No Accounting for Taste - Music - Forums : Best Ever Albums

Happymeal

meccalecca wrote:

I've met plenty. They're very friendly, and sometimes a bit creepy. They just happen to follow a false prophet and base their lives around a completely ridiculous religion that makes no sense

Really? They sound intriguing. Are you familiar with their sense of fashion. What do mormons wear?

revolver94
professional dilettante

Gender: Male
Age: 29
Location: DC suburb

I was raised Mormon, I still go to church and technically remain a member.

As for their fashion, a common phrase in the church is "modest is hottest." So.
_________________
My top songs of the 2010s
and
Spotify link

Last.fm

Shadowolf

Gender: Male
Location: San Francisco, CA

Necharsian wrote:

Yes people devote more/less time to music than others, but how does that make their opinions more/less valid? Sure someone who only puts their time into listening to chart pop is not going to have a great understanding on Throbbing Gristle (or atleast hold an opinion that one who likes TG is going to agree with) but that doesnt make their opinion on music less valid. Your reasoning for placing tastes below yours is based off criteria that you value over others. I havent been to as many concerts as most people here Im sure, so what does that mean? My taste is lesser than those who have been to hundreds? Just because you like concerts more than me (which for argument sake lets say is true) doesnt mean you have a better music taste. Just because you listen to bands that others havent heard of doesnt mean anything. They obviously dont care enough to look into Echo & the Bunnymen so why should that matter? You dont have to look into every obscure segment of music to have good taste. My friend has good taste in pop music. So what if he doesnt know who Tuxedomoon is? Ill to him for pop recs over you so what does that tell you? People fit in niches everywhere and music is no different. Its not better or worse, its different. Just because I specialize in hockey knowledge doesnt mean I cant talk about sports in general.

I am a VERY firm believer in having an "educated opinion" - meaning opinion be backed by facts. The other common phrase that I highly irks me is, "Well, that is my opinion" and you see that a lot with political "debates" about religion, abortion, LGBT rights, or a Zimmerman trial. It's easy to go with gut, and so everyone thinks they "have an opinion", and certainly yes! - they've a "right to it", but to have a truly valid and legitimate opinion, whatever side you take, should be factually validated, backed, and researched - "educated". Otherwise, every common American suddenly has a professional opinion about the political struggles of Nigeria. To that degree, I would think that someone whose initial gut opinion of a certain style of music would be just that - a gut opinion, versus an "educated opinion" and that validity of an opinion, can be measured.
Therefore, my love in a certain style of music lets me be more "educated" in that genre, and less so in others. Or even, I could be more "educated" about a specific band (and furthermore their influences), and less so than others. That is pretty objective, built through a free choice... my ability to choose what I listened to and to learn more about. To have then honed my taste in a certain something... after trying Indian food so much, I could objectively name all the spices and ingredients that I taste in the aloo gobi curry, and determine a subjective opinion on how they made it. Or that listening to so much music of certain kinds, I can maybe objectively distinguish the musical influences and driving force behind this new song I've heard for the first time, giving me a more "experienced" gut opinion. My sister, also a film major and enthusiast, is usually able to tell me from first viewing experience of a movie, a pretty good breakdown of influences and themes she immediately sees. In my eyes, it is good to be critical according to your subjective tastes, and explain it so objectively.

Now, certainly, the expected criticism to that is valid - in that the "education process" overlooks the primal listening experience. I remember Tom Wolfe criticizing the modern and avant-garde fine arts movement in his book The Painted Word, especially The New York School (as Jackson Pollock), Andy Warhol, Picasso, and particularly its renown positive critics (Harold Rosenberg, Clement Greenberg, Thomas B. Hess) who would validate the artists more-so on the theory and ideas behind the art, than the very art itself. He mockingly remarks, "Without a theory to go with it, I can't see a painting."
This is quite valid, but those critics have a point too worth considering the balance. After all, some avant-garde arts, such as Marcel Duchamp's "The Fountain" of the Dada arts, are meant to have a self-reflective, provoking and highly challenging nature... not actually meant to be "enjoyed" like a Mona Lisa. That applies to more "modernist" composers pieces, a la Stockhausen, John Cage, Luigi Russolo, and so on. Envelopes were pushed, so that we could think, "What else could music be?" Or furthermore, how the 70's punk and 90's hip hop have political themes to them, that is a major characteristic to their driving sound. To me, the intention of the artist should be worth considering as a sum to the whole, especially when the song intends to be beyond a "passive" listening experience.

And the point of my friend being baffled was not so much that I was seeing Echo & the Bunnymen or Throbbing Grisle -- it was that I picked going to a concert at all, over attending Blizzcon (he's a huuuuuge Blizzard fan, they're the *only* video games he's played practically for over a decade). Like his cousin said, "Different set of priorities." I prioritized music more; my friend has actually twice said "I hate music" before immediately correcting himself, "No, wait, that's not true. I admit I'm just not music educated". And that is OK -- having our different set of priorities does not make me a better person than him.
Also, no, not enjoying concerts as much as the next guy, or possessing obscurer taste, doesn't mean you've "worse taste in music", nor did I actually mean to imply that. Not everyone, due to their location or finance, has the ability to go to concerts. Some of my friends enjoy listening to music in club settings more-so than seeing live bands; others just enjoy music at their home environment. Different ways to enjoy and discover their music.
_________________
http://www.last.fm/user/ShadowolfIncubi

Guest

The only thing I care about ITT is that I want to see Shadowolf make a fave albums list.

meccalecca
Voice of Reason

Gender: Male
Location: The Land of Enchantment

Shadowolf wrote:

The other common phrase that I highly irks me is, "Well, that is my opinion" and you see that a lot with political "debates" about religion, abortion, LGBT rights, or a Zimmerman trial.

I hate that phrase too, but to compare music taste with politics is absurd. Politics revolve around facts and have very very high stakes. Music is art and has no need to exist in a black & white world

Shadowolf wrote:

Therefore, my love in a certain style of music lets me be more "educated" in that genre, and less so in others. Or even, I could be more "educated" about a specific band (and furthermore their influences), and less so than others.

I agree you can be more educated about music, but that doesn't mean you have "better" taste. You just know more about it. Give a rainman type idiot savant some music history books and they'll know far more than you. doesn't mean anything though

Shadowolf wrote:

This is quite valid, but those critics have a point too worth considering the balance. After all, some avant-garde arts, such as Marcel Duchamp's "The Fountain" of the Dada arts, are meant to have a self-reflective, provoking and highly challenging nature... not actually meant to be "enjoyed" like a Mona Lisa.

I'm a big fan of Duchamp. I studied fine art, and work within the fine art world. The Fine Art world is shamefully self-congratulatory. It's basically become a world of inside jokes that often doesn't respect the true meaning of art anymore. I love Duchamp, but I usually prefer outsider artists who are creating art out of sheer necessity. They aren't more knowledgeable than a Damien Hirst, but they certainly create their art for the right reasons. They have better taste, because they haven't lost sight of the beauty of creation.

I
_________________
http://jonnyleather.com

Listmeister

Gender: Male
Location: Ohio

Taste is mostly subjective, but it can be quantified objectively. That's what the compiled charts on this site are about. (And, when you're talking about singles, I think Billboard's charts are a good measure - as good as we're likely to get - of everyone's taste at any given time). We can say that the Beatles are better than (to pick a contemporary band) Paul Revere and the Raiders because the overwhelming majority would say that they prefer the Beatles. You're on shaker ground if you say OK Computer is better than Dark Side of the Moon, but you could make a case for that based on the rankings on this site.

I would agree that more educated musical experience should be given more weight than a less experienced taste. This site's approach to that, which I think is ingenious, frankly, is to have levels based on contributions to the discussion. If you've rated a lot of albums, that indicates that you have listened to more albums and so your opinion is given more weight, you can contribute more charts, etc.

I didn't answer the poll because it's not very clear what you are agreeing with.

meccalecca
Voice of Reason

Gender: Male
Location: The Land of Enchantment

Listmeister wrote:

Taste is mostly subjective, but it can be quantified objectively. That's what the compiled charts on this site are about. (And, when you're talking about singles, I think Billboard's charts are a good measure - as good as we're likely to get - of everyone's taste at any given time). We can say that the Beatles are better than (to pick a contemporary band) Paul Revere and the Raiders because the overwhelming majority would say that they prefer the Beatles.

I think you have some good points, but I always see flaw in this logic. This example may be a little overboard, but at one point in the U.S., an overwhelming majority of people would have told you slavery was okay. Majority rule does say a lot about popularity, but it's flawed by mob mentality as well.
_________________
http://jonnyleather.com

yourself

Listmeister wrote:

Taste is mostly subjective, but it can be quantified objectively. That's what the compiled charts on this site are about. (And, when you're talking about singles, I think Billboard's charts are a good measure - as good as we're likely to get - of everyone's taste at any given time). We can say that the Beatles are better than (to pick a contemporary band) Paul Revere and the Raiders because the overwhelming majority would say that they prefer the Beatles. You're on shaker ground if you say OK Computer is better than Dark Side of the Moon, but you could make a case for that based on the rankings on this site.

Two almost identical songs could because of outside factors (marketing and press exposure, luck) achieve very different levels of success and popularity. Is one "objectively better" because of these outside factors?

A song goes very high on the charts in one country, but doesn't appear on them at all somewhere else...is it objectively better in one part of the world than it is in another?

An album is very acclaimed and popular at the moment, but over the years falls in bea's charts and critical reputation. Is it becoming objectively worse despite being the same album?

The majority of music ranked highly on bea is western popular music, does that make it objectively better than other kinds of music, from other places in the world?

Popularity, acclaim, chart success...taken just on their own say nothing about the qualities of any given piece of music, they are outside factors, things that happen to a piece of music. When were looking for objectivity it should be something intrinsically measurable in the music itself.

@Necharsian: I agree about more or less everything you wrote about the question of historical importance. It was a great post.

I sympathize with both Necharsian and Shadowolf's views, and am having trouble reconciling them with each other....

Listmeister

Gender: Male
Location: Ohio

meccalecca wrote:

I think you have some good points, but I always see flaw in this logic. This example may be a little overboard, but at one point in the U.S., an overwhelming majority of people would have told you slavery was okay. Majority rule does say a lot about popularity, but it's flawed by mob mentality as well.

Apples and oranges. I most definitely believe in an objective morality, like I believe in objective multiplication tables. (e.g. slavery is objectively wrong, no matter what century it is). We were talking about taste in music, which is a matter of "what I like" or, when talking about a group of people, the sum of everybody saying "what I like".

meccalecca
Voice of Reason

Gender: Male
Location: The Land of Enchantment

Listmeister wrote:

Apples and oranges. I most definitely believe in an objective morality, like I believe in objective multiplication tables. (e.g. slavery is objectively wrong, no matter what century it is). We were talking about taste in music, which is a matter of "what I like" or, when talking about a group of people, the sum of everybody saying "what I like".

My comparison is definitely a bit out there, but what you're essentially saying is that popular opinion makes something good. that's really tough for me to agree with because familiarity plays such a major role in that. Thomas Kinkade would be a greater painter than Robert Rauschenberg if that were true. Marketing plays too big a role for that theory to hold up. Too many variables.
_________________
http://jonnyleather.com