Coltrane reaches the tonic, F, falling through the home key's pentatonic scale. 4:34 Coltrane plays a series of phrases, all ending forcefully on lower tonic. 4:57 Coltrane returns to Theme A, which soon moves restlessly through all keys. The bass and piano follow in equally random movement. 5:51 Finally, Coltrane comes to rest in the home key, F.
What can I add to the chorus of voices in praise of John Coltrane’s? Recorded in December of 1964 and released fifty years ago this month, the album has gone on to achieve cult status—literally inspiring —as one of the finest works of jazz or any other form of music. It cemented Coltrane’s name in the pantheon of great composers, and re-invented religious music for a secular age., “the bizarre suite of four movements,”, “communicated a profound spiritual and philosophical message.” That message is articulated explicitly by Coltrane in the as “a humble offering to Him,” the deity he experienced in a 1957 “spiritual awakening” that “lead me to a richer, fuller, more productive life.”. These phrases speak the language of recovery, and Coltrane found God through a program of recovery from heroin addiction. Like so many who have embraced faith after addiction, Coltrane’s devotion was ardent, but neither dogmatic nor judgmental. He “refused to commit to a single religion,” writes Rath, “His idea of God couldn’t be contained by any doctrine.
But with his saxophone, and with his band, he could preach.” That he did, religiously, no pun intended. Before the recording of A Love Supreme, Coltrane’s classic quartet—including drummer Elvin Jones, pianist McCoy Tyner, and bassist Jimmy Garrison—toured the U.S.
For four years.
I get the feeling, that its simply older voter bias against anything fairly new ( beyond 1980 about). I am late 40s and I find the RS list extremely biased towards older stuff.
A lot of that older stuff is truly great, but its as if they are drawing a line in the sand, about anything beyond a certain date. A lot of the older stuff on their list is also not so great, but merely pretty good. The issue comes in when one looks at the last 30 years and realizes there are a lot of great albums, perhaps greater than the older pretty good ones, BUT they are not even mentioned. Click to expand.But that's just Rolling Stone's frame of reference. I think most readers are aware that it was a product of the 60's/70's, no matter how much they might try to stay hip with the kids. While it certainly can't claim to be authoritative, this list was pretty much what one would expect from them, heavily weighted towards classic rock with a smattering of more recent stuff here and there. Something like NME or Spin would naturally be more geared towards the '76 - '95 time frame.
If you're looking for something more contemporary, maybe Pitchfork would be a better bet. Savvy media consumers just need to pick the outlets that best suit their interests.
I find the RS list to be kinda dull and predictable myself, though there are plenty of great albums there, so it's mainly a 'been there, heard that' thing. But that's just Rolling Stone's frame of reference. I think most readers are aware that it was a product of the 60's/70's, no matter how much they might try to stay hip with the kids. While it certainly can't claim to be authoritative, this list was pretty much what one would expect from them, heavily weighted towards classic rock with a smattering of more recent stuff here and there.
Something like NME or Spin would naturally be more geared towards the '76 - '95 time frame. If you're looking for something more contemporary, maybe Pitchfork would be a better bet. Savvy media consumers just need to pick the outlets that best suit their interests. I find the RS list to be kinda dull and predictable myself, though there are plenty of great albums there, so it's mainly a 'been there, heard that' thing. Click to expand.Good points!
I think they all have some bias obviously, but id like something that doesnt so much 'Suit me', but is merely an overall realistic view of say from 1960 till now. If you combine a few lists you get a fairly good overall look, but id even be okay if RS did something along the lines of: Best 300 albums 1950-1980 Best 300 albums 1980-Present At least then there would be something to 'go to' to get ideas for newer stuff. Of course your ideas about SPIN and so on, pretty much cover that ground pretty well. Click to expand.They poll a great variety of critics from Asia to South America and all points in between, though the largest proportion of them are naturally British.
They're mostly alternative-weekly or festival-programmer types. There used to be a site that archived all of the individual lists, but I can't find it anymore.
There are still two silent films placing in the 2002 critics's top ten, Potemkin and Sunrise; I'm actually surprised to see Potemkin doing so well, since Eisenstein's rivals like Vertov are more in fashion these days. Click to expand.In their publicity they've been claiming that they merged their 2003 all-time list with of 100 Best Albums of the '00s. In practice, here's how that worked out: Kid A, their #1 album from that decade, makes it all the way to the lofty reaches of #67 in their all-time list. Is This It, #2 in the decade list, is at #199 in the all-time list. Yankee Hotel Foxtrot, #3 in the decade list, is at #493 in the all-time list.
And so it goes. I don't think anything from after 2009 made the new list beyond My Beautiful Dark Twisted Fantasy.
They've also substituted some new comps for older comps with shorter track lists, e.g., Robert Johnson's The Complete Recordings in lieu of King of the Delta Blues Singers. All the other minor fiddling is completely arbitrary as far as I can tell. Click to expand.Yeah, I think those should disallow the comp.
I can kinda accept comps for acts with no standout albums - Chuck Berry, Buddy Holly, etc. but if you have a standalone album good enough for the top 500, you shouldn't get to include a comp as well. I mean, wouldn't it be overkill to include 'Hot Rocks' or 'Changesonebowie'? (I still don't think comps should be included even for 'singles artists' with no standout albums. Include them on a list of the 500 greatest singles, but an album chart should stick with 'original albums'. Not even sure LIVE albums should be included, honestly.).
I'll go ahead and make the case for compilations. I think that there are enough instances where it's worthwhile to list a compilation: - Artists from the '50s and early '60s, where singles were primarily what sold. I couldn't even name a single Chuck Berry album, but it would be silly to not represent him. Where the individual albums by an artist aren't really all that strong, but pluck the highlights into a good compilation and you have something you have absolutely got to hear. My example of choice-and remember, this is just my opinion-is Tom Petty. I think his individual albums are not especially distinguished, but the 1993 'Greatest Hits' compilation is awesome.
If I had to recommend a single Petty album, it'd be that one. Where a compilation tells us something about an artist that no single album could, forming a new whole that offers something markedly different. 'Changesbowie' is the example I'd use-following the evolution of Bowie's sound on a single disc is a totally different experience from any single Bowie album. Where I think compilations ought to be avoided is where the compilation would displace or even spoil regular albums that are remarkable on their own, so that opting for the comp makes you miss out on so much. I think that's actually most cases, but 'Hot Rocks' might be the ultimate example-why listen to that when there's 'Beggars Banquet', 'Let It Bleed', and-heck-'12 x 5' to listen to?
Yeah, I think those should disallow the comp. I can kinda accept comps for acts with no standout albums - Chuck Berry, Buddy Holly, etc. but if you have a standalone album good enough for the top 500, you shouldn't get to include a comp as well.
I mean, wouldn't it be overkill to include 'Hot Rocks' or 'Changesonebowie'? (I still don't think comps should be included even for 'singles artists' with no standout albums. Include them on a list of the 500 greatest singles, but an album chart should stick with 'original albums'. Not even sure LIVE albums should be included, honestly.). This list is flawed for two main reasons: 1) The inclusion of 'greatest hits' and 'best of' albums for some artists of their choice is unfair for those more deserving artists who are not even in their top 500 list. 2) They are trying to make their list eclectic by picking albums from different genre even though those albums are musically inferior to so many great albums from the far more superior rock, jazz, and classical genre.
Example: Do you really agree that a Kanye West album or an Emimem album is superior musically to 'Days of Future Passed' or 'The Chicago Transit Authority'? This list is flawed for two main reasons: 1) The inclusion of 'greatest hits' and 'best of' albums for some artists of their choice is unfair for those more deserving artists who are not even in their top 500 list. 2) They are trying to make their list eclectic by picking albums from different genre even though those albums are musically inferior to so many great albums from the far more superior rock, jazz, and classical genre.
Example: Do you really agree that a Kanye West album or an Emimem album is superior musically to 'Days of Future Passed' or 'The Chicago Transit Authority'? Click to expand.Maybe. But I kinda think that this makes the list apples and oranges. I'd like to see a list that only looks at the greatest studio albums - ones with (then) all-new material. Live albums have an edge because they often include the artist's best songs from a mix of albums. They're not especially different from compilations. My panties aren't bunched about the issue - I'm fine with the 'RS' rules.
Just saying that if this was the Oatsdad 500 Greatest, I'd restrict it and leave out live albums and comps.