew, atlantis, any of ornette colemans works, blue train, uncle meat... all of them musically superior records.
before you question my opinions relevance i've just finished a 2 year course at cheetums training to become a concerto pianist. I've studied and performed music since the age of 6 (starting piano at the age of 2)
im attending guildhall in london next year. I also play guitar, and am going to attempt to become a music journalist and historian

my opinions differ from scaruffis immensely but i still see the relevance of his opinion, and yes my friend that is what it is. An opinion.

yes his reviews are scientifically so accurate in there disection but it doesnt make it any more personal taste than the next reviewer
a lot of other good reviewers of equal caliber are on the net
if your interested reply to this :)
joe

and btw im not saying your reviews arent good cause i actually quite like them!
but i preferred the listing before you changed them. Looked more scaruffi inspired than just copied

"there are superior jazz albums
even scaruffi says so."

You're inventing this point to help your cause (though I'm not exactly sure what your cause is especially since I agree with you on your other argumentative points).

Aside from that, I'm fine if you don't agree that Black Saint & the Sinner Lady is the best album ever. Few do. It's all subjective anyways so it really doesn't matter to me in the least. You listed a slew of albums I love and it would be great to see you post some lists.

my friend i may just do that!
not sure how to haha
help would be lovely
i think your reviews of the albums are really well written actually
i do think you should consider your own opinion a bit more
i respect the fact he introduced you to so many of these records that you feel to indebted to him to disagree
but your intelligent enough to voice your own views!
brilliant record choices though even if they are scaruffis

i do think you should consider your own opinion a bit more
i respect the fact he introduced you to so many of these records that you feel to indebted to him to disagree
but your intelligent enough to voice your own views!

These are my own views. When did I tell you they weren't?

afterhours i have created my own list
it is more personal opinion rather than an actual greatest ever
my greatest ever would differ i think
but have a read
the comments i have made were scruffily written i will update them soon

if your interested i will post a link to my own music
listen as you would to trout mask or any other challenging record
it is my music
its made from the soul
everything is produced and written myself
the tracks id advise listening to are the modernist, death is a tender flow, the unsync
http://www.myspace.com/miamithememusic

Stop jizzing in your pants and take a minute to read my author comments sections before commenting further please.

Albums are rated and ranked based on how emotionally powerful I find them. The order I've given has been thoroughly considered and is very exact. The rankings here have evolved significantly over time and my current rankings have been concluded only after many, many listens of each and every album.

For me, the primary factors that make an album emotionally powerful are:

1. Emotional Conviction
2. Expansion of Ingenuity
3. Continuity

Where I rate and rank them is ONLY based on the above and not any of your assumptions or fixed ideas.

What I rate and rank the highest ARE my favorites, in order. There's no difference between so called "greatest ever" and "favorite" on my lists.

also the artwork is mine

sorry to keep writing
but i have just this very minute received an email from domino records displaying interest
im to travel to london for a meeting

as you might expect i have jizzed in my pants im so excited haha

so the music on the page might be domino record property soon!

shit i just read what you said
i didnt invent the point
the reason why he rates it the highest is because it is the most radical exploration of music jazz produced
the composition equals classic compositions because it is less improvisaton orientated
basically mingus proved that it is the instrumentation that defines the genre not the compostitional technique

he actually states a love supreme to be the masterpiece of jazz music
which i'd say is a much more plausible top dog than black saint
as there are so many flaws in it
listen to a kind of blue also
and bitches brew for superior jazz albums
ascension
anything by the duke or the monk

Just because you don't think Black Saint is #1 doesn't mean you need to distort the facts to support your personal conclusions. From Scaruffi himself:

The narrative dynamic typical of Mingus' extended works is the essence of The Black Saint And The Sinner Lady (january 1963), ostensibly a six-movement ballet (divided into three "tracks" and three "modes") for big band (the three modes were squeezed into a single 17-minute track on the vynil version), and one of the masterpieces of 20th century's music. Scored for an orchestra of two trumpets, trombone, tuba, flute, baritone sax, guitar, alto (Charlie Mariano), piano (Jaki Byard), bass and drums, and painstakingly assembled by Mingus (even overdubbing several passages), it was, by definition, an exercise in colors: Mingus juxtaposed groups of instruments to maximize the contrast of tones, while using a shifting dynamic to lure ever-changing textures out of that jarring counterpoint. The resulting music was highly emotional, bordering on neurotic, merging the ancestral frustration of black slaves with the modern alienation of the urban middle class. The sense of universal tragedy was increased by the facts that instruments were clearly simulating human voices, whether the joyful singing of Mariano's sax or the sorrowful murmur of trumpet and trombone or the ghostly howls of tuba and baritone sax. The story opens with the bleak Track A - Solo Dancer, slides into the orchestral Track B - Duet Solo Dancers (reminiscent of Ellington) and delves into the melodic fantasy of Track C - Group Dancers, with piano and flute sculpting the leitmotiv. The "modes", Mode D - Trio And Group Dancers, Mode E - Single Solos And Group Dance and Mode F - Group And Solo Dance, wed hard bop, classical music and flamenco.

Notice particularly how he describes its emotional power and doesn't refer to any of your invented reasons as to why he ranks it #1. Quote: "Mingus juxtaposed groups of instruments to maximize the contrast of tones, while using a shifting dynamic to lure ever-changing textures out of that jarring counterpoint. The resulting music was highly emotional, bordering on neurotic, merging the ancestral frustration of black slaves with the modern alienation of the urban middle class. The sense of universal tragedy was increased by the facts that instruments were clearly simulating human voices, whether the joyful singing of Mariano's sax or the sorrowful murmur of trumpet and trombone or the ghostly howls of tuba and baritone sax."

he actually states a love supreme to be the masterpiece of jazz music.

While A Love Supreme is totally worthy of the #1 position what you've said is simply not true. Again, you're reading more into what he says than what is actually written in an effort to support your claims:

From Scaruffi himself:

It was the prelude to Coltrane's masterpiece, and perhaps the masterpiece of the entire history of jazz music: A Love Supreme (december 1964). Coltrane, Tyner, Garrison and Jones concocted a multi-ethnic stew (African nationalism, Indian spirituality, western rationality) cast in the format of a four-movement mass.

On top of the carefully placed "perhaps" it is worth noting that he wrote this before updating his list to make Black Saint #1 and A Love Supreme #2.

Either way, he doesn't "state a love supreme to be the masterpiece of jazz music" as you've claimed.

Additionally, stating the following about Black Saint is arguably an even greater compliment than 'greatest in jazz history':

"and one of the masterpieces of 20th century's music"

...especially when one considers its' placement as #1 on his jazz list (A Love Supreme #2) and #3 on his most significant music works list (A Love Supreme #9); though Scaruffi states and has told me that that list needs to be updated, those two and a couple others are rather recent updates already--so I doubt he is referring to placements he already has updated.

right seriously do you have a personal opinion
what you've displayed is no technical or musical knowledge of the music displayed on the records.
You've just written a series of Scaruffi quotes!
seeing as all your comments seem to be based around his thoughts i'll throw you one

He states Lester Bangs to be the greatest reviewer in rock and jazz history
Lester Bangs rates a kind of blue by miles davis as the greatest jazz record ever made... is it a more relevant opinion than Scaruffis? No but at least it's an opinion. I dont dispute the fact that you have probably listened to these albums in depth, but your reviewers are irrelevant because people may aswell just read scaruffi!

my comments to you after your reply were positive! You responded with base sarcasm and a strew of scaruffi quotes

Anyways i was going to inquire as to your opinion on my music and my list

peace out

With me you've been deviantly suppressive and covertly hostile. You've acted “friendly” while sliding in back stabbing comments in an effort to suppress. In your arguments are lies and false data and invented generalities. Then when this is pointed out, and as a matter of fact shown with clear evidence, you attack me, the one who confronted you on it. So I’m being very forward: I DO NOT WANT TO HAVE ANYTHING TO DO WITH YOU.

Your previous comments in bold. My explanations in regular print bookended by quotation marks.

mate seriously ”friendly”
theirs 1 reviewer in the entire world (you not inclusive) who rates black saint and the sinner lady and a love supreme back to back “veiled hostility”

the only reason why some jazz critics rate black saint as the best ever is because it revolutionised jazz composition in the sense that it was less improvisation orientated. “invented generality”
so each songs were meticulously constructed. Im not saying it isnt incredibly powerful, but there are superior jazz albums
even scaruffi says so.
“lie”

my opinions differ from scaruffis immensely but i still see the relevance of his opinion, and yes my friend that is what it is. An opinion. “an effort to create friction from thin air on a point that doesn’t even exist (I’ve always maintained that it is ‘an opinion’)”

my friend i may just do that! “friendly”
not sure how to haha “friendly”
help would be lovely “friendly”
i think your reviews of the albums are really well written actually “friendly”
i do think you should consider your own opinion a bit more “back-stabbing comment right after establishing ‘friendliness’”
i respect the fact he introduced you to so many of these records that you feel to indebted to him to disagree
but your intelligent enough to voice your own views!
“again”
brilliant record choices though even if they are scaruffis “and again”

"the following is a perfect storm of all of the above"

right seriously do you have a personal opinion
what you've displayed is no technical or musical knowledge of the music displayed on the records.
You've just written a series of Scaruffi quotes!
seeing as all your comments seem to be based around his thoughts i'll throw you one

He states Lester Bangs to be the greatest reviewer in rock and jazz history
Lester Bangs rates a kind of blue by miles davis as the greatest jazz record ever made... is it a more relevant opinion than Scaruffis? No but at least it's an opinion. I dont dispute the fact that you have probably listened to these albums in depth, but your reviewers are irrelevant because people may aswell just read scaruffi!

my comments to you after your reply were positive! You responded with base sarcasm and a strew of scaruffi quotes

Anyways i was going to inquire as to your opinion on my music and my list

peace out

I DON'T WANT TO HAVE ANY FURTHER CONVERSATION WITH YOU. GO AWAY.

lol i was trying constructive criticism
i.e. being honest about the good and bad parts of your argument
the only reason your so angry is because im pointed out several times you have ripped off piero scaruffis list of best of
showing no personal opinion whatsoever
you can't review anything yourself because you can only think of how scaruffi would

you've only argued with scaruffi quotes about the music
obviously noone else has read his reviews!
a comment you put near the top was "whos scaruffi"
SAY WHAT?

erm you call me a liar?
i havent lied i just havent quoted word for word scaruffi. Not even subtle
just a copy and paste job off his website

Dude give it a rest and stop hassling AfterHours.
Also, please learn to capitalise and write proper English.

He states Lester Bangs to be the greatest reviewer in rock and jazz history

I'm sure he said greatest American critic

who are the critics whose opinion you respect as much or more?

Scaruffi, Bangs, I like Rosenbaum as well, and enjoy the film reviews of Slant magazine...there are probably others but outside of Scaruffi noone really stands out as someone I consistently agree with, aside from some users of this site such as lukeprog, Parable, Elston, neptune, etc.

I just found this fascinating new documentary by the BBC on the history of german electronic music. Starting with Stockhausen, Can, Neu, Faust, Kraftwerk until today.

German Electronic Music History -- http://vimeo.com/7583109

can somebody explain what is so spellbindingly wonderful about fare foreward voyagers by john fahey??

Yeah! Interesting lists body. I never heard about it. The sounds like these are interesting. That is good for those who are interested in that music. I have listened nepali songs from my childhood and I love to sing those songs alone. I am also inspired by lyrics of these songs. They are really heart touching.

Glad to see that Zen Arcade (among other favorites!) (re-?)earned your seal of approval as masterpieces!

Oh, I suppose those are somewhat misleading. Those albums have all been on this list for years, but they each just moved around in position and this is me showing the recent updates in rank.

A mix of Scaruffi's best of jazz and best of rock lists. Not very original.

.

If I were to create a list of what I believe to be the best jazz and rock albums and it ended up looking very similar to someone else's list, I would not feel the least bit bad about it, since a list is suppose to reflect the honesty of the author's beliefs above anything else.

But it's really very similar and not by accident. Even the order is the same. I'm highly affected by Scaruffi too, but my lists aren't the exact copy of him.

You've arrived here at a very late point in the process so I don't expect you to know that I once had a completely different list than Scaruffi's and that it has gradually come out this way. There is no doubt it looks an awful lot like Scaruffi's rock/jazz lists but what should I do if I agree with him? Lie just to "save face"?

Because he just finally dropped Springsteen's The River to an 8.5 and I've had it that way for 5 years, does that mean Scaruffi copied me on that one? Of course not. :-)

OK, but look out lukeprog's best rock albums list, he's also a Scaruffist, but he managed to create a list which has some lesser-known Scaruffi picks (and doesn't worship all Scaruffi's 9's).

About The River, I find it ridiculously overrated. I have to hear once again but I don't think it would blow me away.

Sorry but I am not interested in this discussion (I've had it too many times over the last 6-7 years). So, in addition to what I've already said above, this is the last I'm going to say about it, take it or leave it:

This is my list, and it's a lot like Scaruffi's. Lukeprog has a list that isn't as much like Scaruffi's (he also has a different criteria in that he attempts to rate on objective merits <--not a criticism, just different). Like my list or hate it, question it or not, I do so with my own integrity and personal conviction intact. It's okay if you disagree, but frankly, that's just the way it is. If you want, see my reviews in my "guide to my greatest films list" (clearly labors of love and personal insight. And on the movie side of things, you may find my review of Tarkovsky's Nostalghia interesting). That's all.

I agree that an exact carbon copy of another person’s list is indeed questionable. But I do not think one should receive scorn for a list showing strong similarities with another one’s list, since it only makes sense that people with very similar tastes in art arrive with similar lists. I also do not think that one strive to create lists with the No. 1 goal of being “unique” and “special”. Such an approach strikes me as superficial. In all honesty, I think a person should just create a list that illustrates what he truly believes and have a total disregard for what others think of it. And if it just so happens that the list exhibits strong similarities with that of another person, then so be it.

I agree :)

Dude, there's this Italian guy who ripped off your list. Totally, completely ripped it off. I know that this list is the labor of your love, based on your personal emotions and how you've single-handedly experienced the profoundness of these masterpieces which are scientifically proven by you to be the BEST GREATEST MASTERPIECES OF ALL TIME EVER. But this Italian guy, you know, he has just totally ripped your list off, and he even says that "I have no I idea how I rate music."
I'm really sorry for this guy (Not you ... but the Italian dude). I think it's so pathetic that a person copies 99% of another person's tastes and opinions just to attract attention and/or morbidly satisfy his ego. To me, he (again, not you, but the Italian fella)seems unable to even understand the emotions of a Christmass carol, let alone the music of The Velvet Underground or Ornette Coleman or "cool" stuff like that. A person who actually values originality won't act as low as copying another person's ideas. You are almost a PERFECT human being who is an ABSOLUTELY AUTHENTIC source of information, because you're not a mindless monkey, but you (You... not the Italian guy)are totally new and really believable and completely interesting.
Anyway ... keep up the good work. This is a fantastic list. It's the GREATEST LIST OF GREATEST ALBUMS OF ALL TIME OF ALL TIME. My head has completely exploded by the amount of original personal opinion and sheer emotional effectiveness of your scientific ratings.
God bless you! (That is, if you are not actually God himself. If so, You bless You.)

Did you bother to read the recent posts right above yours?

Actually I read all the comments in this page before posting my own.

You've got me: I've never listened to any of these albums, and my thoughts and reviews on them show me to be totally unfounded and without a single thought of my own about them. Thank you for entering this site 7 years and hundreds of additions and updates later, and finally pointing this out to those of us who've been here during most, or all of that time. I can continue my mindlessness in peace now, at least knowing that the conspiracy I've been so deceptively involved in has finally been unmasked and dealt with by the sort of invalidation and covert vitriol it has deserved for so many long, arduous years of faking my way through these experiences.

A) I didn't say you never listened to any of those albums: I suppose you did. It's not a hard task to listen to music, lots of people do it.
B) I don't think that you don't have a single thought of your own. You do have a SINGLE thought of your own, and a truckload of others' thoughts.
C) You've been here for 7 years? Is that supposed to mean that you're "7 years ahead" or something?
D) This is not a deceptive conspiracy: look at the comments about your "carbon copy" and you'll see that you're not fooling most of the people around you. You're fooling yourself.
E)7 years of "experience"? I have a suggestion for the next 7 years: Instead of making more of these "personal" lists and constantly having to deal with the "covert vitriol" from people like me, you can just write these 16 letters instead and pretty much nothing will change about what you have to say:

WWW.SCARUFFI.COM

F) If you pretend to "experience" the "emotional profoundness" of "greatest supreme masterpieces" while "valuing originality" yet you end up "copying 99% of someone else's opinion while pretending that it happened by accident", you're just a bad joke.

You're not here for any other reason than to invalidate, to attempt to prop yourself up by trying to make me feel "wrong" in some way. In life, a certain percentage of people such as yourself try to do this to others because they think if another was powerful or impressive in some way, he would then use that position or power to expose him, or endanger him. And so you try and cut down that person.

So, I'll take any further invalidations, hostile assumptions, and the like as, deep down, a well deserved sign of respect for me, the things I've written, and all the success I've had in my own listening, promoting, recommendations, and communications with others to do the same. Someone else, whom I'm sure you've manipulated and wreaked havoc upon in other ventures, might get sucked into your void of invalidations, assumptions and whatnot, and that would be the trap you're surely hoping for, but unfortunately for you, I couldn't care less about what you think you think about me. Good luck.

You're getting it wrong.
I don't think you're powerful or impressive. There is no trap (If I invalidate some guy on the internet on some page, what's my actual profit?).
I'm just used to yelling "Rip Off!" when I see a rip off.

"You're not here for any other reason than to invalidate, to attempt to prop yourself up by trying to make me feel "wrong" in some way".
WHY? because you said so?
"So, I'll take any further invalidations, hostile assumptions, and the like as, deep down, a well deserved sign of respect for me".
WHY? because you said so?
"Someone else, whom I'm sure you've manipulated and wreaked havoc upon in other ventures, ...."
WHY? because you said so?

I know you think I invalidate you because deep down I respect your success (you must be always in love with yourself, huh?). You're wrong. My intention is to make you see the lack of "deep down" respect you think I (and many others) have for you. We don't have that. You're not better than everybody else although you can just assume that you are (WHY? because you said so!). It's NOT unfortunate for ME that you pretend that you don't care what I think, it's unfortunate for YOU. My intention - believe it or not - is to help you.

LOL, re: "my intention is to help you"!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! This gets better and better!!!

LOL, it's fun to see you having no answer except "you're a bad person! you're a bad person!"

If only scaruffi had a list of "Greatest Sentences Of All Time" so you could answer people with ...

I'm not interested dude! I know who I am and what I've experienced! You don't! Go "help" someone else with your "methods" of doing so!

If you wanted to talk about the music I listen to, or the movies I watch, instead of how much you think you know about me and what I think despite having never met me or even asked me, than I might have some interest in what you're saying outside of "brushing you off". If you're not here for that, go do something else!

Well I don’t like rhayader18 very much, but I think I can at least see where he’s coming from. You have to ask yourself: what would Scaruffi think if he saw a list in which at least 90% of it matched his own? You may not care what rhayader18 or what anybody else thinks of this list of rock albums, but do you at least care what Scaruffi would think of it? I’m not saying it’s wrong to agree with most of his ratings. In fact, I’m in the same shoes you’re in - I went through a similar process in which my ratings slowly began to match his. If people want to believe that I’m brainwashed, they’re more than welcome to, but I’m fairly confident that, had I spent an entire life time researching rock music, the majority of the conclusions I would reach would closely parallel those of Scaruffi. Whether or not people such as ourselves would have inevitably reached these conclusions without Scaruffi’s aid remains to be proven, but what is certain is that Scaruffi has indeed beaten us to the punch. Perhaps it is best to simply provide a link to his rock lists and, above or below the link, provide a list of his ratings you disagreed with and provide your alternative ratings for them.

I respect genuine beliefs. Scaruffi's site is great. His recommendations are at least extremely interesting and he usually has a point about what he says. If someone agrees (or disagrees) with something he says, who am I to judge?
You don't like me very much, and I would like it more if you did, but my comment was just intended for Afterhours, not someone who honestly agrees with a critic.
It's just that ... there's an elephant in the room. Shouldn't someone eventually talk about the elephant??

Yes, lets talk about that! The real "elephant in the room" is that you haven't for a second consulted my understanding and experience with these works. You've just assumed.

Rock Bottom-Robert Wyatt (1974)
OVERVIEW: Arranged as a complete bout of stream-of-consciousness blossoming from a gradually upending kaleidoscope of succumbing emotional episodes and cast from a mass density of instrumental brotherhood, comes a deep exhale of collective oneness steeped in an overwhelming sense of universal tragedy. Wyatt assumes an inexplicable plethora of emotional identities, each magnified by an impossible sense of self awareness and clarity that, en masse, forces into existence an otherwise impenetrable subjectivity of the greatest integrity, character and conviction. In a communal mustering of forces that seem at once irrevocably consequential and sudden, unexplained phenomena, the work progresses as a prodigal event. A miracle unfolding. As a single entity where each aspect is interconnected to a greater whole, a single thrust, a singular emotion that encapsulates within it an omnipresence of emotions, expressions, viewpoints and beingness. A spiritual ascension that becomes increasingly disoriented, flummoxed and senseless the more awareness it acquires, the more profundity it emotes; thus mired in some ultimate dichotomy against logic. Sea Song, fraught with a narcotic, otherworldly milieu and contemplated by a profound, painfully heavy impression of sorrow, is a funeral march on a despairing search for answers. It magically erupts into a submerged, overwhelmed choir and then into the passionate, lost grief of Wyatt's lone, plaintive and confused cries as the keyboards strike repeating chords, haunting and ominous. A Last Straw floats oceanic, ascending and descending in eternal swim. It moves in an unorthodox, cyclic and rhythmic pulse as Wyatt calls out like a dying, drowning mammal, in between flexibly patterned, elastic percussion before the bottom drops out in a series of descending, increasingly dreadful, low notes. Little Red Riding Hood Hit the Road explodes in a sensational, vibrant show, a coalescing influx of multi-faceted liberation, the unfurling of states of being; of mind over matter; Buddhi. It is a confused, colliding series of transformations, infusing Wyatt into and out of existence. His crying falsetto wavers, climbing then falling in laments of regret, corralling with the momentum of the frenzied, swirling vacuum; slowing down, speeding up, and dramatically reversing direction into inverse semantics and back again before nodding off in troubled nonsense. Alifib/Alife opens as a miraculous rebirth, an ode to his loved one in naked solitude. Wyatt casts teardrops of regret into sparkling constellations, sinking ever so slowly beneath a calm and drifting sea, farther and farther from her. Beneath his delicate, lonely keyboard strokes, his haunting voice calls out repeatedly in a sacred whisper of paralyzed and comatose cardiac arrest. He is praying to her from the brink of death, trying to bring himself back, trying to postulate their union back into reality just as he loses it. Above this, he sings a mesmerizing hymn from the edge of birth, mourning their distance and their failures in an aching poem of clumsy baby talk. As with a newborn to his mother he pleas to her in a heartbreaking show of eternal dependency. Drowning further, a gradual rise of calamity, confusion and suspense ensues. Wyatt repeats his words in a less formulated, dying stupor as narcoleptic fits take hold. Clarinet and sax figures contort and spit and squeal and squirm, anxiously contriving a strange, brewing storm of pent up intensity before spewing out a wrenching, overflowing spastic attack of uncontrolled, unmitigated abandon, bursting and then calming into a striking retort from his loved one while a haunting sense of eternal damnation seems to swell before them. Little Red Robin Hood Hit the Road explodes in a relentless storm of manic, increasingly frenetic percussion and instrumental fireworks while Wyatt repeats a mantra of prayers behind the screaming call of his keyboard play, before finally passing out into a heavenly backdrop of dreamy viola where an awkward stupor of unintelligible vocals drift about, hypnotized indefinitely in a void and godless world.

There are others in my "Guide to Greatest Albums", and for films, in my "Guide to Greatest Films". Were these cut and pasted from Scaruffi? Think whatever you wish about the similarities of my list, but it is undeniable that I clearly understand and have thoroughly experienced these works for myself, and that my observations and opinions about them are my own -- whether or not the initial recommendation came from Scaruffi's site. Understanding, of which I would gladly accept a challenge to demonstrate with any work(s) featured of your choosing, is the reverse of "mindless", "not genuine", etc.

Try me! Let's do it! You think you know so much about my level of integrity, experience and understanding!? Then PROVE it!

I don't know so much about your level of integrity, experience and understanding. I never said that. It's what YOU say about me.
Furthermore, I frankly don't feel the need to know about you in detail. Because, as your list clearly demonstrates, I've seen your choices for "best albums" in scaruffi's website, ranked in the same order, and written way before your list. More importantly, he doesn't claim his list to be scientific or objective. He even says "I have no idea how I rate music", which is ultimately the most convincing reason for me to consider how he rates an album as a "sincere judgement" before listening to an album. The fact that his list is not a "rip off" makes me interested about it and it makes me interested about his level of integrity, experience and understanding. But that's scaruffi, a good music critic with an original list. He seems interesting to me, but you don't. This doesn't mean that I think your level of experience and understanding is low. This just means that I don't care and don't need to care about your level of experience and understanding.
The most important thing, however, is that when a good music reviewer writes a review, he/she manages to create a picture in the reader's mind that helps the reader understand and appreciate music the way he/she does. Reviewing music, when done right, is an Art in itself. It's not science or mathematics. Albums convey emotions and we can rate them based on emotional impact, sure, but if a reviewer writes "The album X by the band Y is the most emotive album of all time, there are many deep emotions pouring out of this album, like A and B and C and ... " he won't intrigue me (or most of other people) about the album.

Your overview about Rock Bottom (I'll suppose that it's honest, even though there's no need to do that) suggests that YOU like Rock Bottom and find it fascinating. If you like it, good for you. You go in great detail and describe "what" amazing things you feel about this album, but you don't succeed in making me feel your pleasure of listening to this album. After reading your overview, I understand that you think Rock Bottom is awesome, but your overview doesn't say "why" or "how". In conclusion, to make it simple, your review says "I like this album" using a huge collection of pedantic words. If you like to assume that you're sincere and valid, good. If you like to assume that your overview is great, good. But tell me, why should I think you're "sincere" or become convinced that you're "valid" ?

Here are some examples of reviews that are worth reading and give insight on Rock Bottom:

"Rock Bottom (1974), one of rock music's supreme masterpieces, a veritable transfiguration of both rock and jazz. Its pieces straddle the unlikely border between an intense religious hymn and a childish nursery rhyme. Along that imaginary line, Wyatt carved a deep trench of emotional outpouring, where happiness, sorrow, faith and resignation found a metaphysical unity. "- Scaruffi

"there’s no denying the record derives much of its power from its occupying of a liminal space deep in the psyche; a place where thought patterns slip their moorings in reality and all kinds of weirdness starts looming up out of the deep, dark blue." - Alex Denney

"With Rock Bottom, Wyatt transcends the typical definitions of “introspection” and “life-affirmation” by being indirect and allowing his mood and music to speak for him. Eschewing the insipid and trite stories of life’s challenges, Wyatt’s physical disability cultivated a grand form of expression and Nick Mason evidently knew how to pull it all together. A deserving classic being kept in circulation." -Sean Caldwell

As I already said: I don't know so much about your level of integrity, experience and understanding. There's no sign for me to assume that you're particularly intelligent and experienced when it comes to writing about music, because:
A) Your album choices are 95% the same as a famous critic.
B) He (along with many many others) does a better job at describing what's great about these albums.

P.S. I dropped the sarcasm from this comment. You said "Try Me!" and I did, with respect. Let's see how this goes.
P.P.S. "I don't think you're great" doesn't equal "I think you suck, motherfucker". I'd like you to stop getting offended about things that are not offensive.
P.P.P.S. You listen to music and feel some feelings, just like me, just like a huge number of people. The mere fact that you and I have "opinions" doesn't make our opinions interesting or worthy.

You responded how I expected you to. Because I am well aware of what you're trying to do, I'm not offended at all, though that is undeniably your intention. You've made this explicitly clear in you're origination on my page and attacks cloaked in claims to "try to help me". You're trying to make me feel invalid for the purpose of propping yourself up. There's nothing wrong with propping oneself up but when one uses invalidations of others to try and do so, it gets pretty reprehensible. Really, you'd have better luck elsewhere. Maybe someone else would be more willing to sit under your thumb as you try to squash them?

In conclusion, to make it simple, your review says "I like this album" using a huge collection of pedantic words. If you like to assume that you're sincere and valid, good. If you like to assume that your overview is great, good. But tell me, why should I think you're "sincere" or become convinced that you're "valid" ?

Your statement is contradictory. The conviction in the review is obvious. If you don't see that then read it again. Whether one thinks it's a good review or not isn't particularly the point: it clearly demonstrates that I have significant experience with the album and understand it. It's also clear that it is personal and that it is my own review, which you then supported by listing other reviews that communicate differently and making a separation between them and my own as well as your opinion that: "you go in great detail and describe "what" amazing things you feel about this album...". That's all. This deletes the crux of your claims. If you can't (or are unwilling) to accept that, than there's no reason to continue. You're intentions here hold you back from being able to change your mind, which is fine.

"He seems interesting to me, but you don't." If this is true, what are you doing here on my page in the first place and why are you so interested in attacking/"helping" me? For answer, see 1st paragraph above, and repeat if you're still on this page. Or just keep commenting into oblivion. Your choice. I've got a lot better things to do.

"You responded how I expected you to. Because I am well aware of what you're trying to do."
"You're trying to make me feel invalid for the purpose of propping yourself up. "
"The conviction in the review is obvious. If you don't see that then read it again."

These are sentences that you wrote. They are based on 2 things :
1) You are a great genius, so much that you know my intentions without actually knowing my intentions.
2) I am, and will be, a sick person who props himself up by hurting the genius that is you.

You're delusional and paranoid.
You need help.
You can't figure out anything other than the firm and wrong belief that you're automatically right.

This is pretty much how I was "trying to help". I'm not enjoying arguing with you, because like all people who like to think of themselves as superheroes, you're neither fun nor rational.

It's obvious that you're intelligent. I'm not calling you stupid.
It's obvious that you're emotionally troubled. I tried to make you realize this, since you're wasting your intelligence and emotions on worshiping a music critic. More importantly, your reviews show the fairy-tale belief that you can measure the level of emotion in each piece of music.
It's emotion.
You can't measure it.
Your rating system is flawed, but more importantly, you subject yourself to listening to a weird album 300 times in a row to "understand" it. You're wasting your precious time and precious music.
You're acting no different than a Hardcore Beatles Fan who spends all his life trying to prove the Beatles are the greatest.
Replace "Beatles" with "Scaruffi". You're a Scaruffi fan.

Stop wasting your time. You're supposed to enjoy music, not measure the level of emotions (which nobody can).

I saw you letting your potential go to waste. I tried to help you realize this. That's the whole "trying to help" thing.

P.S. The only people who actually gave a shit about this conversation were you, me and maybe georgejetson. There's no real audience here, and I'm not propping myself up by trying to publicly humiliate you. My sarcasm and/or insults was to get your attention (which I did).
You've got a good head. Get it out of your ass.
Bye.

Good riddance!

“You don't like me very much, and I would like it more if you did, but my comment was just intended for Afterhours…”

I have no problem with an individual raising serious criticisms (in fact, I encourage that) if done so in a respectable manner. But I found your behavior on this particular thread to be very reprehensive. You could have addressed issues with Afterhours in the same manner as I did, but instead you were deliberately condescending and needlessly insulting.

With comments such as “If only scaruffi had a list of "Greatest Sentences Of All Time" so you could answer people with ...”, it just results in inflated egos and wasted energy.

No denying about my behavior being negative. I wanted it to be negative, 'cause although I'm not generally keen on creating disturbing feelings, I do act condescending when the person I'm addressing is condescending himself.
I know, it would be so nice and beautiful if we were all nice and beautiful. The sad fact is that we're not.

Nope. The truth is: you came here and originated your attacks out of nowhere, and now you try and justify this by claiming that "the person I'm addressing is condescending himself", as if I showed up on your page or something. This is just further evidence of your intentions here: invalidation and suppression for the purpose of trying to make me feel "wrong" or "less valid" for the attempted purpose of propping yourself up.

read my last comment.

Hey AH, I was just wondering, what do you think of Magma? Might be up your alley...