Crappy Taste--Period

[Teresa]

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.

NOT TRUE!!!!!! Show me where I EVER stated such a insane idea.  Indeed I discover new compositions on a weekly basis, and recommend music lovers check out new unknown composers for the often charming music they write.  No where do I ever suggest that people NOT listen to new music.  Indeed I personally prefer modern tonal classical compositions when I find them.   

Finally here are my thoughts on learning or becoming more familiar with a classical composition. 

To me nothing in life is as mesmerizing or exciting as hearing a new to me classical composition for the very first time.  Not knowing what will come next or where the music is headed is a thrill beyond words!  And why I am addicted to discovering new exciting classical works, to duplicate that thrill.  As I learn and fall deeper in love with a piece of music it also loses that newness and freshness it once had and the experience is changed. 

The first time I played Stravinsky's "The Rite of Spring" it was a very unique thrill ride and one I have seldom duplicated since.  It is true I still love "The Rite of Spring" however after five decades of listening and learning the piece, it is more predictable and less fresh.   It's a different love than I had on the first playing. 

[CD]

Ignoring a user doesn't really work when everyone else responds to him/her.

[Teresa]

Ignoring a user doesn't really work when everyone else responds to him/her.

Who are you trying to ignore and MORE IMPORTANTLY why?  I read all posters on all subjects I am interested in, no matter how much I might disagree with them.  All opinions are important.   

[jowcol]

Some interesting points on this thread.

I like what Luke had said-- I think that listening to different types of music requires a different set of mental muscles, and it takes some investment to appreciate most any style or genre.   And it's a different experience. 

(As an aside, I listen to a lot of blues, jazz and minimalism because they leave me room to mentally add my own melody lines the mix.  Most "classical" presumes that I want to be a passive listener) .

I point I've made before on this thread is that there is an admiral amount of craft and concision on good pop.  An analog that really struck me was an interview with Stanley Kubrik, one of my favorite movie directors, who said he was floored by a 30 second Michelob commercial.  He could not believe how tightly it was edited, and how much is fit into such a small space.  He said that sort of concision was completely beyond him.

It get the same feeling from a short instrumental like Green Onions-- there is not an excess note.  It was "pop" for its time.  So was "Tomorrow Never Knows" by the Beatles, which is a pretty sophisticated 3 minutes, if you ask me.


Also, keep in mind the the line between popular and "serious" entertainment is fiddly at best.  Dickens and Shakespeare were popular entertainment-- it took academics many years to build up the "serious" side of them.   And Opera as a genre definitely was meant for popular entertainment.

It's funny- I've seen the same thread on jazz and rock  forums, where the discussion would flirt with the idea that "we are so much better than all of those other people  because we don't listen to pop".   Whatever.   I tend to think that the breadth of musical forms that one is able to listen to deeply says a lot about  their musical depth.

[greg]

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.

Sometimes doing this actually works for some people (like me). Maybe for you it doesn't, but people are different.

[Philoctetes]

Sometimes doing this actually works for some people (like me). Maybe for you it doesn't, but people are different.

It's worked for me, but I tend to stretch them out over time. For instance, when I was younger, oh so many years ago, I used to detest Beethoven, I took Stansfield approach, but just a few years later I began to appreciate a larger section of his oeuvre.

Like currently, I'm not a fan of Brahms's solo piano works, save for his variations, but I'll come back to them later, and hopefully I'll have matured my ear to the point where I can appreciate these works. 

[greg]

It's worked for me, but I tend to stretch them out over time. For instance, when I was younger, oh so many years ago, I used to detest Beethoven, I took Stansfield approach, but just a few years later I began to appreciate a larger section of his oeuvre.

Like currently, I'm not a fan of Brahms's solo piano works, save for his variations, but I'll come back to them later, and hopefully I'll have matured my ear to the point where I can appreciate these works.

I'm starting to like Beethoven more as I listen to him more.

As for Brahms piano stuff, maybe that would be another exception for favorite stuff I've always liked since I first listened to it.  Not only the variations, but the Rhapsodies, Intermezzi, Sonatas, etc. I all love. The performances are extremely important for this stuff, too, though- even more than most other music, I think.

[Mirror Image]

I definitely have crappy taste in music, because, according to another forum member (who will remain nameless), I like Bruckner, Mahler, and Pettersson. There must be something seriously wrong with me. 

[Sid]

There's no accounting for taste. & (with most people, I assume) it's constantly changing. 10 years ago I thought Varese was just noise, now he's one of my favourite composers. Nothing is set in stone, imo...

[Elgarian]

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

I'm not sure it helps, though, to make 'bad taste' mean that. In responding to the OP, I took 'bad taste' to be a descriptor of one's personal preferences in music or art, not of one's attitude to others. So for instance:

'Jack has bad taste' means 'Jack likes the wrong stuff' (according to some view).
'Jack's taste is narrow' means 'Jack doesn't like a wide enough range of stuff' (according to some view).
But if Jack says 'I like Rachmaninov and you people who like Schoenberg are wrong', that may indicate a kind of narrowness of perception, but I don't think it means his taste is 'bad'. Or at least, I'd prefer to use the word 'narrowness' to describe his attitude, myself, and be fairly sure of being understood, than risk being misunderstood by using the word 'taste' to describe it. (If I told you that you were wearing the wrong shirt, you'd be cross about my impertinence, not my bad taste in failing to appreciate your shirt - though that might follow, after you'd knocked me down.)

My ideal, though (but I hope you won't hold me to it) is to avoid using the words 'taste' and 'like' when discussing art. Communicating the fact of mere preference seems much less important than communicating the kind of experience that's being had.

[jowcol]

I definitely have crappy taste in music, because, according to another forum member (who will remain nameless), I like Bruckner, Mahler, and Pettersson. There must be something seriously wrong with me. 

I'd like to think I have something in my collection that would make EVERY forum member question my taste.  If not, I need to keep looking.

[Ugh]

Didn't we have a "musical taste" a while back, if I recall correctly it was started by Greg

Anyway, from a sociological point of view, taste is an expression of class identity, and taste embeds distaste. If you are of the opinion that it is important to dress sharply, you are prone to frown upon those who dress "like slobs", and if you are deeply into classical music (high culture), you are prone to frown upon those who prefer Britain's got talent or whatever. Often, people have made class-journeys and have an aquired taste for, say, classical music and finer wines, while also enjoying Britain's got talent and a pint of beer at the pub. Sometimes, upper-class people acquire a taste for culture which is considered "beneath" them. These things depend upon individual life-courses and this and that of course, and cannot represent anything but broad generalizations. But what it does capture is that taste, and distaste, are not random.

[Florestan]

taste is an expression of class identity

I should have thought that taste is an expression of personal identity.

[jochanaan]

..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...

That seems to describe very few of us, Theresa.  I like a lot of classical music, including things that others dislike, but I do NOT like "every damn thing under the sun"!  Three examples: the Johann Strausses, Rossini (and probably the other Bel Canto opera composers if I heard much of them), and von Weber.  I could give reasons (and I'm probably not being very fair to Weber because of the nasty things he wrote about Beethoven!), but it's simply that they don't resonate in my spirit and heart the way many other classical composers' music does.  That may say something about me as a person, but I doubt it.

[Teresa]

...from a sociological point of view, taste is an expression of class identity, and taste embeds distaste.

I should have thought that taste is an expression of personal identity.

I think both are true.  Class identity with a group one wants to fit into and personal identity when one is alone.  This is why some people feel guilty about what they like due to pressure from group-think.  Thus for many there is both public and private taste.

[drogulus]

     OK, what is bad taste, then? I think it's a good concept, however misused. We all know that many people have it, so what is it? If you reject, as I do, the idea that it means someone with different taste than your own, and if you also reject the idea that it means liking stuff widely considered bad if you also like other music that is good, then it must have something to do with the function of the choice apparatus. Someone with bad taste is indifferent to qualitative improvement.

     Why do I want to build good taste? How does a model of good taste (which I try to acquire) work if no model of bad taste exists? My answer is that bad taste is not a set of preferences about works of art, it's an inability to learn anything about art beyond ones early impulses. It's the condition of being stuck with ones taste that's bad.

[Teresa]

     OK, what is bad taste, then? 

It's an illusion, it does not EXIST.  It is something uppity-people use to beat others up with who do not like what they like. 

Their is NO BAD TASTE, only differences in what each listener likes!  Taste is PERSONAL, neither good nor bad IMHO.

Don't give me music with good taste, give me music that tastes good! 

P.S. There is nothing wrong with learning more about the music you love, whither by reading composer histories or studying musical scores.   But that does not give me or anyone else the right to dictate taste to anyone else.

Right now I am enjoying Herb Alpert & The Tijuana Brass, I know people who have been bullied into not admitting they love Herb Alpert.  By the same token I hate Britney Spears but I would NEVER attack anyone's taste who loves her.   

[Mirror Image]

There's no accounting for taste. & (with most people, I assume) it's constantly changing. 10 years ago I thought Varese was just noise, now he's one of my favourite composers. Nothing is set in stone, imo...

Absolutely, it changes. As we get older, hopefully, we're much more open to newer experiences. A year ago I didn't think I would be enjoying, for example, Berg or Pettersson, as much as I do. I had a closed mind and wasn't willing to take the necessary step in order to understand their works. Now, I can't get enough of either.

If anybody is the king of "bad taste" it is me. My tastes stink!

[drogulus]

     No one is required to improve taste. However, when someone expresses complacency about exploring different music oddities in their discriminations are revealed. A frequent one is the worship of great figures with a concomitant disinterest in anyone who hasn't made the cut. This suggest a mechanical operation: "This is a great composer so I'll activate my greatness response mechanism. I never heard of this guy, so I won't bother". Coincidence? No, it probably isn't. But the most common manifestation is taste ossification, where musical taste is frozen at a very early (possibly juvenile) stage.

     A convincing taste model, one which attracts my attention in a positive way, involves an interest in art that requires some curiosity to know about. It's evidence of an active mind, and therefore a kind of taste I might learn from. That's good taste, in other words, a taste that's good for something.

[Brahmsian]

Their is NO BAD TASTE, only differences in what each listener likes!  Taste is PERSONAL, neither good nor bad IMHO.

Good.  So now, you can now agree that anyone here who enjoys Schoenberg, Webern or Berg's music doesn't have bad taste in music.