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

mickilennial
The Most Trusted Name in News

Gender: Female
Age: 35
Location: Detroit

A post my friend wrote some time ago about objectively weighing taste beyond "it's all subjective and everyone is equal!":

Quote:

Sounds like you've been studying culture critic Matthew Arnold (his "hoch kulture" ), and sociologist Pierre Bourdieu (and his Distinction: A Social Critique of the Judgement of Taste). I'm a media major, so I studied this stuff back in college years ago. Bourdieu argues that aesthetic taste is a way of distinguishing a class of people, and you can see this reflected literally in musically-based subcultures. One of his other ideas is the "culture capital", meaning the range (or "economy" ) of your knowledge in these arts.

Yes, I do believe in a "good taste". And I believe having a higher "culture capital", means that you are much more able to select your choices. Many of the Gaian Music Forum regs here, have extremely differing tastes, genres in which we "specialize", and we acknowledge our taste differences. The majority of us have shared our stuff with each other regardless, and it's raised our "culture capital". In that regards, my taste isn't better than theirs or vice versa, because in a sense, we have a fair enough range of knowledge to what exists out there. The difference is in what areas we particularly decide to dive in. Ultimately, in that way, to me, an "authentic" taste means it is backed by your "culture capital".

In regards to music, all the superficial stuff like fashion and controversy is just fluff, and yeah -- as music, that is what I am ultimately going to judge. I do not believe in "higher" or "lower" class art or music, in that traditional sense of aristocracy. It's stupid that the Grammys is seen as high class when they pull the same ass major label artists up every year, a great deal of which are hardly innovative. This idea of "taste" is mass fed to the audience for sales. And a good example of Matthew Arnold's idea of "Culture as a prison house of language" theory -- in which they choose what and what not to show you. That's why their nominations in "heavy metal", hip-hop, alt rock, electronic dance, and so on, usually stink.

In anycase! Personal taste, in my opinion, is discovered and built through exploration. The more you know, the more authentic your favored "style" is. Perhaps a better analogy might be if you think about culture [capital] in terms of language. Imagine three people (one French, one German and one English) going into a shop in France (the "dominant culture", in this respect, would be French). The French person can speak the language. The German knows some French (enough to get by). The English person knows no French. Each of the above has a stock of cultural capital (in this analogy, their knowledge of languages) which they then proceed to spend by trying to buy things:

The French person does this quickly and efficiently - the shopkeeper understands this person perfectly. The German takes longer to express him / herself and may not be able to buy everything they want. The shopkeeper has a problem understanding but with a bit of time and patience business is transacted amicably. The English person - after much shouting, pointing and general gesticulation - succeeds in buying some basic things (or leaves the shop without being able to buy anything because the shopkeeper could not understand). For the shopkeeper, this customer is difficult to serve because they do not "speak the same language". The French person is equivalent to the Upper class child. The German person is equivalent to the Middle class child. The English person is equivalent to the Working class child. You can apply this to the knowledge of music styles. Keep in mind, I have thrown this theory out WITHOUT YET connecting it to the concept of "good taste" (as this can be applied to other ideas, like business as per the ex.). When I do apply it to "good taste", I believe that the more genres you know about, the more "authentic" your taste is, in having built up your confidence to it.

Somebody who has more WILL and PASSION to listen to 4 newly experienced artists everyday (with consideration to newly experienced genres) -- probably has more to say (and thus more "taste", literally) than a kid with the same few artist/songs on repeat, who tries 2 new artists a week, and diverges from his usual genre taste only once a few months. Let's look at the word "taste" through definition. What we are discussing is a preference of an aesthetic phenomenon. As a word, it also means a functional sense of the tongue, and also means firsthand "experience", that is implied with intent to later build on (or reject, through further experience). I think it's all rather correlated, but the more you know, the more likely you are to craft your taste. Like I said earlier, I ultimately judge by music. It's OK if you want to be a follower and fanatic, but that ultimately does not serve to craft your music taste.

Your example about a guy knowing "10000 bands" is flawed. Yes, that person could know a ****load of bands and not know much in a certain area. So? Let me use the language example again -- you can know French, English, German, Chinese, and Japanese fluently -- but your "culture capital" finds its limits when you know some Danish, Russian, Korean, and Spanish. And you become completely SOL with any other language. Still, his linguist range is quite impressive, with much further potential.
Music is just like that - there's a lot out there, after all. Taste is constantly built. A music enthusiast constantly digs; and ****, some of us Regs make fun of each other for our tastes... we hate the taste of some each other. Some of us can't get into harsh noise, Cameron hates almost everything (but I notice he's challenged himself to try Sonic Youth and Merzbow before), some of us love Lady Gaga. But our explorations has only served to make aware of our options, and proven our confidence in our niches. I sometimes say, some people don't really know what they actually like, because they don't know what else is out there yet.

"Culture capital" is a range of knowledge everyone achieves differently. It is nothing concrete, but rather, something with intense personality that helps define an individual.
Ultimately, some people find the experience of discovering and listening to music much more important than others. Even major label music industries know that (and market accordingly)... in one of my classes, media economic research has shown someone who buys Sheryl Crow albums, tend to buy music about twice a year (usually at Best Buy)... compared to someone who buys some artsy-punk act (who'd likely frequent a record shop as Amoeba). The way they absorb music is drastically different. The former probably has other things to do that are more "important" than music. I have a friend who gives two ****s about music at all, knows absolutely nothing about it -- he instead, likes movies... he has a wider "culture capital" to that than I do. He likes going to dance clubs though, but has no clue what he's listening to. As much as a nihilistic as I am, I ultimately do not agree that "taste" is just "different" and "so be it." This concept, to me, rejects the concept of aesthetics as a philosophy (which it has been considered as so, since the ancient Greeks), and dumbs down music by practically saying that it is not significantly important, except to the individual at hand, which I say, is rather isolating. I would argue this ideal lessens the cultural influence of music. In contrast, through the "culture capital" notion, the concept of "good taste" becomes more socially and (sub-)culturally agreeable, while a foundation of knowledge leaves it rather open-ended enough and mutually respectable.

--

I wrote this argument a few years ago, Gowienczyk asked me to come in to expand on it, lolll.

The idea of this argument, is to keep "objectivity" very-very-very loose, so that subjectivity is still highly-highly favorable.
This argument can be simply summarized as "A valid opinion is an educated opinion" and "Valid subjective ideas are built from objective ideas (which must be learned)".

An objective taste is simply put, an experienced one. Because "taste" by definition, means you at least "tried it".

--

( This isn't a response to anybody, but if you feel like reading a bit more of my expanded crazy rant on the subject: )

That idea is something I'll argue with regards to anything else - like politics. You *should* be voting for your President based on the highly subjective ideals that personally appeal to you... I'd hope you are well-informed on your candidate of choice's platforms. You build your subjective opinions through objective facts, weighing these facts to your personal ethics and emotions.
Music itself has objective characteristics - "it's dissonant", "ethereal", "complex time signature" -- these define a genre. You find these objective qualities, subjectively appealing over other objective traits in another genre... "AABA structure", "lyrics about love", "danceable rhythm", etc.
Yes, one's opinion about certain music styles is subjective -- but what IS objective is that you KNOW what you like. It is objective that you are a fan of a certain kind of music style, your taste in the arts, is one aspect that defines you as an individual.

This argument encourages one to come out of their "comfort zone", not to *LIKE* something, but to try to understand its approach and ideologies. To understand but not like something, only *confirms* your own personal taste - and this is not just perfectly fine, it is expected to be, what we subconsciously strive for when pursuing knowledge to very broad forms of art within a giant sea of art - to affirm our taste. How can you be so sure of what you like, if you don't know what else is out there to compare it to? To bring up the ol' cliche, you can't know good without having seen some evil.

For you to have a valid opinion on things you are unfamiliar with, you must first educate yourself on them. It is supposed to be a journey, built from experience (an important aspect of "taste"). The more you try it, the more you've "tasted it". This divides you from the other person who has only first-hand experience. After all, you can't just have sushi for the first time, and suddenly know everything about Japanese cuisine - that takes more taste testing.

When you walk into an art gallery for the first time in your life, you may see some new things. You will develop an opinion - "I don't like it". You have little knowledge of art or art history though, so you can't say why. Either two things will happen:
1) You'll walk out, continue thinking "I don't like it", not knowing why. But hey, you got a little "taste" (no pun intended) of it. Just enough to think about it in the future, maybe. Or never.
2) You'll want to VALIDATE your opinion, in which you must educate yourself on a little art history... just enough for referential comparison, and to understand why that piece is what it is -- or in your opinion, tries to be what it is, but fails. Through objective facts, you create a subjective opinion... and not just any opinion -- a valid one. Which shows your taste or distaste.
You can't have "taste" for something without experiencing it first - otherwise, it'd be a great contradiction to the word. And I would argue to validate that taste (or distaste), you must explore it.

My friend I mentioned has admitted "I know nothing about music" - the only time he experiences music is when he goes top 40 clubbing to Ke$ha and Lady Gaga. I showed him some music from Crass, Einsturzende Neubauten, and Joy Division... he said "How can anyone find these sounds pleasant?" and "I don't know what it is, I just know I don't like it." He admits he has absolutely no interest in trying to "understand" these genres either. In contrast though, he is a screenwriting major, an expert at film, has a much higher culture capital at that than I do.

There are a lot of people with that attitude though. And this is fine, if they choose not to devote more time in a certain arts. But how can it be that they do not take music as seriously as other enthusiasts, but have an equally valid opinion about music?
To serve another example, there are people who do not read graphic novels or comic books - they're assumption about them is that they are all about superheros, when there are so much more (Maus, Sandman, Fables, Persepolis, etc). So, ignorance can be a valid opinion?

I would argue that the idea that "all taste is entirely subjective" is absolutely dangeorus. Why? Because we live in a society where "taste" is selected for us by other people. The majority of people listen to mainstream music, fed by the radio, MTV, the Grammy's, Rolling Stone magazine, etc. Are their taste in music truly valid, when they reject or live in ignorance to many, many other forms of music? Instead, these mass medias choose what is relevant for us to pay attention to and praise as "influential". You've heard the quote, "The victors of war write history", I'm sure. Culture criticist Raymond Williams calls this a "Selected Tradition" within "3 Levels of culture" (the other two being the Lived, and the Recorded). The "selected" are aspects of culture, determined by someone else as "important for everyone to know".
Mainstream culture de-values artistic merit in lieu of dumb-downed entertainment for the sake of money making. So to me, to say "All taste is entirely subjective" says that this value of mainstream culture, is ok. In Marxism, "if you control the material production, you control the mental production." Critical theorist and musicologist, Theodor Adorno calls this the "Culture Industry" - media is made not just to satisfy, but to pacify consumers. Raymond Williams expands on this idea, calls it the "emergent culture" - an example: punk rock and hip-hop, once known as dangerous and politically strived genres, were appropriated by the mainstream and made "safe" for consumption, into Hot Topic and bling-bling kitsch.
So, to me, to say "All taste is entirely subjective" devalues art from its artistic merit and centuries of influence. I see it a lazy way to defend one's ignorance in certain arts, and contributing to mass media pacificism. An art can be appreciated beyond its face value experience, and understood for not even just its ideologies... but for its approach (so for punk rock, the politics are its ideology, but the stripped down sound and simple song construction is its approach to create its "face value" sound and aesthetics, that accentuate the politics and ideas). You don't have to like it. But to understand that, means you can confirm why you don't like it, and why you like whatever else it is you do.

edit- I'd also like to add that art is created with the intent of a (higher) purpose. To simplify that "all taste is subjective", I feel, devalues this ideal about art in general as well.

Like I said, you can't have a taste for something, without actually tasting it first.

Read the thoughts above, gather your comments and feel free to discuss. I might try to bring my friend to this site so he can discuss it further with you all.

I personally find it fascinating and thought provoking.

GeevyDallas
WATTBA

tl;dr

Jackwc
Queen Of The Forums

Location: Aaaanywhere Sex: Incredible

Yes.
_________________
A dick that's bigger than the sun.

Music sucks. Check out my favourite movies, fam:
http://letterboxd.com/jackiegigantic/

Jackwc
Queen Of The Forums

Location: Aaaanywhere Sex: Incredible

Or possibly no.
_________________
A dick that's bigger than the sun.

Music sucks. Check out my favourite movies, fam:
http://letterboxd.com/jackiegigantic/

EyeKanFly
Head Bear Master/Galactic Emperor

Age: 33
Location: Gotham

DLGGLD wrote:

tl;dr

_________________
51 Washington, D.C. albums!

Guest

I read parts of it, skimmed through other parts. Lots of fat could be trimmed but I get the gist of what is said here, and it is pretty much in line with my personal ideals and mentality behind my music journey.

Necharsian
Best Ever User

Gender: Male

Interesting read Smile

I agree with his main point I think, although when he starts this:

Quote:

I would argue that the idea that "all taste is entirely subjective" is absolutely dangeorus. Why? Because we live in a society where "taste" is selected for us by other people.

I start to disagree with him. Taste is entirely subjective, and I dont even really understand his argument against it. He keeps saying it "devalues art" but that is absolutely not the case. I personally like when people have diverse music tastes, but it doesnt mean everyone does. The op fails to really delve into one important detail of taking in art. Passion. I have a friend who listens mostly to "mainstream pop" but loves it. Whos going to tell him that sorry he has a lesser taste than us high and mighty Popol Vuh lovers. If anything id go to him for pop recs more than someone that knew a little on every genre. Passion fuels taste, whether its easily accessible or not. Im not going to Jason for glitch album recs, but would someone trying to cover all bases be better than him for thrash metal?

Taste is not selected for us. Thats probably the part of his whole essay that pisses me off the most. If anything saying that devalues art. Its like saying apples are lesser fruit because you can buy them everywhere compared to papayas or something. Youre not really a fruit fan until youve gone to obscure australian farms and tasted finger limes. Just because it's accessible doesnt mean its forced. (See my friend example again). Justin Bieber's music is easily accessible because people want to access it, not the other way around.

The latter half of the post seems like its just him being butthurt over someone claiming Macklemore is a great artist, and this whole rant is trying to justify why that person is a plebe. My advice is just to let people like what they like. If they want to explore more, great. If not, well thats cool too. I always feel like im doing a sesame street special when talking about this, but its not about how much music you take in. If you like what you hear, youre a fan of music. If someone tells you that you "need" to expand your tastes to gain "culture capital" please do everyone a favor and shit on their pillow.

Music taste is entirely subjective. Ok bye.

Last edited by Necharsian on 07/25/2013 02:26; edited 1 time in total

Jasonconfused
If We Make It We Can All Sit Back and Laugh

Gender: Male
Location: Washington

Necharsian wrote:

Taste is not selected for us. Thats probably the part of his whole essay that pisses me off the most. If anything saying that devalues art. Its like saying apples are lesser fruit because you can buy them everywhere compared to papayas or something. Youre not really a fruit fan until youve gone to obscure australian farms and tasted finger limes. Just because it's accessible doesnt mean its forced. (See my friend example again). Justin Bieber's music is easily accessible because people want to access it, not the other way around.

You're discrediting any of the psychological effects that marketing has on people. Some artists are forced onto other peoples' ears. I wouldn't go so far as to say that taste is forced on to people, but I've definitely heard people say that a song that they are forced to listen to over and over again gets stuck in their head and at first they hate it, but after hearing it so many times, they begin to like it, and then love it. Not saying this is always the case, but it happens. Working at Venice Beach, I have to hear Adele's "Rolling in the Deep" 5+ times a day and the song sounds worse and worse each time.
_________________

Necharsian
Best Ever User

Gender: Male

Jasonconfused wrote:

You're discrediting any of the psychological effects that marketing has on people. Some artists are forced onto other peoples' ears. I wouldn't go so far as to say that taste is forced on to people, but I've definitely heard people say that a song that they are forced to listen to over and over again gets stuck in their head and at first they hate it, but after hearing it so many times, they begin to like it, and then love it. Not saying this is always the case, but it happens. Working at Venice Beach, I have to hear Adele's "Rolling in the Deep" 5+ times a day and the song sounds worse and worse each time.

Yes but theres a reason that its marketable. People like it. Hearing Rolling in the Deep on the radio all day and then finally liking it is no different than finally liking Ok Computer or Suicide after the umpteenth listen. But saying that people who listen predominantly to pop music have lesser tastes because its heavily marketed is ridiculous. There are many ways of finding music to listen to and I fail to see how MTV or the radio are "worse" options.

Jasonconfused
If We Make It We Can All Sit Back and Laugh

Gender: Male
Location: Washington

Necharsian wrote:

Yes but theres a reason that its marketable. People like it. Hearing Rolling in the Deep on the radio all day and then finally liking it is no different than finally liking Ok Computer or Suicide after the umpteenth listen. But saying that people who listen predominantly to pop music have lesser tastes because its heavily marketed is ridiculous. There are many ways of finding music to listen to and I fail to see how MTV or the radio are "worse" options.

Oh I agree. People who mostly listen to pop don't have a lesser taste at all. At least I hope not, considering how I consider a lot of the music on my chart to be pop. The only difference between the two examples you give is that on listening to OK Computer or Suicide all those times is someone's choice, whereas listening to Rolling in the Deep on the radio all day is forced to a certain extent. I think it would be more accurate to say that exposure to certain music is forced, but not your taste.
_________________