Why You Love the First Album You Heard From a Band the Most - Music

RoundTheBend
I miss the comfort in being sad

Location: Ground Control

Puncture Repair wrote:

For real though I think this is science based on 'normal people' rather than the BEA demographic.

My thoughts exactly.

I also think some of it is true due to classical conditioning.

Many BEA users in the forum have the classical conditioning to get their "music high" off new music/discoveries. The stats of the overall BEA, however, seem to agree with the classical conditioning likely mentioned in the article (who reads anymore when you have headlines, right? Laughing

) though - and so I don't think it is untrue... there are just a lot of outliers posting a response.

As my musical experiences have grown thanks to BEA, there are times when i look at my top 10 and think, geez, how boring. And then I go listen to it and perhaps the classical conditioning kicks in and I'm still amazed by the album, even after the 3098745903493th time. For me that says something about the album, but it really could just be classical conditioning.

If my first album I really got into was the sound of someone farting and I listened to that thousands of times... I might find that musical and interesting and "learn" to love it as something great.

Tap
to resume download

Gender: Female
Age: 38

StreetSpirit wrote:

I definitely agree the science of novelty and first exposure is what makes the article intriguing, but I wouldn't say Mr. Spuhler is using it as an excuse for liking Pop. I think there's a factual basis there. Obviously it varies person to person, and we can only speak of our own experiences.

But like the title of the article is this bold claim about how science says this one thing will happen, but in reality science doesn't say that. He could've heard Pop first and said "oh I don't like this at all", but then had an older brother could say "but dude the older stuff is good, you know how you've heard that With or Without You song on the radio", and then writer would say "of course they play that all the time", and then older brother would say "wouldn't it be funny if you wrote an article when you're older about how your first exposure to a band is a formative experience but take an entirely album-centric view of it and ignore the initial radio exposure, possibly because you're writing for a store that's exploiting object fetishism?" and then writer would say "what are you talking about, I am 11 right now" and then older bro would say "anyways, listen to my copy of the Joshua Tree" and then the writer listens to that, and that's the one they end up giving repeat listens to and developing a loving relationship with. It didn't have to work out this way where the first album is the one that is loved the most.

He's twisting the science to make it seem like he didn't have a choice and there is an "excuse" for his taste but really he should be embracing it more and seeing that there were real things in the music that resonated with him and got him to build the relationship with the music.

Repo
BeA Sunflower

Location: Forest Park

Tap wrote:

But like the title of the article is this bold claim about how science says this one thing will happen, but in reality science doesn't say that. He could've heard Pop first and said "oh I don't like this at all", but then had an older brother could say "but dude the older stuff is good, you know how you've heard that With or Without You song on the radio", and then writer would say "of course they play that all the time", and then older brother would say "wouldn't it be funny if you wrote an article when you're older about how your first exposure to a band is a formative experience but take an entirely album-centric view of it and ignore the initial radio exposure, possibly because you're writing for a store that's exploiting object fetishism?" and then writer would say "what are you talking about, I am 11 right now" and then older bro would say "anyways, listen to my copy of the Joshua Tree" and then the writer listens to that, and that's the one they end up giving repeat listens to and developing a loving relationship with. It didn't have to work out this way where the first album is the one that is loved the most.

He's twisting the science to make it seem like he didn't have a choice and there is an "excuse" for his taste but really he should be embracing it more and seeing that there were real things in the music that resonated with him and got him to build the relationship with the music.

CA Dreamin

Gender: Male
Location: LA

Tap wrote:

But like the title of the article is this bold claim about how science says this one thing will happen, but in reality science doesn't say that. He could've heard Pop first and said "oh I don't like this at all", but then had an older brother could say "but dude the older stuff is good, you know how you've heard that With or Without You song on the radio", and then writer would say "of course they play that all the time", and then older brother would say "wouldn't it be funny if you wrote an article when you're older about how your first exposure to a band is a formative experience but take an entirely album-centric view of it and ignore the initial radio exposure, possibly because you're writing for a store that's exploiting object fetishism?" and then writer would say "what are you talking about, I am 11 right now" and then older bro would say "anyways, listen to my copy of the Joshua Tree" and then the writer listens to that, and that's the one they end up giving repeat listens to and developing a loving relationship with. It didn't have to work out this way where the first album is the one that is loved the most.

He's twisting the science to make it seem like he didn't have a choice and there is an "excuse" for his taste but really he should be embracing it more and seeing that there were real things in the music that resonated with him and got him to build the relationship with the music.

Your grammar is bad. I had to read this four times to decipher it. Anyway,

Tap wrote:

But like the title of the article is this bold claim about how science says this one thing will happen, but in reality science doesn't say that.

The title of the article is obviously clickbait, not meant to be taken at face value. The body of the article actually says something different:

Robert Spuhler wrote:

But it’s possible, from a neurological standpoint, that there are reasons why you may make the first album you hear from a band your favorite.

This is clearly suggesting the science only increases the likelihood the first album you hear from a band will be your favorite. It doesn't say it absolutely will happen.

Tap wrote:

He could've heard Pop first and said "oh I don't like this at all", but then had an older brother could say "but dude the older stuff is good, you know how you've heard that With or Without You song on the radio", and then writer would say "of course they play that all the time"

You're assuming the author knew the song 'With or Without You' before he listened to Pop.

Robert Spuhler wrote:

My first long-term, repeated exposure to the band came on what might be Bono and company’s most divisive album.

It sounds like Pop was his first exposure to U2. Maybe he heard the song 'With or Without You' a couple times beforehand, but it wasn't a "repeated exposure." Maybe he had never heard 'With or Without You' at all? Either way, your hypothetical story manipulates the author's perception of the band into something that isn't true.

I understand the point of your story. You're presenting a hypothetical case where the first album someone listens to from a band doesn't turn out to be their favorite because of a bad first impression. Sure, that happens to everyone sometimes. But that's not the point of the article. The article is about nostalgia, and how the science of the brain/memories increases the likelihood your first exposure to a band turns out to be your favorite. But obviously there are numerous exceptions for everyone.

Tap wrote:

He's twisting the science to make it seem like he didn't have a choice and there is an "excuse" for his taste but really he should be embracing it more and seeing that there were real things in the music that resonated with him and got him to build the relationship with the music.

On this note, I'd agree with you.

Tap
to resume download

Gender: Female
Age: 38

StreetSpirit wrote:

Your grammar is bad. I had to read this four times to decipher it. Anyway, here's wonderwall

Oh sorry, I wrote that one up quickly on a work break. I'll be more clear.

The shallowness of the clickbait title extends into the body. All of this science is presented within a frame. The writer blames his brain for Pop being his favorite U2 album. The writer does begin to use less certain language after this frame is established, but this does not mean that the beginning is insignificant. The presentation of the science cannot escape its association with where this all starts.

The science itself has issues, because there's another association that cannot be escaped. This article is editorial content for a website that wants to sell people records. Musical traditions actually go much further back than recordings. People have appreciated music for quite a long time, without the ability to replay an unchanging recording of the music and have it imprint on the listener. I would imagine this is because people are able to think about music and replay it in their minds, and build a relationship with it that way. I'm no scientist, but I think it's pretty clear that people do not need to have repeat listens to an album to have a serious connection with a piece of music. I think that bias is a symptom of this whole article twisting science to promote an oversimplified and inaccurate view of how people relate to music. It is all about presenting information in a way that absolves the writer of responsibility for liking the things they like, because of brain science, and insecurity.

I don't think they're entirely wrong in claiming that they are not fully responsible for this love of Pop, but brain science is the wrong culprit. Regarding the album-centric part of this, the writer specifically clarifies that Pop was their "first long-term, repeated exposure" to the band when discussing the band's earlier work. This is their way of admitting that of course they were already exposed to U2's inescapable hits, but it didn't count, because albums. Earlier in the thread, it was proposed that the science here is based on "normal people" rather than the BEA demographic, but that isn't the case at all. Most people don't listen to albums, they don't need them for the experience to start to count. This is BEA science. And I bring this up because it's reason number 1 that the writer loves Pop: they're an album listener. They did not consider their experience with past radio hits to be significant, because it was not a part of a hype cycle that culminated in a midnight sale event at Tower Records. They wouldn't have been at that event if they weren't already on board with the pre-release hype, so they can't claim to be totally immune to singles. This suggests that, at the time at least, their appreciation of music was tied to engaging with music in the moment that it was happening. There's nothing wrong with that at all! And in fact, it may not just be preference. Because music is a social thing, and it's entirely possible to have a relationship with an older sibling or parent which can enable a young person to appreciate things that are outside of the current moment. So maybe this isn't exactly entirely their fault, and they are a victim of circumstance. But it's the reasons behind the repetitions that are responsible for Pop being the author's favorite U2 album, not the science behind why repetitions are effective.

Another reason for this album's status with the author is that something specific drew them in to Pop. They mention that they were aware of Achtung Baby and Zooropa, but were too preoccupied with hip-hop to spend any significant time with it. This means that they had agency over what their first "real" exposure was to U2, and this specific exposure happened because something about the album spoke to them. That's why this is their favorite U2 album, because something in the music made them want to repeatedly listen to this album and build the familiarity. That is why the album is their favorite U2 album, not because of the brain holding on to something because of repetitions.

When I was 12 years old I had Diddy Kong Racing for the Nintendo 64, and I listened to Tubthumper by Chumbawamba constantly while I progressed through the game. I had the album on the entire time while I struggled to beat the last boss, which I did during one of the movie sample bits, and it was super dramatic and incredible. That shit is imprinted on me. And I'm totally good with never hearing it again for the rest of my life, because I don't like hearing it anymore. Repetition is not a guarantee that you will be able to hold on to something. You don't have to keep liking something just because you listened to it a lot in your formative years. But of course, there is music that I listened to around then that I still have affection for, because something about the music continues to speak to me. You are not a hostage to your history. This guy isn't listening to Pop and thinking "oh I really don't want to like this but my brain has me at gunpoint here, so I have to".

Yes, there is some interesting science to think about here. But it is being used for bullshit.

RoundTheBend
I miss the comfort in being sad

Location: Ground Control

Dude isn't a scientist.

My guess is he's a journalist trying to apply (falsely or not) scientific concepts to his experience.

I think I'd have to agree (and have talked about it before on these forums) that the classical conditioning (pavlovs dog) plays a huge role in our musical habits. We return to what gives us pleasure... even if that specifically wasn't talked about in the article, it's in the same vein.

I'm not 100% convinced that the article is just trying to sell records... are you claiming this is clever add for U2's pop paid for by the band that hates the record? I don't even think Pop is on vinyl... idk... I get what you are saying at 100k feet - it's an article on a site that sells records, ergo it's an ad, but when the rubber hits the ground, I'm not sure it sold me anything.

RoundTheBend
I miss the comfort in being sad

Location: Ground Control

I'm not understanding the difference in A and B in this sentence:

Quote:

But it's the reasons behind the repetitions that are responsible for Pop being the author's favorite U2 album, not the science behind why repetitions are effective.

I think you are saying repetitions in of themselves aren't the reason, rather the social context, etc.?

I will say as someone probably this dude's age, I was into the Joshua Tree since I was a kid, but I "musically came of age" to get my own music when Pop came out and it was one my first records I bought. BUT... it's definitely not my favorite U2 record, even if it is higher on my list than most people's. I don't like it cause I heard it "first" or didn't (ironically Joshua Tree is my number 1 album right now, half to just piss elitists off), rather I like Pop because of it's social commentary, emotional doubts/longings, it's raw honesty, because it was a rock band attempting to get into electronic music before Radiohead's Kid A or R.E.M.'s Up, and I find the songwriting exciting.

Tap
to resume download

Gender: Female
Age: 38

I'm not trying to say that this is an ad trying to sell you a product. It's just that the article can take an album-centric viewpoint, treat that medium as the way that significant experiences with music happen, ignore the song-focused approach of the majority of music listeners, and it won't look odd at all because it is consistent with the lifestyle of the people who would be on this site in the first place. But it is odd.

And what I'm saying with the 2nd quote is that the writer is saying that the processes of the brain are responsible for the love he has for this album. But the science is just the road he took to getting where he is with this album. Something got him on that road though, and that's what is responsible.

RoundTheBend
I miss the comfort in being sad

Location: Ground Control

Tap wrote:

I'm not trying to say that this is an ad trying to sell you a product. It's just that the article can take an album-centric viewpoint, treat that medium as the way that significant experiences with music happen, ignore the song-focused approach of the majority of music listeners, and it won't look odd at all because it is consistent with the lifestyle of the people who would be on this site in the first place. But it is odd.

And what I'm saying with the 2nd quote is that the writer is saying that the processes of the brain are responsible for the love he has for this album. But the science is just the road he took to getting where he is with this album. Something got him on that road though, and that's what is responsible.

Ok yeah - I can agree with this. Definitely no scientific causation in his case.

I do think some of the concepts discussed in the article could ring true if properly applied.

YoungPunk

For some reason this reminds me of major media players trolling that String Theory is useless...