Crappy Taste--Period

[jowcol]

Most pop strikes me as entertainment for teen agers and therefore something to be outgrown, as one outgrows cartoons and comic books. And I suspect those who have been raised on cartoons and pop but then grown into Bach and Jane Austen probably regret they weren't raised on more substantial fare, as the simple minded stuff is no better a preparation for the fine arts than junk food is for "gourmet" (I hate that term!) dining.  Taste like food itself is easier spoiled than acquired.

I grew in the other direction.  I was a serious classical snob that looked down on anything that wasn't classical, until I made the initially unsetting discovery that  other genres can give me powerful, but different experiences than "classical" did. 

[karlhenning]

Well, classical music itself is not a singular, monolithic thing.

Gold star! (Pending Bogey's approval) : )

[karlhenning]

I grew in the other direction.  I was a serious classical snob that looked down on anything that wasn't classical, until I made the initially unsettling discovery that  other genres can give me powerful, but different experiences than "classical" did.

I didn't have much exposure to classical music until I was . . . well, really, until I was at college.  I did somehow grow up with something of a capacity to criticize pop music, though.  I knew there had to be better, out there in the world; I only waited to find it ; )

[bwv 1080]

Its funny how different everyone is on the popular music they like, take the Sinead O'connor lovefest in the nonclassical listening thread today.  I would rather listen to my dog howl than Sinead's pretentious, tuneless caterwalling but would like all the same classical music as Corey & George and the other Sineadanauts.  They no doubt would feel the same about my taste in metal & old time country music.  So there is your argument for classical music being richer and more "universal" (whatever that means) than other genres

[CD]

Taking Sides: Sinead O'Connor's Tuneless Caterwauling v. Black Metal Singers' Tuneless Growling



It's okay bwv, I'll listen to your classical recommendations anytime.

[The Six]

Depeche Mode wrote better music than Rossini.

[The new erato]

Depeche Mode wrote better music than Rossini.

They're both down in the dumps as far as I'm concerned.

I grew in the other direction.  I was a serious classical snob that looked down on anything that wasn't classical, until I made the initially unsetting discovery that  other genres can give me powerful, but different experiences than "classical" did. 

Seconded:

I disagree. There's lots of good pop (and tons of junk of course), but good pop is good music, it's just different.

[Elgarian]

Does poor taste in pop music equate to poor taste in classical recordings?

What's 'poor taste'? The expression seems often to be used by one person to disparage the choices made by another for purposes of self-aggrandisement - a notion which isn't very interesting.

I prefer to avoid the word 'taste' completely and think in terms of the kind of listening that a piece of music can stimulate, or encourage. So instead of judging a person by the music they enjoy, I'd invert that process and assess the music according to the kind of listening that it invites. (Even if I can't hear its merits myself, it's often possible to determine how people are listening from the way they talk about it.)

[hornteacher]

I disagree. There's lots of good pop (and tons of junk of course), but good pop is good music, it's just different.

You are absolutely right if you define "pop" music as all music under ten minutes since 1955 that's played on the radio.  Dylan, Lennon, Hendrix, Elton, Crow, and many others are good examples.  To me though, that's Rock or Rock and Roll.  My interpretation of the word "Pop" was more the disposable manufactured "music" of Spears, Gaga, Simpson, Cyrus, and Jonas.

I think we agree, we just got bogged down in semantics.

[karlhenning]

Depeche Mode wrote better music than Rossini.

Well, that's an interesting opinion.

[karlhenning]

What's 'poor taste'? The expression seems often to be used by one person to disparage the choices made by another for purposes of self-aggrandisement - a notion which isn't very interesting.

I prefer to avoid the word 'taste' completely and think in terms of the kind of listening that a piece of music can stimulate, or encourage. So instead of judging a person by the music they enjoy, I'd invert that process and assess the music according to the kind of listening that it invites. (Even if I can't hear its merits myself, it's often possible to determine how people are listening from the way they talk about it.)

Once again, I applaud you for elevating the discourse, sieur!

[karlhenning]

You are absolutely right if you define "pop" music as all music under ten minutes since 1955 that's played on the radio.  Dylan, Lennon, Hendrix, Elton, Crow, and many others are good examples.  To me though, that's Rock or Rock and Roll.  My interpretation of the word "Pop" was more the disposable manufactured "music" of Spears, Gaga, Simpson, Cyrus, and Jonas.

I think we agree, we just got bogged down in semantics.

To try to distinguish "pop" from "rock 'n' roll" is just such a bog, meseems.  Elton produced "pop" far more often than he produced "rock 'n' roll" . . . nor do I necessarily think less of one of his "pop" songs than of another which is "rock 'n' roll."

[karlhenning]

I mean, ballads, now (a word which has been a bit compromised by the pop music press) . . . songs within that category overlap with almost any genre . . . "pop," "rock 'n' roll" ("Everybody Hurts" by R.E.M. . . . a bit more nervy than your average "pop" ballad, I think), Jazz, classical Lied . . . .

[Luke]

What's 'poor taste'? The expression seems often to be used by one person to disparage the choices made by another for purposes of self-aggrandisement - a notion which isn't very interesting.

I prefer to avoid the word 'taste' completely and think in terms of the kind of listening that a piece of music can stimulate, or encourage. So instead of judging a person by the music they enjoy, I'd invert that process and assess the music according to the kind of listening that it invites. (Even if I can't hear its merits myself, it's often possible to determine how people are listening from the way they talk about it.)

As Karl did - kudos for this, it's totally on the money, picks up on something that I've often felt, but found hard to verbalise: it's different ways of listening that are the important issue; 'taste' is really just a function of these different ways, but whilst talking about 'taste' divides us, understanding that someone else listens in a fundamentally different manner, listens for a different purpose, listens for different things, can only serve to increase understanding.

We can see this idea of 'ways of listening' operating here in this thread, where pop music is being discussed by a bunch of classical music lovers. There are those speaking in support of the quality of some pop music, as I would, but in many of these cases, the qualities they are discerning are the qualities one would listen for in classical music. I have no time for 99% of the pop music I hear on the radio because it doesn't fit with the way I listen, but that has never stopped me searching out the wonderful stuff that I know is out there, some which I love very deeply indeed. And why do I love it?  - well, I admit, it's almost always because of the musical qualities it possesses which allow me to listen to it in a similar way to that in which I hear classical music, but with the added bonus of that sense of raw, unprecious contemporaneousness and intimacy which pop music can bring. (FWIW it's not the usual prog music suspects for me, though the vageuly prog 60/70s German band Can are very high amongst them - some band members being Stockhausen students, and there am I proving my point, that this is music with a proximity to classical music which I feel close to. To name two other bands, very different but both musically sophisticated in a way which stands up to the listening habits of a classical music lover, who give me endless pleasure in this sense: Tindersticks and Bark Psychosis - terrible name, fabulous, fabulous music).

I teach class music to 9-13 year olds, and the first thing I do with the youngest ones in September (I'll be doing this in a couple of weeks) is to sit down with them and talk about this issue of 'taste', listening to their favourite music and mine, discussing it, giving opinions, talking about how we hear it. I tend to lead the children towards this conclusion we've been discussing - that we have different tastes because we listen in different ways and for different things, and once we can understand this, we can perhaps try listening with another person's ears - a while new world of music might open up.

[karlhenning]

As Karl did - kudos for this, it's totally on the money, picks up on something that I've often felt, but found hard to verbalise: it's different ways of listening that are the important issue; 'taste' is really just a function of these different ways, but whilst talking about 'taste' divides us, understanding that someone else listens in a fundamentally different manner, listens for a different purpose, listens for different things, can only serve to increase understanding.

We can see this idea of 'ways of listening' operating here in this thread, where pop music is being discussed by a bunch of classical music lovers. There are those speaking in support of the quality of some pop music, as I would, but in many of these cases, the qualities they are discerning are the qualities one would listen for in classical music. I have no time for 99% of the pop music I hear on the radio because it doesn't fit with the way I listen, but that has never stopped me searching out the wonderful stuff that I know is out there, some which I love very deeply indeed. And why do I love it?  - well, I admit, it's almost always because of the musical qualities it possesses which allow me to listen to it in a similar way to that in which I hear classical music, but with the added bonus of that sense of raw, unprecious contemporaneousness and intimacy which pop music can bring. (FWIW it's not the usual prog music suspects for me, though the vageuly prog 60/70s German band Can are very high amongst them - some band members being Stockhausen students, and there am I proving my point, that this is music with a proximity to classical music which I feel close to. To name two other bands, very different but both musically sophisticated in a way which stands up to the listening habits of a classical music lover, who give me endless pleasure in this sense: Tindersticks and Bark Psychosis - terrible name, fabulous, fabulous music).

I teach class music to 9-13 year olds, and the first thing I do with the youngest ones in September (I'll be doing this in a couple of weeks) is to sit down with them and talk about this issue of 'taste', listening to their favourite music and mine, discussing it, giving opinions, talking about how we hear it. I tend to lead the children towards this conclusion we've been discussing - that we have different tastes because we listen in different ways and for different things, and once we can understand this, we can perhaps try listening with another person's ears - a while new world of music might open up.

Yes, for there is no reason why one person cannot listen with his own ears in different ways at different times.

Fine post, thank you, Luke!

[Superhorn]

  De Gustibus Non Est Disputandum. Enough said.

[The Six]

I had to google for a translation just to find out what that means, so clearly enough was not said. 

[CD]

Haha, I debated with myself whether to make that joke. Beat me to it.

Anyway, I'm sure I've said this numerous times, but I tend to like pop music that doesn't attempt to mix/aspire to serious composition — IOW, unabashed pop with a focus on memorable melodies and arrangements that sound unique. It has a lot to do with how and where I listen to pop music: usually when I'm on the computer looking/posting on forums or (increasingly rarely now) driving in my car, or going on a long walk with headphones. The music is never so dense that I can't enjoy it and pick up on most or all of the details while I'm doing something else.

Classical music is for me a separate activity in itself — I am listening without any distractions.

[CD]

Also there should be something said about the focus on production and the use of the studio (or the computer) as an instrument in pop music and how much of the interest (for me anyway) derives from this use.

[Brahmsian]

To each their own.  Some people like Lady Gaga, while others prefer Beethoven.  Big deal?

Some dogs eat their own shit.  To each their own.