Crappy Taste--Period

[Elgarian]

. . . 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.

Thanks to you, Luke, and Karl, for the kind comments, though I can't claim the credit for myself. My post was based entirely on an idea of CS Lewis's expounded in a terrific little book called An Experiment in Criticism: I read it many years ago, and it turned my understanding of art criticism and its purpose upside down, once and for all.

[The Six]

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.

But going deeper and finding out why these things are is the point. We might as well not have a message board at all if every discussion can be disregarded so easily.

Why do some dogs eat their own shit?

[karlhenning]

Thanks to you, Luke, and Karl, for the kind comments, though I can't claim the credit for myself. My post was based entirely on an idea of CS Lewis's expounded in a terrific little book called An Experiment in Criticism: I read it many years ago, and it turned my understanding of art criticism and its purpose upside down, once and for all.

No matter that some of the ideas came from elsewhere;  we thank you for sharing them with us . . . and again, the act of elevating the discourse here is entirely your own, Alan.

[jochanaan]

Thanks to you, Luke, and Karl, for the kind comments, though I can't claim the credit for myself. My post was based entirely on an idea of CS Lewis's expounded in a terrific little book called An Experiment in Criticism: I read it many years ago, and it turned my understanding of art criticism and its purpose upside down, once and for all.

Ha!  Love that book!  Lewis rules!

[MN Dave]

Ha!  Love that book!  Lewis rules!

I assume it's Christian-oriented.

[karlhenning]

A thoroughly evil book it looks, young Wormwood ; )

[karlhenning]

I assume it's Christian-oriented.

Hm, do you assume that everything Lewis wrote is apologetics for Christianity?

I don't think Alan is writing here in any role of Christian apologist.

[MN Dave]

Hm, do you assume that everything Lewis wrote is apologetics for Christianity?

I don't think Alan is writing here in any role of Christian apologist.

Just wondering is all.

[karlhenning]

Just wondering is all.

I know that's what you meant, lad!  The verb assume suggests a . . . judgement already made.

[jhar26]

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.

Which in part explains why cover versions of great pop/rock records are seldom as good as the original. The production of, say, "Good Vibrations", "River Deep - Mountain High" or "Dancing Queen" is an important part of those records' greatness. Pre-mid 60's pop(ular) songs - those from Tin Pan Alley writers, musicals, blues, jazz, early rock and so on were recorded by everyone and have been done well over and over again because they were/are basically live performances in a recording studio and they didn't/don't need to compete with the production of a previous 'definitive' recording. Therefore it's much more likely that tomorrow someone will make a new recording of "My Funny Valentine" that's as good as Chet Baker's or Sinatra's than that someone will make a cover of "Strawberry Fields Forever" that's as good as the Beatles'.

[karlhenning]

Never been a fan of Elton John's "Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds."

[MN Dave]

I know that's what you meant, lad!  The verb assume suggests a . . . judgement already made.

I like his fiction. Or did when I read it.

[jochanaan]

I like his fiction. Or did when I read it.

If anything, his fiction is more "Christian-oriented" than Experiment in Criticism.  Aslan is a definite and deliberate avatar of Jesus.  But, as another great storyteller said, "That is another story."

[karlhenning]

I like his fiction. Or did when I read it.

How else would one like fiction? ; )

[Elgarian]

I assume it's Christian-oriented.

No, it's not one of his Christian apologetic books. It's a highly readable and entertaining examination of the processes of literary criticism (Lewis was a distinguished literary scholar), but the basic ideas are applicable to all the arts. What struck me when I first read it was its tendency to encourage a positive rather than a negative outcome from criticism. As Luke mentioned in his post, it gets us listening carefully to what others are saying about art, as a guide to understanding the kind of experience they're having.

It also contains a moving description of the importance of the experience of art - I suppose the best I've ever read. I've probably quoted it before somewhere, but it's worth reading a lot more than twice. Certainly this is why I read, why I listen to music, why I love visual art. It's not a matter of taste, but a matter of perception:

Literary experience heals the wound, without undermining the privilege, of individuality.  In reading great literature I become a thousand men and yet remain myself. Like the night sky in the Greek poem, I see with a myriad eyes, but it is still I who see. Here, I transcend myself; and am never more myself than when I do.

[drogulus]

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.

     It might be used that way, and I have seen it done. It also is used to criticize a view of music that is too uncultivated, too unaware of other possibilities to be offered as a model. When someone says "I like Rachmaninoff" I don't think that person has poor taste, or at least I don't think saying such a thing is evidence that poor taste is responsible. But if the same person says "...and you people who like Schoenberg, Prokofiev, and Ives are wrong to prefer them" I would say that's strong evidence of bad taste. The target should be excessive narrowness and subjectivity, which should be criticized in a forum devoted to the exchange of ideas about taste. If you can't criticize such narrowness, you might as well give up critical thinking and say "Whatever you believe is right because you believe it."

[Teresa]

When someone says "I like Rachmaninoff" I don't think that person has poor taste, or at least I don't think saying such a thing is evidence that poor taste is responsible. But if the same person says "...and you people who like Schoenberg, Prokofiev, and Ives are wrong to prefer them" I would say that's strong evidence of bad taste. The target should be excessive narrowness and subjectivity, which should be criticized in a forum devoted to the exchange of ideas about taste. If you can't criticize such narrowness, you might as well give up critical thinking and say "Whatever you believe is right because you believe it."

What you call narrowness others call discriminating choice, as in choosing to listen to what one likes rather than wasting time trying to listen to what one does not like, waiting for some magical moment when they might actually like it.  Why suffer?  Why not instead actually listen to music one actually enjoys?

I think it is of supreme importance that one recognizes what one likes and NOT put on aires of liking every damn thing under the sun.

Personally I love Rachmaninoff and Prokofiev but I would never say anyone who DOES NOT also love them has poor taste.  I don't much care for Ives and totally hate Schoenberg but once again I would NEVER accuse anyone who actually likes them of having poor taste.  Also I do not believe anyone is ever WRONG for loving any music, including composers I don't like or types of music I do not like.   I agree telling ANYONE who they should or should not like is in poor taste. 

Finally I accept this statement as a truism: "Whatever you believe is right because you believe it."  And I do not believe in any way shape or form that one has to give up critical thinking to hold such a basic belief. 

[(poco) Sforzando]

What you call narrowness others call discriminating choice, as in choosing to listen to what one likes rather than wasting time trying to listen to what one does not like, waiting for some magical moment when they might actually like it. 

For the obvious reason that continued exposure, and an open willingness to give something a chance that many others have found valuable, can and often does lead to an unexpected illumination.

I think it is of supreme importance than  one recognizes what one likes and NOT put on aires of liking every damn thing under the sun.

What is putting on "aires"? Liking music that you don't like?

[Teresa]

For the obvious reason that continued exposure, and an open willingness to give something a chance that many others have found valuable, can and often does lead to an unexpected illumination.

I agree totally and this is how I discover a lot of new to me music.  However it DOES NOT change the fact that discriminating choice is practiced by everyone.   

What is putting on "aires"? Liking music that you don't like?

Pretence in a public forum that one does not practice in private life.  No one likes every single classical composition ever written, it is NOT possible and to put on aires they do is disingenuous and harmful to recruiting new members to the classical music fold. 

I never said anyone claimed to like music they do not like, however some people listen over and over to music they do not like in the vein hope of liking it at some point in the future.   

[The new erato]

What Theresa suggests is that humans are basically incapable of learning. Which if true, would have meant that Beethoven would have composed like Haydn (or whomever) forever; and that Theresa today would have been listening to 12th century tropes.