Best =/= Favorite Albums

[bloop]

We've been discussing this in another thread, so I thought this might be constructive.  Name a band for which your favorite album and their best in your opinion are not one in the same.  Why is it your favorite?  Why is the other one their best?

Discuss.  (I'll have to sleep on the question myself)

[murlough23]

Name a band for which your favorite album and their best in your opinion are not one in the same.

Such a thing doesn't exist. I was about to name one, but then I went, "Oh wait, I guess that best album is my favorite after all." 

[Josh]

First example that comes to mind is Bob Dylan-- though it sort of depends on how we define best, which is harder with him than with merely mortal artists. Love & Theft is my personal favorite of his albums, but I would also say that it is his best in terms of songwriting, production, and performance. It is not, however, as inventive or groundbreaking as... well, any of his albums from the 60s or early 70s, almost all of which invented whole new genres.

My favorite Over the Rhine record is Good Dog Bad Dog-- that's the one that speaks to me the most-- but I would champion Ohio as their most ambitious and visionary work.

My favorite Tom Waits album is Orphans, but that's sort of cheating. My favorite "regular" Waits album (not that there's anything regular about a Tom Waits album) is Real Gone, though I'd happily acknowledge Rain Dogs as his best work in most respects.

While I think Kid A is both Radiohead's best album and my personal favorite, I think their SECOND best is OK Computer, while I'm starting to lean toward In Rainbows as my second favorite.

My favorite Charles Mingus record is Oh Yeah, but there are at least half a dozen of his albums that I think are technically better than that one.

[bloop]

My favorite Tom Waits album is Orphans, but that's sort of cheating. My favorite "regular" Waits album (not that there's anything regular about a Tom Waits album) is Real Gone, though I'd happily acknowledge Rain Dogs as his best work in most respects.

I was mulling over using this exact example.  I was listening to Orphans yesterday, and I think this may well be my favorite Tom Waits, but, as a cohesive album, there are several that I could see giving a nod over Orphans.

[murlough23]

Josh's post is a perfect example of how different albums can be better on different "axes", and yet it's still difficult to quantify an absolute best on a linear scale.

First example that comes to mind is Bob Dylan-- though it sort of depends on how we define best, which is harder with him than with merely mortal artists. Love & Theft is my personal favorite of his albums, but I would also say that it is his best in terms of songwriting, production, and performance. It is not, however, as inventive or groundbreaking as... well, any of his albums from the 60s or early 70s, almost all of which invented whole new genres.

Here, you point out the perfectly valid question of how we define "best", and then you illustrate two different ways of defining it, which are going to carry different amounts of weight with different people. "Songwriting, production, and performance" would probably appeal more to my definition of "best", and I'm guessing that "inventive and groundbreaking" appeals more to bloop's. (Which is not to say that the other thing is unimportant to either of us.) I think it's possible to have absolutely stellar songwriting, production, and performance while doing nothing new. It's also possible to invent whole new genres while not doing particularly well in the aforementioned categories. (Given that we're talking about Dylan, I'm sure it's not a case of being perfect at the one while completely sucking at the other. I'm just abstracting from the specific example here.) This is why I don't think it's worth trying to define an objective "best" when you've got two or more very good things to compare and contrast.

My favorite Over the Rhine record is Good Dog Bad Dog-- that's the one that speaks to me the most-- but I would champion Ohio as their most ambitious and visionary work.

I think it's possible to have ambitions and visions and to not fully follow through on them. The very words "ambitious and visionary" seem to me to reflect an artist's worldview and intent, moreso than what was actually accomplished. Again, not to slight the specific example you gave - I can certainly see how that's true about Ohio. I see how it grew them as a band. (Band? Duo? Whatever.) But in general, is an album that reaches farther but doesn't always grasp what it's reaching for necessarily a better artistic achievement than one that finds an artist sticking to what they know and doing it exceptionally well? (It probably depends on the specific example. I suggest that it could be true here and not true in some other cases.)

My favorite Charles Mingus record is Oh Yeah, but there are at least half a dozen of his albums that I think are technically better than that one.

Music that gets too technical can sometimes lose the feeling or the purpose of what it's trying to communicate. It can become merely academic. I can't say whether this was the case for Mingus, because my knowledge of Mingus starts and ends with "The guy who inspired Radiohead's 'The National Anthem'." But I've heard of artists who are widely regarded as technical wizards on their instrument(s) and yet who are so dedicated to showing off their skills that it just plain bores people. (Except for maybe a few music geeks who are really into that sort of thing.)

I mean, there's more to making music than just playing your instrument's version of Guitar Hero.

My point in bringing all of this up is not to criticize your picks or your reasons for picking them, but to illustrate how highly subjective our attempts to be objective actually are.

[bloop]

Josh's post is a perfect example of how different albums can be better on different "axes", and yet it's still difficult to quantify an absolute best on a linear scale.

I don't think I'd want to try to quantify quality on a linear scale - it's far too reductionist and I don't know anyone who has a way of weighing the different factors that go into making quality art.  The thread is about when one's favorite is not the one they consider best, and I think Josh gave some good reasons for why the two can sometimes differ without merely appealing to popular tastes. 

I think for everyone here, most of the time, best and favorite end up being one in the same, but there are perfectly valid reasons why they may not.  I struggle to think of many instances where my favorite album by a particular band isn't the one I consider their best.  Most such instances, the problem is simply that I consider several albums to be equally valid, defensible choices for an artist's best. (i.e. I would think of The Bends as a defensible choice for Radiohead, even though I don't share that opinion, but not Pablo Honey)

[murlough23]

I don't think I'd want to try to quantify quality on a linear scale - it's far too reductionist and I don't know anyone who has a way of weighing the different factors that go into making quality art.

Well gee, I thought God knew how to do this, and that you were well on your way to diving His will in these matters.

The thread is about when one's favorite is not the one they consider best, and I think Josh gave some good reasons for why the two can sometimes differ without merely appealing to popular tastes.

To me these are just favorites chosen for different reasons. I like this one thing or this set of things that this album does best, and then this other thing that this other album does best.

Either way, we've established that the process is subjective. "Best" to you or me clearly isn't any more universal than "favorite", because we have different standards upon which we judge to begin with. All we've proven is that it's another type of "favorite" for which it's perhaps easier to come up with a critically defensible position.

NP: "Colors in Array", Future of Forestry

[bloop]

Well gee, I thought God knew how to do this, and that you were well on your way to diving His will in these matters.

I said I'm not close, but that He may well know.  I wouldn't mind knowing more, of course, but there are attributes that are likely to remain only God's.

To me these are just favorites chosen for different reasons. I like this one thing or this set of things that this album does best, and then this other thing that this other album does best.

This is confusing to me.  If you have several favorites, that's cool, but a statement of "best" should have some basis that goes beyond personal feelings.

Either way, we've established that the process is subjective. "Best" to you or me clearly isn't any more universal than "favorite", because we have different standards upon which we judge to begin with. All we've proven is that it's another type of "favorite" for which it's perhaps easier to come up with a critically defensible position.

Not really on that last one.  That's not the way I'm reading what fellow phorumers are writing.  I agree that we have little choice but to be subjective in what we deem important.

As for me, well, I think I just have a lot of favorites and a number of albums I consider defensible as an artist's best (at least for those artists that have a lot of good work).

[murlough23]

I said I'm not close, but that He may well know.  I wouldn't mind knowing more, of course, but there are attributes that are likely to remain only God's.

Another point that I was trying to make all along.

This is confusing to me.  If you have several favorites, that's cool, but a statement of "best" should have some basis that goes beyond personal feelings.

But why put on any pretense of going beyond personal feelings, when the very rubric you're judging the "best" by is based on personal feelings as well?

Not really on that last one.  That's not the way I'm reading what fellow phorumers are writing.

I'm sure they don't mean it the way that I take it. My point is that when you really think about this attempt to judge the "best" outside of your own personal preferences, you're still relying on personal feelings to come up with the criteria on which to make that judgment. It is still a personal judgment that is subjective to you. It's not a pointless exercise. I just think it's a "favorite" judged by a different part of your brain than the part that goes "hey, ear candy" or "hey, I'm emotionally moved by this" or whatever. It's more academic. That's not a bad thing at all. But that judgment doesn't go beyond you to anything universally declarative - to think otherwise is delusional.

Personally, I just don't go to the trouble of making the distinction because I try to consider all of those elements - the academic and the emotional response - when choosing my favorite. That's why I hold that the things that make it the "best" in my view, also make it my favorite. If other people's brains don't work this way, that's perfectly fine. Both approaches are valid. But if you propose some piece of work to be an artist's "best", I want to make sure you understand the limits of your ability to declare such a thing. It's still the best for you and you alone. (Though a lot of others may share that opinion, perhaps more so than those who share your "favorite".)

I agree that we have little choice but to be subjective in what we deem important.

Then I think we agree on the important stuff here, and it's really just an issue of semantics, which isn't really worth arguing over. My main concern was that we don't end up with a "peer pressure" sort of system that requires someone to get their arm twisted until they finally say uncle and admit that, for example, Kid A is Radiohead's best work.

[bloop]

Another point that I was trying to make all along.

A point I never outright disagreed with, too.

But why put on any pretense of going beyond personal feelings, when the very rubric you're judging the "best" by is based on personal feelings as well?[/quote]

I would argue that the rubric one uses to judge the best if they do think in two distinct terms is likely not so much based on personal feelings as much as what the art is.

I'm sure they don't mean it the way that I take it. My point is that when you really think about this attempt to judge the "best" outside of your own personal preferences, you're still relying on personal feelings to come up with the criteria on which to make that judgment. It is still a personal judgment that is subjective to you. It's not a pointless exercise. I just think it's a "favorite" judged by a different part of your brain than the part that goes "hey, ear candy" or "hey, I'm emotionally moved by this" or whatever. It's more academic. That's not a bad thing at all. But that judgment doesn't go beyond you to anything universally declarative - to think otherwise is delusional.

If it's more academic, then there is something that transcends one's personal feelings.

Personally, I just don't go to the trouble of making the distinction because I try to consider all of those elements - the academic and the emotional response - when choosing my favorite. That's why I hold that the things that make it the "best" in my view, also make it my favorite. If other people's brains don't work this way, that's perfectly fine. Both approaches are valid. But if you propose some piece of work to be an artist's "best", I want to make sure you understand the limits of your ability to declare such a thing. It's still the best for you and you alone. (Though a lot of others may share that opinion, perhaps more so than those who share your "favorite".)

I prefer people to not be so confusing with their terminology.  If they are positing something as an artist's best, they are inviting debate.  If they are calling something as their favorite, they are inviting nothing more than "Cool.  Glad you like it." or "ugh.  No thanks", and there really isn't much to do with that.

Then I think we agree on the important stuff here, and it's really just an issue of semantics, which isn't really worth arguing over. My main concern was that we don't end up with a "peer pressure" sort of system that requires someone to get their arm twisted until they finally say uncle and admit that, for example, Kid A is Radiohead's best work.

The peer pressure you refer to is healthy to a certain degree.  It's more likely to make one think about the "why" than if it didn't exist, and it might, in rare circumstances, change minds.  No one is making you an outcast because you put OK Computer at the top of the heap.  Now, if you went with Pablo Honey . . .

[enemy anemone]

for me, best and favorite are two different things. both are subjective, but with best, it's open for debate. it tries to be objective. favorite leans more on personal preference. favorite would most likely include traits that one could argue for best, and perhaps those contribute heavily to why it is favorite.

an oversimplified attempt to illustrate my view:

best: "this has X, Y, and Z. therefore it is the best." or " this has S, T, and U, as well as X, Y, and Z, so therefore it is the best."

favorite: "I really love the R, X, and Z in this."

I don't actually care about "best". I don't think I even evaluate it, but if I like the R, X, and Z in something and find that others have used R, X, and Z as reasons why it is (or isn't) the best, I am interested in learning more. I don't think I can be convinced to like something just because "it has X, Y, and Z and is therefore the best", but I will probably be interested in why some people say so and why others might disagree. maybe I can learn to appreciate the things I didn't appreciate or even notice before. maybe after I appreciate other aspects, my favorite will change. or maybe it won't. (based on experience, it won't change. but there's still the possibility!)

[murlough23]

I would argue that the rubric one uses to judge the best if they do think in two distinct terms is likely not so much based on personal feelings as much as what the art is.

That's rather vague. You got an example?

If it's more academic, then there is something that transcends one's personal feelings.

Maybe. There's some sort of outside source that taught you how to study the art more carefully. It showed you some qualities by which art is commonly judged by those whose job (or hobby) it is to pay close attention to it. So perhaps it's more of a collaborative process. But you still get to come to your own conclusion. There's still no absolute regarding which traits take the highest priority. You still have to decide that for yourself, and even those who are among the supposed elite won't necessarily agree on this. If there was an absolute, you'd think they would, but obviously personal feelings are still a factor here.

I prefer people to not be so confusing with their terminology.  If they are positing something as an artist's best, they are inviting debate.

Perhaps, but if you discover in that debate that they prioritize songwriting higher than sonic innovation, and for you it's vice versa, what can you do about that? You've got two completely different scales on which to judge these things.

If they are calling something as their favorite, they are inviting nothing more than "Cool.  Glad you like it." or "ugh.  No thanks", and there really isn't much to do with that.

In the "Ugh, no thanks" case, it often ends up being the same debate, except that it's a little easier to fall back on someone liking it just 'cause they do, and oh well. But that's kind of a cop-out. Either way, I'd still like to see the reasons explained. Unfortunately my objections to someone liking something that I feel is a lousy piece of work often get taken as me trying to force them to not like it and to declare my favorite thing as their favorite instead. I don't really want that. I want them to defend their position in such a way that I can understand it even if we don't come out agreeing in the end. (Though I do often find that one of us changes our minds about something during the discussion. So I think it's healthy as long as the person isn't being a pain in the ass and defending something 'cause it has fewer swear words or more Jesus name-drops.)

(And if we agree on favorites or we agree on "best", either way there isn't much for us to debate there.)

The peer pressure you refer to is healthy to a certain degree.  It's more likely to make one think about the "why" than if it didn't exist, and it might, in rare circumstances, change minds.

Sure, that's why I write reviews. It forces me to consider the "why"s of what I like and don't like, and hopefully it brings to light things that other folks haven't noticed or considered, or if they disagree with me they'll bring things to light that I missed. But that's not pressure, so much as illumination.

No one is making you an outcast because you put OK Computer at the top of the heap.  Now, if you went with Pablo Honey . . .

I would rightly deserve a swift kick in the butt for that.

[murlough23]

best: "this has X, Y, and Z. therefore it is the best." or " this has S, T, and U, as well as X, Y, and Z, so therefore it is the best."

favorite: "I really love the R, X, and Z in this."

To illustrate this in your terms, my point is that if you are personally moved by the R, X and Z, but can also acknowledge that T, U, and Y are important aspects of making good art, I can see the difference there. But the fact that you deem all six of those qualities important while not giving as much regard to A, B, and C is still subjective. That's based on personal feelings (not thinking that A, B, and C are that big of a deal) and/or lack of knowledge about A, B, and C and why they might be important qualities to pay attention to.

[bloop]

Schil's example is actually making a lot of sense to me.

Example:
X = well-played
Y = good lyrics
Z = innovative

(things that can be supported - note that I didn't say proven)

R = red head.  I love red heads in music.

(those irrational little x-factors)

[murlough23]

Schil's example is actually making a lot of sense to me.

Example:
X = well-played
Y = good lyrics
Z = innovative

(things that can be supported in some ways)

R = red head.  I love red heads in music.

Album 1 is well-played and has good lyrics, but isn't particularly innovative. Album 2 is innovative, but the performance and lyrics aren't as good as Album 1. (Both are by the same artist, who happens to be a redhead.) Which one is the best? Why?

9 times out of 10, in this sort of an example, you'd probably go for Album 2, and I'd probably go for Album 1. We'd probably each recognize the merits of the other album, but insist that the one we chose was the artist's best work.

NP: "The Flame Deluge", Thrice

[bloop]

How well-played?
How poetic?
How innovative?

Any red heads?
Do they wear prayer beads?
JPMs?

[Aaron]

I love red-heads...wait..are we talking about girls or music?

[murlough23]

Any red heads?
Do they wear prayer beads?

That's a bit of a straw-man argument, honestly. Nobody here is judging music based on stuff like that which can't even be heard on the CD. (At most, it affects how interesting a music video or live performance is. Pretty trivial when judging audio.)

How well-played?
How poetic?
How innovative?

This is what I'm more interested in. I think we'd all agree that these things are valuable on an artistic level. How does one prioritize between these? Because we all do it differently.

There's also the issue of whether you'd put something like, "Does it have a strong hook?" or "Is it relateable?" into the trivial category with stuff like the artist's hair color and ability to belly-dance, or into the category of things that contribute to making good art. I don't think we all agree on what goes in which category.

[bloop]

That's a bit of a straw-man argument, honestly. Nobody here is judging music based on stuff like that which can't even be heard on the CD. (At most, it affects how interesting a music video or live performance is. Pretty trivial when judging audio.)

The image of an artist plays.  There are many little variables that play into what our favorites are that have really very little to do with the sound.  Music videos exist for a reason.

I agree that it's trivial (irrelevant, even), but the trivial and/or irrelevant has been known to play a role in determining favorites.

[murlough23]

The image of an artist plays.  There are many little variables that play into what our favorites are that have really very little to do with the sound.  Music videos exist for a reason.

This is not the sort of thing I was talking about, though. That sort of stuff doesn't determine my favorite, and if you ask someone here why they chose The Bends over Kid A, I highly doubt they're gonna say, "Because Thom Yorke was cuter then" or "Because the music videos from that album were better."

I agree that it's trivial (irrelevant, even), but the trivial and/or irrelevant has been known to play a role in determining favorites.

For some folks. But give the pholks here a little more credit than that. (If I thought that way, Sara Watkins would have my favorite album of the year so far.)

NP: "As the Crow Flies", Thrice

[bloop]

The reason I brought it up was to get at a point.  I think people try to strip away the more irrational reasons for liking something when defending it as an artist's best.  This is really quite optional if you are explaining why something is a favorite, if you think of the two concepts as being distinct.

Note: I'm not exempting myself as having some irrational reasoning for liking things.  I wasn't only speaking of Kutless fans whose brilliant explanation for why they are good is that it rocks faces off, it has a nice message, and it's the only music mom will let me listen to (or that ilk of casual music fan in general).

[murlough23]

The reason I brought it up was to get at a point.  I think people try to strip away the more irrational reasons for liking something when defending it as an artist's best.  This is really quite optional if you are explaining why something is a favorite.

If you knew you liked something for an irrational reason, wouldn't you either stop liking it, or start to like it a bit less, or find more rational reasons to like it? I know I would.

For example, there are albums I used to love to death that I later realized were just a lot of ear candy without a lot of substance. Now, I still like some stuff that is really catchy but that also has some substance under it. But I'm learning to separate out the instances of ear candy hiding a lack of substance from the instances of a catchy hook and a substantial artistic achievement and meaningful songwriting all working together. "Catchy" will get my attention, but there needs to be some evidence that I can see of something that required thought in the process of making the music, otherwise it just strikes me as a superficial attempt to get me to hum/sing/bop my head along with it and pay no attention to the man behind the curtain. Some things that I've re-examined after realizing this have passed muster. Others have not, and I still get some enjoyment out of them but wouldn't declare any of that stuff as personal favorites (unless we're comparing albums that were all put out by a single artist who was catchy, but lacked substance throughout their career - then it's a case of the lesser of n evils).

I still have a ton of old favorites from back in the day when I only listened to CCM. As I've begun to absorb critically respected albums from that era that I didn't listen to at the time, and I've gone back and added those albums to old music journals, I've had to wrestle with this issue of old nostalgic favorites versus newer discoveries that are honestly just better music. And I've had to re-grade some of those old favorites to reflect that "Hey, I still like this, it still has some merit, but now I like this other thing better." The two feelings are honestly one and the same for me.

Note: I'm not exempting myself as having some irrational reasoning for liking things.

What's something that you'd say you like for an irrational reason?

I wasn't only speaking of Kutless fans whose brilliant explanation for why they are good is that it rocks faces off, it has a nice message, and it's the only music mom will let me listen to (or that ilk of casual music fan in general).

"Rocks faces off" and "has a nice message" aren't entirely invalid reasons for liking something. I'm not opposed to those things unless they're done at the expense of things like musical virtuosity, lyrical creativity, etc. I'd rather have a musically talented band that is way to mellow to even rock my eyelashes off than a band that purports to rock my face off but only plays bland power chords amped up to 11. But if a musically talented band rocks my face off, hell yeah that's exciting! (A good Dream Theater song would be an example.) A well-written song that is also very convicting to me as a person of faith is also something that I value highly. Having a good message is a good start, but that only matters to me if it's communicated well. (So Kutless no, Cool Hand Luke yes. This rule does not necessarily exclude a ton of non-Christian artists. I've been convicted by Tool songs.) I don't want a negative message. I can appreciate that there are well-written songs with negative messages, but if you're trying to communicate something that you believe to be the truth and I believe to be a lie, I'm going to have difficulties, even if I can appreciate other aspects of your art. You're less affected by this (if at all), but more affected by a lack of innovation in the music.

[bloop]

What's something that you'd say you like for an irrational reason?

There's a difference for having some irrational reasons for liking something and having only irrational reasons.  So, no, I can't name anything that I know I shouldn't like, but I like anyway because the artist has tremendous fashion sense.  But, does an artist's aesthetic outside of the sounds they play sometimes appeal to me?  Sure.

I'm not saying that they are bad reasons, but they aren't terribly deep reasons, and certainly not the reasons I would make public and introduce into arguments for why more people should see things the way I do.   

"Rocks faces off" and "has a nice message" aren't entirely invalid reasons for liking something.

I'm not saying they are, but they were generally used as the end-all argument when they should be supported.

[murlough23]

There's a difference for having some irrational reasons for liking something and having only irrational reasons.

That's what I would expect in the case of most people here. If they had more superficial reasons for liking something, that might be icing on the cake, but they've still got rational, supportable reasons for liking it that are ultimately much more important.

I'm not saying that they are bad reasons, but they aren't terribly deep reasons, and certainly not the reasons I would make public.   

I'm guessing they probably just add a teeny bit to other, more solid reasons why you like certain things.

I'm not saying they are, but they were generally used as the end-all argument when they should be supported.

Honestly, I think it's time to get over our dealings with the dumbasses at CMC and give people who are currently discussing their favorites with us more credit for intelligence.

[Aaron]

Getting back on topic....

[murlough23]

Getting back on topic....

Um... we split off the thread to discuss this issue specifically.

[bloop]

I think you're the only one who thinks of favorite as the same as best, and I hope I haven't indicated not respecting your opinions.  Really, I don't see a lot that is disrespectful on this board, and nothing in this thread should be construed that way.

[murlough23]

I think you're the only one who thinks of favorite as the same as best, and I hope I haven't indicated not respecting your opinions.

You haven't indicated that at all. No worries. I just wanted to be sure people understood why I thought it was a bit silly to make the distinction when the real issue is "I like this thing for solid, defensible reasons, and the other one for a combination of solid reasons and personal reasons that I might feel a bit embarrassed to share." If that's some folks' reasons for their "favorites", maybe they ought to re-examine.

Really, I don't see a lot that is disrespectful on this board, and nothing in this thread should be construed that way.

I never felt disrespected. Just a bit flustered 'cause I must not have been explaining my point very well.

NP: "The Earth Isn't Humming", Thrice

[bloop]

"I like this thing for solid, defensible reasons, and the other one for a combination of solid reasons and personal reasons"

Well, part of the reason for this thread is for people to feel free to share those reasons.  I wasn't really embarrassed about anything, btw.

But, if we're talking about comparing two good or excellent albums, why can't a person have their reasons why one means more to them than the other (while conceding that the other is more accomplished)?  Maybe it's something as simple as they saw the band live at the time, so nostalgia is working in its favor.  Maybe there's an energy there that they miss from the band.  It could be any number of reasons, and I kind of want to know what some of the reasons people here have.

[murlough23]

Well, part of the reason for this thread is for people to feel free to share those reasons.  I wasn't really embarrassed about anything, btw.

That's fine. You seemed to have some sort of reason for not wanting to share your "irrational" reasons for liking something.

But, if we're talking about comparing two good or excellent albums, why can't a person have their reasons why one means more to them than the other (while conceding that the other is more accomplished)? Maybe it's something as simple as they saw the band live at the time, so nostalgia is working in its favor.

No reason why they can't. I just figure the more meaningful one is usually the better one in those cases. One of the things I value greatly about music is its ability to communicate to the listener and to be relatable. This arguably makes it more likely to be the subject of nostalgia later on than less accomplished, less memorable music.

(Of course, there's music that is memorable for being just plain bad. I've witnessed this phenomenon when a group of sorority girls giggles about some ridiculous song like "Mambo No. 5" or some one-off 80's hit that they'd never cop to liking in the light of day, but will drag their friends out onto the dance floor for it all the same, because it's just campy fun and you go with it in that sort of environment, I guess. So I'll concede that sometimes nostalgia can be triggered by a lack of talent rather than by an accomplished work of art.)

But for me? The stuff I feel nostalgic about to the point where I'd still consider it a favorite still has something in it that is enjoyable based on my criteria in the here and now. Take away nostalgia as one of the reasons for it being a favorite, and it'd still be a favorite. Other things, I might listen to and still get some marginal, superficial enjoyment from it (or just feel plain embarrassed for liking it once upon a time). It's rare that I'll end up all-out hating something I used to love that much, but that's not really the point. The point is that nostalgia alone won't propel something over the top - for me, anyway - if I've discovered something with more merit that the artist has done since then.

If this isn't the same for others, then fine. At least now I understand why that could be. (It's still a bit baffling to me, to be honest, but no more than the myriad of other ways that my brain doesn't seem to function normally. I'll accept that I'm the weird one, and that nobody's just paying lip service to someone else' favorites for fear of being mocked, and we can move on.)

Maybe there's an energy there that they miss from the band.

That case would sound to me like the artist was honestly making better music before they lost the energy. If you're basing your choice of favorites solely on tempo and level of aggression, I might suggest that you dig a little deeper. Depends on the artist, though. Did they go all indie/experimental and you just don't understand the new approach? Did they go adult contemporary and it's just plain boring and sounds like everyone your parents listen to? One can seem to lose energy for very different reasons.

[bloop]

That's fine. You seemed to have some sort of reason for not wanting to share your "irrational" reasons for liking something.

I kind of gave it away anyway.  Yeah, I like the image of the typical bloop band, for example - the "whatever" appearance that stands in such stark contrast to the made-over look and breast augmentations of many others.  There's something about that ethos that I like, and I can only kind of put my finger on why.

Then I like bands who are admittedly over-the-top, but in a way that seems almost satirical to me.  None of this has a lot to do with the sounds that they play or the words that they sing.

That case would sound to me like the artist was honestly making better music before they lost the energy. If you're basing your choice of favorites solely on tempo and level of aggression, I might suggest that you dig a little deeper. Depends on the artist, though. Did they go all indie/experimental and you just don't understand the new approach? Did they go adult contemporary and it's just plain boring and sounds like everyone your parents listen to? One can seem to lose energy for very different reasons.

Well, some bands lose one kind of energy, but trade it for something which can be thought of as energy of a different sort.

[danny316]

Nobody here is judging music based on stuff like that which can't even be heard on the CD. (At most, it affects how interesting a music video or live performance is. Pretty trivial when judging audio.)

I disagree. I think we all subconsciously prejudge whether or not an album is worth our time based on who its by, what genre it's in, and plenty of other things not heard on the CD. I'd go as far as to say that this is why so much "best music" doesn't get onto the pop charts - people can't love or respect music they're never exposed to.

There's also the issue of whether you'd put something like, "Does it have a strong hook?" or "Is it relateable?" into the trivial category with stuff like the artist's hair color and ability to belly-dance, or into the category of things that contribute to making good art. I don't think we all agree on what goes in which category.

Actually, I'd go the opposite way with that argument in some cases. Look at Beyonce - I haven't heard a passable hook in any of her music for quite some time now. Seeing the occasional TV performance, though, I'm pretty well convinced that her bizarre dancing and difficult to listen to "music" constitute some sort of performance art. Blue Man Group is in a similar category. Not that I care for either one, but I can respect the talent because I know it is backed up by other things to make up for the lack of hooks.

[Rough Draft]

I see best/favorite distinctions more readily on a per-song basis.

I don't think I can be convinced to like something just because "it has X, Y, and Z and is therefore the best", but I will probably be interested in why some people say so and why others might disagree.

Sometimes, I think I can. I'm a terribly pliable reader. Which makes me the good kind, for dictators and totalitarian regimes at least.

[danny316]

I see best/favorite distinctions more readily on a per-song basis.
 Sometimes, I think I can. I'm a terribly pliable reader. Which makes me the good kind, for dictators and totalitarian regimes at least.

Which reminds me, you know what's awesome?

Pitchformula:
http://www.pitchformula.com/

Hmm. Could we try doing something based on Mur's reviews?

[murlough23]

I kind of gave it away anyway.  Yeah, I like the image of the typical bloop band, for example - the "whatever" appearance that stands in such stark contrast to the made-over look and breast augmentations of many others.  There's something about that ethos that I like, and I can only kind of put my finger on why.

The image is helpful because it signals to the potential listener, "Hey, we're the kind of band that doesn't care about all that corporate crap; we just want to cut through the red tape and make good music." But if the image were there without the music backing it up, I somehow doubt you'd like the music very much. (Conversely, if the music had that do-it-yourself ethos but the image was more glammed-up, and in a non-ironic way, would that hurt your view of the music? There are some artists whose music I like but whose image I can't stand.)

Then I like bands who are admittedly over-the-top, but in a way that seems almost satirical to me.  None of this has a lot to do with the sounds that they play or the words that they sing.

Can that sort of thing really not affect the music at all? A band doing the mock-rock star thing would probably have some level of irony or facetiousness in their lyrics as well. Not an absolute guarantee, but it's likely.

Well, some bands lose one kind of energy, but trade it for something which can be thought of as energy of a different sort.

Agreed. Creative energy and rocking aggression are often not the same thing. (Which is part of why I think it's silly to prefer The Bends to OK Computer or Kid A. And it's not the reason why I personally prefer OK Computer to Kid A.)

[murlough23]

Which reminds me, you know what's awesome?

Pitchformula:
http://www.pitchformula.com/

That's fascinating to me, from a database design perspective (remember that I do this sort of thing for a living. Hmmm, I can't say I'd have the follow-through to do that much work for fun.)

Hmm. Could we try doing something based on Mur's reviews?

That would be making the generous assumption that my preferences and my reasons for having them have been consistent over the years. Some of my own reviews from way back in the day when I got started at Epinions are a bit off-base given my tastes nearly a decade later.

[danny316]

Started working on this list yesterday, getting back to it now. Probably still forgetting some.

Might as well get Radiohead out of the way first. I know OK Computer is their best, but I'm thinking I listen to that, Kid A, In Rainbows, and The Bends roughly equally. I can't pick a favorite, but I know plenty of people fall on the wrong side of this one (and I might yet too).

The Beatles are another good pick for me here. As mentioned in Murlough's "classics" thread, Magical Mystery Tour (US/1976-onward tracklisting) is pretty awesome. It's my favorite Beatles album, with Rubber Soul a close second. I'd say Sgt. Pepper's is actually their best, though.

I'm thinking I should put John Coltrane in this category - truth be told, I reach for My Favorite Things more often than A Love Supreme. I think the extreme consensus regarding which is his best doesn't need to be argued with.

Jennifer Knapp: Fave Kansas, best The Way I Am
Jars of Clay: Fave If I Left the Zoo (another close call, though), best Much Afraid
U2: Fave Zooropa, best Achtung Baby
Lifehouse: Fave No Name Face, best Stanley Climbfall

Skimming over last.fm for more things to list, I'm reminded of how many people here are wrong enough to consider Neon Bible to be Arcade Fire's best. Maybe that's your favorite, but you're still wrong  

Should I have listed TV on the Radio? There are a few cases like that where I know that their best (as dictated by apparent critical consensus) is one that I don't own, and I won't even consider calling something a favorite before I buy it.

[Aaron]

I'd hardly call Sgt. Peppers the Beatles best. Revolver, Abbey Road, and Rubber Soul were all better.

[Rough Draft]

Which reminds me, you know what's awesome?

Pitchformula:
http://www.pitchformula.com/

Ha, ha. Yes, awesome.

[murlough23]

Jars of Clay: Fave If I Left the Zoo (another close call, though), best Much Afraid

Interesting. I was just starting to question whether I needed to re-evaluate some old-time favorites of mine against newer work to see if they truly passed muster. I'll always be an avid defender of Much Afraid and it's always good to know I'm not the only one who regards it so highly. But is it their best work, according the things that I love the most about music now? (It was according to the things I loved about music in 2001, which was when I first declared it as such. Because I hold it in such high esteem, I may have not given anything else of theirs since then a fair shot at beating it.)

The bigger issue for me here is that Much Afraid has been not only my favorite album by Jars, but by anyone, for quite some time. And "Like a Child" has been my all-time favorite song. I don't feel any pressure to change these. But I'm wondering if they are still truly my favorites.