Musical tastes a good determiner

Rigsby

Daddio wrote: »

I don't define myself by my clothes or not necessarily by what music I listen to etc - but I recognise that they probably give away hints about what kind of person I am to an astute observer.

I dont think it is possible to make general statements such as this. For instance, every Tom, Dick, and Harry ( and Mary ) from all walks of life and with different upbringing and backgrounds, wears jeans and a t-shirt these days. How is the astute observer supposed to know who is who, in this case ? Does this mean they all share the same or even some characteristics ? Maybe, maybe not. Generally, a person's musical taste develops at a young age, and can change as they get older, as can their personality, depending on what life throws at them. If what you say is true, then a jazz fan probably has "X" personality, a metal fan probably has "Y" personality etc. Again, maybe so or maybe not. Also, how does the astute observer categorise someone ( personality wise ) who listens to lots of genres ?

Kold

Rigsby wrote: »

I dont think it is possible to make general statements such as this. For instance, every Tom, Dick, and Harry ( and Mary ) from all walks of life and with different upbringing and backgrounds, wears jeans and a t-shirt these days. How is the astute observer supposed to know who is who, in this case ? Does this mean they all share the same or even some characteristics ? Maybe, maybe not. Generally, a person's musical taste develops at a young age, and can change as they get older, as can their personality, depending on what life throws at them. If what you say is true, then a jazz fan probably has "X" personality, a metal fan probably has "Y" personality etc. Again, maybe so or maybe not. Also, how does the astute observer categorise someone ( personality wise ) who listens to lots of genres ?

Jeans and Tshirts have subgenres within them. You're generalising too much here.

I myself am post loose fit fade core but I like to switch up the tshirts.

Rigsby

Kold wrote: »

Jeans and Tshirts have subgenres within them.

Would this not make it all the harder to determine someone's charicteristics from their clothes then ?

Setun

Rigsby wrote: »

I dont think it is possible to make general statements such as this. For instance, every Tom, Dick, and Harry ( and Mary ) from all walks of life and with different upbringing and backgrounds, wears jeans and a t-shirt these days. How is the astute observer supposed to know who is who, in this case ? Does this mean they all share the same or even some characteristics ? Maybe, maybe not. Generally, a person's musical taste develops at a young age, and can change as they get older, as can their personality, depending on what life throws at them. If what you say is true, then a jazz fan probably has "X" personality, a metal fan probably has "Y" personality etc. Again, maybe so or maybe not. Also, how does the astute observer categorise someone ( personality wise ) who listens to lots of genres ?

I don't think musical taste will enable you to accurately read somebody's entire personality, I think it might give you a rough idea of what they're like in certain respects though.

Our personality is defined largely by the addition of all our likes and dislikes - from the minor preferences to our more fundamental values, and music having some sort of significant subconscious and instinctual place in this, must have some sort of bearing on our personality, however slight.

Then again, perhaps it's more reflective of how we desire to be viewed by others? By wearing a tshirt with Lady Gaga on it, I am advertising a fact about myself that I am a fan of her music (I'm not, by the way :P), and undoubtedly anybody I meet will probably subconsciously submit that into their idea of what I'm like as a person. In this way, perhaps it could be argued that our taste in music is much less reflective of what we're like as a person than our reasons for liking this music?

Rigsby

Daddio wrote: »

Our personality is defined largely by the addition of all our likes and dislikes - from the minor preferences to our more fundamental values, and music having some sort of significant subconscious and instinctual place in this, must have some sort of bearing on our personality, however slight.

I agree. At the same time, as I mentioned earlier, our personalities are developed by our life experiences, quite apart from music.

flyswatter

I remember two of my bandmates used to be in a band with this guy who played guitar.

I don't think they really like him now.

The thing is, he was a musician, but had a close-minded approach to music, wanting to play the heavy rocky stuff like Guns n Roses and Metallica only.

Apparently my bandmates did reggae and jazz versions of songs by these artists to get on his nerves. He wasn't impressed. :pac:

Sinfonia

pinksoir wrote: »

Having good taste is being able to identify the truly great out of a mass of mediocrity.

The obvious counter-argument then is how one decides what is 'great' and what is 'mediocre', which brings the debates of subjective aesthetic preferences vs. historical (/sociological/philosophical) contextualisation, theoretical analysis of the construction of a piece etc.

To argue with someone on their aesthetic preference is useless. However, for someone to claim that a certain piece of music is 'bad', well then you need some parameters by which to make such a judgement, and it's difficult to incorporate aesthetics into that.
For example: Anybody I have played this piece to has outright despised it (and I must admit, bar a few moments, I'm not a huge fan myself), but the construction of the work on an analytical level is astounding (I often draw a comparison to architecture: You might see a building that is 'ugly' on the surface, but it's construction, how it is put together and how it stands up is beautifully intricate).

Anyway, on topic: I have friends with whom I don't share any musical taste, that's no problem, we've got other things in common; I have friends with whom I have almost identical tastes, no problem there either. The best thing, I find, is to meet someone with similar tastes and a reasonably strong overlap, but who can introduce you to music you've never heard before, and vice versa.
In terms of a partner, yeah, it would matter to me on some level, especially because I would often talk about music when getting to know someone, and the conversation would flow better if we could have a stimulating conversation about music (I don't mind if their tastes are different in this respect, but that they can argue for their side etc., in other words, if they said "I don't listen to much music, just whatever's in the charts, I don't think about it much", that would be a problem for me to some extent). But all of that would be judged on a case by case basis I suppose.. You could connect deeply with another person through anything..

In other words, I wouldn't judge somebody for their taste, but I would judge their taste based on how engaged/apathetic they were with music.

pinksoir

Sinfonia wrote: »

The obvious counter-argument then is how one decides what is 'great' and what is 'mediocre', which brings the debates of subjective aesthetic preferences vs. historical (/sociological/philosophical) contextualisation, theoretical analysis of the construction of a piece etc.

To argue with someone on their aesthetic preference is useless. However, for someone to claim that a certain piece of music is 'bad', well then you need some parameters by which to make such a judgement, and it's difficult to incorporate aesthetics into that.
For example: Anybody I have played this piece to has outright despised it (and I must admit, bar a few moments, I'm not a huge fan myself), but the construction of the work on an analytical level is astounding (I often draw a comparison to architecture: You might see a building that is 'ugly' on the surface, but it's construction, how it is put together and how it stands up is beautifully intricate).

Yeah. It doesn't make sense to talk about stuff in terms of 'great' or 'mediocre' unless those terms can be defined, but as I said, art can't be taken out of context and mediocre or average art is simply art that settles into the accepted standards. I'd argue that the vast majority of art is mediocre. It has to be by definition.

Aesthetics on its own is pretty much meaningless. Beauty is easy. Art should be challenging. Anything that's easy isn't worth doing, if you'll pardon the cliché.

The real problem is the insufficiency of language to explain what we're talking about when it comes to art. I mean, philosophy has attempted for millennia to try to account for what art is, what makes great art, and it's significance as a living, changing, progressing thing. And it isn't really any much closer.

The article that Android666 posted says at one point that art is the combination of "application of craft, dedicated practice, careful thought, hard work, and artfulness." I think artfulness is the one thing there that's hard to define.

I say beauty is easy, and what I mean is; anyone can write a song that moves you. A pretty melody is extremely simple. Emotion is easily influenced. There's certain tricks that can be employed to make people well up at the right point in films through the use of music etc etc. That's not artfulness, that's manipulation. That's taking the easy route and selling to an easy mark.

The problem is that while we're emotional creatures, we're also rational ones. So like you say, arguing with someone on their aesthetic preference is pointless. That piece you put up... Did I find it aesthetically 'pleasing'? Not really. I probably wouldn't listen to it in the bath. Was it interesting? Yes. Like you say, it's construction on an analytical level is astounding. Have you ever listened to Alban Berg? He's an early 20th C Austrian composer. Lot of atonal stuff going on. It's quite challenging to listen to. It's not 'beautiful' in a conventional sense (I think it sort of is, though. He's playing with our expectations...), but like the piece you linked it's wonderful on an analytical level.

I think that both of those pieces are too far the other way, though. I'd take the Nietzchean view that art should aim to be the balance between the aesthetic and the analytical. The emotional and the rational. That way it caters for both sides of our brain.

So maybe great art is when both of these criteria are fulfilled. And good taste is being balanced too.

Sinfonia

pinksoir wrote: »

I'd argue that the vast majority of art is mediocre. It has to be by definition.

Absolutely. In the case of music, often "aggressively mediocre"

The real problem is the insufficiency of language to explain what we're talking about when it comes to art. I mean, philosophy has attempted for millennia to try to account for what art is, what makes great art, and it's significance as a living, changing, progressing thing. And it isn't really any much closer.

Well, advances in musicology and criticism have been exponential, although I take your point.

Have you ever listened to Alban Berg?

Berg is fantastic, Wozzeck blew my mind..
Allow me to recommend Bartók and Messiaen to you (if you're not already familiar)

So maybe great art is when both of these criteria are fulfilled. And good taste is being balanced too.

Which is why Brahms is king! :P (...and Bach)

pinksoir

Sinfonia wrote: »

Berg is fantastic, Wozzeck blew my mind..
Allow me to recommend Bartók and Messiaen to you (if you're not already familiar)

I only got in to Berg recently. Bartók I do know. Messiaen not so much. To be honest, my taste in music leaves a lot to be desired. I'll check him out, cheers.

Which is why Brahms is king! :P (...and Bach)

Well, exactly! Striggio too. Seriously, if you haven't read about or heard this yet check it out... (there's a video in the article).

3hn2givr7mx1sc

Nailz wrote: »

All Metal???

Pretty much. I actually went through a Metal phase when I was younger, but nowadays I just can't stick it. Hurts my head.

Setun

Sinfonia wrote: »

For example: Anybody I have played this piece to has outright despised it (and I must admit, bar a few moments, I'm not a huge fan myself), but the construction of the work on an analytical level is astounding (I often draw a comparison to architecture: You might see a building that is 'ugly' on the surface, but it's construction, how it is put together and how it stands up is beautifully intricate).

This is a good point, especially with Nancarrow's player piano pieces: they're ingenuity and conceptual value surpass the actual musical content of the compositions for me. I still find them incredibly interesting though, but I wouldn't necessarily listen to them if I wasn't in the specific mood to.

Sinfonia wrote:

In other words, I wouldn't judge somebody for their taste, but I would judge their taste based on how engaged/apathetic they were with music.

I completely agree - I think it's important to be able to articulate or at least show some degree of passion about whatever it is you like to listen to. If I ask somebody to explain why they like an album, I probably would be a bit put off them if they replied with "because everybody is listening to it" or "because nobody else is listening to it".

Android 666

Daddio wrote: »

This is a good point, especially with Nancarrow's player piano pieces: they're ingenuity and conceptual value surpass the actual musical content of the compositions for me. I still find them incredibly interesting though, but I wouldn't necessarily listen to them if I wasn't in the specific mood to.

I have to agree with pinksoir, and by extension Nietzche, in that art should be a combination of the aesthetic and the analytical. I really couldn't find anything to applaud in a high concept piece that was lacking in any beauty. The pursuit of pure intellectualism in any art form is a dead end path imo.

Daddio wrote: »

I completely agree - I think it's important to be able to articulate or at least show some degree of passion about whatever it is you like to listen to. If I ask somebody to explain why they like an album, I probably would be a bit put off them if they replied with "because everybody is listening to it" or "because nobody else is listening to it".

In general conversation though, you're rarely going to be able to give a full blown critique of why you like an album but I've never heard anyone give either of those two reasons for listening to something whether they might have thought that or not. If you're getting to know somebody and you ask their opinion on a band or album you're never really going to get hugely in depth analysis

Probably again a bit off point but interesting article about music criticism in the internet age and blogging:

http://popdose.com/jesus-of-cool-dont-believe-dont-believe-the-hype-machine/

Some interesting points raised I thought.

Sinfonia

Android 666 wrote: »

I have to agree with pinksoir, and by extension Nietzche, in that art should be a combination of the aesthetic and the analytical. I really couldn't find anything to applaud in a high concept piece that was lacking in any beauty. The pursuit of pure intellectualism in any art form is a dead end path imo.

Surely if you feel that music should combine aesthetic beauty (which is subjective, remember than the aesthetic of Nancarrow's Player Piano Studies may be considered beautiful too) and "intelligent" composition (for want of a better term), then surely you can find something to applaud in a conceptual piece or an intelligently composed piece that is discordant/atonal/conventionally antithetical to "beauty". Would you say that you couldn't find anything to applaud in a piece that is "beautiful", but lacks in intelligence?
I agree that the most moving music is that which I find aesthetically beautiful and intelligently composed, I still enjoy music which is either/or.

In general conversation though, you're rarely going to be able to give a full blown critique of why you like an album but I've never heard anyone give either of those two reasons for listening to something whether they might have thought that or not. If you're getting to know somebody and you ask their opinion on a band or album you're never really going to get hugely in depth analysis

Not often, no. I'm a phd student in musicology though, so I do meet a lot of people who will give you nothing but in-depth analysis (which itself can get tiresome..!)
As a very basic example though, let's take Radiohead:
The people I know who are passionate about and enjoy talking in depth about music like Radiohead, the people I know who are not/don't, tend not to like them. So if somebody tells me they like Radiohead, but aren't going to get in-depth about it, I'll most likely give them the benefit of the doubt (that sounds really snobby, but it doesn't mean to be)

Probably again a bit off point but interesting article about music criticism in the internet age and blogging:

http://popdose.com/jesus-of-cool-dont-believe-dont-believe-the-hype-machine/

Some interesting points raised I thought.

For some reason that link didn't work for me

Android 666

Sinfonia wrote: »

Surely if you feel that music should combine aesthetic beauty (which is subjective, remember than the aesthetic of Nancarrow's Player Piano Studies may be considered beautiful too) and "intelligent" composition (for want of a better term), then surely you can find something to applaud in a conceptual piece or an intelligently composed piece that is discordant/atonal/conventionally antithetical to "beauty".

Indeed it is simplistic and restricting to use the word beauty. I'm taking a 5 min break in work here to answer. Maybe breathtaking might be a better adjective? If I find something that truly takes might breath away whether it's beautiful or unsettling I while truly enjoy it. I suppose the notion of composing as a purely abstract intellectual pursuit is what I find a turnoff.

Sinfonia wrote: »

Would you say that you couldn't find anything to applaud in a piece that is "beautiful", but lacks in intelligence?

Pretty much, yeah. There are plenty of bands out there making pleasant music out there that has nothing going for it in the smarts department which I can't really rate. I suppose it's more going back to the mediocre music argument talked about earlier. I suppose the better example might be soundtrack music. Somebody might create a score with lovely melodies and it works pleasantly with the film but if it's a paint by numbers job it's not going to have much appeal to you outside of the film.

I suppose the argument would be that to create something truly beautiful there needs to be an intellectual approach that will set it apart.

I agree that the most moving music is that which I find aesthetically beautiful and intelligently composed, I still enjoy music which is either/or.[/QUOTE]


Not often, no. I'm a phd student in musicology though, so I do meet a lot of people who will give you nothing but in-depth analysis (which itself can get tiresome..!)
As a very basic example though, let's take Radiohead:
The people I know who are passionate about and enjoy talking in depth about music like Radiohead, the people I know who are not/don't, tend not to like them. So if somebody tells me they like Radiohead, but aren't going to get in-depth about it, I'll most likely give them the benefit of the doubt (that sounds really snobby, but it doesn't mean to be) [/QUOTE]

And the innate slavish following of people to Radiohead is what put me off them for a long while. I've start listening to them again after this last album and really enjoying getting into them but there a band whose fans seem so mired in such lifeless and serious devotion to their music that it really threatens to smother the band at times - not Radiohead's fault I know. And the other thing is that there seemed to be this adolescent notion of using whether you were a fan of the band as indicator of person's intelligence which is daft and probably goes back to the original idea of the thread

kerash

if ronan keating is your idea of music i judge you harshly.

van der vart

guys, music is music.
since the early 70s ive listened to every new trend, have attended many concerts and always wore wrangler, so do my jeans say i shouldnt be listening to this music because its modern and anti wrangler.
i also listen in my boxers sometimes, must be something wrong there

Rigsby

van der vart wrote: »

guys, music is music.

This is the point I have being trying to get across in this thread.

guitarzero

Rigsby wrote: »

This is the point I have being trying to get across in this thread.

Its a game of 2 halves is a point i've been trying to make in another unrelated thread.

Bodhidharma

The first thing I thought of when I saw this thread was High Fidelity. To quote Rob Gordon "...what really matters is what you like, not what you are like... Books, records, films - these things matter. Call me shallow but it's the f****n' truth".

Sinfonia

Bodhidharma wrote: »

The first thing I thought of when I saw this thread was High Fidelity. To quote Rob Gordon "...what really matters is what you like, not what you are like... Books, records, films - these things matter. Call me shallow but it's the f****n' truth".

Although he does change his tune later on, when he meets the nice couple with the **** record collection...

Edit: Actually does that happen in the film? I think it might be just in the book...

Edit again: In which case Rob Fleming changes his tune, but not Rob Gordon :P

Oasis_Dublin

I absolutely do not use music as a barometer to measure how 'sound' a person is. One of the soundest, and possibly most chivalrous, gents that I know thinks that Kid A is Radiohead's best album! He's some character!

That said however, I wouldn't find it hard is to associate with someone who, for argument's sake, thought that Greenday or My Chemical Romance made good music. I'm argumentative by nature and it would only be a matter of time before an argument ensued.

Kold

Oasis_Dublin wrote: »

I absolutely do not use music as a barometer to measure how 'sound' a person is. One of the soundest, and possibly most chivalrous, gents that I know thinks that Kid A is Radiohead's best album! He's some character!

(just saying that you've played that troll card a bit too much, not meant to be personal abuse) (God, adding disclaimers isn't cool)

Oasis_Dublin

Kold wrote: »

(just saying that you've played that troll card a bit too much, not meant to be personal abuse) (God, adding disclaimers isn't cool)

That was directed at my dear friend Kid-V. Sorry to burst your bubble fella!

Basq

Infraction issued to Kold for personal abuse..

.. disclaimer or not, personal abuse is a no-no.