ITT: Entry level Albums

Entry level Experimental music.

Other urls found in this thread:

rateyourmusic.com/customchart
youtube.com/watch?v=XDKRBrE5h4g
youtube.com/watch?v=RXKFy2hwnv0
youtube.com/watch?v=fQozQ-VcA8w
youtube.com/watch?v=S9UzFCpc1yk
youtube.com/watch?v=NeuHjrttE_I
anyforums.com/
twitter.com/SFWRedditVideos

...

entry level, but excellent at everything it set out to do

entry level to what can be actually good metal

...

pic related
but still entry level and boring, just like all radiohead albums

Anything by Swans

Agree besides filth

Hi Scaruffi.

>boring
How so?

filth is probably swans' most entry level album desu

Radiohead are just boring dude, I can't explain it but every time I listen to their music it's just so boring. And whiney, I don't feel like listening to Thom whine all the fucking time so that probably contributes

oh okay
sry

>I can't explain it but every time I listen to their music it's just so boring
I think that's kind of a "personal preference" kinda boring, not "objectively" boring.

>I can't explain it
If you can';t explain it, it probably isn't true

It's fine mate, what are you into?

...

it is true though, that's why everyone likes radiohead, because they're super accessable since the music is generally pretty boring, as far as prog rock goes.

>as far as prog rock goes
now I'm just confused, is this bait?

...

By that logic no one would like Radiohead for being so boring. Also calling Radiohead prog is a stretch.

Why are you making a thread where people just post popular albums?
Anyways, most of the albums on this rateyourmusic.com/customchart

How do I get into The Residents unironically?

youtube.com/watch?v=XDKRBrE5h4g
this is prog that I would consider to be not boring, so no it's not bait

>it is true though
See >that's why everyone likes radiohead
But you don't like Radiohead, so this can't be true
>because they're super accessable since the music is generally pretty boring, as far as prog rock goes.
But this is irrelevant because they are not a prog rock band

The point of the thread was to post an entry level album for each genre

it's hard with most of their stuff and honestly I don't listen to any of it regularily besides eskimo
eskimo is great though, anyone who likes ambient should like it easy enough

>not prog
so what are they

And really the reason I can't explain it is because I am not muscially inclined beyond listening, so I don't know any terminoligy to explain it besides that I find them boring and whiney

listen to not available. Also, start listening to noiser and more lofi music and their music shouldn't be that hard to get into at all.

Baby’s first jazz album.

>so what are they
Alt rock, art rock
>I am not muscially inclined beyond listening
So what you are saying is that it's not Radiohead who is boring, but you who is boring

they are britpop and alternative rock with idm influences

I may be, but my taste isn't

I was referring to the fact that you thought Radiohead was prog

Art rock/electronic (with heavy influence from German prog).

>but my taste isn't
So you listen to music for the wrong reasons

well as far as those genres go I would say Demon Box by Motorpsycho surpasses anything Radiohead has done by a huge margin

And yet it's still in the top 5 jazz albums of all time.

No I don't, I genuinelly enjoy the stuff I listen to

Why?
Why?

It’s a good album, but I’d hardly consider it to be in the top 5, or even top 10 of jazz albums.

What would you say are the top 5?

Cool jazz at its finest, and they even throw in two blues's in there to mix it up, great balance of energy throughout the album, not to mention the stacked lineup of musicians in the combo

Unironically scruffy’s list

>why
the variety of songs/genres while still retaining a certain quality and sound unique to the album, the experimentation (lots of really cool stuff, the noise section in the Dmon Box song is great). Have you ever heard it?
>why
Because it is unique and fun to listen to. Take Robbie Basho for example, all his music sounds like nothing I've ever heard before and it's still fantastic. His vocals are completely and entirely unique to me. Radiohead for some reason just sounds like I've heard them before even when I haven't

>I’ve heard them before but havent
Do you listen to a lot of germprog? That might be the reason.

I have been really into germprog at times yes

>no bop in the top 9 and only 2 in the top 20
Scaruffi's a complete jazz pleb

>the variety of songs/genres while still retaining a certain quality and sound unique to the album, the experimentation
But now you are describing Radiohead
>Have you ever heard it?
What Radiohead have you heard?
>Radiohead for some reason just sounds like I've heard them before even when I haven't
What sounds like Subterranean Homesick Alien?

>but now you are describing Radiohead
and it's better
>what radiohead have you heard
so you haven't heard it
>subterranean homesick alien
that song is literally the beatles in space dude, and I used to hear the beatles a lot so yes it is definitely boring

and this isn't to mention that thom yorke is a terrible singer
all he does is whine into the mic

>Doesn't even have Maiden Voyage in the top 100
Utter pleb list but the top 5 isn't half bad.

>and it's better
How so?
>that song is literally the beatles in space dude
How so? It doesn't sound like The Beatles at all

I feel like you probably are dismissing Radiohead because you don't know music theory

Im dismissing radiohead because they are boring and whiney and overrated

>how so
way more experimentation in the songs that is actually well implemented and good, better song quality and singing quality, more interesting songs. I dunno man, like you said I don't know music theory. I'm just basing this off my personal taste. But they are still objectively boring

And yes it literally sounds like the beatles in space, I have no idea how you can't hear that in it. You should start listening to Motorpsycho dude, they're like Radiohead but good. Since you posted Homesick Alien you would probably like Little Lucid Moments by them

>because they are boring
You only think this because you don't know music theory
>way more experimentation
Like what?
>But they are still objectively boring
How to you objectively measure this?
>I have no idea how you can't hear that in it.
Explain it.
>You should start listening to Motorpsycho dude
What are some of their chord sequences? Chart them out and compare it to Paranoid Android.

>You only think this because you don't know music theory
no that guy, no their songwriting is still overwhelmingly boring, and generally they're only "experimental" in really superficial, uninteresting ways

>because you don't know music theory
I'm listening because the music is enjoyable or not enjoyable, it isn't about the theory behind it, even if I knew theory. And don't give me shit like
>well if you knew theory you would appreciate
blablabla dude if they sound bad they sound bad, whether one know's theory or not. Thoms vocals aren't going to get any better if I know theory.
>like what
youtube.com/watch?v=RXKFy2hwnv0
you could skip to about 6:20 if you want
youtube.com/watch?v=fQozQ-VcA8w
if you don't feel like listening to it all skip to 2:50
youtube.com/watch?v=S9UzFCpc1yk
Experimenting with metal sort of
youtube.com/watch?v=NeuHjrttE_I
great overall song, not much "experimentation" but give me a radiohead song better than this
>how do you objectively measure this
by me listening to them and deciding that they sound boring or like something I've already heard before.
>what are some of their chord sequences
I don't know music theory so I think it's safe to assume I don't know how to do this. Don't get all butthurt tho, you don't have to argue with me, I'm just baiting but not baiting at the same time since I genuinely believe in my bait

alt/britpop kraut

"Entry level" albums is such a retarded concept. There's a reason why the popular albums of a genre became popular. All this contrarianism is you listening with your ego and not your ears

Example?
>youtube.com/watch?v=RXKFy2hwnv0
Yuck, this sound bad. No thanks
>not much "experimentation"
Then it's not what I asked for, is it?
>but give me a radiohead song better than this
Sorry, I'm not a buttmetal expert
>I don't know music theory
Opinion invalidated

It's partly true though
with this album especially. Listen to it and enjoy it for a couple of months to a year then you start moving on to way better and more experimental metal. Then you never really come back to it, or at least I didn't

What the fuck are you talking about? Kid A is my jam but you have to admit that its not that experimental

>yuck this sounds bad
right so no matter how much of a pedestal you put yourself up on your still just as retarded as me, yet you have worse taste. Your opinion has been invalidated
>buttmetal

example of what?

that doesn't mean your awareness should stop there, don't justify being a lazy dilettante

Experimental is not a genre. It was a very experimental Radiohead album

>very experimental Radiohead album
right so overall it's just not really that experimental. It is a little bit, to impress the normies, but not that much to push them away while still retaining quality

>example of what?
Of what you are talking about. Or do you not know what you are talking about?
Are you a virgin?

Answer honestly.

>right so overall it's just not really that experimental.
I don't think you know what experimental means

fairly experimental for mainstream britpop stuff, but not really "experimental" in any real sense

>are you a virgin
no, you're getting distracted tho user, just because I took off your mask doesn't mean you have to get all scared

>but not really "experimental" in any real sense
What do you mean? Of course it was.
>no, you're getting distracted tho user
Not really. You ran out of things to say like 20 minutes ago and you're just repeating yourself now. No point in talking to you.
>just because I took off your mask
What?

Experimental as in "worth listening too" and not "unlistenable noise that I put on to give myself an aura of cool, even though I'm an insecure child at heart"

Some top tier kekery right there

How the fuck is Kid A not experimental?

>what?
Dude you kept acting like you knew all this shit and I told you straight up that I didn't know anything, then when it comes to you telling me why a song is bad or not experimental you resort to saying
>yuck it's bad
you're retarded and you can't argue any of your points either with logic and hypocrisy like that

>Of what you are talking about. Or do you not know what you are talking about?
okay, you're just going to be tedious as fuck to communicate with, aren't you? I think I'll pass on that

>unlistenable noise that i put on to give myself blablabla
why do plebs on Sup Forums always resort to retarded logic like this just because they don't enjoy something that other people do?

there you go, show your true pleb colors

>Dude you kept acting like you knew all this shit
That's because I do.
>then when it comes to you telling me why a song is bad or not experimental you resort to saying
That's not what happened. You asked me to just listen to it, not analyze it in any way. So I did, and it just sounds like obnoxious buttmetal. I'd pick Radiohead over that any day.
If you can't prove it, it's not true. Thanks for playing though

>I'm totally insufferable and no one wants to talk to me
>that means I'm always right

>that's because i do
but then in the next line down you use the exact same logic as me, so instead of actually proving me long using your knowledge that you say you have you are instead resorting to my arguments due to a lack of knowledge while still saying you are smarter. You can't have it both ways m8, you have to at least drop some type of knowledge for people to know you aren't bullshitting. And I didn't say to analyze in "any way", you asked for examples of experimentation which I then supplied.

>I don't want to talk to this guy
>but here let me keep taking to him
Which is it?
>so instead of actually proving me long using your knowledge
But you just said you don't understand music theory.
>you are instead resorting to my arguments
See We already covered that
>And I didn't say to analyze in "any way", you asked for examples of experimentation which I then supplied.
No you didn't. Matter off act you then backpedaled and said there wasn't much "experimentation"

I read that wrong, disregard the last sentence of my last post, but still, you're retarded dude. You can't bullshit bullshitters and expect them to believe you

>you don't understand music theory
Okay well throw some out there anyways just to show what you're talking about, you aren't even giving me anything to work with to make me believe you. At least say something even if it doesn't make any sense, I wont understand it
resort to thisAnd I didn't backpedal, I just said it wasn't that "experimental", doesn't mean it isn't at all, just not as much as some of the other songs on the album.

Too close to home boys?

>You can't bullshit bullshitters and expect them to believe you
I don't expect a thing from you because you are a idiot buttmetal fan
“Airbag,” the first track on OK Computer, is not too far removed stylistically from Radiohead’s previous record, their more conventional sophomore effort The Bends, at least in terms of the style of vocals, harmony, and guitar-centricity; but from the very start there are subtle shifts away from their earlier output. The track opens distinctively in the middle of a sound: the attack of the guitar riff’s upbeat is clipped off, creating a split-second of surprise and disorientation to the listener (even one familiar with the recording) who enters the song’s inner temporality suddenly, without the benefit of experiencing a natural sonic attack.1 This effect not only draws attention to the riff that it initiates, by means of its element of surprise, but is the first of several sound effects used throughout the album, heterogeneous in category, that thematize problems with mechanicity or technology.

In this case, the effect suggests some technological barrier in the recording or editing process, like an accidental (or intentional) sound glitch, between the performance of the riff in the studio and the experience of listening to the song. The riff in question (see Figure 2.ii), even before the sense of tonality is conveyed harmonically, immediately exhibits chromaticism: namely an alternation of the minor and major mediant scale degree (C and C-sharp).

I think the two posts might have been too close to home for you m8

No you

>buttmetal
objectively, you're wrong, either look up some info on it which will show you it isn't buttmetal or if you really feel like it you could listen to the whole album.
>see figure 2.ii
so you literally copied your "proof" from the internet huh? And if this is what you consider music theory then I can see why it's a useless major, anyone can understand this shit

The minor submediant (F-natural) is also present, but the tonality is conveyed as being primarily major by a) the C-sharp’s metric placement on the downbeat, b) the presence of C-sharp in a heterophonic counterstratum played simultaneously on another guitar, and c) a strong and stabilizing resolution to A major before the verse begins.

There is a wide spectrum of kinds of counterpoint used in popular music, and it is not too difficult to explain to the streetwise listener the difference between strict note-against-note counterpoint (homophony), and more florid (and sometimes chaotic) polyphony and heterophony. Even where note-against-note counterpoint appears to be absent in this music, however, there are almost always concurrent strata of one kind or another present, which can prove consonant or dissonant either within themselves or with the overall sense of tonic or harmony. Such is the case in “Airbag,” where additional layers are added to the introductory guitar riff (and consequently reappear on their own, later in the song), which are not necessarily consonant with the riff and its implied harmonic oscillation between A and F, at least on a note-to-note basis (see Figure 2.iii).

The result is rich and chaotic, but there is not a strong sense of dissonance conveyed, per se; rather of heterophonic dialogue between two or more parties who agree with each other but add individually particular points to an argument (in this case, the argument of A-major harmony as being central). In the intro to “Airbag,” C-sharps in the upper stratum occur at the same time that C-natural is sounded in the riff (reminiscent of a Renaissance-era false-relation), but this is not heard as being as dissonant as it would be in the context of strict note-against-note counterpoint; rather, the combination of these nominally aligned but non-parallel strata characterizes the intro as being heterophonic, whether the listener realizes it or not. In the context of stricter note-against-note harmony, where chords are adjusted to support melodic tones as consonances (and vice versa), such dissonances would stand out as being particularly disruptive. In this case, however, there is more disruption caused by the heterophonic context itself. The conventional explanation of the previously mentioned chromaticism in the song’s intro is “modal mixture,” which is defined as the “borrowing” of a tone from one of the two tonal modes (major and minor) for use in the other. (Music in major might borrow the flat submediant from the minor mode, for example, and music in minor almost invariably borrows raised seventh scale degree from the major mode.) This is often a perfectly adequate method of explanation, even at the early stages of a student’s music theory education, but makes less sense in the context of a musical genre (“pop,” broadly, or more specifically “rock”) that lacks any obligation to be defined by a single mode in the way that much common practice music is.

autism
how one single radiohead fan can be this butthurt is beyond me

>go ahead and post theory analysis of Radiohead, I dare you!
>he does
>w-wow what an autist!
kek

more like
>go ahead and prove you aren't bullshitting me
>goes and posts an analysis which anyone could look up online and copy and paste, even a bullshitter
logic. God how can someone who thinks he is this smart be this stupid as to how to prove someone wrong?

But that's not The Great Annihillator"

Nice goalpost moving

So, in cases like “Airbag,” instead of assuming that the flat mediants and submediants are simply inflected versions of the true major mediants and submediants, we could think of the tonality of being like a spread-option offense in football, in which the exact play is not called in advance, but the ball has more than one potential carrier, which is determined based on the context (the “defense” in the football analogy, without the antagonistic implications). In the paradigmatic space of the song in question, before any one version of a scale degree is iterated, multiple versions of a given scale degree are equally possible and hypothetically interchangeable (and in the temporal, syntagmatic space of the song, one version will be chosen and have a given relationship with its context). With the help of this option-offense understanding of chromaticism, we can imagine the submediant, say, as structurally existing in both its major and minor embodiments, while on the surface it will only be one or the other at a time. This situation is not unlike the paradox, in quantum mechanics, of Schroedinger’s cat (which is considered in the abstract simultaneously dead and living until actually viewed, at which point its state is clearly one or the other)

Imagine how much of an unlikeable piece of shit the guy who wrote this must be

where did I move my goalpost
As I understand It I admitted from around the beginning that I didn't know music theory and then I began to ask you to prove me wrong. After you dodging it for awhile you finally give in and instead of actually proving me wrong you just copy and paste an analysis from the internet.

how exactly does copying and pasting an analysis from the internet prove that you know anything? Explain it to me

you both sound deeply unlikeable t b q h

Yeah, but I'd be a lot funner to talk to at a party