Such thing as good taste?

Blisterman

This is something that I've often pondered. Is there such as thing as good taste. i.e. some things are inherently better than other things, or is it all subjective. i.e. Nothings better than anything else. It's all down to the individual taste?

It seems that there are some things that society considers to be good, that people who like have good taste.

For example, in music:

Mozart, Radiohead, Sigur Ros, Aphex Twin etc.

In Film:

The Godfather, The Seventh Seal, Pan's Labyrinth, Schindler's List

Conversely, there are things which are generally considered to be bad, and that people who have bad taste like.

In Music
The Spice Girls, My Chemical Romance, Westlife, Limp Bizkit.

In Film
Any Rob Schneider or Adam Sandler Movie

The thing is, however, the things that are considered bad, most the time, tend to be equally, if not more popular than the things considered good. And if there is no such thing as good taste, the only objective way to compare things, would be on the basis of popularity.

Another thing to take into consideration, is that sometimes popular things which are looked down upon at one point, are often years later considered great. For example, Led Zeppelin were considered loud obnoxious crap, by the self proclaimed music experts in their day.

So, really, for me, there is no easy answer, whether such a thing as good taste exists.

If there is, who is the judge of what is good and what is bad?

If not, does that make it equally valid to consider Bob Dylan or Avril Lavigne to be the greatest musician of all time? Can you really critisize anyones taste?

Ponster

Blisterman wrote: »

If there is, who is the judge of what is good and what is bad?

Your peers? Society? As you said, what is considered good taste today may not be in the future be it 40 years or 40 days. For me there is no such thing as good/bad taste, just what is considered fashionable or not at a specific time and culture.

Blisterman wrote: »

If not, does that make it equally valid to consider Bob Dylan or Avril Lavigne to be the greatest musician of all time? Can you really critisize anyones taste?

I don't think you can criticise someone's taste (i.e. someone who likes Avril Lavigne) nor someone's preference (e.g. liking Avril Lavigne over Bob Dylan) but it's completely justifiable to argue with someone who things that Avril Lavigne is *better* than Bob Dylan.

Blisterman

Ponster wrote: »

it's completely justifiable to argue with someone who things that Avril Lavigne is *better* than Bob Dylan.

But that's my point. Who's to judge who is better than who?

Is Bob Dylan better than Avril Lavigne? There's no easy way to tell.

You could compare. Album sales, longevity, number of awards won, critical reception, but there's still no exact way to compare two things, and say which is better. Or is there?

Nichololas

Blisterman wrote: »

But that's my point. Who's to judge who is better than who?

Something is in good taste if it is defined as such by people with good taste. :pac:

AnonoBoy

Good taste = Stuff I like

Bad taste = Stuff I think is ****e.

Easy.

c - 13

Its undefinable because good taste is subjective IMHO.

One persons Bob Dylan is another persons Avril Lavigne and vice versa.

What can be seen as good taste at any particular time however is reflected by peers and people whose opinions are respected, this may be a great author or a columnist for HELLO magazine depending on your subject.

In other words although it might not be "good taste" it is in fashion and as such is seen as "cool" to like it resulting in the masses grasping and taking it to them.

Its also worth nothing that the majority of stuff you list as good taste are older films/artists who were probably not respected around their own time but now we can look back and see that they were visionaries of their time. Perhaps in the future the spice girls will be seen as musical peers and hence "good taste" who knows ?

Ponster

Blisterman wrote: »

But that's my point. Who's to judge who is better than who?

Society does. Certain fashions in clothing would have been held 'in good taste' during the 1970's that 15 years later you could get in second-hand shops for half-nothing. 15 years later though those cloths have become popular again and worth more than they were originally sold for. In this case are 'taste' and 'fashion' interchangable?

There's a thread in the music forum asking people to introduce other members to a band/song that they think no one else will know. There are a *lot* of suggestions that are IMHO plain crap but I don't think that that automatically means that those people have a bad taste in music. To me maybe they do but maybe if we asked 10 other people I'd find that I was in the minority...

Is Bob Dylan better than Avril Lavigne? There's no easy way to tell.

Yes he is, and for all the reasons you listed, longevity being a key factor as tastes change from generation to generation.

Xavi6

Avril and Dylan both only know four chords so therefore they're as good as each other

Davidius

I think pretty much all music is terrible. :pac:

JC 2K3

I have good taste in Treaties.

Lisbon was shíte, like.

GirlInterrupted

Who appoints the arbiters of good taste? Do they appoint themselves?

I'm only sure of my likes and dislikes, whether or not they are considered to be in poor taste. I'm certain that Jordan, for example, is a person with no taste, which I suppose is the same as bad taste......... or is bad taste perferable to no taste at all?

Ponster

c - 13 wrote: »

Its also worth nothing that the majority of stuff you list as good taste are older films/artists who were probably not respected around their own time but now we can look back and see that they were visionaries of their time. Perhaps in the future the spice girls will be seen as musical peers and hence "good taste" who knows ?

Very good show recently by Rich Hall on "How the west was Lost" about the history of the Western. He mentioned that in 1956 some of the finest westerns ever made were released though none actually made any impact at the time, mostly being ignored by the critics and public. So I guess that at the time it wouldn't have been 'in good taste' to have liked these movies but these days it's accepted by a greater number of people to like them but not of course everyone.

Ponster

Xavi6 wrote: »

Avril and Dylan both only know four chords so therefore they're as good as each other

Avril can barely write a song on her own, admitting in an interview that she 'co-writes' most of her stuff.

Xavi6

Ponster wrote: »

Avril can barely write a song on her own, admitting in an interview that she 'co-writes' most of her stuff.

I really doubt that matters to her fans though, hence it being subjective.

Ponster

Xavi6 wrote: »

I really doubt that matters to her fans though, hence it being subjective.

That's not what you asked though. Your question was "Can you really criticize anyone's taste?" to which I replied "No" 'cos I don't think you can 'criticize' while you can disagree with.

My bet is that today and for the considerable future more people will say that Dylan is a better artist than Lavigne. It doesn't mean that liking Avril is not in 'good taste' though. I think they are 2 different things.

Jigsaw

Good taste and popularity are very different things indeed.

E.g. Not many people at the Joe Satriani gig I was recently at yet his music is not only amazingly skilful but also melodically intelligent and full of feel, yet he was playing Mandela Hall. Westlife will play the RDS or Odyssey 10 nights in a row. Only two of them sing and the other two click their fingers on the 2nd and 4th beat of the bar.

Blisterman

Jigsaw wrote: »

Good taste and popularity are very different things indeed.

E.g. Not many people at the Joe Satriani gig I was recently at yet his music is not only amazingly skilful but also melodically intelligent and full of feel, yet he was playing Mandela Hall. Westlife will play the RDS or Odyssey 10 nights in a row. Only two of them sing and the other two click their fingers on the 2nd and 4th beat of the bar.

Another point to make, is that while Joe Satriani is technically a much better musician, from a virtuosity point of view, will he ever be considered as good as the likes of Bob Dylan?
Does technical prowess have anything to do with whether something is good or not?

Jigsaw

Blisterman wrote: »

Another point to make, is that while Joe Satriani is technically a much better musician, from a virtuosity point of view, will he ever be considered as good as the likes of Bob Dylan?
Does technical prowess have anything to do with whether something is good or not?

Funny you should mention Dylan actually. I often debate this point with a good friend who absolutely loves Dylan. He says there is no doubting Satriani's ability as a guitarist but that it has no soul. He is much more about the lyrics so is into Dylan. I could play anything Dylan can play on the guitar and could so probably one month after I picked one up for the first time. I guess at the end of the day it is subjective as I enjoy the likes of Satriani from both a guitar perspective and also the perspective that I have studied music and would find myself listening to a track and thinking, "that was really interesting that he chose to put a A flat diminshed minor 7th chord in there".

The more popular things though are designed for people who either cannot demonstrate any depth of understanding or choose not to.

Scumbags will always choose to watch 2 Fast 2 Furious over Schindler's List.