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

Guest

If music isn't influences by environment, than why do certain cultures listen and practice certain styles of music more than others?

Necharsian
Best Ever User

Gender: Male

Jasonconfused wrote:

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.

Sure but if the end result is liking it, it shouldnt matter how that came to be.

SquishypuffDave

Gender: Male
Age: 33

Theory: listening to lots of music makes your taste worse. Prove me wrong.

Guest

SquishypuffDave wrote:

Theory: listening to lots of music makes your taste worse. Prove me wrong.

Your theory is a nonsensical statement. It can't be proved right or wrong.

SquishypuffDave

Gender: Male
Age: 33

swedenman wrote:

Your theory is a nonsensical statement. It can't be proved right or wrong.

My point entirely.

yourself

So its late and I'm gonna throw around some stupid observations and devil's advocate sort of things which probably won't make sense (or just will be laughably stupid) because I'm tired, but I'm doing it anyway because this is potentially more interesting than the usual subjective/objective debate:

Quote:

Theodor Adorno.

-This final part with mr.Adorno is I'm guessing for most people the least convincing section of the argument. The whole thing up till now tactfully avoids the usual controversial "some music is dumbed down lowest common denominator" kind of babble until the end then suddenly starts referencing one of the guys who created that kind of babble.
-we should note that adorno was a grumpy old intellectual who thought jazz and its evil syncopations were a oppressive tool of the evil oppressive capitalists. But look what jazz turned into by the 60’s. It sure as hell wasn’t just dance music any more. I think he both has a point and is horribly wrong at the same time, if that is possible

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.

Isn’t this a sort of chicken and egg thing though? Do people like because it is all they have been exposed to, or is it all they’ve been exposed to because they naturally like it?? If it is “because they like it” isn’t that implying that certain popular musical forms (say modern dance-pop whatever you call it) are objectively better/more appealing than other forms? Then how do we explain cultural differences in musical style? If I became world dictator and forced all music to be nothing but Trout Mask Replica, would most people stop liking music? Or would that become the new mainstream? These are all veering off topic, I'm not sure any of this has much to say about objectivity vs. relativity now.....The whole evil music industry thing (which I do sympathize with) feels almost more like a political or moral issue.

Necharsian wrote:

Sure but if the end result is liking it, it shouldnt matter how that came to be.

Why? Is it perhaps a self-centered egotistical view of music that we think its worth should be based entirely on our own perceptions or enjoyment? Isn't what a piece of music contributes to society or the art world or history more important than individual perception? Why is it we boil down music quality to individual connection, when that is such a fleeting, shifting, unstable thing? (I’m obviously grasping at shit hear but its fun, don't take these thing as my actual opinions)

Final unrelated thing thats actual thoughts and not just playing devil's advocate:
-I think what the argument makes me think of isn’t so much objectivity, but a sort of fairness in judging music, or what is the fairest way to do so. Its showing that a simple “this is different/unfamiliar, its shit” or a joj-esque “this sucks and is ear cancer its subjective I can say whatever I want about it” judgment on everything is unfair (to the music, to the fans, to the musicians)…..where opinions based on learning about the purpose/point of a style or band and thinking a lot about things are more fair. In a way the former is a kind of non-opinion, the latter is an actual opinion. I’m not sure that’s what the writer intended, but that is what I get out of it at least. Of course then the question just goes to why does any of this matter in the first place....

meccalecca
Voice of Reason

Gender: Male
Location: The Land of Enchantment

I think everything here is a result of the language we use, and competitive nature. Taste is subjective. It's a perception. Everyone perceives differently due to a multitude of factors. I've listened to a lot more music than many of the youngsters here, and I've surely seen and created more art. Do I have better taste? No. Do I have better taste than I did when I was 5 years old? No. I have different tastes. My tastes have become more developed. My tastes have become wider ranging. They have become more nuanced. This is the product of my years of listening.

So to get to the point, we've been using the wrong language. Instead of saying "better" taste, "more developed" seems like an appropriate term. But I even have problems with that, since it's still elitist.

I'll never have perfect taste until I like The Pop Group and John Zorn better than The Beatles.
_________________
http://jonnyleather.com

meccalecca
Voice of Reason

Gender: Male
Location: The Land of Enchantment

yourself wrote:

Why? Is it perhaps a self-centered egotistical view of music that we think its worth should be based entirely on our own perceptions or enjoyment? Isn't what a piece of music contributes to society or the art world or history more important than individual perception? Why is it we boil down music quality to individual connection, when that is such a fleeting, shifting, unstable thing? (I’m obviously grasping at shit hear but its fun, don't take these thing as my actual opinions)

I think this is a good point which I'd like to expand upon.

As someone who focuses primarily on my individual perception, I do agree that cultural impact of art is significant in exploring the value of work. Of course, that cultural impact can very well be a product of timing and elements beyond the control of the artist. A poor independent artist has a much smaller chance of creating a major impact on society, because they're less likely to have their art seen/heard/tasted. So to society, what they've created will have far less value, but to specific individuals it could be life-changing. And it's tough to judge who was effected and how.

I think the toughest part is when one artist receives credit as a major influence after essential stealing/taking influence from another lesser known artist.
_________________
http://jonnyleather.com

Necharsian
Best Ever User

Gender: Male

yourself wrote:

Isn’t this a sort of chicken and egg thing though? Do people like because it is all they have been exposed to, or is it all they’ve been exposed to because they naturally like it?? If it is “because they like it” isn’t that implying that certain popular musical forms (say modern dance-pop whatever you call it) are objectively better/more appealing than other forms? Then how do we explain cultural differences in musical style? If I became world dictator and forced all music to be nothing but Trout Mask Replica, would most people stop liking music? Or would that become the new mainstream? These are all veering off topic, I'm not sure any of this has much to say about objectivity vs. relativity now.....The whole evil music industry thing (which I do sympathize with) feels almost more like a political or moral issue.

Well I think if you were a dictator forcing all music to be TMR then people would have issues out of principle regardless of if they like/dislike it. Radio stations arent forcing any music onto people, its just easy access to some. I think people genuinely like "modern dance-pop" much like how I think you genuinely like Loscil or Peste Noire. I have no reason to doubt anyones motives for listening to whatever kind of music. If MTV started playing nothing but death metal would people just adapt and start loving death metal unconditionally?

yourself wrote:

Why? Is it perhaps a self-centered egotistical view of music that we think its worth should be based entirely on our own perceptions or enjoyment? Isn't what a piece of music contributes to society or the art world or history more important than individual perception? Why is it we boil down music quality to individual connection, when that is such a fleeting, shifting, unstable thing? (I’m obviously grasping at shit hear but its fun, don't take these thing as my actual opinions)

Final unrelated thing thats actual thoughts and not just playing devil's advocate:
-I think what the argument makes me think of isn’t so much objectivity, but a sort of fairness in judging music, or what is the fairest way to do so. Its showing that a simple “this is different/unfamiliar, its shit” or a joj-esque “this sucks and is ear cancer its subjective I can say whatever I want about it” judgment on everything is unfair (to the music, to the fans, to the musicians)…..where opinions based on learning about the purpose/point of a style or band and thinking a lot about things are more fair. In a way the former is a kind of non-opinion, the latter is an actual opinion. I’m not sure that’s what the writer intended, but that is what I get out of it at least. Of course then the question just goes to why does any of this matter in the first place....

Bold: People have different discretions on how they judge music. Swedenman has said that Dark Side of the Moon isnt so much a personal admiration as it is an impressive to him. Some like strange sounds. Some like catchy choruses. I dont really know what aspects of music I personally enjoy over others (in fact it most likely switches based on my mood, like lots of others im sure) but generally speaking I dont include historical significance or innovation. (NOTE: I think people have a very distorted view on those two things when it comes to using them as umbrella terms, but thats a different topic altogether). I think the fact that our personal feelings towards something is indeed fleeting and dynamic is what makes art great. And it also might just be the point. Art doesnt have a tangible purpose or goal, so why pretend like it does?

As for your last paragraph, yes I agree that "this is different therefore its bad" doesnt hold any clout at all. But at the same time listening to many different bands of varying genres doesnt give you any more right shit on music than another lesser listened individual. Just because I like metal and prog rock and ambient doesnt make my dislike of the Deftones more valid. Someone out there likes them. And maybe that person sticks predominantly to the same genre. Whos going to tell them that sorry theyre wrong because my tastes are "better"? Taste isnt better or worse it's just different.

meccalecca
Voice of Reason

Gender: Male
Location: The Land of Enchantment

Necharsian wrote:

Well I think if you were a dictator forcing all music to be TMR then people would have issues out of principle regardless of if they like/dislike it. Radio stations arent forcing any music onto people, its just easy access to some. I think people genuinely like "modern dance-pop" much like how I think you genuinely like Loscil or Peste Noire. I have no reason to doubt anyones motives for listening to whatever kind of music. If MTV started playing nothing but death metal would people just adapt and start loving death metal unconditionally?

Totally agree. Although the effect of radio airplay certainly does play a role. Familiarity is a very very powerful tool. If the radio began playing nothing but death metal, I definitely think there would eventually be a massive shift in the amount of people who enjoy death metal. Sales would rival that of Jay Z. But I do agree that people genuinely like modern dance pop. For many it's an escape to a happier, easier world. While I personally like to drown myself in completely depressing music, I can't blame others for taking a much care-free route.
_________________
http://jonnyleather.com