# How much does another person's musical taste influence your opinion of them?



## Argus

Does musical preference of other people make you hold someone in higher or lower esteem based on their taste matching yours or being 'superior'?

For example, would you think less of someone if all they listened to was hip hop and 'modern' R&B or would it not matter to you whatsoever?

What if someone listened to what you considered 'good' music but only listened to a very narrow slice of the full musical spectrum. For example, if you knew someone who only listened to Bach, what would this make you think of said person?

Does someone who listens to 'poor' music make you think they are less intelligent or less cultured or does it just make you think they have bad taste in music? Or do you believe that art is subjective, so who is to say what is good or bad music?

How big a part does being able to connect with someone musically have on your ability or desire to form some kind of relationship with people?

For me personally, I have known so many people with what I would consider bad taste in music that it hardly bothers me. I just try and recommend good music to them when I can and further educate them on the subject. However, since I am very enthusiastic about music I find it easier to talk to people I hardly know if they are also into the same kind of music or even if they just have a strong passion for anything. People without dreams or ambitions puzzle me the most. They seem to see life as no big deal.

I will say that in my experience more intelligent people listen to classical, jazz, blues, ethnic folk music or just anything that isn't generally played on commercial radio and either less intelligent or just more plain boring people like whatever is currently popular. This lasst sentence holds true to lots of the arts, like visual, cinematic, fashion and literature. It doesn't seem to be about good or bad but more about the open mindedness of an individual that shows their intelligence.

Anyway less of my rambling, what are your thoughts on the matter?


----------



## handlebar

Relationships with musical minded people are something I treasure. I don't "hate" or dislike someone for the music they listen to. I MIGHT for the way they act or treat others though.
But there is no denying that humans gravitate towards those that share similar interests and I'm one of them. I would MUCH rather associate with somebody who loves the same things I do and like to converse about the loves and passions of life.

While I would not classify someone who l;listens to hip hop or rap as unintelligent, I would say the odds are that the education level might,just might be a bit different. Classical takes more effort and work to break down and appreciate. Not as background music mind you. But as a digestible meal that one enjoys and savors. Jazz can be similar.

Pop fluff and rock music don't have the same effect. That's why they are short lived.

Just my own impressions.

And for the record, I do NOT like rap,hip-hop or country music. I love classical,jazz and some various types of world music,especially Middle eastern classical.


----------



## Polednice

As a general summary, I would say that other people's tastes in music don't change my opinion of them at all, _unless_ they listen to classical music - however broadly - in which case I might think slightly better of them.

Tastes in other genres don't lessen my opinion at all, because, of all the people I've met and become friends with (outside of a musical setting), _none_ of them predominantly listen to classical music, and I certainly can't judge them for that because I already know that they're good and intelligent people.

Saying that, I would tentatively go along with the suggestion that people who do listen to classical or jazz _etc._ are more likely to be intelligent or at least thoughtful individuals (though we must make the distinction between classical music and film scores!), but there's also a certain kind of person that I have large respect for: my friends who have no classical music CDs, no classical music on their computers, who never listen to it in their spare time, but will happily come to concerts with me on more than one occasion.

They're open to the experience and they enjoy both the technical and musical aspects of a classical performance (and hopefully they understand that if they don't like something, there are _many_ genres of classical music and not everything else should be written off). Too often, being the enthusiastic classical-music-evangelist that I am, when I invite people, they immediately decline for fear of boredom (or look really quite bored during the concert and never come again). It's that lack of desire to attempt something new that I really don't like, particularly when they've never heard this kind of music before!

Saying that, I suppose it makes me a kind of hypocrite, because I would never go to a concert that isn't classical! I feel slightly more justified though, because my reason for listening to classical music is that it affects my life fundamentally; it shapes the way I view my existence, and it helps me cope with emotional struggles. Listening to music for me is not about finding good rhythms or memorable melodies, and that is why, while I don't actively dislike modern genres, I would never go in search of experiencing them because they do absolutely nothing for me.


----------



## Jules141

Leaving the gaping abyiss between classical and pop aside, I would just like to point out that differences between like/dislike in the classical world I don't think should be judged upon.

Many of my favourite pieces I _know_ aren't very good, but they have a personal meaning that I have attached to them upon listening. Anything from a time, a memory, and emotional resonance, but most often; a place. How can I explain this to someone else? There are moments from Tchaikovsky's 1st Piano Concerto that transport me to a holiday I had with my mates last summer.

In fact I find it easier to listen to difficult classical pieces by trying to find a meaning in each of them.


----------



## Lukecash12

Argus said:


> Does musical preference of other people make you hold someone in higher or lower esteem based on their taste matching yours or being 'superior'?
> 
> For example, would you think less of someone if all they listened to was hip hop and 'modern' R&B or would it not matter to you whatsoever?
> 
> What if someone listened to what you considered 'good' music but only listened to a very narrow slice of the full musical spectrum. For example, if you knew someone who only listened to Bach, what would this make you think of said person?
> 
> Does someone who listens to 'poor' music make you think they are less intelligent or less cultured or does it just make you think they have bad taste in music? Or do you believe that art is subjective, so who is to say what is good or bad music?
> 
> How big a part does being able to connect with someone musically have on your ability or desire to form some kind of relationship with people?
> 
> For me personally, I have known so many people with what I would consider bad taste in music that it hardly bothers me. I just try and recommend good music to them when I can and further educate them on the subject. However, since I am very enthusiastic about music I find it easier to talk to people I hardly know if they are also into the same kind of music or even if they just have a strong passion for anything. People without dreams or ambitions puzzle me the most. They seem to see life as no big deal.
> 
> I will say that in my experience more intelligent people listen to classical, jazz, blues, ethnic folk music or just anything that isn't generally played on commercial radio and either less intelligent or just more plain boring people like whatever is currently popular. This last sentence holds true to lots of the arts, like visual, cinematic, fashion and literature. It doesn't seem to be about good or bad but more about the open mindedness of an individual that shows their intelligence.
> 
> Anyway less of my rambling, what are your thoughts on the matter?


No, I don't think any less of a person who doesn't know his/head from a whole in the ground when it comes to music. I don't like to put people on a scale, as you can learn anything from anyone, regardless of characteristics. There is a Proverb that one of Solomon's most well revered wise men came up with. "*A wise man will gladly suffer a rebuke, but a fool despises instruction.*" So summarily, I'm more interesting in the information than the source. Not only that, but people have a kind of antiquity to them, that makes them hard not to enjoy.


----------



## Weston

handlebar said:


> Pop fluff and rock music don't have the same effect. That's why they are short lived.


I'm not one rubbing my hands together with glee waiting to pounce on another's statement, but I might point out that rock music isn't exactly short lived. I encounter a startling amount of young people who say they wish they had "been there" back in my day to have seen the performances I have, and to experience the culture that produced that music. I don't start these topics, so I know they're not just humoring me.

In general though I agree with and understand the sentiment of your post. Fluff of any genre is short lived.

As to the original question - yes I admit it's human nature to judge people by their tastes. I'm afraid my first impression of people who like country music is that they're not so bright maybe. The same with metalheads, even though I am one on ocassion.


----------



## mamascarlatti

I don't judge people's intelligence based on what music they like, but if a new acquaintance says to me (as someone did the other day) "I mainly listen to bluegrass and rock" , my first thought is 'what the hell is bluegrass" and my second is "oh well, she's probably not going to become a great friend", probably because of the central place that classical music plays in our family life. I think it's because there will be so much I can't talk about for fear of making her eyes glaze over.


----------



## Polednice

I just realised that I need to slightly amend my original conclusion. I said that nobody's tastes would (largely) affect my judgment of them, unless it was positively affected due to a taste for classical music, but I have just thought of one group of people who I would definitely _dislike_ because of their taste. That is those sad, frustrating individuals who listen to the detestable likes of Classic FM in order to 'relax'.

*Spit*!


----------



## handlebar

Weston said:


> I'm not one rubbing my hands together with glee waiting to pounce on another's statement, but I might point out that rock music isn't exactly short lived. I encounter a startling amount of young people who say they wish they had "been there" back in my day to have seen the performances I have, and to experience the culture that produced that music. I don't start these topics, so I know they're not just humoring me.
> 
> In general though I agree with and understand the sentiment of your post. Fluff of any genre is short lived.
> 
> As to the original question - yes I admit it's human nature to judge people by their tastes. I'm afraid my first impression of people who like country music is that they're not so bright maybe. The same with metalheads, even though I am one on ocassion.


My statement regarding "short lived" was meant in context to time involved for the artists. With some exceptions, most artists in pop/rock have about a 3-6 year musical "life" before moving on. Of course examples such as the Stones,AC/DC,etc,etc are long lived exceptions. But you must admit that said groups/artists usually are not creating new music but rather living on laurels from the past. Composers were almost always creating and re-creating their works and evolving. Granted, pop and rock will be here a long time so you are correct in that.But a three minute pop song usually(and I use that word sparingly) do not have the staying power and societal impact that an intelligent and well composed symphony. Yes, they might stick in our heads due to ad or other commercial,but what intelligent and lasting knowledge do they impart? Hence the word fluff.


----------



## Aramis

> But a three minute pop song usually(and I use that word sparingly) do not have the staying power and societal impact that an intelligent and well composed symphony.


Are you sure? 60's and 70's songs by guys like Dylan or Jefferson Airplane had more societal impact than any symphony that I can recall.

As for the topic itself, I rarely judge people by music they listen to. Not because it have no meaning for me. It's just that I judge people so rapidly that I have no idea what music they listen to while I'm making my mind about them. When I finally learn about it, it just assure me that I was right.


----------



## starry

handlebar said:


> My statement regarding "short lived" was meant in context to time involved for the artists. With some exceptions, most artists in pop/rock have about a 3-6 year musical "life" before moving on. Of course examples such as the Stones,AC/DC,etc,etc are long lived exceptions. But you must admit that said groups/artists usually are not creating new music but rather living on laurels from the past. Composers were almost always creating and re-creating their works and evolving. Granted, pop and rock will be here a long time so you are correct in that.But a three minute pop song usually(and I use that word sparingly) do not have the staying power and societal impact that an intelligent and well composed symphony. Yes, they might stick in our heads due to ad or other commercial,but what intelligent and lasting knowledge do they impart? Hence the word fluff.


But how many symphonies have been composed and have been completely forgotten? Most music in any genre is just average or bad, it's just that some genres are open to more invention and variety and so are more likely to produce more good stuff than other styles over time.


----------



## handlebar

Aramis said:


> Are you sure? 60's and 70's songs by guys like Dylan or Jefferson Airplane had more societal impact than any symphony that I can recall.
> 
> As for the topic itself, I rarely judge people by music they listen to. Not because it have no meaning for me. It's just that I judge people so rapidly that I have no idea what music they listen to while I'm making my mind about them. When I finally learn about it, it just assure me that I was right.


The songs of the 60's and 70's occurred less than 50 years ago. Beethoven's 5th was almost 200. Now 200 years from now if the Dylan/Jefferson/etc songs still have an impact on American society then I will believe it. Not a big deal though. Just that I think less and less of the pop and rock nonsense than others. I dislike it and don't care for most of the messages it sends.

For what it is worth, listening to a jazz quartet in a midnight jazz club with a drink surrounded by friends is indeed a memorable occasion.

Jim


----------



## starry

Popular music as we know it has only been going for just over a hundred years, classical music has been going for over half a millennium.


----------



## handlebar

Although classical and chamber music were in some ways the "popular" music of the day in their respective time periods.


----------



## lricardo

Well... when I meet someone who also likes classical music, we hit if off right away, because I love 
classical music and I love talking about it, usually I invite them to come with me to a concert, or sometimes they inform me about a concert I didn´t hear about. Obviously having something in common is a great start for a new friendship.

Other times I meet people than only listen to 'modern' genres, talking about music is more difficult because many of them consider classical music 'boring' but that's because they never heard it, or never went to a concert. I used to change subject or avoid talking about music because they rarely understand what I meant. 
But recently I heard a speech of Benjamin Zander where he states that *"Everbody loves classical music, it's just that many people haven't found out about it yet." *(here is a link if you didn't watch him).

I agree with him... so I am becoming a classical-music-evangelist (same as Polednice), I inform my friends about upcoming concerts and sometimes they join me (If they are open to the experience that's great!), sometimes they say they are very busy... well they miss it. I think I'll have to learn new ways of promoting classical...


----------



## The Cosmos

Nope, couldn't care less. If I were to judge them on that, I would have left most of my friends. And honestly, meeting people with similar interest is all fine and nice (I've yet to meet one though ), but I find myself drawn towards people with different interests. I guess just about anything on this planet could get me exited (even if it's trying for the first time haha).


----------



## Artemis

Another person's musical tastes don't influence my judgement of them at all. There are far more important personal attributes than merely their taste in music. Perhaps more to the point, what do people who don't care for classical music think of you? I can't think of a surer way of putting other people off you if you let it be known, or even hint, that you have a snobbish attitude in your tastes in music. In fact, most people I know don't like classical music. The small number who say they like classical music don't really know much at all. Rare conversations I've had with such people tend to be very short-lived especially when one finds out that all they know about is a few _Classic FM_ (the UK's very low brow classical music radio station) type of favourites.


----------



## Elgarian

My enjoyment of music of all kinds has extended, deepened, and broadened so much over the years, that if I allowed taste in music to influence my likes and dislikes, it would be absurd. How can I make an adverse judgement on someone who dislikes Bob Dylan, Alanis Morissette, Mozart, or Handel, when there were times in my own life when I disliked all of them myself (but later changed my mind)?

There isn't really much overlap between my personal tastes and those of my friends. Generally that's rather good for me, because it means we're all more likely to widen each others' horizons a bit - or at least, have an increased opportunity to do so. 

When it comes to forming opinions of someone else, I'm a lot more concerned with whether I can trust them in their dealings with me, and with others, than with the relatively unimportant issue of what they choose to listen to when they're on their own.


----------



## jhar26

handlebar said:


> The songs of the 60's and 70's occurred less than 50 years ago. Beethoven's 5th was almost 200. Now 200 years from now if the Dylan/Jefferson/etc songs still have an impact on American society then I will believe it. Not a big deal though. Just that I think less and less of the pop and rock nonsense than others. I dislike it and don't care for most of the messages it sends.
> 
> Jim


Well, 50 years is already 49 1/2 years more than they predicted those songs would last when they first came out. Of course popular music of that time had an impact on society - a huge impact I'd say. Whether that impact was a positive or a negative one is a matter of opinion (a bit of both, I'd say) and an altogether different debate. 200 years from now? I don't know. But does Beethoven's 5th have an impact on American society? I don't think so.


----------



## Chi_townPhilly

jhar26 said:


> Of course popular music of that time had an impact on society - a huge impact I'd say. Whether that impact was a positive or a negative one is a matter of opinion (a bit of both, I'd say)...


*Bravo!*

and (as long as I'm passing out 'bravos,') bravo for your arrival on the top 10 posters list!

(Getting back to the topic) thanks for pointing out that 'societal impact' is a two-way street. I suppose that the _Horst Wessel Lied_ could be framed as a song of no small societal impact, but its impact was of an inarguably sinister nature.

To summarize a little of my perspective on the topic, someone's appreciation of Classical Music is going to have no impact on my feelings about them as a person. History has pointed out many of a psychopathic or genocidal nature who have nonetheless greatly enjoyed Classical Music.

In contrast, there are examples of music so irredeemable that appreciation of them will adversely affect my opinion. The above-mentioned _Horst Wessel_ song merely being the most obvious example I can think of.


----------



## Argus

jhar26 said:


> Well, 50 years is already 49 1/2 years more than they predicted those songs would last when they first came out. Of course popular music of that time had an impact on society - a huge impact I'd say. Whether that impact was a positive or a negative one is a matter of opinion (a bit of both, I'd say) and an altogether different debate. 200 years from now? I don't know. But does Beethoven's 5th have an impact on American society? I don't think so.


I agree here that songs of the past 50 or so years had far more impact on society due to a lot of the artists having certain political affiliations or ideologies. Something like the Specials _'Free Nelson Mandela'_ or most of Rage Against the Machines output has a strong political message and is more overt about it than just pure music. I however believe music should be kept separate from such things as I am a firm advocate of absolute music, but that's the artist's perogative.

On the original point, however, I have just thought of somehing else that slightly irks me. A conversation something like this:

Me: So are you a fan of music?

Them: Yes.

Me: Great. What kind of music do you normally listen to?

Them: Oh, a bit of everything.

Me: Yeah. Any classical or jazz?

Them: Not really.

Me: What about folk or blues?

Them: Oh yeah, I'm a massive fan of Eric Clapton and Gary Moore.

Me: 

I have nothing against either Clapton or Moore and quite like Moore's guitar playing but they aren't really blues. I'd rather someone just say what music they are into rather than the stock phrase 'A bit of everything'. Even the most open minded person isn't a fan of everything.

I am friends with lots of people who aren't into music at all who I can talk about football, current affairs, philosophy or some other nonsense with. That's fair enough if someone doesn't like music I'm not going try and push it on them. But I have a friend who plays electric bass and only really listens to metal, rock and a bit of pop, and I am always trying to expand his horizons into others areas of music.

And finally, I don't mean to imply a particular genre is 'better' than another I mean poor taste within any genre. i.e Pink Floyd or Led Zep is almost unanimously thought of as better than Nickelback or Fallout Boy, just like Sonny Rollins or Ornette Coleman is better than Kenny G or Michael Buble. KRS-One > 50 cent. John Lee Hooker > John Mayer etc. It gets a bit difficult comparing say the Beatles to Mozart, just too many differences to take into account. And who is any one to be the arbiter of good musical taste.


----------



## jhar26

Chi_townPhilly said:


> *Bravo!*
> 
> and (as long as I'm passing out 'bravos,') bravo for your arrival on the top 10 posters list!


Thanks. I'm glad to make the charts.


----------



## jhar26

Argus said:


> I'd rather someone just say what music they are into rather than the stock phrase 'A bit of everything'. Even the most open minded person isn't a fan of everything.


"A little bit of everything" is sorta the standard answer of those with a casual interest in music. Or they think they have an eglectic taste because they have a copy of the latest Mariah Carey album as well as Elton John's greatest hits.


----------



## starry

Argus said:


> I however believe music should be kept separate from such things as I am a firm advocate of absolute music, but that's the artist's perogative.
> 
> I have nothing against either Clapton or Moore and quite like Moore's guitar playing but they aren't really blues. I'd rather someone just say what music they are into rather than the stock phrase 'A bit of everything'. Even the most open minded person isn't a fan of everything.


Of course it's the artist's prerogative. But most of the time where music is used for political purposes (in either a general or specific sense) it's about other people taking the artist's work and taking ownership of it and saying it represents a place, a people, an ideology...instead of simply acknowledging the individual creativity of the artist. It's incredible how many people can't simply look at a work of art as being the product of an individual brain influenced by all kinds of factors. It's like that makes things too complex for them and they have to simplify and distort.

As for liking all kinds of music, it's unlikely that most people would like equal amounts of music from vastly different genres. However I think it's important to try and keep an open mind about good music having the potential to exist in different genres. I'm not a purist and I find purist music often a bit boring, it's limited in it's invention because it is purist. Whether Clapton or Moore did blues or not doesn't interest me, who cares about boundaries? All that matters is whether they did any good music or not.

I also don't believe popular music in its 20th century form existed much before then, it's a relatively new thing. Music composition was produced by a relatively small minority in the past, the 20th century changed that. You can't really compare the history of popular music at this point with that of classical.


----------



## Argus

Artemis said:


> Another person's musical tastes don't influence my judgement of them at all. There are far more important personal attributes than merely their taste in music. Perhaps more to the point, what do people who don't care for classical music think of you? I can't think of a surer way of putting other people off you if you let it be known, or even hint, that you have a snobbish attitude in your tastes in music. In fact, most people I know don't like classical music. The small number who say they like classical music don't really know much at all. Rare conversations I've had with such people tend to be very short-lived especially when one finds out that all they know about is a few _Classic FM_ (the UK's very low brow classical music radio station) type of favourites.


Classic FM isn't that bad. I do know what you mean though. But if you think Classic FM is bad avoid Radio 1 at all costs.

As for what other people think of me when they find out I like classical music provides varied results. Some people think it makes me have an Hannibal Lector-like quality, others accuse me of being of the lavender persuasion, others think it makes me a retrophile and some say it makes me seem older than I am, among many other things that they're sure to let me know of with glee. However with me personally, my physical appearance being somewhere between a Van ****-sporting musketeer on crack and a 1970's prog rock loving geography teacher, to find out I have 'weird' taste in music is of no surprise to people.

And to starry, whether something is pure doesn't make any difference in terms of quality. The examples in the dialogue were just used to illustrate a point.

Just check out this beauty for some 'pure' blues.


----------



## starry

Purism can mean limitation to invention through extremely restrictive rules. That video was pleasant but if people only listen to something of very simple style and turn their noses up at something more eclectic then I think it means they have limited taste. Music changes and develops and never stays the same.


----------



## colin

The music we listen to is such a reflection on who we are. You just have to look on the expression on the face of someone with a set of headphones on. to guess what they are listening to. 
I never could stand rap I think its a degenerate form, watching cars driving by with thumping bass and mindless drum beats does turn the cogs to generate a pre-concept of banality. These two examples differentiate me in an instant. It would be slightly different if they tuned their EQ to the higher end of the spectrum as some sounds are harmonius; but they dont. 
Of course musical tastes make me generally deduce a person. The waves of different sonics, attract and shape different people, for better and worse.


----------



## Lukecash12

I don't want to set us off track, but I believe it is perfectly fine distinguishing between good and bad music. There isn't anything wrong with the pop genre itself; But as a whole, it draws a negative connotation to itself by advocating/emulating downright immaturity, lack of respect for authority and history, and unbalanced perspectives.

I find the conclusion that people don't include certain groups within their musical tastes because they don't see it's merits, to be more than a little lacking. I'm sorry, but I don't like Elton John because of his highly impersonal lyrics, rather uniform arrangements, and really a lack of antiquity that rears itself over the whole of his music. I am in no way an authority on the matter (as we can all agree that no one individual really is), but I still have no doubt at all that there is such a thing as good and bad music.

So yes, on second thought: I do make a few well supported conclusions when I see that a person listens to crappy music and obviously knows that it advocates such negative ideas. That said, I think anyone who really knows and loves groups like Queen, The Beatles, The Brian Jamestown Massacre, Muse, Soundgarden, and a few others... Those folks have already earned mondo bonus points with me.


----------



## Dim7

Lukecash12 said:


> but I still have no doubt at all that there is such a thing as good and bad music.


What do you mean by this? Of course there is such a thing in a very subjective sense but that's so obvious that I doubt that's what you are saying.


----------



## Tapkaara

Those who fall to their knees and weep at the sound of Mozart's Jupiter Symphony are not people I would treat any differently then anyone else I know. I respect everyone.


----------



## Mtl

I am a high school teacher. I am retiring in June. All of my students listen to Rap or Rock music. I like and respect 98% of my students. Some of these students (very few maybe) will eventually come to like classical music. Good for them if they do for they will have expanded their view and gained a new knowledge and appreciation of some other form of music.
I try not to pigeonhole anyone in any set form. I don’t like to be pigeonholed myself so I try to extend that courtesy to anyone I interact with or meet. What I do like to do is this: I open up my computer lab class to students during the lunch break: there is always music blasting from my speakers to the whole lab during that daily one hour. Sometimes Mozart, sometimes Beethoven, sometimes a Verdi aria. Other times I blast some AC/DC, or Rolling Stones or Doors at them. Willie Nelson can sometimes also be heard during that lunch break also.
I give the students one hour of my time (I am not required to open up my computer lab) I do it to give them a chance to work on their projects but I also do it because I know they will be exposed to some kind of music that they wouldn’t necessarily choose. So I give these guys a sprinkling of Classical, Opera, Country, Hard Rock and Jazz music that might someday lead them to expand their view and appreciation of music as a whole or so I hope.
It is hard to like something if someone has never been exposed to it. It is wrong to judge someone when someone is on a journey. Life is a journey. Music is part of that discovery and part of that journey. I am on the eve of my retirement but I am still on my journey of discovery of music, art and literature. I am still in discovery mode and hope to be in that mode for the next 30 or 40 years.


----------



## Tapkaara

Nowadays I am almost 100% classical, but I also cut my music teeth in my youth and punk rock and hip hop, much of which I still love. (The Beastie Boys and Sublime....oooooh yessss!)

There is a lot of sentiment that those who listen to rap, for example, must be degenerate thugs. This is so silly and down-right biased.


----------



## starry

Dim7 said:


> What do you mean by this? Of course there is such a thing in a very subjective sense but that's so obvious that I doubt that's what you are saying.


There is music which is inventive and generous and there is music which is just lazy and completely formulaic.


----------



## colin

here is a lot of sentiment that those who listen to rap, for example, must be degenerate thugs. This is so silly and down-right biased. 
__________________
Rap music is simple. A drum beat and a monotone voice, Simple. I am biased, this form does nothing for me.


----------



## Tapkaara

colin said:


> here is a lot of sentiment that those who listen to rap, for example, must be degenerate thugs. This is so silly and down-right biased.
> __________________
> Rap music is simple. A drum beat and a monotone voice, Simple. I am biased, this form does nothing for me.


You are certainly entitled to your opinion.


----------



## Lukecash12

Dim7 said:


> What do you mean by this? Of course there is such a thing in a very subjective sense but that's so obvious that I doubt that's what you are saying.


I meant that there is, in fact, good and bad music, at least when judged by their merits. So, that in conjunction with a few other patterns you might notice give you perfect license to deduce that someone is oblivious. There is nothing inherently wrong with coming to a conclusion about someone, rather it is quite a bit spiteful to draw premature assumptions. However, even if you reach the conclusion that someone is oblivious, it doesn't give you any reason to treat that person less than preferably. Conversely, it's important to help such individuals.


----------



## Lukecash12

starry said:


> There is music which is inventive and generous and there is music which is just lazy and completely formulaic.


My god, you just summarized entirely a well put together debate. My sentiments exactly. I am in no hurry to give the Beastie Boys a pat on the back for weak humor, stereotypical lyrics, and a few young men with the attitude of "watch me smile and strum a few notes on my guitar". I really don't want to throw great musicians like Muse and Soundgarden under the bandwagon. Soundgarden really embodies the strong effects of minimalism, light chromatics, and good orchestration.


----------



## handlebar

colin said:


> here is a lot of sentiment that those who listen to rap, for example, must be degenerate thugs. This is so silly and down-right biased.
> __________________
> Rap music is simple. A drum beat and a monotone voice, Simple. I am biased, this form does nothing for me.


Why is it so bad to dislike rap? Some simply don't like it and that's that. It is not due to racism,gender issues or politically incorrectness unless someone else makes it that.

Then again one does need to look at who the people are that make the music:classical music tends to be performed by educated men and women that dress up for the occasion in their finest with respect and tact.

Rap. for the most part, is performed by many different races that dress and look a certain way that reflects their interest in said music. I hate to say it but the rap community in the US was first propelled to "stardom" by ganster rappers and gang types. That's not my fault nor anyone else's but simply how it began and evolved. Gangs are involved in crime and mayhem. Hence the genre became associated with this and created an image that made a lasting impression and impact on music and society here. If I'm wrong then correct me please. But that is reality and many would agree.

Not that all rap is bad either. But it still defines itself by the genre itself.And guilt by association,even though it is not always fair, still and will always happen in every walk of life.

Many associate soundtrack scores with classical even thought they are far apart in may ways.

I most certainly do NOT consider myself a racist and love all groups of people. I simply so not like some types of music such as rap,country/western,gospel and a few other genres. 
Jim


----------



## Lukecash12

I'll just go right out and say it, they say someday they're going to mix country music and rap. You know what they want to call it? Crap.

Well educated people look down on rap because it is so drowned in stereotypical stupidity on a compositional level. My brother has no musical education, yet he agrees with me that most of the time rap is barbaric child's play.


----------



## jhar26

Argus said:


> Does musical preference of other people make you hold someone in higher or lower esteem based on their taste matching yours or being 'superior?


I see no reason to think I'm "superior" just because I listen to classical music. Different people have different interests in life. Those people probably have superior knowledge about whatever it is that interests them.


> For example, would you think less of someone if all they listened to was hip hop and 'modern' R&B or would it not matter to you whatsoever?


Well, modern R&B is not really R&B anymore. It's mostly pop music (and more often than not poor pop music at that) that we only call R&B because it's sung by black people. But hey, if someone has a huge collection of modern R&B records and he's as passionate about it as I am about the stuff that I love than I can respect that. HipHop or Rap is a genre I don't get, so I have no opinion about it. There must be something there that doesn't register with me. But I like the "The Miseducation of Lauryn Hill" album - including the rap sections, so maybe there still is some hope for this old fart to get with it and be cool again. Having said that, that album is already over 10 years old, so....


> What if someone listened to what you considered 'good' music but only listened to a very narrow slice of the full musical spectrum. For example, if you knew someone who only listened to Bach, what would this make you think of said person? ¨


Bach is a musical universe by himself, so no problem.


> Does someone who listens to 'poor' music make you think they are less intelligent or less cultured or does it just make you think they have bad taste in music? Or do you believe that art is subjective, so who is to say what is good or bad music?


I don't consider myself to be particularly intelligent or educated - I'm just an average guy who likes great music, so the answer to the first part of your question is no. As for the second part - sure, I think there is good and bad music. But it's not an exact science and the educated disagree as much about what is and what isn't as the rest of us.


> How big a part does being able to connect with someone musically have on your ability or desire to form some kind of relationship with people?


Well, some common interests always helps of course.


> I will say that in my experience more intelligent people listen to classical, jazz, blues, ethnic folk music or just anything that isn't generally played on commercial radio and either less intelligent or just more plain boring people like whatever is currently popular.


Maybe, but I also feel that those who like "quality music" as a rule hate whatever is popular because they prefer to be part of an elite. They like the feeling of knowing something more than the average guy on the street. In, say, rock that usually translates itself in supporting some obscure band. Than if said band makes it big their original fans accuse them of selling out and they move on to some other obscure band that nobody knows about. In classical music it's probably even worse. Fans of the genre want classical music to be more popular - or so they say, but I'm pretty sure that if there ever were to be another composer who became as popular as Mozart or Beethoven that those same people would argue that said composer is overhyped and that there's some obscure composer from God only knows where who would be much more deserving of such fame.


----------



## Lukecash12

> Maybe, but I also feel that those who like "quality music" as a rule hate whatever is popular because they prefer to be part of an elite. They like the feeling of knowing something more than the average guy on the street. In, say, rock that usually translates itself in supporting some obscure band. Than if said band makes it big their original fans accuse them of selling out and they move on to some other obscure band that nobody knows about. In classical music it's probably even worse. Fans of the genre want classical music to be more popular - or so they say, but I'm pretty sure that if there ever were to be another composer who became as popular as Mozart or Beethoven that those same people would argue that said composer is over-hyped and that there's some obscure composer from God only knows where who would be much more deserving of such fame.


That's quite a wide assumption to throw everyone under the bandwagon with. Are you not branding those who prefer classical music fans as hypocrites? Much of us here have sites going and do many various things to educate people in a variety of arts, so this isn't exactly the place to be making that assumption. If we want to be elite, why is it that so many of us become teachers and professors to teach hundreds of people the arts?

Please educate me, who is the hypocrite here? If anyone, seeing as it wouldn't be prudent or polite at all to call out anyone else, can you tell me how I am a hypocrite?


----------



## jhar26

Lukecash12 said:


> That's quite a wide assumption to throw everyone under the bandwagon with. Are you not branding those who prefer classical music fans as hypocrites? Much of us here have sites going and do many various things to educate people in a variety of arts, so this isn't exactly the place to be making that assumption. If we want to be elite, why is it that so many of us become teachers and professors to teach hundreds of people the arts?
> 
> Please educate me, who is the hypocrite here? If anyone, seeing as it wouldn't be prudent or polite at all to call out anyone else, can you tell me how I am a hypocrite?


Where do you get the idea from that I call YOU a hypocrite.  I had nobody in particular in mind with my remarks in that paragraph. The original poster asked if we regard those who like commercial or popular music as less intelligent. Is the idea that everyone who has a so-called bad taste in music is intellectually inferior, let alone that all rap artists or fans are thugs any less a case of throwing everyone under the same bandwagon?.....I think not.


----------



## Lukecash12

First, we meant (or at least I did), that bad taste in music is only one observation you can make about a person. I did say that other things have to be taken into account, and still that there is no superior or inferior person. Some people are unaware, and then others come along to help them become aware. Simple as that.

As for the rap comment, I'll quote this:


> Why is it so bad to dislike rap? Some simply don't like it and that's that. It is not due to racism,gender issues or politically incorrectness unless someone else makes it that.
> 
> Then again one does need to look at who the people are that make the music:classical music tends to be performed by educated men and women that dress up for the occasion in their finest with respect and tact.
> 
> Rap. for the most part, is performed by many different races that dress and look a certain way that reflects their interest in said music. I hate to say it but the rap community in the US was first propelled to "stardom" by ganster rappers and gang types. That's not my fault nor anyone else's but simply how it began and evolved. Gangs are involved in crime and mayhem. Hence the genre became associated with this and created an image that made a lasting impression and impact on music and society here. If I'm wrong then correct me please. But that is reality and many would agree.
> 
> Not that all rap is bad either. But it still defines itself by the genre itself.And guilt by association,even though it is not always fair, still and will always happen in every walk of life.
> 
> Many associate soundtrack scores with classical even thought they are far apart in may ways.
> 
> I most certainly do NOT consider myself a racist and love all groups of people. I simply so not like some types of music such as rap,country/western,gospel and a few other genres.
> Jim


And this that I had said earlier:


> Well educated people look down on rap because it is so drowned in stereotypical stupidity on a compositional level. My brother has no musical education, yet he agrees with me that most of the time rap is barbaric child's play.


And I quote this:


> There is music which is inventive and generous and there is music which is just lazy and completely formulaic.


So it is very well supported to come to the conclusion that someone is simply uninformed if they associate themselves with such heftily ignorant art.

And another quote:


> Nowadays I am almost 100% classical, but I also cut my music teeth in my youth and punk rock and hip hop, much of which I still love. (The Beastie Boys and Sublime....oooooh yessss!)
> 
> There is a lot of sentiment that those who listen to rap, for example, must be degenerate thugs. This is so silly and down-right biased.


So what you accuse us of saying is very far from the truth. Thanks for your interesting points, though. Have a good one.


----------



## Elgarian

I once read an illuminating essay by Greil Marcus about Elvis which introduced the idea of 'the box'. When Elvis first achieved great popularity, it was regarded by many as the death of music. The same is true of Bob Dylan - very large numbers of people believed (and many still believe) that he couldn't sing.

This happened because both Elvis and Dylan were essentially redefining the role, and art, of the singer/performer. They didn't fit existing categories. Their art seemed alienating. In Marcus's words, they built a new kind of box in which to present themselves - and in order not to see them as outrageous or alienating or just plain bad, it was necessary to climb into the box with them. As long as we stay outside the box, we're not able to engage with their art, because it doesn't fit the patterns we're used to, so there's a good chance that for those people it will seem like rubbish, or an outrage, or whatever else. We have every right to choose not to enter the box, of course; but if we do, we have no opportunity to decide whether the music is good or bad. It may indeed be rubbish - but that judgement can only be fairly made from inside the box. If we stay _outside_, all we can sensibly do is say 'not interested, thanks', and remain silent.

I say this not as a piece of abstract philosophising, but simply because I've been around long enough to realise how wrong many of my own adverse judgements have been over the years, about a wide variety of art forms, in music, in poetry, in the visual arts. Generally speaking, when we find value of some kind in art, that value is usually genuine and can be trusted. When we fail to find value - dismiss it as rubbish - then we can conclude nothing much. It may indeed be rubbish, but it's just as likely that we're failing to look or listen in the right way.

I've dismissed as rubbish, at various periods of my life, the poetry of TS Eliot, abstract painting, Bob Dylan, Elvis, Mozart, and Wagner (to name just a few, to show the extent of my folly). In every case, when I finally found a way into their respective boxes, they switched from being perceived as rubbish, to providing some of the most exciting and life-enriching art encounters I've ever had. I'd much prefer to talk to someone who listens to music I dislike, but who is impassioned about its life-changing effect on him, than to someone who has a vague preference for Handel but can take it or leave it.


----------



## Artemis

Elgarian said:


> ... I've been around long enough to realise how wrong many of my own adverse judgements have been over the years, about a wide variety of art forms, in music, in poetry, in the visual arts.


It's dangerous forming too strong a view on one's likes/dislikes in classical music especially at an early age, as inevitably one's opinions will change as experience is gained. My priorities have changed quite considerably from an early emphasis on all the usual heavy Romantic orchestral stuff to a current preference for much lighter compositions (piano solo, lieder, chamber music). I still greatly enjoy composers like Mozart, Beethoven, Schubert, Brahms etc but it's their smaller scale works I mostly listen to these days. In the process, this switch brought into sharper focus several other great composers, who excel in these areas, and whom I now rate very highly: e.g. Chopin, Schumann, Mendelssohn, and Liszt. I'm afraid that the corollary is that I've rather jettisoned composers I once admired: e.g. the likes of Wagner, Tchaikovsky, Mahler, Bruckner, etc.


----------



## Argus

Mtl said:


> I am a high school teacher. I am retiring in June. All of my students listen to Rap or Rock music. I like and respect 98% of my students. Some of these students (very few maybe) will eventually come to like classical music. Good for them if they do for they will have expanded their view and gained a new knowledge and appreciation of some other form of music.
> 
> It is hard to like something if someone has never been exposed to it. It is wrong to judge someone when someone is on a journey. Life is a journey. Music is part of that discovery and part of that journey. I am on the eve of my retirement but I am still on my journey of discovery of music, art and literature. I am still in discovery mode and hope to be in that mode for the next 30 or 40 years.


You have to give kids a little leeway in regards to their musical tastes. Most kids, including myself when I was younger, have bad if not downright terrible taste in music but you know that hopefully they will grow out of it and learn to appreciate a wider selection of sonic pleasures. Looking back at what I listened to 8 or 9 years ago(my early teens), I would have to say the vast majority of it is utter wank but, like you say, life is a journey and my tastes have gotten wider and more eclectic since then and hopefully they continue to expand in the future. But the truly good music from any point in your life sticks with you and only the rubbish is dismissed (but not forgotten).



> I've dismissed as rubbish, at various periods of my life, the poetry of TS Eliot, abstract painting, Bob Dylan, Elvis, Mozart, and Wagner (to name just a few, to show the extent of my folly). In every case, when I finally found a way into their respective boxes, they switched from being perceived as rubbish, to providing some of the most exciting and life-enriching art encounters I've ever had. I'd much prefer to talk to someone who listens to music I dislike, but who is impassioned about its life-changing effect on him, than to someone who has a vague preference for Handel but can take it or leave it.


True, but I have been in the 'box' to many things like rap and dance music but 'came to my senses' and realised that most of that stuff is just plain bad. I believe a lot of people have no clue whatsoever about music and just listen to the same things all their friends listen to and whatever the 'media hype machine' pumps into their systems. I know this was true of me before I got seriously into music and began to learn an instrument and of the art of music. There is also a big stigma with someone listening to the same music their parents did. Until people overcome this and stop discriminating against the music itself and just listen without any preconceptions can they truly 'realise' the music.

At one point I wouldn't even listen to what I then considered 'well old' rock music like Pink Floyd or Black Sabbath and now I love those bands. You could say I worked backwards chronologically through music and am probably currently at the 16th century. A few years ago I had never even heard of Thomas Tallis let alone think I would listen to and appreciate his music but that just shows that peoples tastes are in a constant flux and are never concrete. However, you can only judge peoples musical tastes in the present (yeah' obvious I know) so until the shift in taste takes place even if it is unbelievably gradual the initial judgement has to be considered as ideal.

There are many factors for why someone has 'bad' or 'good' musical taste. Knowledge, opportunity, time, effort, desire, economic factors are but a few reasons or (conversely) excuses why someone has the taste they do. For example, some people have parents that take them to classical concerts and jam sessions whilst others have no parents at all and have little money and time for music. So obviously an orphan on the streets of Rio can't be compared to a well off Valley Girl.

Anyway, I'm sick of typing so on the matter of rap and thuggery I will say: Most people who listen to rap music aren't yobs or thugs but most yobs or thugs listen to rap music. Comprende. That's my experience anyway.


----------



## Elgarian

Argus said:


> There are many factors for why someone has 'bad' or 'good' musical taste.


These days I question the whole notion of 'good' and 'bad' _taste_ in music. From the listener's perspective, there's only good or bad _listening_. If a piece of music can sustain good listening - by which I mean not just being aware of a pleasant noise in the background, but subjecting the music to focused, concentrated attention in such a way that perception is extended and illuminated, then it's overwhelmingly likely that that piece of music has something good about it.

On the other hand, if I find that a piece of music _can't _sustain that kind of attention, I can't (indeed, mustn't) conclude that it must be bad. There are many reasons why I might fail to connect with it - the state of my digestion, tiredness, my prejudice, my lack of understanding of the composer's purpose, and dozens more - including, yes, the possibility that the music might be poor. But I can't conclude the music is poor just because I happen to dislike it. In fact the case is proven by the fact that I can now hear for myself that Elvis, Dylan, Mozart and Wagner all produced superb musical works, even though once I couldn't bear listening to them.


----------



## Artemis

Argus said:


> blah
> 
> blah
> 
> Anyway, I'm sick of typing so on the matter of rap and thuggery I will say: Most people who listen to rap music aren't yobs or thugs but most yobs or thugs listen to rap music. Comprende. That's my experience anyway.


I bet you're glad now you've got all that off your chest.


----------



## Elgarian

Artemis said:


> this switch brought into sharper focus several other great composers, who excel in these areas, and whom I now rate very highly: e.g. Chopin, Schumann, Mendelssohn, and Liszt. I'm afraid that the corollary is that I've rather jettisoned composers I once admired: e.g. the likes of Wagner, Tchaikovsky, Mahler, Bruckner, etc.


Yes, that's exactly the sort of thing I mean. When here you give plus points to Chopin, Schumann, Mendelssohn, and Liszt, and minus points to Wagner, Tchaikovsky, Mahler, Bruckner, you're telling us something interesting - but it's information partly about the direction of your personal musical journey and partly about the nature of your encounters with these composers. We'd be quite wrong to draw adverse conclusions about the stature of Wagner, Tchaikovsky, Mahler, Bruckner from this, wouldn't we? After all, Jack Smith could come along tomorrow and tell us how he's now moved on from Chopin, Schumann, Mendelssohn, and Liszt, and was finding greater enlightenment from Wagner, Tchaikovsky, Mahler, and Bruckner.... and that too would be interesting: these types of comment do tell us _something_ about these composers, but they don't tell us whether they're any good or not.


----------



## Artemis

Elgarian said:


> Yes, that's exactly the sort of thing I mean. When here you give plus points to Chopin, Schumann, Mendelssohn, and Liszt, and minus points to Wagner, Tchaikovsky, Mahler, Bruckner, you're telling us something interesting - but it's information partly about the direction of your personal musical journey and partly about the nature of your encounters with these composers. We'd be quite wrong to draw adverse conclusions about the stature of Wagner, Tchaikovsky, Mahler, Bruckner from this, wouldn't we? After all, Jack Smith could come along tomorrow and tell us how he's now moved on from Chopin, Schumann, Mendelssohn, and Liszt, and was finding greater enlightenment from Wagner, Tchaikovsky, Mahler, and Bruckner.... and that too would be interesting: these types of comment do tell us _something_ about these composers, but they don't tell us whether they're any good or not.


That's perfectly correct, Elgarian, and most eloquently expressed, as usual.


----------



## Argus

Artemis said:


> I bet you're glad now you've got all that off your chest.


Slow day at work. I'd just finished having a discussion/tirade with some co-workers about Susan Boyle and the X Factor that got me in the mood for a rant.

But nevermind that, you've yet to give your opinion on rap music. Formulate one forthwith so you too can feel elevated above the unwashed masses with their simplistic harmonies and derivative forms.



> These days I question the whole notion of 'good' and 'bad' taste in music. From the listener's perspective, there's only good or bad listening. If a piece of music can sustain good listening - by which I mean not just being aware of a pleasant noise in the background, but subjecting the music to focused, concentrated attention in such a way that perception is extended and illuminated, then it's overwhelmingly likely that that piece of music has something good about it.


There is no real 'good' or 'bad' music hence the inverted commas, but we all have our own definitions of what is good and what is bad and unfortunately some peoples definitions or opinions have more weight than others and should be used as benchmarks.

If, for example, Philip Glass says a piece is 'good' and many other leading composers agree with this, then if Tinchy Stryder (I can already hear the google searches) says that piece is 'bad' and members of N-Dubz, Girls Aloud and other similar artists agree with Tinchy then who is right and who is wrong. Both opposing groups are musicians and create music, are professionals who get paid to perform/produce music and are successful enough for people to care about what they say, yet I am willing to bet most people here would agree the music in question is 'good'. They may not like the music but it will still be considered 'good'

Oh and popular =/= good, before that old chestnut rears it's ugly head.


----------



## starry

Elgarian said:


> These days I question the whole notion of 'good' and 'bad' _taste_ in music. From the listener's perspective, there's only good or bad _listening_. If a piece of music can sustain good listening - by which I mean not just being aware of a pleasant noise in the background, but subjecting the music to focused, concentrated attention in such a way that perception is extended and illuminated, then it's overwhelmingly likely that that piece of music has something good about it.


Quite alot of music may have SOMETHING good about it somewhere, but to be a good piece it needs to sustain that invention.



Elgarian said:


> On the other hand, if I find that a piece of music _can't _sustain that kind of attention, I can't (indeed, mustn't) conclude that it must be bad.


Ok, conclude that it's average then lol. Most music is just average, by definition. It's where the line between average and good is drawn that is important, and experience in listening to a composer or style of music helps the listener define that boundary better.



Elgarian said:


> There are many reasons why I might fail to connect with it - the state of my digestion, tiredness, my prejudice, my lack of understanding of the composer's purpose, and dozens more - including, yes, the possibility that the music might be poor. But I can't conclude the music is poor just because I happen to dislike it. In fact the case is proven by the fact that I can now hear for myself that Elvis, Dylan, Mozart and Wagner all produced superb musical works, even though once I couldn't bear listening to them.


But you're changing the subject now into making a blanket judgement of a whole composer's work. That is obviously a very dangerous thing for anyone to do.

The simpler the music is the easier it is to assess it. It helps obviously to be aware of the style the composer is using and what he/she is aiming to do.


----------



## Artemis

jhar26 said:


> ... Maybe, but I also feel that those who like "quality music" as a rule hate whatever is popular because they prefer to be part of an elite. They like the feeling of knowing something more than the average guy on the street. In, say, rock that usually translates itself in supporting some obscure band. Than if said band makes it big their original fans accuse them of selling out and they move on to some other obscure band that nobody knows about. In classical music it's probably even worse. Fans of the genre want classical music to be more popular - or so they say, but I'm pretty sure that if there ever were to be another composer who became as popular as Mozart or Beethoven that those same people would argue that said composer is overhyped and that there's some obscure composer from God only knows where who would be much more deserving of such fame.


Picking up on the last sentence of your post quoted above, I think it's unlikely that any composer would ever become as popular as Mozart and Beethoven, with the possible exception of J S Bach. These three would appear to stand well clear of the rest of the pack by a clear margin in terms of appeal among the generality of classical fans. Based on my observations of comments on internet forums, I would suggest that Mozart's widespread popularity is probably resented/questioned by more people than is the case with either Beethoven and Bach, but in overall percentage terms such negative comments about Mozart don't amount to a row of beans.

But to test your theory let's suppose that a significantly less popular composer, eg Bartok, were to become considerably more popular than he is already, such as to rival the status of the aforementioned triumvirate. In terms of ensuing complaints about his newly acquired status, all that one might expect to occur is a possible increase from people who never liked Bartok in the first place, but that would be of no consequence given that, by assumption, he has become more popular overall.

Your theory goes further. It seems to be that pre-existing Bartok fans fans might feel disappointed that their hero has suddenly become the darling of the masses, and they would begin to turn their noses up because they don't wish to be associated with anything that smacks of being popular among the hoy polloi. You may have a good point here as it could affect some individuals' behaviour, but to argue that this effect could be so strong that Bartok could never become more popular, by virtue of his existing fans deserting him if this happened, seems extreme and counter-intuitive. I don't think that such an occurrence would affect my judgement of the less popular composers whom I like.


----------



## jhar26

Artemis said:


> Your theory goes further. It seems to be that pre-existing Bartok fans fans might feel disappointed that their hero has suddenly become the darling of the masses, *and they would begin to turn their noses up because they don't wish to be associated with anything that smacks of being popular among the hoy polloi*. You may have a good point here as it could affect some individuals' behaviour, but to argue that this effect could be so strong that Bartok could never become more popular, by virtue of his existing fans deserting him if this happened, seems extreme and counter-intuitive.


Well, it was a scenario whereby a living composer would become very popular that I had in mind really, but those words in bold are what I am thinking, yes. Not all of them of course, but there would be quite a few - of that I'm convinced.


----------



## Artemis

jhar26 said:


> Well, it was a scenario whereby a living composer would become very popular that I had in mind really, but those words in bold are what I am thinking, yes. Not all of them of course, but there would be quite a few - of that I'm convinced.


 Are you saying that you believe that all or most of the fans of living composers don't really like the artistry of these composers and only buy their material because it is of limited appeal?

If so, this means that no living classical composer, however good they may be, can hope to achieve a greater fame than they currently enjoy because all or most of their fans could desert them in favour of someone more obscure as soon as their fame begins to increase.

I can see why some highly snobbish people might conceivably behave in this way in relation to some composers, but I find it difficult to believe that this is a normal course of conduct for the majority of classical music fans.


----------



## Elgarian

starry said:


> Quite alot of music may have SOMETHING good about it somewhere, but to be a good piece it needs to sustain that invention.


Yes of course. That's precisely the point I was making.



> It's where the line between average and good is drawn that is important, and experience in listening to a composer or style of music helps the listener define that boundary better.


Well, a lot of people like to draw lines and define boundaries, but when it comes to art of all kinds, I think I'm more interested in blurring lines and crossing boundaries, myself. That's when it all gets exciting, and new perceptions develop. A lot of people seem to be very certain about defining what's _bad_, but my own experience leads me to be very sceptical about my ability to assess badness correctly, as I explained in my earlier posts.



> But you're changing the subject now into making a blanket judgement of a whole composer's work. That is obviously a very dangerous thing for anyone to do.


No, truly I wasn't changing the subject. The principle I was discussing is the same whether one is speaking about a particular song (say), or about a whole body of work. (But yes, of course, it goes without saying that it would be utter folly to dismiss a whole composer's work.)


----------



## jhar26

Artemis said:


> Are you saying that you believe that all or most of the fans of living composers don't really like the artistry of these composers and only buy their material because it is of limited appeal?
> 
> If so, this means that no living classical composer, however good they may be, can hope to achieve a greater fame than they currently enjoy because all or most of their fans could desert them in favour of someone more obscure as soon as their fame begins to increase.


Not really, because most of the people who would listen to the music of that composer would be people who normally don't listen to modern classical music.


> I can see why some highly snobbish people might conceivably behave in this way in relation to some composers, but I find it difficult to believe that this is a normal course of conduct for the majority of classical music fans.


I'm not saying that it's a majority. Let's take as an example Gorecki's third symphony. I'm not saying that it's a great work, but many of the very negative comments about that work probably have to do with it's popularity.


----------



## Artemis

jhar26 said:


> Not really, because most of the people who would listen to the music of that composer would be people who normally don't listen to modern classical music.


How do you know that?

You seem to be making a very strong assumption that fans of _Obscure Composer X_ are only fans only of _Obscure Composer X_ and none other. If this were true then it wouldn't make much sense if they switched their allegiance entirely to _Obscure Composer _Y when _Composer X_ becomes temporarily more famous, since it violates the starting assumption that these fans are composer-specific (i.e. only like one composer, and none other).



> I'm not saying that it's a majority. Let's take as an example Gorecki's third symphony. I'm not saying that it's a great work, but many of the very negative comments about that work probably have to do with it's popularity.


OK then, but if it's not a majority of fans who you believe behave in this way then the whole theory collapses completely, as there is then nothing to stop good composers becoming more and more popular despite the loss of support from the odd supporter who chooses to behave in an irrational manner. The whole theory becomes pointless other than to suggest that the world of classical music fans contains some pretty peculiar people who can behave in odd ways when either they don't get their way or if something or someone rattles their cage. But we already know that.


----------



## jhar26

Artemis said:


> How do you know that?


The group of people who listen to modern classical music is relatively small, so if such a composer would become popular much of his audience would inevitably consist of people who normally don't listen to modern classical music.


> The whole theory becomes pointless other than to suggest that the world of classical music fans contains some pretty peculiar people who can behave in odd ways when either they don't get their way or if something or someone rattles their cage. But we already know that.


Not just the world of classical music. I've said that the same thing happens among fans of other genres as well. On another forum there were a few people who argued that the semi-obscure 60's band the Beau Brummels were a better band than the Beatles. If the Beau Brummels had sold a zillion records and the Beatles were unknown they would no doubt argue that the Beau Brummels are overrated and that we should listen to that grossly underrated band from Liverpool called the Beatles instead.

But this discussion is turning into something where I feel that I'm failing to communicate what I had originally intended - which I admit happens often to me. I'm seldom happy with any of my posts and only on very rare occasions do I succeed in putting down in words what is in my mind. The essence of what I'm trying to say is that while I agree with some previous posters that it's a bad idea to listen to music just because it's popular - I also think it's a bad idea NOT to listen to something because it's popular.


----------



## starry

Not sure about this comparison of rock/pop to classical music. Rock/pop music has far more divisions and perhaps more snobbery. Of course rock critics will co-opt the Beatles into their pantheon because they can't ignore them even though they are so popular. Similarly someone who turns their nose up at more 'conservative' sounding classical music can't really ignore the great figures of the past either.


----------



## Artemis

Argus said:


> But nevermind that, you've [Artemis] yet to give your opinion on rap music. Formulate one forthwith so you too can feel elevated above the unwashed masses with their simplistic harmonies and derivative forms.


OK then.

A I said earlier in this thread, I am very tolerant of other people's likes and dislikes in music. I wouldn't take a disliking of anyone merely because of their musical tastes, and I wouldn't necessarily associate yobbish behaviour with people who happen to like any particular genre of music, whatever it may be including Rap. I would suspect that there could be just as high a probability of finding dodgy characters - e.g. big-headed plonkers with grossly inflated opinion of themselves - among classical music fans as among the Rap/hip-hop community. In fact, I'm quite sure of it.

I should say, however, I haven't had a great deal of contact with Rap music loving individuals, and it's possible that I might need to revise my opinion were the situation otherwise. The Rap scene, as far as I am aware, is predominantly of interest among male youth from the black community, and has been around since the late 70's. Since I was a pupil at an all-girls school until 18, and have lived almost all of my life in various white Caucasian dominated suburbs of deepest Surrey, consequently I can't say that Rap music has had much if any impact on my social or working experience. These days I hear only the occasional blast of Rap music from the odd motor vehicles that whizzes by, and apart from that I'm hardly aware of its existence.


----------



## Argus

Artemis said:


> OK then.
> 
> A I said earlier in this thread, I am very tolerant of other people's likes and dislikes in music. I wouldn't take a disliking of anyone merely because of their musical tastes, and I wouldn't necessarily associate yobbish behaviour with people who happen to like any particular genre of music, whatever it may be including Rap. I would suspect that there could be just as high a probability of finding dodgy characters - e.g. big-headed plonkers with grossly inflated opinion of themselves - among classical music fans as among the Rap/hip-hop community. In fact, I'm quite sure of it.
> 
> I should say, however, I haven't had a great deal of contact with Rap music loving individuals, and it's possible that I might need to revise my opinion were the situation otherwise. The Rap scene, as far as I am aware, is predominantly of interest among male youth from the black community, and has been around since the late 70's. Since I was a pupil at an all-girls school until 18, and have lived almost all of my life in various white Caucasian dominated suburbs of deepest Surrey, consequently I can't say that Rap music has had much if any impact on my social or working experience. These days I hear only the occasional blast of Rap music from the odd motor vehicles that whizzes by, and apart from that I'm hardly aware of its existence.


I know and have known quite a few yobs in my time and I can only talk from my own experience. I will say your view of rap is outdated. Hip hop, at least among young people I know, has become the 'cool' music for kids to listen to. Like rock 30 years ago, rock and roll or skiffle 50 years ago and swing before that. It is no longer limited to the black community. Most of my school was Caucasian yet I'd estimate at least 70% of the students listened to some kind of rap music. I can't explain why so many White British youth find a connection with music originating with young Black Americans in big cities, but that appears to be the case. Just to clarify I am not trying to link rap with creating bad behaviour or establish some kind of causality but these are just facts I have noticed.

One of the main reasons I dislike rap is that it has hardly any originality in the actual music. Sampling Parliament/Funkadelic or James Brown beats and talk over the top of them makes no sense to me. I'd rather just listen to the original records pre-mutiliation. If anything it has more in common with poetry than music. And I dislike poetry. I will say I do like some hip hop. Grandmaster Flash and Afrika Bambaataa, for example, but even these aren't very good.

I'll add I never once said I dislike someone based solely on musical taste, I just stated personality traits that appear to me to be prevalent in different types of music fans.



> Not sure about this comparison of rock/pop to classical music. Rock/pop music has far more divisions and perhaps more snobbery.


Metalheads are the best at dividing their genre up. Make sure you never tell them you can't hear the difference between melodic funereal black metal and extreme technical death metal.

P.S. Is there a smiley face that best indicates sarcasm as I'm beggining to think that some of my comments are being taken more seriously than I intended. What's this one mean -_-


----------



## Elgarian

Argus said:


> Sampling Parliament/Funkadelic or James Brown beats and talk over the top of them makes no sense to me.


Doesn't make any sense to me either, but many people would say the same about using ready-made materials as collage elements in pictures (Kurt Schwitters and his collages incorprating things like bus tickets), or even as whole sculptures (Duchamp's fountain). Although many people still deride those things, it so happens that I'm able to see value in them, myself, so I know they can't merely be dismissed as rubbish. We can't pass a valid judgement on things we don't understand. We can say we don't like them, but that's not the same thing at all. I don't like oysters, but that doesn't mean oysters are bad.


----------



## Tapkaara

Artemis said:


> A I said earlier in this thread, I am very tolerant of other people's likes and dislikes in music.


That made me smile.


----------



## Mozartgirl92

I don´t judge people based on their music taste, I find that to say to little about the person.
If a person is nice then it´s nice no matter what music taste the person have, for an example I know a girl who listens to rap/hip-hop(what´s the difference?) who is very sweet as a person.
Even though I myself mainly listens to classical I find conversations with that girl very giving.
Excuse me if my english is bad, english is not my first language.


----------



## KaerbEmEvig

The difference between hip-hip and rap is as follows - the former is the culture, while the latter is the music. Most people confuse these two terms anyway.

As for your English, I know from experience that the Internet is the best place to learn English. Just add movies, books, music (if you do like rock music, that is - for example Muse, Green Day, Audioslave, Placebo, Billy Talent - to name a few) and preferably conversations with native speakers (I've spent a year in a private English school - Callan Method, to be precise - just to speak with native speakers of the language).

Don't worry, I've seen worse as far as second language goes. Your is rather good.


----------



## Mozartgirl92

Thank you KaerbEmEvig, now I know the difference between rap and hip hop.
Even though I don´t like rap this was interesting to know, and yes, outside of classical I do listen to some rock, but not as much as I listen to my beloved composers, maybe it´s time that I´ll do it.


----------



## KaerbEmEvig

You're welcome.


----------



## Artemis

KaerbEmEvig said:


> The difference between hip-hip and rap is as follows - the former is the culture, while the latter is the music. Most people confuse these two terms anyway.


I understood that hip-hop music is part of hip-hop culture, and that "rap" music is synonymous with hip-hop music. Is that not the case?

If my understanding is correct, then presumably no-one who has made reference to rap music and to hip-hop in the preceding threads has made any error. Or do you think they have, and if so what precisely is that error?


----------



## KaerbEmEvig

Artemis said:


> I understood that hip-hop music is part of hip-hop culture, and that "rap" music is synonymous with hip-hop music. Is that not the case?
> 
> If my understanding is correct, then presumably no-one who has made reference to rap music and to hip-hop in the preceding threads has made any error. Or do you think they have, and if so what precisely is that error?


You are correct. But since hip-hop is a much grander phenomenon than just the music associated with the culture, one usually refers to hip-hop music as rap (even though the strict definition of rap is "melorecitation").


----------



## danae

Contrary to what people may already think about me (in this specific forum), I *always* form an opinion about somebody based on his/her musical or artistic tastes. l


----------



## KaerbEmEvig

danae said:


> Contrary to what people may already think about me (in this specific forum), I *always* form an opinion about somebody based on his/her musical or artistic tastes. l


That's shallow.


----------



## danae

KaerbEmEvig said:


> That's shallow.


In what way?


----------



## handlebar

danae said:


> In what way?


I agree. Give us a detailed psychological explanation as to how this thinking is shallow. I'm most intrigued as well.

Jim


----------



## KaerbEmEvig

handlebar said:


> I agree. Give us a detailed psychological explanation as to how this thinking is shallow. I'm most intrigued as well.
> 
> Jim


Psychology is, excuse my words, huge pile of dung. I despise Freud and other charlatans (psychology is unscientific and yet it claims the contrary to be true) who deem their pseudoscience important or relevant. This comment is directed towards the "classic" psychology, not so much towards the modern psychology which tries its best to meet the standards of scientific method.

As for why I think the way I do. First of all, as has been already mentioned, there is much more to a person than their taste in music or other arts.

Secondly, one must take into consideration person's background to understand why he or she listens to said genre of music.

Lastly, just because someone listens to classical music, goes to the theater/opera or exhibitions of certain painters does not render him an intelligent/interesting person - far from it - many people do all of this to promote their image among their peers (celebrities, politicians, businessmen - you name it).

Judging people based on what they listen to is shallow because it doesn't even take into consideration why said person listens to music at all. There are many uses for music - extrovert people use music to dance (imagine dancing to classical music; house music suits this purpose way better).

Taste is very relative, it changes from person to person. I for one cannot stand most modern "painters", but I don't view people who appreciate them as worse because beside that one fact - I don't know anything about them.


----------



## handlebar

KaerbEmEvig said:


> Psychology is, excuse my words, huge pile of dung. I despise Freud and other charlatans (psychology is unscientific and yet it claims the contrary to be true) who deem their pseudoscience important or relevant. This comment is directed towards the "classic" psychology, not so much towards the modern psychology which tries its best to meet the standards of scientific method.
> 
> As for why I think the way I do. First of all, as has been already mentioned, there is much more to a person than their taste in music or other arts.
> 
> Secondly, one must take into consideration person's background to understand why he or she listens to said genre of music.
> 
> Lastly, just because someone listens to classical music, goes to the theater/opera or exhibitions of certain painters does not render him an intelligent/interesting person - far from it - many people do all of this to promote their image among their peers (celebrities, politicians, businessmen - you name it).
> 
> Judging people based on what they listen to is shallow because it doesn't even take into consideration why said person listens to music at all. There are many uses for music - extrovert people use music to dance (imagine dancing to classical music; house music suits this purpose way better).
> 
> Taste is very relative, it changes from person to person. I for one cannot stand most modern "painters", but I don't view people who appreciate them as worse because beside that one fact - I don't know anything about them.


Fair enough.


----------



## Artemis

I think that KaerbEmEvig has explained his thinking very clearly, and I agree with him (except the negative comments on psychologists). His comments are consistent with the majority opinion on this thread that to judge another person's entire character solely on their musical tastes, regardless of all other personality traits, is very peculiar. If anyone feels that way inclined, the onus should be on them to justify their beliefs beyond making mere assertions.


----------



## Argus

KaerbEmEvig said:


> There are many uses for music - extrovert people use music to dance (imagine dancing to classical music; house music suits this purpose way better).


Depending on your definition of classical, I'd say the best music for dancing is either folk or classical. Waltzes, polkas, mazurkas, contredanses, polonaises, tangoes, galopes, fandangos, landler, bourrees,quadrilles etc.(If you're wondering how I know all these dances it's that a lot of pre-19th century guitar pieces are based on dance forms.) Thats not even mentioning the ballet, which is most definitely classical.

Why is house music or techno seen as the only dance music. It's very square on the beat and repetitive. I'd prefer some swing or something with some syncopation like Latin and Afro-Carribean music.


----------



## Argus

Artemis said:


> I think that KaerbEmEvig has explained his thinking very clearly, and I agree with him (except the negative comments on psychologists). His comments are consistent with the majority opinion on this thread that to judge another person's entire character solely on their musical tastes, regardless of all other personality traits, is very peculiar. If anyone feels that way inclined, the onus should be on them to justify their beliefs beyond making mere assertions.


I believe people who hate Black Sabbath have no soul.


----------



## Artemis

Argus said:


> I believe people who hate Black Sabbath have no soul.


I like Black Sabbath, Led Zeppelin, and Deep Purple.


----------



## handlebar

Argus said:


> I believe people who hate Black Sabbath have no soul.




Now THAT was funny.


----------



## Argus

Artemis said:


> I like Black Sabbath, Led Zeppelin, and Deep Purple.


Good. It's official. You have good taste in music. The LZ and DP love just add to your credentials.

Now I need everyone here to answer the question, so I know who has good taste. However I will add, Ozzy era trumps the Dio years but either will suffice.






Bon Appetit

Adieu


----------



## handlebar

Ok. I will add whom I have liked since the metal days:

Scorpions
Led Zep
UFO
Metallica(the early albums,before the pop tunes started)
Dokken(Ok it was big hair poppish sort of metal but they knew how to rock and Lynch can still play with the best of them)
Journey-Not hard rock but I liked them quite a bit.
Iron Maiden could be good sometimes.

Just a few from my teen days.

Jim


----------



## LatinClassics

I take all musical opinions with a grain of salt. That is not to say that I don't appreciate a recommendation, but I'm the only one who really knows what I enjoy when I hear it.


----------



## Elgarian

handlebar said:


> Now THAT was funny.


_
[Pssst. Do you think Elvis counts, Jim? I don't want to mention it if it would put my soul at risk, y'see.]_


----------



## Argus

handlebar said:


> Ok. I will add whom I have liked since the metal days:
> 
> Scorpions -5
> Led Zep +50
> UFO +5 (for Schenker's playing)
> Metallica(the early albums,before the pop tunes started) +10 (for pre-Black albums work)
> Dokken(Ok it was big hair poppish sort of metal but they knew how to rock and Lynch can still play with the best of them) Neutral
> Journey-Not hard rock but I liked them quite a bit.-10 (one or two good songs)
> Iron Maiden could be good sometimes. +10 (could have been more if you said good all the time or that Bruce Dickinson is all things to all men)
> 
> Just a few from my teen days.
> 
> Jim


You score a total of +60. Your taste is officially above average. However, your Black Sabbath deficiency indicates you are a possible fiend who listens to Kenny G. Please clarify your opinion of the Sabbath.



> [Pssst. Do you think Elvis counts, Jim? I don't want to mention it if it would put my soul at risk, y'see.]


Please clarify whether you hate or love Elvis so you can be judged accordingly. Your opinion on Black Sabbath would be more useful and negate any and all other musical opinions.


----------



## Elgarian

Argus said:


> Please clarify whether you hate or love Elvis so you can be judged accordingly. Your opinion on Black Sabbath would be more useful and negate any and all other musical opinions.


I can say nothing until I've consulted with my advisor, Jim. I mean, heck, it's my soul at stake, here.


----------



## handlebar

Argus said:


> You score a total of +60. Your taste is officially above average. However, your Black Sabbath deficiency indicates you are a possible fiend who listens to Kenny G. Please clarify your opinion of the Sabbath.
> 
> Please clarify whether you hate or love Elvis so you can be judged accordingly. Your opinion on Black Sabbath would be more useful and negate any and all other musical opinions.


Cannot stand Kenny G as well as Black Sabbath. Don't like Elvis either although that might be due to overdoses of said music as a child and force feeding of the 50's and 60's classics.
Sorry, but Black Sabbath stinks. My rating just went down but there it is. 

And as far as Bruce Dickinson goes, he could be ok at times. I'm more into the music and guitar and NOT into his voice(if one wants to call it that). Very few metal "singers" are doing just that but rather singspiel. At least Steve Perry of Journey had a voice that actually sang but then again they were not metal.

So now that my soul is destined to fry for eternity, I can decide which Mahler music I want to take with me. Perhaps the M2 or M3?

Jim


----------



## Argus

handlebar said:


> Cannot stand Kenny G as well as Black Sabbath. Don't like Elvis either although that might be due to overdoses of said music as a child and force feeding of the 50's and 60's classics.
> Sorry, but Black Sabbath stinks. My rating just went down but there it is.
> 
> And as far as Bruce Dickinson goes, he could be ok at times. I'm more into the music and guitar and NOT into his voice(if one wants to call it that). Very few metal "singers" are doing just that but rather singspiel. At least Steve Perry of Journey had a voice that actually sang but then again they were not metal.
> 
> So now that my soul is destined to fry for eternity, I can decide which Mahler music I want to take with me. Perhaps the M2 or M3?
> 
> Jim


I don't particularly like Dickinson's voice or any singers voice for that matter, but he is a top class fencer, can fly a plane and had a mighty fringe which is more than enough to compensate for his voice.

How can you like Led Zep and not Black Sabbath. Blasphemy. You must acquire these immediately:


















You don't like Kenny G so there _is_ hope for you yet. You're young. You've got plenty of time to avoid eternal damnation. You can even repent and listen to _Paranoid_ on your death bed.

Stop me if I'm going off topic.

Oh and about your Mahler tattoo ideas. You should get Mahler garrotting Ozzy Osbourne with catguts. On your forehead. Then everyone will know everything about your musical tastes/heretic tendencies.


----------



## Argus

> I take all musical opinions with a grain of salt. That is not to say that I don't appreciate a *recommendation*, but I'm the only one who really knows what I enjoy when I hear it.


I recommend Black Sabbath.



> I can say nothing until I've consulted with my advisor, Jim. I mean, heck, it's my soul at stake, here.


Jim has revealed himself so be the Anti-Christ, Lucifer, Beelzebub, The Lord of the Flies, Satan all rolled into one. Your soul is pretty much doomed. That sounds like the lyrics to a Sabbath song actually.

Here is a litmus test for you:






Just listen to that first lyric: 'Generals gathered in their *masses*, just like witches at black *masses*'. That is genius. Rhyming masses with masses.

Don't feel too pressurised to like the Sabbath. There are plenty of people out there living normal lives who don't even know who Black Sabbath are. It's just a shame they are disobeying the way of nature and are destined to an unpleasant oblivion.

P.S. How did I get from classical dance forms to a metaphysical/religious discussion on the merits of heavy metal.


----------



## handlebar

Now IF I'm really the anti-Christ,Satan and Lucifer, then I would LOVE Black Sabbath,no??
Sounds like a rout to me it does. 

And... if I'm Beelzebub, then I have control over Sabbath and their legions.

Hence, ALL of the Black Sabbath followers will now listen to......

Lawrence Welk!!!!!

;-)


----------



## Argus

handlebar said:


> Now IF I'm really the anti-Christ,Satan and Lucifer, then I would LOVE Black Sabbath,no??
> Sounds like a rout to me it does.
> 
> And... if I'm Beelzebub, then I have control over Sabbath and their legions.
> 
> Hence, ALL of the Black Sabbath followers will now listen to......
> 
> Lawrence Welk!!!!!
> 
> ;-)


You're in league with Lawrence Welk.

Ah-ha.But if you were the devil then you wouldn't reveal yourself. You would be like the snake in Genesis except rather than tempting us to eat forbidden apples you would tempt us to consume cheesy 1950's crooners.

On second thought you can't be fully evil as you dislike Kenny G. It is well documented in the Dead Sea Scrolls that hell contains only the music of curly haired soprano saxophonists. You're off the hook.

You've conjured up a good image of all Sabbath fans sitting with their mothers watching Lawrence Welk and Val Doonican. More tea?


----------



## handlebar

Only if the tea is Lapsang Souchong, with it's smokey taste as it befits those in fiery places.

Could be worse scenarios though. Imagine the children of today mesmerized by video games!!!!

Ouch. Not much better than Mr Welk.


----------



## Artemis

handlebar said:


> ... *Don't like Elvis* either although that might be due to overdoses of said music as a child and force feeding of the 50's and 60's classics.
> Sorry, but Black Sabbath stinks. My rating just went down but


Don't be Cruel. You must have a Wooden Heart.

Actually it's been ages since I last heard any Elvis so I thought I'd give him a spin this evening. I really like some of his songs. My 3 favourites would be:


Always on my mind
Love me tender
Can't help falling in love
makes a change from Beethoven et al.


----------



## kmisho

I don't care what you like, as long as you don't listen only to top 40 but at the same time answer the question "what kind of music do you like" with "all kinds." But I don't think I have to worry about that at this spectacular forum!


----------



## kmisho

And just because I'm feeling cantankerous. For those who think Mozart is culture, I hope you realize his music was the 1780's equivalent of "Yummy Yummy Yummy".


----------



## Aramis

kmisho said:


> And just because I'm feeling cantankerous. For those who think Mozart is culture, I hope you realize his music was the 1780's equivalent of "Yummy Yummy Yummy".


No.

No.

No.


----------



## kmisho

Mozart was mostly classical pop. That doesn't make it bad. I'm just saying that liking Mozart doesn't make one refined any more than liking Beyonce does now.


----------



## Aramis

kmisho said:


> Mozart was mostly classical pop. That doesn't make it bad. I'm just saying that liking Mozart doesn't make one refined any more than liking Beyonce does now.


You lack historical knowledge?  XVIIIth century society model precludes the existence of such thing as "classical pop".

This subject was widely discussed in this forum, so if you're insterested you should check out other threads related to this matter.


----------



## Elgarian

Artemis said:


> Don't be Cruel. You must have a Wooden Heart.
> 
> Actually it's been ages since I last heard any Elvis so I thought I'd give him a spin this evening. I really like some of his songs. My 3 favourites would be:
> 
> 
> Always on my mind
> Love me tender
> Can't help falling in love
> makes a change from Beethoven et al.


Try this moment from the 68 TV special: one of the greatest performances in the history of popular music. Key moments are the explosion at about 50 seconds, and the subsequent eruption at 1.30, when the Hillbilly Cat of the 50s came close to being reborn, and Rock and Roll teetered on the brink.

Elvis: Tryin' to get to you, 1968

It doesn't much resemble the ballads you like though....


----------



## Elgarian

kmisho said:


> Mozart was mostly classical pop.


I think not. Far too many notes.


----------



## Artemis

Elgarian said:


> Try this moment from the 68 TV special: one of the greatest performances in the history of popular music. Key moments are the explosion at about 50 seconds, and the subsequent eruption at 1.30, when the Hillbilly Cat of the 50s came close to being reborn, and Rock and Roll teetered on the brink.
> 
> Elvis: Tryin' to get to you, 1968
> 
> It doesn't much resemble the ballads you like though....


The King, and dishy with it.


----------



## Artemis

kmisho said:


> Mozart was mostly classical pop. That doesn't make it bad. I'm just saying that liking Mozart doesn't make one refined any more than liking Beyonce does now.


If I understand you correctly, you appear to be saying that Mozart wrote music targeted at youth elements in society (and the less well-off etc) rather than music designed to meet the expectations of those in much higher social strata which was the normal arrangement for that time period.

Is that what you are saying? If so, many of us here would be very interested to learn as much possible from you on this matter, only it would seem that we may be ill-informed on this matter.

It would be especially interesting to learn more about your sources of this information. It would also be interesting to learn about any other contemporary composers who wrote in similar fashion to Mozart as regards the target audience. Perhaps you could clarify which composers of that era wrote exclusively for those in higher social strata (the nobility, the wealthy etc).


----------



## kmisho

Well I did say "only because I'm feeling cantankerous." It's not that important. That the question in the original post was even asked is indicative. I'm guessing he's met some of the same kind of people I have who are full of themselves in their taste for Bach and Mozart.


----------



## Elgarian

kmisho said:


> I'm guessing he's met some of the same kind of people I have who are full of themselves in their taste for Bach and Mozart.


In my experience, this particular way of being objectionable is by no means confined to people who have a taste for Bach and Mozart. In fact almost _anything_ that Person A likes can be used to express his supposed superiority over Person B (who prefers something else). It doesn't seem to have much to do with what the preference is _about_ (musical taste, cars, wine, football ...) - it just depends on the need for Person A to inflate his ego at the expense of others.


----------



## Artemis

kmisho said:


> Well I did say "only because I'm feeling cantankerous." It's not that important. That the question in the original post was even asked is indicative. I'm guessing he's met some of the same kind of people I have who are full of themselves in their taste for Bach and Mozart.


Fine but none of this supports your contention that "_Mozart was mostly classical pop." _I'm trying to find out exactly what you mean and why you consider this to be the case.


----------



## kmisho

Pop is typically conservative, consciously fabricated for mass appeal, and intended to make a buck...safe, to put it simply. I don't mean pop in the populist sense but rather aimed at the popular consumer. In our time (at least in the US) this is baby boomers and teens spending their parents' money, hence Michael Buble and Lil Wayne. In Mozart's time this was royalty, rich land owners and other aristocrats. I don't think there's much room for debate that much of Mozart's music was pragmatically inspired in this sense.

In another historical sense, when I say Mozart was pop I'm speaking a near tautology. Prior to the Romantic/Modern eras the role of individualism in art was minimal. Just about all art prior to the rise of a sense of the value of personal expression can be described as pop. Before this, the artist's job was to please the right people.

True that by the time Mozart got to his 40th symphony he had become capable of generous portions of _sturm und drang_. He had begun to grow up. One can only wonder what early romanticism would have been like had he lived longer and had a chance to go head-to-head with Beethoven.


----------



## handlebar

I don't think I would ever have classified Pop as conservative. It is THE most liberal media form of entertainment in my opinion. But then again I'm one man.(Two on some days LOL )

JIm


----------



## Artemis

Thanks for the clarification.

 This is all getting rather watered down from your original claim which seemed to suggest that Mozart's music, in its own day, was no better technically than the music of, say, Beyonce is in comparison with the best classical music today being produced today. 

In other words, it looked as if your disliking of people who are snobbish about their taste for the music of composers such as Mozart had gone a stage further in rubbishing the music of Mozart himself.

I don't really understand fully what you are now saying but I will leave it there. Others may want to pick it up further.


----------



## jhar26

I don't see why pop always has to end up with the short end of the stick in these discussions. I don't agree with the age old cliché that pop artists are only in it for the love of money. Millions of people the world over actually love pop music, so it's only logical to assume that some of those who create it must love it too. As to how seriously we should take pop as a genre? Until Captain Beefheart or PJ Harvey can come up with a POP record that's as great as the Beach Boys' "Good Vibrations", the Ronettes' "Walking in the Rain", the Righteous Brothers' "You've Lost That Loving Feeling" or Abba's "S.O.S." a seriously as any other genre in my opinion.


----------



## Elgarian

kmisho said:


> Pop is typically conservative, consciously fabricated for mass appeal, and intended to make a buck...safe, to put it simply. I don't mean pop in the populist sense but rather aimed at the popular consumer. In our time (at least in the US) this is baby boomers and teens spending their parents' money, hence Michael Buble and Lil Wayne. In Mozart's time this was royalty, rich land owners and other aristocrats. I don't think there's much room for debate that much of Mozart's music was pragmatically inspired in this sense.


Your argument seems to be saying not much more than that artists need to earn a living like anyone else, and try to find all sorts of ways of selling their work. But to be commissioned to write a given work, or to write one in the hope that it will fill a particular need, doesn't in any way preclude the possibility of writing genuinely inspired, expressive, or innovative music. Indeed, one of the key experiences of listening to Mozart, many would say, is that in his music one meets a distinct personality, not a purveyor of musical pap, and that in his greatest music one invariably finds a good deal more than expected, and in generous abundance.

I think you're putting enormous (and literally incredible) strain on the meaning of the word 'pop', and I can't see the value in doing so. It's a useful word - but if it were stretched to include Mozart, it would be rendered almost useless.



> Just about all art prior to the rise of a sense of the value of personal expression can be described as pop. Before this, the artist's job was to please the right people.


You seem to be implying here that the Romantic era forms a kind of watershed, with genuinely expressive art after it, and mere 'pop' (in your terms) before it. That's a very strange interpretation of art history, and indeed of the nature of art, and I can't see you carrying many opinions with you, there....


----------



## Argus

handlebar said:


> I don't think I would ever have classified Pop as conservative. It is THE most liberal media form of entertainment in my opinion. But then again I'm one man.(Two on some days LOL )
> 
> JIm


I can see where you are coming from, but just look at the pop charts or the music business at the moment. You aren't going to get a lot of leftfield or fresh acts in the charts. Suits at record companies aren't interested in taking massive chances. They'll hear what's in the charts and try and find something similar that they know has a good chance of turning a profit.

Now pop music from 30-40 years ago is a different story. Record execs were less clued up with what was happening than nowadays and would be willing to throw their money at a bunch of longhairs or somebody a bit _out there_.

This interview with Frank Zappa explains it better than me:






That interview is about 20 years old but is pretty relevant.

Now look at jazz or rock music. Unless you're definition of 'pop' includes these genres, you must agree that they are more liberal than than 'popular music'. Not to say there isn't good pop music around today but there is an alwful lot of rubbish.

Pure Blues is probably the most conservative genre of music but it's influence can be heard in pop, rock, jazz and all sorts of later styles.

Pop music is a slave to the masses. It molds itself around what the most people want. And by nature the majority of people are conservative, the music reflects this.



> I don't see why pop always has to end up with the short end of the stick in these discussions. I don't agree with the age old cliché that pop artists are only in it for the love of money. Millions of people the world over actually love pop music, so it's only logical to assume that some of those who create it must love it too. As to how seriously we should take pop as a genre? Until Captain Beefheart or PJ Harvey can come up with a POP record that's as great as the Beach Boys' "Good Vibrations", the Ronettes' "Walking in the Rain", the Righteous Brothers' "You've Lost That Loving Feeling" or Abba's "S.O.S." a seriously as any other genre in my opinion.


I think 'pop' gets the short end of the stick because it is contrary to the traditional beliefs/mindset among musicians. All classical, jazz or whatever serious musicians can really play their instrument to a high level and have put a lot of work and effort into their music even though they know they would get a lot more money by playing something they don't really love('selling out'). Thus genres that are less popular and therefore have less money available to the artists are seen as more 'nobler' pursuits. When what is currently described under the umbrella term of 'pop' becomes far less popular then there will be less crap and mediocre music in that genre and it will be elevated to a higher plain of respect.

Jazz is the perfect example. Look back 70-80 years ago. Jazz was seen as a fad and music only for dancing. Now it rivals classical as being the most highly respected musical art.

Also' whilst you are probably correct not all pop artists are in it for the money, I would say most of their goals would be to top the charts or go platinum and such things rather than create timeless art.


----------



## jhar26

Argus said:


> I think 'pop' gets the short end of the stick because it is contrary to the traditional beliefs/mindset among musicians. All classical, jazz or whatever serious musicians can really play their instrument to a high level and have put a lot of work and effort into their music even though they know they would get a lot more money by playing something they don't really love('selling out'). Thus genres that are less popular and therefore have less money available to the artists are seen as more 'nobler' pursuits. When what is currently described under the umbrella term of 'pop' becomes far less popular then there will be less crap and mediocre music in that genre and it will be elevated to a higher plain of respect.
> 
> Jazz is the perfect example. Look back 70-80 years ago. Jazz was seen as a fad and music only for dancing. Now it rivals classical as being the most highly respected musical art.
> 
> Also' whilst you are probably correct not all pop artists are in it for the money, I would say most of their goals would be to top the charts or go platinum and such things rather than create timeless art.


I'm not arguing that there isn't a lot of rubbish in pop. Of course there is. But to me 'pop' isn't a dirty word either. People like Burt Bacharach, Phil Spector or Brian Wilson have as much talent as anyone in rock, and it's not their fault that we also had/have the Spice Girls or Britney Spears. Just like it ain't Led Zeppelin's fault that we also have Kiss or Twisted Sister.


----------



## Argus

jhar26 said:


> I'm not arguing that there isn't a lot of rubbish in pop. Of course there is. But to me 'pop' isn't a dirty word either. People like Burt Bacharach, Phil Spector or Brian Wilson have as much talent as anyone in rock, and it's not their fault that we also had/have the Spice Girls or Britney Spears. Just like it ain't Led Zeppelin's fault that we also have Kiss or Twisted Sister.


I agree.

I notice all your examples of good pop music come from the 60/early 70's. Is that because believe pop has had it's day and is getting worse or were these just the first examples you thought of?

Another point I forgot to make earlier about conservatism in pop. Look at the 80's compared to the 70's, specifically synthesizers. In the 70's only really progressives acts were using synths then in the 80's with bands like OMD, Simple Minds, New Order and Depeche Mode synths became the cool thing. How many non-synth pop bands were around in the 80's? Then into the 90's, synths are seen as old fashioned and everything returned to being guitar driven with Nirvana and Oasis being the most eminent examples. This more than anything for me shows how conservative the pop industry is. It cares little about the actual music and more about what is in fashion and what everybody else is doing.


----------



## kmisho

handlebar said:


> I don't think I would ever have classified Pop as conservative. It is THE most liberal media form of entertainment in my opinion. But then again I'm one man.(Two on some days LOL )
> 
> JIm


It's conservative in the sense that almost nothing gets popular fast unless it's pre-chewed and already befits accepted formulae.


----------



## kmisho

Artemis said:


> Thanks for the clarification.
> 
> This is all getting rather watered down from your original claim which seemed to suggest that Mozart's music, in its own day, was no better technically than the music of, say, Beyonce is in comparison with the best classical music today being produced today.
> 
> In other words, it looked as if your disliking of people who are snobbish about their taste for the music of composers such as Mozart had gone a stage further in rubbishing the music of Mozart himself.
> 
> I don't really understand fully what you are now saying but I will leave it there. Others may want to pick it up further.


I said nothing about the quality of the music. What I'm saying is that the normal style of music of that time has been elevated to something that some people think they can be snotty about, which I find ridiculous because it was just a normal style in it's time. Very fine examples of the style, but still just a normal style in it's time.

I already admitted the rest of what I said was meant to push the buttons of those very people.

I do think Mozart is somewhat overrated, and has indeed become so because he has become the province of snobs. There is less recognition of what real greatness there is in Mozart than there is a contemporary club of people who congratulate themselves for Groking Mozart.


----------



## kmisho

jhar26 said:


> I don't see why pop always has to end up with the short end of the stick in these discussions. I don't agree with the age old cliché that pop artists are only in it for the love of money. Millions of people the world over actually love pop music, so it's only logical to assume that some of those who create it must love it too. As to how seriously we should take pop as a genre? Until Captain Beefheart or PJ Harvey can come up with a POP record that's as great as the Beach Boys' "Good Vibrations", the Ronettes' "Walking in the Rain", the Righteous Brothers' "You've Lost That Loving Feeling" or Abba's "S.O.S." a seriously as any other genre in my opinion.


Actually you're starting to pick up on some of what I was actually getting at! The nasty reaction to my words were, I think, due in no small part to people thinking I was saying that Mozart was _just as bad_ as Yummy Yummy Yummy. The assumption of what was good and what was bad, notice, was not mine. Yesterday I listened to a large portion of the Rite of Spring thinking, hey, any reason is a good reason and...Sir Thomas Dolby's famed liebeslieder entitled She Blinded me with Science.

To say millions love pop music is another tautology. They don't all do it just for the money...but most do.

I fancy myself a cultural critic and this is the kind of thing I spend a lot of time thinking about....but I don't think I should dredge all this up in this thread.


----------



## kmisho

Elgarian said:


> Your argument seems to be saying not much more than that artists need to earn a living like anyone else, and try to find all sorts of ways of selling their work. But to be commissioned to write a given work, or to write one in the hope that it will fill a particular need, doesn't in any way preclude the possibility of writing genuinely inspired, expressive, or innovative music. Indeed, one of the key experiences of listening to Mozart, many would say, is that in his music one meets a distinct personality, not a purveyor of musical pap, and that in his greatest music one invariably finds a good deal more than expected, and in generous abundance.


I'm not picking on the basic idea of making a living. It is a historical fact, however, that pandering to the establishment was a large part of the job description of any artist.



> I think you're putting enormous (and literally incredible) strain on the meaning of the word 'pop', and I can't see the value in doing so. It's a useful word - but if it were stretched to include Mozart, it would be rendered almost useless.


I don't think the parallel I'm implying is far-fetched.



> You seem to be implying here that the Romantic era forms a kind of watershed, with genuinely expressive art after it, and mere 'pop' (in your terms) before it. That's a very strange interpretation of art history, and indeed of the nature of art, and I can't see you carrying many opinions with you, there....


To a large degree this is true. I love Handel's Water Music or instance, but it was written to be background music for the King's ridiculous boat party. If Handel had thrown in a few Stravinskian volcano blasts to suit his own artistic needs the King might've said, "Somebody please detatch that man's head. I'm trying to chomp some pheasant over here."


----------



## Artemis

kmisho said:


> I said nothing about the quality of the music. What I'm saying is that the normal style of music of that time has been elevated to something that some people think they can be snotty about, which I find ridiculous because it was just a normal style in it's time. Very fine examples of the style, but still just a normal style in it's time.
> 
> I already admitted the rest of what I said was meant to push the buttons of those very people.
> 
> I do think Mozart is somewhat overrated, and has indeed become so because he has become the province of snobs. There is less recognition of what real greatness there is in Mozart than there is a contemporary club of people who congratulate themselves for Groking Mozart.


From the above I gather your main point is that it is snobbish for people to like Mozart and Bach in the belief that it is intrinsically elevated music when in fact it was simply par for the course for its day (albeit in Mozart's case of higher than average quality).

I believe your argument is fallacious for several reasons.

It is not clear why have limited it to Mozart and Bach when it could be applied to fans of classical music from any period in history, not just to Mozart or Bach. Thus, on your argument the totality of classical music fans are all potentially snobs.

You haven't explained why you think many people like the music of Mozart and Bach for reasons essentially connected with their belief that it is something special, rather than primarily because of the intrinsic appeal of this music irrespective of its antiquity.

You overlook the fact that music before the mid 20th Century was nothing like the all-pervading phenomenon it has been these last 60 odd years. In bygone days music was much more of an art form that primarily only the rich and influential could afford to indulge in. Insofar that it was largely written for, and appreciated by, a more educated elite than is typical today, it is likely that standards of music writing were higher, e.g. involving training in music theory and practice. Therefore, it does make sense for a modern generation of classical music fans to like music from the 18th C (or others) simply because it is good in their judgement, and of higher intrinsic quality than a lot of more recent music, and not because of any snobbish aspects.


----------



## jhar26

Argus said:


> I agree.
> 
> I notice all your examples of good pop music come from the 60/early 70's. Is that because believe pop has had it's day and is getting worse or were these just the first examples you thought of?


Both I guess, although it's always dangerous to say that something had it's day. You never know what might happen next.


> Another point I forgot to make earlier about conservatism in pop. Look at the 80's compared to the 70's, specifically synthesizers. In the 70's only really progressives acts were using synths then in the 80's with bands like OMD, Simple Minds, New Order and Depeche Mode synths became the cool thing. How many non-synth pop bands were around in the 80's? Then into the 90's, synths are seen as old fashioned and everything returned to being guitar driven with Nirvana and Oasis being the most eminent examples. This more than anything for me shows how conservative the pop industry is. It cares little about the actual music and more about what is in fashion and what everybody else is doing.


Well, leaving aside the inevitable exceptions here and there I was not a big fan of 80's synth pop. Too mechanical, soulless and essentially just push button music. Grunge and the Britpop of the likes of Oasis was an inevitable reaction to all that. I guess that the big difference of the guitar acts of the past and the later ones is that the earlier ones - Jimi Hendrix, Rory Gallagher, Eric Clapton, Jeff Beck, Peter Green, Jimmy Page, Duane Allman and so on all started out playing or being inspired by the blues, did a lot of improvising and jamming with other musicians and became very good as a result. Todays guitarists on the other hand - at least the ones that are active in the bands that are considered cool by the youngsters now, no longer have that blues background. They are post-punk, and punk was not interested in developing ones skills as a musician.


----------



## jhar26

kmisho said:


> To say millions love pop music is another tautology. They don't all do it just for the money...but most do.


It's part of it. I guess it's possible to make a hit record on automatic pilot if you have a cutie in the video, but if you want to be really good at it there's got to be some love for the music involved as well. Brian Wilson could not have created "Pet Sounds" if he didn't truly love pop music, no matter how big the financial rewards potentially were.


----------



## munirao2001

-	Body Centric – the beats/fast beats, with pulsating effects, creating interest, 
Arrests/rivets the listener’s attention, excites and is invigorating. The process
activates, the body and the mind. 
-	Ear Centric – when the pleasure is perceived and derived, essentially with 
the support of the lyric and with simple tune/melody, but gives the satisfaction only during the listening process/times, gives the comfort and all pervading pleasantness, pleasing to the ears-frees from the blemishes of the loudness/high decibel and striking sound(s).

-	Mind Centric – music, with the judicious combination and usage of melody 
and the lyrics, creating high emotions, sway the heart, music becoming heartfelt. Such high degree of emotional feelings/experiences, bring in great warmth, tenderness and great happiness, with recall capabilities.

-	Intellect Centric (the ultimate) – music, with the greatest power of pure and noble sound, transports the listener and makes him/her to forget the self- thought less and silent for a /few moments, one with divinity. The blissful experience, realized, cleanses the intellect, invigorates. With unalloyed joy/feelings, peace of mind and re-energizes. The rendering of true, powerful and pure note(s) or melody with powerful and pure note(s), which transports the listener to inner self, from outer self-soulful(forgetting for moments, the self ‘I’), giving blissful listening experience, with or without the help of lyric- are considered to have met the Intellect centric’s goal.

munirao2001


----------



## Lukecash12

> - Intellect Centric (the ultimate) - music, with the greatest power of pure and noble sound, transports the listener and makes him/her to forget the self- thought less and silent for a /few moments, one with divinity. The blissful experience, realized, cleanses the intellect, invigorates. With unalloyed joy/feelings, peace of mind and re-energizes. The rendering of true, powerful and pure note(s) or melody with powerful and pure note(s), which transports the listener to inner self, from outer self-soulful(forgetting for moments, the self 'I'), giving blissful listening experience, with or without the help of lyric- are considered to have met the Intellect centric's goal.


That's definitely my goal, if not all of ours.


----------



## starry

I don't think the 80s was as soulless as some are suggesting. The later 80s perhaps had less good music once the style had played itself out but I don't think the use of synths has to necessarily mean weaker music. The minimalist style using synths I don't have much time for but that wasn't really the main style or at least what most people listened to. Synths were used to produce very melodic ideas often within a suggestion of a dance rhythm. Much of the music of the 80s was very danceable, perhaps not so many ballads.

Popular music itself has obviously been developing over quite a while now, starting well before rock n roll ever happened. Of course styles change in reaction to previous fashions and become dominant. The same really has happened with classical music over time as well. Similarly people often write music to obtain acclaim and to indeed make money. Nothing wrong with that in itself. Indeed music completely isolated from the musical and public environment around it might risk being too isolated from reality.

'Pop music' is used as a pejorative term now but it is a largely meaningless term anyway. There is no one style of 'pop music'. 'Pop music' actually just tends to mean the most popular music in any particular style where the audience claim a singer/group has sold out because they have become more popular. 'Rock music' can actually have a more generic style and be full of more purists who insist music must sound in a certain way. The very dismissal of synths is reflective of this perhaps. Eclecticism is where creativity lies and that means embracing of new instruments and new sounds. Melody and the craft of songwriting is not dead and perhaps can be found in some places such as Thailand still.


----------



## Argus

starry said:


> 'Pop music' is used as a pejorative term now but it is a largely meaningless term anyway. There is no one style of 'pop music'. 'Pop music' actually just tends to mean the most popular music in any particular style where the audience claim a singer/group has sold out because they have become more popular. 'Rock music' can actually have a more generic style and be full of more purists who insist music must sound in a certain way. The very dismissal of synths is reflective of this perhaps. Eclecticism is where creativity lies and that means embracing of new instruments and new sounds. Melody and the craft of songwriting is not dead and perhaps can be found in some places such as Thailand still.


Thailand? Could you elaborate?


----------



## starry

Argus said:


> Thailand? Could you elaborate?




Well that's just my opinion I suppose, though some others may share it. It's a little hard for me to compare it to modern western pop music as I haven't really listened to that much of it from this decade. But from the little bit I have heard I haven't found that much of a freshness of melody and particularly not really melodic choruses. 'Pop music' or rock or any type of music needs to balance a kind of directness of aim but alongside enough elaboration to give more invention and unpredictability. Also I wonder how people judge whether music has enough variety for them and maybe it needs close acqaintance with a type of music to properly judge this.

Western popular music has had a huge global influence over the years. Generally I think its been a very good influence but with more modern popular music maybe it might not have been so good. Also perhaps there might be periods where some areas might experience more of an explosion of music within a particular general style. But after that it might then receed and because less important or central. The many styles of western popular music have certainly had a large influence not just through Europe but also through several regions in the far east. Japan in particular and South Korea to an extent tend to get the most attention from those who can be bothered to look outside of English language music and to this region. Perhaps where music still holds to older melodic and well crafted western values (such as from the 60s, 70s, 80s) and not to just beautiful productions or vocals alone, maybe that is where I still value 'pop' music more and that's why I mentioned Thailand.


----------



## Argus

So are you saying there is a wealth of good homegrown musicians in far east countries or that good Western musicians who can't find an audience in their own land have a greater chance over there? Like the old adage 'Big in Japan' applied to foreign artists that couldn't 'make it' in Europe or America as they weren't trendy enough but could gain a large fanbase over in Japan. A good example would be jazz losing popularity in America in the 50's and a lot of the musicians migrating to Europe where it was appreciated more and now that European taste for jazz is waning, Japan has become the 'new Europe', so to speak.

However,if I remember correctly, J-pop is pretty awful. Yet traditional Japanese and Chinese music is quite a refreshing change. You got to love that Hirajoshi scale on a shamisen or some badass pipa playing once in a while. Same can be said all over the world. Instruments like the zither and the bouzouki sound great yet are rarely heard outside of their native countries.

It could be the growing cosmopolitanism or multiculturalism in the world today causing a lot of the eclecticism to leave modern music. In the past each country, region, province or even tribe had it's own style of folk music that had developed individually and seperate over centuries. Now their seems to be an over-arching amorphous amalgamation of American and European styles that dominates the world's soundwaves. Not to say diversification is bad per se, but if it leads to homogenisation, then it can only regress the art as a whole. Cosmoplolitanism in music may not turn out to be a bad thing as different cultures mixed together could create interesting new sonic pathways, but I stand by my opinion that popular music is both more predictable and more conservative now than it ever was.

Anyway back to the topic at hand. Do you like Black Sabbath?


----------



## Lukecash12

Do we want to give a pat on the back to musicians that slightly hold our interest all throughout, but don't really go after anything besides a little fun or mellowdrama? Or do we agree that such a "lazy and completely formulaic" effort is meaningless and has little or no merit?


----------



## boredtodeath

Going back to the original question, I wouldn't put a person's taste in music against them; if on the other hand they're similar to mine, then we'd have something to share and talk about, that's all. One thing I don't like is when, say, a well-trained classical musician turns around and starts playing/advocating this "pop" stuff (the really light fluffy type) because of peer pressure, or religion (as in the "charismatic churches") or something along the lines of becoming more "accepted" by people around them. They should know better. If on the other hand, it happened through a process of personal discovery then that's fine. I suppose it all comes down to whether it is genuine (even if it happened in reverse!).


----------



## C_Bach

I am so excited to find so many classical lovers here.You know during the people I know I can hardly find a guy who is into classical.And their certain attitude towards classicals is that they are tedious or borng even though they have never heard any of them.Talking with and hearing from those who have the same taste with me is rather a big enjoyment.


----------



## Lukecash12

C.Bach said:


> I am so excited to find so many classical lovers here.You know during the people I know I can hardly find a guy who is into classical.And their certain attitude towards classicals is that they are tedious or borng even though they have never heard any of them.Talking with and hearing from those who have the same taste with me is rather a big enjoyment.


I heartily agree with you.


----------



## hankz

*Regarding musical taste of others...*

In general, opinion of others does not have an impact on me. I realize that the world is full of people who have their own personal taste, and I have mine.

Hank Z (from California)


----------



## starry

Argus said:


> So are you saying there is a wealth of good homegrown musicians in far east countries or that good Western musicians who can't find an audience in their own land have a greater chance over there? Like the old adage 'Big in Japan' applied to foreign artists that couldn't 'make it' in Europe or America as they weren't trendy enough but could gain a large fanbase over in Japan. A good example would be jazz losing popularity in America in the 50's and a lot of the musicians migrating to Europe where it was appreciated more and now that European taste for jazz is waning, Japan has become the 'new Europe', so to speak.
> 
> However,if I remember correctly, J-pop is pretty awful. Yet traditional Japanese and Chinese music is quite a refreshing change. You got to love that Hirajoshi scale on a shamisen or some badass pipa playing once in a while. Same can be said all over the world. Instruments like the zither and the bouzouki sound great yet are rarely heard outside of their native countries.
> 
> It could be the growing cosmopolitanism or multiculturalism in the world today causing a lot of the eclecticism to leave modern music. In the past each country, region, province or even tribe had it's own style of folk music that had developed individually and seperate over centuries. Now their seems to be an over-arching amorphous amalgamation of American and European styles that dominates the world's soundwaves. Not to say diversification is bad per se, but if it leads to homogenisation, then it can only regress the art as a whole. Cosmoplolitanism in music may not turn out to be a bad thing as different cultures mixed together could create interesting new sonic pathways, but I stand by my opinion that popular music is both more predictable and more conservative now than it ever was.
> 
> Anyway back to the topic at hand. Do you like Black Sabbath?


I don't know the exact creative environments in other countries, I am really just talking about my experience with the music. I know in Thailand every week they sell new mp3 compilations of their music in stalls on streets, so that seems to suggest the scene there is quite lively.

And I'm not talking so much about popular music which is trying to be more complex or longer form such as jazz can in some styles (though I can like those styles of course). I'm more talking about the main style of popular music, the 2-5 minute song which is written to have more of a direct immediate effect on the listener. I wonder if in this style the *innocence* which it used to have in Western music (in say the 60s to the 80s) and which had such a big and perhaps good global influence has been lost somewhat. Now something which has a melodic chorus in most places is probably considered cheap and something which just has an elaborate production and a luscious sounding vocal will be considered more complex. I wonder if that is somewhat losing the view of what made popular music so popular, well structured songs with good melody which appeal directly to the listener. I still feel there may be some of this older style in alot of Thai popular music. I prefer Thai pop to rock though, the rock is competantly done but not much musical memorability probably (a bit like modern Western rock I expect).

I don't think there has to be anything bad about globalisation as far as music styles are concerned, it should lead to more eclecticism. Art is about developement and not keeping still, it's really about whether that development goes in a good direction or not. Purists can always keep to their folk music.

Black Sabbath? Well I can listen to Paranoid. Another heavyish sounding one from that period I can listen to is probably Burn by Deep Purple.


----------



## graaf

Well, it is not about their taste per se, it is more about why do they listen those things... If someone is listening classical music for some elitist reason - I'll laugh. If someone listens to hip-hop because he is gangsta wannabe, then I'll laugh some more. But is someone likes the way Mark Knopfler plays guitar - then I might ask him/her a bit more about it. (not to say that all knopfler fans have the same "right" reason to listen to him - same for other).
And also - the older I am, the less I care what other people listen, or even do...


----------



## Jeremy Marchant

I hope I wouldn't judge anyone for the music they chose to listen to. I would probably find some one knowledgeable in classical music more interesting to talk to, but they can be as judgmental and opinionated as anyone else.

What I find less attractive is a dogmatic refusal to listen to other musical styles than their ingrained preferences. Conversely, the person who recognises they don't have as wide a knowldege as I do (though mine is very bitty and partial, it has to be said), but is receptive to new musical experiences, is a joy to be with.

I have friends who run a high end hifi dealership. I recall recently playing the Previn _Belshazzar's feast_ to them on an unbelievably expensive and excellent system (vinyl naturellement). We all had our socks blown off! Even the most knowledgeable of us can have unexpected insights shed for us by the innocent.

Sometimes when I have a female visitor to the house, she spots my own hifi. If she expresses any interest, she inevitably gets a demo. Because she is thinking I am going to play something incredibly loud, I always play Monteverdi's _Duo seraphim_ sung by Rene Jacobs and Judith Nelson. Apart from the slightly unfair recording balance towards Jacobs, the unsuspecting listener will usually think this is music from another planet - music performed by angels. The reactions of a novice are better than those who might have some idea of what they are listening to, in these cases.


----------



## starry

Jeremy Marchant said:


> What I find less attractive is a dogmatic refusal to listen to other musical styles than their ingrained preferences.


Most people seem to be like this either through lazyness, fear of the unknown or whatever reason. People have to develop a different way of listening to music which is not the kind they are used to and it does take hard work sometimes. Some have a big enough interest in music to do that and some don't.


----------



## KaerbEmEvig

starry said:


> Most people seem to be like this either through lazyness, fear of the unknown or whatever reason. People have to develop a different way of listening to music which is not the kind they are used to and it does take hard work sometimes. Some have a big enough interest in music to do that and some don't.


True. Different type of music requires different approach.


----------



## Nagamori

jhar26 said:


> Maybe, but I also feel that those who like "quality music" as a rule hate whatever is popular because they prefer to be part of an elite. They like the feeling of knowing something more than the average guy on the street. In, say, rock that usually translates itself in supporting some obscure band. Than if said band makes it big their original fans accuse them of selling out and they move on to some other obscure band that nobody knows about. In classical music it's probably even worse. Fans of the genre want classical music to be more popular - or so they say, but I'm pretty sure that if there ever were to be another composer who became as popular as Mozart or Beethoven that those same people would argue that said composer is overhyped and that there's some obscure composer from God only knows where who would be much more deserving of such fame.


Then if some band makes it big their original fans accuse them of selling out .... well, gosh, maybe they did sell out? That would put a real dent in your theory.


----------



## starry

All rock is commercial, they create recordings and sell and market them to a specific audience. That is commercial. Also I don't think alot of rock is any more complex than alot of stuff called 'pop'. That's why I don't understand the snobbishness of some people in this area. 

As far as people wanting to just know obscure stuff because it is obscure, well maybe that is the collector's mindset. I like to think I'm not a collector in that way. I like music or other things like film but not for their rarity but just because I like something. The internet certainly makes available all kinds of stuff that would have been hard to find before. In this information overload it is possible to get rarities of course and it's interesting to look at them. But if I don't like something what's the point keeping it just because it's little known? I like well known stuff as well and I'm happy to say I do. There's a limit anyway to how many things in a particular area can be really well known I suppose and some obscure things can be very worthwhile.


----------



## HarpsichordConcerto

Argus said:


> Does musical preference of other people make you hold someone in higher or lower esteem based on their taste matching yours or being 'superior'?
> 
> For example, would you think less of someone if all they listened to was hip hop and 'modern' R&B or would it not matter to you whatsoever?
> 
> What if someone listened to what you considered 'good' music but only listened to a very narrow slice of the full musical spectrum. For example, if you knew someone who only listened to Bach, what would this make you think of said person?
> 
> Does someone who listens to 'poor' music make you think they are less intelligent or less cultured or does it just make you think they have bad taste in music? Or do you believe that art is subjective, so who is to say what is good or bad music?
> 
> How big a part does being able to connect with someone musically have on your ability or desire to form some kind of relationship with people?
> 
> For me personally, I have known so many people with what I would consider bad taste in music that it hardly bothers me. I just try and recommend good music to them when I can and further educate them on the subject. However, since I am very enthusiastic about music I find it easier to talk to people I hardly know if they are also into the same kind of music or even if they just have a strong passion for anything. People without dreams or ambitions puzzle me the most. They seem to see life as no big deal.
> 
> I will say that in my experience more intelligent people listen to classical, jazz, blues, ethnic folk music or just anything that isn't generally played on commercial radio and either less intelligent or just more plain boring people like whatever is currently popular. This lasst sentence holds true to lots of the arts, like visual, cinematic, fashion and literature. It doesn't seem to be about good or bad but more about the open mindedness of an individual that shows their intelligence.
> 
> Anyway less of my rambling, what are your thoughts on the matter?


I'll be brief. I missed this thread (I joined at the start of the year).

We all know music is art and it reaches us differently whether or not we listen to the same types of music or very different types. This is the critical difference, and may explain why some judge others based on their perception of how others appeciate what is "fine art". This is of course (at least to me), ridiculous. I have met people who are very intelligent and who listen to heavy metal music; music that I can't stand, and of course, they dislike Classical music too. People who listened entirely to R&B or people who listen entirely to Classical often do have certain social traits associated with them, but conversely, to say these traits are what motivates them to listen to what they choose is often being prejudice. Mozart is open to anyone but just because if Mr. A is poor does not mean he is not capable of listening/appreciating Mozart.


----------



## HarpsichordConcerto

munirao2001 said:


> -	Mind Centric - music, with the judicious combination and usage of melody
> and the lyrics, creating high emotions, sway the heart, music becoming heartfelt. Such high degree of emotional feelings/experiences, bring in great warmth, tenderness and great happiness, with recall capabilities.
> 
> -	Intellect Centric (the ultimate) - music, with the greatest power of pure and noble sound, transports the listener and makes him/her to forget the self- thought less and silent for a /few moments, one with divinity. The blissful experience, realized, cleanses the intellect, invigorates. With unalloyed joy/feelings, peace of mind and re-energizes. The rendering of true, powerful and pure note(s) or melody with powerful and pure note(s), which transports the listener to inner self, from outer self-soulful(forgetting for moments, the self 'I'), giving blissful listening experience, with or without the help of lyric- are considered to have met the Intellect centric's goal.
> 
> munirao2001


Yes, in one word; what I term to describe what is good art: uplifting.


----------



## starry

HarpsichordConcerto said:


> just because if Mr. A is poor does not mean he is not capable of listening/appreciating Mozart.


Absolutely, and yet alot of people still want to live with stereotypes (of people/places). The truth is that classical music is open to more people than perhaps ever before. All those who do spamming here probably think everyone here is rich lol.


----------



## TWhite

Argus said:


> Does musical preference of other people make you hold someone in higher or lower esteem based on their taste matching yours or being 'superior'?
> 
> Of them as people? Absolutely not at all. Why should it?
> 
> I happen to be a Late-Romantic 20th Century kind of guy, a great many of my friends prefer Mozart, Bach and Vivaldi. I even have one who won't listen to anything unless it's either by Webern or Varese (though I have gotten him slightly hooked on the Berg Violin Concerto). I have another who will hold forth until the wee hours on the differences between recordings of Mozart Symphonies by Bruno Walter and Neville Marriner. I just let her hold forth. Sounds the same to me, but then I'm one of those Mahler "Barbarians", what would I know?
> 
> My very best and dearest friend for over forty years has TWO classical recordings, Handel's "Royal Fireworks Music" and Carl Orff's "Carmina Burana". Other than that, he's into 60's rock like Jefferson Airplane and The Doors. But we have a lot of fun being around each other, we have since the 'sixties when we both had long hair and said "Heavy" to each other a lot. One time I tried an experiment, decided to introduce him to Brahms. Figured the Fourth Symphony (my favorite Brahms symphony) would work, it was kinda/sorta "apocalyptic" at least IMO, and that's what he was into as far as rock. Didn't work. "And your POINT?" he grinned. End of experiment. He's my best friend, but we'll NEVER get to each other musically.
> 
> Yet, for over forty years, he's the one who's always in the audience with a HUGE "Go Get 'Em" grin on his face whenever I am accompanying or doing a solo recital. And he's the first one backstage slamming me on the back and saying, "God, that was FABULOUS!" even if I don't think it was.
> 
> So, no. My friends are my friends BECAUSE they're my friends, not because of something as relatively unimportant to our relationships as our different musical tastes.
> 
> Tom


----------



## jhar26

starry said:


> All rock is commercial, they create recordings and sell and market them to a specific audience. That is commercial.


That's true for all music, ain't it? Nobody makes a recording in the hope that no one will buy it. There's marketing in classical music also. In popular music it's just on a bigger scale because the potential audience is bigger. But if Deutsche Grammophon had similar budgets to spend on promotion and if that would allow them to sell 10 million copies of their latest Mahler or Brahms recording they would do it.


----------



## jhar26

Nagamori said:


> Then if some band makes it big their original fans accuse them of selling out .... well, gosh, maybe they did sell out? That would put a real dent in your theory.


Yeah, maybe it would and maybe it wouldn't. I guess that if selling a zillion records equals selling out that it would. But selling out has nothing to do with how successfull you are but with not doing what you really want to do with your music because you think that doing it another way, that you yourself like less, would sell more copies. But it's nearly impossible to say for sure who's guilty of that and who isn't.

But if some guy comes the record store where you're working (ages ago I used to work at a record shop) to buy an album from some obscure band, and the next week he tells you that he loves it, but five million copies sold later he doesn't like it anymore and he doesn't even want to listen to their next album it doesn't exactly put a dent in my theory.


----------



## starry

"Selling out' is really just a pejorative phrase. What I believe it actually means is 'I'm annoyed that this person has changed from a musical style I am used to". So it's just about judging music on what style it is in instead of whether anything creative is done by the artist in that style.


----------



## SPR

HarpsichordConcerto said:


> Yes, in one word; what I term to describe what is good art: uplifting.


Laugh... Im not going to touch that phrase with a 10 foot pole... lest we get into another 'what is art' debate.


----------



## Argus

TWhite said:


> So, no. *My friends are my friends BECAUSE they're my friends*, not because of something as relatively unimportant to our relationships as our different musical tastes.
> 
> Tom


You just broke my brain.

'My friends are my friends BECAUSE they're my friends'

That is the ultimate riddle, you've laid down there.

The more I think about making sense of that phrase, the less I understand about it.


----------



## KaerbEmEvig

Argus said:


> You just broke my brain.
> 
> 'My friends are my friends BECAUSE they're my friends'
> 
> That is the ultimate riddle, you've laid down there.
> 
> The more I think about making sense of that phrase, the less I understand about it.


What do you not understand? Analogically - he is himself because he is himself... or milk is milk because it's milk. It's simple because it's simple, mate.


----------



## Grosse Fugue

No, I just accept that people have different musical tastes, and mine are better


----------



## Argus

KaerbEmEvig said:


> What do you not understand? Analogically - he is himself because he is himself... or milk is milk because it's milk. It's simple because it's simple, mate.


Ah, now I understand. Milk is milk BECAUSE it's milk. Former Mexican international striker Hugo Sanchez is former Mexican international striker Hugo Sanchez BECAUSE he's former Mexican international striker Hugo Sanchez. Kriss Akabusi is Kriss Akabusi BECAUSE he's Kriss Akabusi. AWOOGA!


----------



## HarpsichordConcerto

SPR said:


> Laugh... Im not going to touch that phrase with a 10 foot pole... lest we get into another 'what is art' debate.




On a separate question, is that a statue of Mozart as your Avatar?


----------



## SPR

yes sir. The monument in Vienna. I photoshopped it a bit...

see: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Mozart_monument,_Vienna

http://www.travel2austria.com/?Vienna:Mozart_Monument_Vienna

http://travelphoto-gallery.blogspot.com/2009/02/mozart-monument-vienna-austria.html

I would love to get a desk sized replica of it, but cant find one.


----------



## HarpsichordConcerto

SPR said:


> I would love to get a desk sized replica of it, but cant find one.


Might have to go there or Salzburg for that. You can get head busts of all these folks over there. Ideal for a paper weight.


----------



## brianwalker

Lack of appreciation for music completely is better than bad taste in music in my book. The former is found in many people of impeccable intelligence and character.


----------



## Huilunsoittaja

_He who does not know does not love._  Therefore, ignorant people aren't necessarily bad in character, because to hear something new could open up a whole new world to them which they would be happy to know.


----------



## Xaltotun

If I meet a new person and observe their way of talking, appearance, clothes, age etc, and then can form an educated guess about what kind of music they prefer, and then if it turns out that I was right and this was indeed the music that they prefer, then I might come to the conclusion that this person might not be very enthusiastic about music or art. But, on the other hand, if I come to a wrong conclusion and this person surprises me with his/her musical taste, then I become intrigued, and perhaps start thinking highly about them.

For example, a young person who likes opera, an old person who likes hc punk, a leather-clad biker who likes girly pop, a female student of gender studies who likes gangsta rap, a farmer who likes Kate Bush & Tori Amos, a school teacher who likes Ted Nugent & G.G. Allin, a professional musician who likes mainstream pop... these all might be interesting people with interesting reasons behind their preferances.

Alternatively, I'm just mental myself and prefer like-minded company.


----------



## Sonata

I don't look down on people for their choices in music (though admittedly I might be less enthused about someone who'se an avid fan of bands like Insane Clown Posse and the like). I like talking to people who are really passionate about music even if it's not a genre I listen to. I am happy when I find a blues fan because I don't know too many of those so I enjoy the chance to talk about that musical love.


----------



## clavichorder

Sonata said:


> I am happy when I find a blues fan because I don't know too many of those so I enjoy the chance to talk about that musical love.


I know a lot of middle aged white men from the mid west(originally or as current residents) who are extremely into blues and british invasion rock. Many of the best blues bands I've heard have been composed of men of that demographic. Not sure why.


----------



## aleazk

Well, lol, it's already difficult to find people whom like classical music, I mean, as a "passion", so, if they like classical music that's more than enough for me. . (of course, some portion of shared tastes would be preferable).


----------



## regressivetransphobe

This is the internet age. I'd guess most people's grandmothers have probably at least tapped their feet (with a smidge of confusion) to their kids playing gangsta rap or metal or something.


----------



## clavichorder

regressivetransphobe said:


> This is the internet age. I'd guess most people's grandmothers have probably at least tapped their feet (with a smidge of confusion) to their kids playing gangsta rap or metal or something.


Why do grandmothers always have to be the scape goat? Sure grandmothers, though often out of touch, are some of the best people in the world on average.


----------



## violadude

It used to a lot. Now not so much. Although, beiber/Ke$ha/other crappy pop fans do have a certain stigma attached to them in my mind still...


----------



## Novelette

My maiden post, so to speak:

Aleazk, lamentably difficult to find people who like classical music. 

Classical music is a very substantial part of my life, and I become very excited meeting someone who also enjoys it. For me, it isn't necessarily a matter of disdain or intelligence, but of relatability.

I respect peoples' tastes in music, even if I find it questionable. I find that classical music listeners are generally more insightful and focused, since classical music frequently requires a keen and discerning ear and a capacity to interpret the music itself. I've always had the impression that classical music listeners are generally more intelligent, but I wouldn't discount someone's intelligence because they listen to pop or whatever else.


----------



## Alydon

A brief reply - I have met many intelligent & successful people who have never listened to a piece of classical music, but I have never met a person who listens to classical music and isn't highly intelligent and cultured, or at the very least an individual and interesting character.


----------



## millionrainbows

Of course it influences my opinion of them! If they are a long-haired stoner, with a baggy black Iron Maiden t-shirt, jeans, and Doc Martin's boots on, giving the "horns" sign, then of course they are lost, ignorant youths who I wish to avoid!

_(Now: Listening to Atomic Rooster's first album)_


----------



## Head_case

> If I meet a new person and observe their way of talking, appearance, clothes, age etc, and then can form an educated guess about what kind of music they prefer, and then if it turns out that I was right and this was indeed the music that they prefer, then I might come to the conclusion that this person might not be very enthusiastic about music or art. But, on the other hand, if I come to a wrong conclusion and this person surprises me with his/her musical taste, then I become intrigued, and perhaps start thinking highly about them.
> 
> For example, a young person who likes opera, an old person who likes hc punk, a leather-clad biker who likes girly pop, a female student of gender studies who likes gangsta rap, a farmer who likes Kate Bush & Tori Amos, a school teacher who likes Ted Nugent & G.G. Allin, a professional musician who likes mainstream pop... these all might be interesting people with interesting reasons behind their preferances.
> 
> Alternatively, I'm just mental myself and prefer like-minded company.


No, you're just blessed 

It's too much of a Rorschach Test for me ~ as far as I can gather, people just project their own fantasies of what I might like on to me.

No one whose met me has ever worked out that I can't stand orchestral nonsense and 90% of classical music. Only the ones who get to pry in my bookshelves work out that I listen to 90% string quartet music. Before that, they fathom guesses:

"You do like Take that, don't you?! Your hair is so cool"
"How about heavy metal?"
"Madonna of course, right? It's the leather thong which gives you away" [Editor's reply: that is not a leather thong! That is a camera strap! There we go...projecting again.... :/]
"You look like a drum n' bass guy. Want some weed?"

When I do play some string quartet music, the response is invariably:

"Who let the cats out of the bag?! "

Right - my turn. Virtually no one I know in person, shares my music taste. None of them have even ventured to listen to Zoja Cernovska or Ivana Loudova's string quartets. Bargielski, Knapik, Augustyn, Meyer, Lason, Brudzowicz are all anathema to them. Myaskovsky, Tchernov, Svetlanov, Filippenko, Salmanov all sound like some kind of dyslexia test to them.

That doesn't stop them from being great people. They listen to music I abhor (sadly) ~ stuff like Lady Gaga; pop music; the cultureless radio junk filling the airwaves; maybe some generic classic moods classical music making generic soothing sounds. One friend is exceptional, in that he listens to the middle-eastern sufi music of the Benoudin shepherds and chorale music. None of that matters: they're great people, and our other interests bind us together.

As for the music similarities and taste - well that's why I've got you lot on the forum


----------



## millionrainbows

What I can't stand is when suburban kids listen to "rap" and try to act like they're black urban youths, as they walk through Wal-Mart or the mall. I suppose I should take the high road, give them the benefit of the doubt, and assume that "rap," although black in origin, ultimately transcends racial boundaries. I'm working really hard on that one.


----------



## Head_case

What are you doing shopping in Walmart?

That's the shopping equivalent of listening to rapsta music :lol:


----------



## millionrainbows

Actually, I wish I had been "prejudiced" a long time ago; then I wouldn't have been shocked (since I was a "hippie" with long hair) when I got snubbed by the music department at the junior college I attended, which was very religious-oriented (Church of Christ) and did not like "musicians" who played gigs in bars to make money. If I had been a prejudiced person, like they were, it would have protected me somewhat. I later learned to keep my profession a secret, to avoid discrimination. If I had short hair, that would have helped immensely.

The lesson? People are prejudiced as hell, so you must realize and embrace this aspect of human nature, and not ignore it as if it's not there, in order to be politically correct.

Oh, yes, and don't shop at Walmart. Malls are OK, but not Walmart.:lol:


----------



## millionrainbows

Head_case said:


> What are you doing shopping in Walmart?
> 
> That's the shopping equivalent of listening to rapsta music :lol:


I was there to puke on their floor.:lol:


----------



## Head_case

Haha. I'm sure all of the American chavs (if you have as many as we have here - chavs that is, since we have very few American chavs in the UK...) probably beat you to it with all of their Budweiser specials which tasted better going down than up.



millionrainbows said:


> Actually, I wish I had been "prejudiced" a long time ago; then I wouldn't have been shocked (since I was a "hippie" with long hair) when I got snubbed by the music department at the junior college I attended, which was very religious-oriented (Church of Christ) and did not like "musicians" who played gigs in bars to make money.


That Church of Christ is not as religious as it might seem. Religion is a disguise for evil (and Brian Eno is in fact, blind if he thinks new age music has no evil; the nature of pantheism is that good and evil are within the same matrix, such that the sensibility to separate their essences is rendered blind but anyway..) In fact, it is a cult which was banned from my university after petitioning the dean as they established their Aliens like suckering tentacles around the university to draw in students. They sprang up elsewhere after being exposed and evicted from London. This guy blogs about them:

http://www.rickross.com/reference/icc/ICC63.html


----------



## millionrainbows

Head_case said:


> Haha. I'm sure all of the American chavs (if you have as many as we have here - chavs that is, since we have very few American chavs in the UK...) probably beat you to it with all of their Budweiser specials which tasted better going down than up.
> 
> That Church of Christ is not as religious as it might seem. Religion is a disguise for evil (and Brian Eno is in fact, blind if he thinks new age music has no evil; the nature of pantheism is that good and evil are within the same matrix, such that the sensibility to separate their essences is rendered blind but anyway..) In fact, it is a cult which was banned from my university after petitioning the dean as they established their Aliens like suckering tentacles around the university to draw in students. They sprang up elsewhere after being exposed and evicted from London.


That's interesting to know. I do seem to recall that they think even other Christian denominations are hell-bound. Anyway, the whole music department revolved around the choral and piano departments. A theory teacher came in from New York, and when I mistakenly told him I was playing electric guitar in a band, he immediately became less friendly. I was not drinking at all, because I worked from 9-2 P.M. and theory was at 8 A.M. He would do stuff like have us sing "what do you do with a drunken sailor early in the morning" with glee, just to screw with me. It was very unfortunate.

But you, being UK, seem to have a different view on religion than many Americans. The Puritans were a cult, as well, so I see this whole country as being founded by a bunch of people on the fringe, not to mention Mormonism.


----------



## Cnote11

millionrainbows said:


> What I can't stand is when suburban kids listen to "rap" and try to act like they're black urban youths, as they walk through Wal-Mart or the mall. I suppose I should take the high road, give them the benefit of the doubt, and assume that "rap," although black in origin, ultimately transcends racial boundaries. I'm working really hard on that one.


Hip-Hop was predominately urban in origin, which happens to be predominately black in America. It is no way actually represents "blackness". Also, I don't think one would successfully posit that the blues doesn't transcend racial boundaries. Why would you not feel the same about hip-hop? Suburban teenagers listen to their commercialized rap music and attempt to mimic a stereotype of inner-city youths, black or not. Commercialized rap music promoting and exploiting racial stereotypes is the key thing here.

Your post may have been lighthearted in nature... I can't tell.


----------



## Head_case

millionrainbows said:


> That's interesting to know. I do seem to recall that they think even other Christian denominations are hell-bound. Anyway, the whole music department revolved around the choral and piano departments. A theory teacher came in from New York, and when I mistakenly told him I was playing electric guitar in a band, he immediately became less friendly. I was not drinking at all, because I worked from 9-2 P.M. and theory was at 8 A.M. He would do stuff like have us sing "what do you do with a drunken sailor early in the morning" with glee, just to screw with me. It was very unfortunate.
> 
> But you, being UK, seem to have a different view on religion than many Americans. The Puritans were a cult, as well, so I see this whole country as being founded by a bunch of people on the fringe, not to mention Mormonism.


Well, actually I live in one of the most secular countries in Yurop. Part of the island mentality of the British Isles, is puritanical - that goes back to Oliver Cromwell, however even France had its Jensenists in Port Royal, not lest, the Huguenots in La Rochelle. Of course, we don't like to be called Puritans. We prefer being called 'Presbyterians', 'Church of the Brethren' etc.

AND. I'll have you know, that we have more Jedi Knights in one south London borough than Lucas ever scripted in The Empire Strikes back. On the last census, there were at least 800 Jedi's up against 8 self-declared witches in the same borough for them to have the Force done to them by. But no surprise. This is one of the weirdest boroughs in London. After all, it's where Kate Moss crawled out of.

http://www.thisislocallondon.co.uk/...eveals_over_800_Jedi_Knights_live_in_Croydon/

Is the difference between a cult and a mainstream religion purely statistical, in that a fringe minority, like fantastic Mr Fox and his Quakerism in England started off with a few, and then bloomed into thousands within years and then millions?

I'm useless at the electric guitar. I'm going to try and learn how to play the electric medieval lute instead


----------



## millionrainbows

Cnote11 said:


> Hip-Hop was predominately urban in origin, which happens to be predominately black in America. It is no way actually represents "blackness".


That's a rather tricky statement, if one reads it carefully. I'll not respond to it, but simply say that I consider rap to be primarily an expression of the black urban experience. Of course, things have morphed since then, as these things always do.



Cnote11 said:


> Also, I don't think one would successfully posit that the blues doesn't transcend racial boundaries.


No, to posit such a thing would be risky. Nonetheless, if a white guy plays blues, he doesn't get my "instant cred" until he has proven his mettle beyond doubt. Also, it's easier to sound credible in the instrumental department, rather than the vocal department. Some white singers do manage to pull it off.

And while you say blues "transcends" racial boundaries, the simple fact may be that these white kids are the only ones interested in carrying this tradition on, since it seems many blacks have rejected it for social reasons, embracing a more upwardly-mobile style which is smoother, jazzier, and more modern, like Stevie Wonder, Marvin Gaye, etc...the blues, especially solo country blues singers with acoustic guitars, seems to be too connected with the early black struggle to be of much value to a people who are more interested in "moving forward."



Cnote11 said:


> Why would you not feel the same about hip-hop? Suburban teenagers listen to their commercialized rap music and attempt to mimic a stereotype of inner-city youths, black or not. Commercialized rap music promoting and exploiting racial stereotypes is the key thing here. Your post may have been lighthearted in nature... I can't tell.


I'm not following some of your assumed meanings in this part.


----------



## Chrythes

When I heard that my psychologits's ringtone was that "Whistle baby" abomination I really started doubting if I go to the right person.


----------



## EddieRUKiddingVarese

Everything in essence for me


----------



## deggial

Head_case said:


> On the last census, there were at least 800 Jedi's up against 8 self-declared witches in the same borough for them to have the Force done to them by. But no surprise. This is one of the weirdest boroughs in London. After all, it's where Kate Moss crawled out of.
> 
> http://www.thisislocallondon.co.uk/...eveals_over_800_Jedi_Knights_live_in_Croydon/


haha, how did I miss this? Croydon full of jedis and some witches :lol:


----------



## Head_case

deggial said:


> haha, how did I miss this? Croydon full of jedis and some witches :lol:


Of coz. Meet Croydon's most famous:










She has her own fashion chain now selling broomsticks and handbags.


----------



## moody

deggial said:


> haha, how did I miss this? Croydon full of jedis and some witches :lol:


I don't even consider Croydon to be in London.
Also i don't even know anybody religious---I'm glad to say !!


----------



## deggial

moody said:


> I don't even consider Croydon to be in London.
> Also i don't even know anybody religious---I'm glad to say !!


lucky you! I work with some proper church-going folk - I'm talking spend-all-your-Sunday-in-church kind of people. I even know some witches, but I guess that was a common spiritual trend in arts school in the '90s...


----------



## Bone

If someone likes James Brown, Frank Sinatra, Willie Nelson, Johnny Cash, jazz in all forms (even smooth), classical, rock, pop, rap, and blues, they're pretty cool in my book. Depending on their appreciation/dislike of the aforementioned, I adjust my hipness scale. For example, if the person in question liked rap more than blues but enjoyed hard bop more than free jazz, their overall coolness index would be adjusted upward by .012


----------



## neoshredder

Yes it makes a difference. Especially if they try to live that lifestyle of the music they listen to (guess which genre).


----------



## LordBlackudder

i cant think of any situation when i would need to judge them on music.

maybe if they listened to islamist propaganda or some north korean marching music they could have an unstable character.


----------



## OboeKnight

One of the clarinets in my marching band said that the only music she liked was Lil' Wayne....No, I don't feel bad for judging her.


----------



## deggial

^ so she doesn't like the clarinet repertoire?


----------



## OboeKnight

deggial said:


> ^ so she doesn't like the clarinet repertoire?


Nope lol. She hated band and quit after the season was over.


----------



## deggial

Lil' Wayne 1, clarinet 0!


----------



## Feathers

For their taste alone, no. However, on the rare occasion when they like the music for a reason related not to music itself, then it depends. For example, I wouldn't judge anyone for liking a type of music simply because of some special memories that came with it, but when people go for certain types of music for social reasons or "because the singer's pretty", then it seems as if they have made their musical tastes and judgements slaves to their other views, which is an insult to both music and themselves.


----------



## EddieRUKiddingVarese

deggial said:


> lucky you! I work with some proper church-going folk - I'm talking spend-all-your-Sunday-in-church kind of people. I even know some witches, but I guess that was a common spiritual trend in arts school in the '90s...


Your all welcome at my place - but you'll have to bring your own chairs................ we could use some witches and church going folk- in fact anyone, (especially if your good at catching dingoes).


----------



## neoshredder

EddieRUKiddingVarese said:


> Your all welcome at my place - but you'll have to bring your own chairs................ we could use some witches and church going folk- in fact anyone, (especially if your good at catching dingoes).
> 
> View attachment 14209


Say my name.


----------



## deggial

no problem about the chairs - the witches will conjure some furniture up and the church choir will make sure the dingoes never return  and everybody loves kangaroo salami!


----------



## EddieRUKiddingVarese

^ good to hear your into kangaroo salami, dingo is not so good.......

Maybe the witches can work on some trees and grass while they're at it!


----------



## EddieRUKiddingVarese

neoshredder said:


> Say my name.


Say that looks a lot like a trucker I passed the other day on my Harley- god he was slow.........

But not sure how well the dingo's and kangaroo's would go dealing with his stuff!


----------



## Schubussy

> How much does another person's musical taste influence your opinion of them?


I'd like to say it doesn't, but someone I've known for a while put on Nickelback's Rockstar and I now can't help viewing him with suspicion and distrust.



> Yes it makes a difference. Especially if they try to live that lifestyle of the music they listen to (guess which genre).


Shoegaze?


----------



## KenOC

EddieRUKiddingVarese said:


> Say that looks a lot like a trucker I passed the other day on my Harley- god he was slow.........


Harleys are slow, as other riders know. Pigs. Oh, pardon me, hogs. 

Did you know that 80% of the Harleys ever made are still on the road? The other 20% got back OK...


----------



## EddieRUKiddingVarese

KenOC said:


> Harleys are slow, as other riders know. Pigs. Oh, pardon me, hogs.
> 
> Did you know that 80% of the Harleys ever made are still on the road? The other 20% got back OK...


Too true hogs arnt fast that for sure

Guess i was being a bit vague - but what I was alluding to is the drug making actor..... bares a strong resemblence to the Aussie contestant Rodney- Jhnson in the World's Toughest Trucker TV show - who is know for driving a slow truck lol


----------



## deggial

EddieRUKiddingVarese said:


> Maybe the witches can work on some trees and grass while they're at it!


bring on the mead and they'll work overtime! this sounds to me a lot like a mass relocation scheme.


----------



## deggial

Schubussy said:


> someone I've known for a while put on Nickelback's Rockstar


somebody still listens to Nickelback?! to think that it was the butt of jokes almost as soon as it hit the spotlight...


----------



## EddieRUKiddingVarese

deggial said:


> bring on the mead and they'll work overtime! this sounds to me a lot like a mass relocation scheme.


I have just the place for them too, just south of me here in Western Australia- a town called Witchcliffe, they would feel at home too.


----------



## deggial

how about the jedis?


----------



## EddieRUKiddingVarese

No, makes no difference


----------



## Capeditiea

Well... the only way i judge people though music, is how they see my musick.  if they hate it... they will hate me. if they love it... they will love me. if they get turned on by it... well you get the idea... 

:3 only difference though is that i won't be different at all towards them... i am far too kind of a person to be mean just because they dislike my music.  it is kinda a precaution thing. Since 2010 (when i started making musick (sic)) i started learning about how to portray various attributes to my own personality. So really, any thing i release is a form of my many personalities. So far my theory has proven correct.


----------

