Why does varied taste matter?

this question has occurred to me more often as I get older, not sure I have an answer.

something about only going around once, end goal of being able to experience/enjoy as much as possible

varied taste = (usually) an enormous record collection = a sizable disposable income = considerable success as a human being

"i like everything, except rap & country"

taste becomes broader with experience = getting old = understanding some things that younger people might not

everything is rad

the wider a person's taste ranges, the more likely it is they'll have something in common with you?

"i like everything, except rap & country... and jazz, really, or anything, like, too heavy... or techno! i hate techno... and i really don't like that whiny emo stuff..."

actual answer from my younger brother's roommate

The more likely they'll have something in common with any given person, which is surely a plus.

well, i meant 'you' as in all mankind, kinda thing, yeah.

And Brad, I think you're right about experience -> broader understanding -> taste variance.

I think the real problem with really liking everything (or a whole mess of things) is that it tends to go hand and hand with not really loving anything and one of the great joys of any sort of fandom (music, movies, books, sports) is being totally and completely infatuated with something (at some point) to the point of obsession. And while varied taste means that you are more likely to be able to find a touchpoint with people you talk to it also inevitably means that the conversations you have about your mutual interests tend to be shallower.

roxy, didn't you read the dealbreakers threads? a person's musical tastes should have no bearing on your opinion of them.

I think I'd be okay if you were at least open to trying anything. People who seriously approach a lot of different music willingly find out that radically different styles have way more in common than they initially thought.

So as no to appear as an aspie.

I have met many many people like jon's brother's roommate. Fuck those guys.

It's not a matter of LIKING a lot of stuff. It's a matter of being willing to try something different. Fuck those guys that eat at McDonald's every day because the Indian place next door to it is just too wierd and scary, too.

varied taste is a generally good and desirable quality but like alex in sf says it can go too far.

So as no to appear as an aspie.

^

I think the real problem with really liking everything (or a whole mess of things) is that it tends to go hand and hand with not really loving anything and one of the great joys of any sort of fandom (music, movies, books, sports) is being totally and completely infatuated with something (at some point) to the point of obsession. And while varied taste means that you are more likely to be able to find a touchpoint with people you talk to it also inevitably means that the conversations you have about your mutual interests tend to be shallower.

To be serious, this seems to perhaps be more something I subscribe to these days; I do still have very varied tastes, and I'm pleased about this, but I'm also less fussed about being quite as dilettantish as I used to be. Our educational system in the UK, and I assume abroad too, is all about increasing specialisation as one grows older; I assume lots of other pursuits are too, as you find specific areas that interest you and pursue them in greater depth.

Interestingly, we often seem... no skeptical, but puzzled, by athletes who are accomplished in more than one discipline.

I listen to all kinds of stuff, and I like a lot of it, but I rarely develop a brand-new obsession (as I did with late '60s and early '70s salsa in the latter half of last year); what new sounds usually wind up doing is making me like the stuff I really like that much more. For example, as I type this I'm listening to the compilation Black Stars: Ghana's Hiplife Generation, which gathers tracks by a bunch of Ghanaian rappers, DJs, etc. (hiplife is kind of a mix of highlife, dancehall, hip-hop, etc.). And it's good. I like it, and will wind up giving it a favorable review. But I'm not gonna seek out any more hiplife records. I'm gonna go back to my baseline listening, which is metal and '70s buttrock. And when I get in a mood for hiplife, well, I've got this one album.

[semi-xpost with the above]

this whole conversation seems a bit weird for being so either-or. 'varied taste' is more an expression of personality than it is a defining characteristic i think. who cares? a boring person can have eclectic taste or orthodox tastes and vice versa.

the question of 'varied taste' seems intrinsically solipsistic - how do i best express my personality through taste? taste tells you things about other people but treating people in extreme binaries ('varied' vs. orthodox or whatever) just glosses over what taste actually says about a person

i agree with deej but i'm still suspect of people i know who only listen to rock/rap or w/e and dismiss other genres out of hand-- it's a very immature characteristic imo

i should note that i only really count non-varied taste against a person who claims to be "really into music" or w/e

xposts

Well, I said basically that in the question, but let me clarify that I don't dislike people who don't have varied taste, I just appreciate it in people that have it. My BF essentially listens to only Iron Maiden and Carcass, and I like him aight.

Define "varied". I listen to the Sex Pistols and Johnny Cash, is that varied? I own a couple of big band box sets and enjoy them but haven't sought out much more jazz, is that varied enough? I don't like hip-hop or rap I hear on the radio but I love the Disposable Heroes of Hiphopracy album and am convinced there's an underground scene I'd like if someone pointed me in the right direction. Is my mind open enough?

And what about rock - is it all the same? Is Nick Cave varied enough from Nick Lowe? Is the Wedding Present different from Weddings Parties Anything?

Personally I respect people who are into music enough to keep buying and exploring, whatever their focus is. It's the people who listen to the same 50 CDs since college that I find suspect.

Define "Odd"

Define varied: Many styles of music. That's all.

Varied "enough" for what? To be considered in a different genre? It's relative. I'd say Nick Cave and Nick Lowe are pretty different in mood/tone/etc, but on the other hand they're both western and they're both making pop music, how different can they really be?

I bet no one's ever taken a shit on the floor during a Nick Lowe gig

speak for yourself pal

I can't make this stuff up!

The confusion in her bowels says it all

Well there's a lot of judgment being passed and I wondered where I stood. Since I listen mainly to western music it's good to know everything I own sounds the same and I'm not really into music. I'll be sure to tell Mark E Smith that he's no different from Lloyd Cole, I'm sure he'd agree.

np bro

I'm sure he'd go back to beating whoever his current girlfriend is.

I'm completely aware of and at peace with the fact that almost all the music I listen to and feel strongly about falls under the realm of popular American rock or hip hop (or is a variation thereof being made by an unpopular/underground artist). I think my taste is varied and well-rounded within those areas, but I realize that there's a world of stuff out there I'm missing that I'll probably never get around to just because I'm pretty comfortable within the confines contemporary U.S. music. I'd like to learn more about other stuff just like I'd like to learn to speak other languages or travel abroad more, but if life never takes me down that path I doubt I'll actively pursue it.

The confusion in her bowels says it all

-- Ned Raggett, Monday, March 31, 2008 6:18 PM (2 minutes ago) Bookmark Link

LOL

More like Mr Oddlybutthurt, right?

Oh yes Noodle, you pegged me. Literally.

Alex in Bal gets it, though.

"It's the people who listen to the same 50 CDs since college that I find suspect."

Wait wait who is passing judgement where and on who?!?

Angry, angry young man.

Correction: old man.

And, yes, we are all better than the 50 CD owners! But some of us are more better than others.

Seriously, though, it all goes back to the lesson from "High Fidelity": it's not what you like but what you're like.

That's not the lesson I learned from High Fidelity.

the lesson I learned from High Fidelity is that I hate Nick Hornby

See I didn't need to read it to learn that lesson.

cash sitta

Initially, I thought: well, I have varied taste, and I think that matters. So then I ask: why do I think this matters? I came up with a couple of arguments for why.

1. "Because liking good music makes you a better person, and lots of different types of music contain good music. So having varied taste improves your chances of finding good stuff, and hence of being a good person." I'm not sure I buy that liking good music does make you a better person, nor am I sure that having varied taste does improve your chances of finding good stuff. So I think this isn't a great argument.

2. "Because having varied taste means you're an explorer, at some point having sought out lots of different types of music, or continuing to do so. And being an explorer makes you a better person." I'm not sure I can defend thinking that being an explorer makes you a better person. Why wouldn't a person who is secure in what she likes be better than the dilettante always seeking new things? So I think this isn't a great argument either.

I end up concluding that having varied taste doesn't matter. I have fun listening to lots of different types of music. That's the good of it for me: it's fun. But I think others for whom it's not fun aren't in a worse position. I don't have any reason for thinking having varied taste makes me a better person.

http://www.doitpoms.ac.uk/tlplib/foreign-languages/figures/mad_scientist_sml.png

Euler, I think you're mostly right.

I know, sorry for the pedantic tone; I gotta learn to get my zing on one of these days.

Euler's theorem!

Are you from Houston, Euler?

no sir

ah damn I see, like Oil-er; no, I picked this damn screen name thinking I'd get to change it, and so I just picked what I was thinking about that day, which was Euler's Theorem. Alas...

I think the answer to the question is that it doesn't matter, except to people who have it: like anything else. Ever since I was a kid the music that intrigues me most is the stuff I know nothing about - that's the stuff that feels like an undiscovered country, you know, and learning new things about it is exciting for me. I don't think it "ought" to be exciting for anybody else, though of course when I've had a positive (or life-changing, or revelatory) experience with a piece of music and I feel like the initial push toward it was rooted in my curiosity about other forms, it makes me feel like there's something of real & generalizable value about that experience. But that's just the enthusiasm of the zealot; the genre purist may well come to the end of his years having gotten deeper into his preferred milieu than somebody like me will ever get with a single genre, who'll listen to one style really heavily for a while and then move on to another for a while - for me genres and styles come in and out of view like seasons, kind of.

I do suspect that brain chemistry plays a heavier role than anything else here, though whether "brain chemistry" is just a different way of saying "character traits" is an open question. (Though: one is generally praised or blamed for one's character traits.)

xpost

It just seemed like the pun that had to be made.

http://content.answers.com/main/content/wp/en/7/7f/Tunacharlie.gif

I think the answer to the question is that it doesn't matter, except to people who have it

Well, or to people who *don't* have it but are insecure enough to think it matters, even to the point of trying to bullshit their way into musical discussions that they would lose no points for just staying out of. It's childish, but it happens. It happens a lot at parties, I notice, when the lolcollege kids get all liquored up and try to out-cool each other. So there's that aspect as well -- cultural capital, and the fear of lacking it.

Most (but certainly not all ) of my IRL friends, while listening to different stuff as me, tend to listen to a similar range of stuff -- i.e. wide. And that's very cool, it gives ppl more to talk about. But I've noticed that online I value exactly the opposite -- the best tips come from people who specialize. Any dork can listen to a little of this and a little of that, like me, that's not special. But the dude who listens to nothing but white-label lo-fi ambient glitch from Azerbaijan, that's the dude whose last.fm page I'm bookmarking.

I have varied taste so I don't get bored listening to fucking space drones all the time.

^ this

this whole conversation seems a bit weird for being so either-or. 'varied taste' is more an expression of personality than it is a defining characteristic i think. who cares? a boring person can have eclectic taste or orthodox tastes and vice versa.
--deej

yeah but i think roxy is on to something about varied taste as a signifier of 'empathic personality', which is what i found most interesting & which also seems to be pretty ignored here. i think the fact that ilx was bred from critics tends to fuck up the discourse a lot, even if it often makes it interesting. i mean, does anyone here, in general, really truly give a shit about the taste of those they know irl? if you actually like a person, i think their taste is just something interesting about them, good or bad.

i think alex in sf also makes a good point, about varied taste sometimes indicating a lack of depth. ymmv.

ok i thought this was an ILE thread but points stand, i think

Varied taste is good because it means you are open to more things which can be considered mature (unlike a teenager who hates everything)

Varied taste is good because it means you probably have a multi-faceted personality. You are more likely a person that doesn't fit into cliches or types. You are more likely to enjoy unique or original music. Generally, openness makes you a person that is likable since you can share more interests with people. You may also have character traits that suggest that you are unique, friendly, and special because varied taste allows for you to like more things...

You are more likely a person that doesn't fit into cliches or types

but - these are judgments that have no intrinsic value. whether or not a person fits a cliche or type has nothing to do with that particular person and is dependent entirely upon the person rendering judgment.

iow, in our own eyes, we're all unique, fascinating, intrinsically good people, etc.

haha yeah right. intrisnic value. that means a lot in this world.

yeah but i think roxy is on to something about varied taste as a signifier of 'empathic personality', which is what i found most interesting & which also seems to be pretty ignored here. i think the fact that ilx was bred from critics tends to fuck up the discourse a lot, even if it often makes it interesting. i mean, does anyone here, in general, really truly give a shit about the taste of those they know irl? if you actually like a person, i think their taste is just something interesting about them, good or bad.

i think alex in sf also makes a good point, about varied taste sometimes indicating a lack of depth. ymmv.

-- deeznuts, Monday, March 31, 2008 4:41 PM (7 minutes ago) Bookmark Link

yeah this is kinda true, but i think i see this in a different way; one is a question of music i just plain enjoy listening to, and the other is how i use music to relate to other people. Like, folks not involved in the critic circle jerk will still say shit like "lol I HATE that band" obviously and how you deal with that if you also hate them or just think they're whatever or you really really like them ... to me thats got a lot more to do w/ how you socialize than it does with 'taste,' like your 'varied taste' is an anchor for your opinions but how seriously you take your taste in the public sphere is more relevent to how empathetic you can be as a person

that was kind of stream of conscious, did it make sense?

basically i know people with narrow taste who are still a lot more diplomatic when talking about music than people who are really 'eclectic'

I think there's a difference between varied taste and "liking everything". Every single person who's told me "I like everything" doesn't really like music. Having varied taste is, however, something I admire. Especially these days when more and more music is being produced for each, very specific taste. I have to admit my tastes have narrowed, not widened, probably because I've become completely indulgent and I have no patience for music I don't instantly like.

This TS can also be expressed (and has been discussed before) as depth vs breadth. i.e. what "choice" people who profess to be into music have is to be really deeply into one thing or a limited number of things, or to be partly into a lot of different things (even this is simplifying things: a lot of "specialists" seem to be in to two or three wildly divergent genres and that's it - this seems "varied" but stops short of being dilettantish). Money used to be the barrier to people being deeply into everything; now I think it's time. You can download gigabytes of stuff every week but if you only listen to it once then that's breadth not depth.

In general, the value of breadth is that it often encourages you to think more interestingly about the relationality of music, as you try to accomodate your many reasons for liking quite disparate cultural objects into a vaguely coherent (or even interestingly incoherent) world view. Whereas depth can accomodate a lot more bullshit ideas about music as long as it doesn't appear to contradict the basic tenets of your chosen field of specialization.

But the above picture isn't very reliable, and this is mainly because any given area of music contains so many interesting, divergent and apparently contradictory impulses that:

(a) a person with an actually-quite-mentalist approach to music can ultimately find something to like in any given genre (see Geir, Pipecock - both of whom would seem to have massive, wildly varied record collections, albeit heirarchically arranged around depressing themes and assumptions); and

(b) a single genre, say, can theoretically tell you as much as any human can know about music as a whole ,if you listen to it sensitively and perceptively enough, if you listen for the conflicts and contradictions in it.

But (b) can be quite rare, if only because thinking creatively about music is a skill like any other, and needs to be honed, usually by coming into contact with people who think more sharply than you do and challenge your weak spots. This is less likely to happen when there is a lot of consensus between listeners, as there often is in single-genre communities.

None of the above applies in more general social situations. I am quite reluctant to talk about music much with people I don't know well (or who don't follow music crit etc.) b/c my excessive interest and crypto-jargon gets in the way of a good conversation too quickly.

i don't know how important it is, i wish a varied taste in music meant you'd be open-minded in all aspects of life, but i have not found this to be the case. The one thing i think my own taste says about me is that i genuinely appreciate sound & manipulations thereof in many different forms. This says nothing for my character (i'm a pretty awful human being), but i pride myself on the fact that i do not fall into the trap of judging people based on what music they like. In fact, it bugs me when i'm called a music snob because i've never talked down to someone based on their taste & conversely, i've received plenty of dirty looks from people who didn't care for the music i listen to. Does this reaffirm the "empathetic personality" statement? i'm not sure. First time i've thought of myself as empathetic in a long time though, even speculatively.

haha yeah right. intrisnic value. that means a lot in this world.

my point was you could have the most varied taste in music possible and would still very easily fit cliches and types.

x-post

You have to prove there is something more to life than peoples' simple judgment of you, standards, and sex, if you want people to think you are different and knowledgeable of 'the greater meaning in life'. Varied taste shows you are knowledgeable of this greater meaning inadvertently because openness is a virtue and showing others that life is more than simple daily perceptions will help prove that you aren't the kind of person who only thinks of material things but rather the big picture and the important things in life that are beyond skin deep...

yeah basically what Tim's saying is about my experience, i found that the more aware i am of the scope and range of music and different perspectives of such, the better able i am to put my own taste in perspective and identify places i'm interested in listening and places i can gloss over; its a very freeing process.

one of the weird things i find myself doing on ilm is reading many of pipecock's posts, even tho i find him unbearable, because i'm still trying to comprehend the scope of his perspective, what sounds + ideas he is receptive to vs. rejecting, probing the general boundaries of records ... especially because in some ways, guys who have 'healthier' perspectives on music probably aren't as good as DJs judging by Pipecock's last mix, which was fun .... that there are other things entering into the equation when discussing music that also matter, like confidence in your worldview ... i think if Pipecock took a lot of criticism to heart he might become a more boring poster, never mind DJ, and I might just skip his posts altogether.

that para wasnt very well thought out and im glossing over some connections there but i hope someone made sense of it.

The intrinsic value people perceive in you and you perceive in yourself is related to how open your outlook is on the world and life. All that philosophical stuff like Carpe Diem are related to openness which is related to varied taste.

So yes very taste is a better sign that you have intrisnic value than a person without varied taste.

captain lorax what the fuck are you saying

very taste

lorax only posts to ilx when he is high out of his fucking mind

Nice post, Tim F. You definitely think more sharply about dance music broadly construed than I do, and I've learned a lot from you about it on ILM.

But I want to remark on what you're suggesting with (b). Let's suppose you're right that "a single genre, say, can theoretically tell you as much as any human can know about music as a whole". I don't know if that's right, but I'll grant it. (I suspect this "scholarly" take on music will earn you derision here as humorless, but not from me.) Suppose I'm interested not so much in knowing music as a whole, though, but rather in how music fits into wider cultural patterns (for instance, in the ways music today relates to "modernism"). Then I'll want breadth, as you put it, not depth. So I'm not sure I understand how (b) in particular upsets the reliability of the breadth/depth picture that you gave, which seemed largely right to me.

If I was a better writer you would understand what I was saying there about varied taste being related to openness which is related to life value beyond sex, standards, and judgments.

stop posting

stop being closed minded.

to incomprehensible posts?

elevate your mind and maybe you will be able to comprehend

:D

it's not quantum physics

I admit a lot of this is well-trodden ground for me (thus my not saying much so far) but Tim's post has teased out a few more issues of interest, specifically:

(b) a single genre, say, can theoretically tell you as much as any human can know about music as a whole ,if you listen to it sensitively and perceptively enough, if you listen for the conflicts and contradictions in it.

But (b) can be quite rare, if only because thinking creatively about music is a skill like any other, and needs to be honed, usually by coming into contact with people who think more sharply than you do and challenge your weak spots. This is less likely to happen when there is a lot of consensus between listeners, as there often is in single-genre communities.

I'm intrigued by the Romantic (with a capital R) possibilities of the first part but like Tim agree on its rarity. If anything these days I'm incredibly suspicious of it! But also something that's crossed my mind more lately has been the question of appreciating sound-qua-sound in terms of supposed universality within a genre -- I've found it interesting that both hip-hop and to a lesser but still strong extent metal have more than most popular music forms a basis for claiming utter inclusiveness, ie that they can (though not necessarily must or do) incorporate anything and everything, and that they therefore are superior forms of music as a result. This is all incredibly reductive, and they're obviously not universal arguments from everyone on the subject, but it's an interesting undercurrent to see played out.

At the very least people with mentalist ideas are useful because their ideas are wrong in ways you haven't encountered before, so it gives you another angle on how to be "right" (that is: "if I don't agree with this, why don't I agree, and what do I think instead, and how is what I think a better take on (x)?").

And yeah, lots of musicians and DJs and etc. have mentalist views on music in ways that actually help their creative process.

x-post - Euler I was being kinda speculative here. What I mean is that any genre will always overflow the rules that fans and artists attempt to create for it, both musically and sociologically. House might be designed for clubs but that doesn't mean it can't be used for self-pitying, solitary bedsit listening too - the indie embrace of Kompakt which house and techno purists get all sniffy about is a good example of how in certain situations a given genre can seem like almost the opposite of its alleged identity. So someone thinking really deeply/broadly about a single genre could come away "understanding" the (let's call it for the sake of the discussion) "indie mindset" (at least as much as a dilettante with three stereotypical indie records) without actually engaging with categorically indie music.

But this is rare because it's precisely those people who listen to only one genre who tend to get most worked up about the importance of certain (usually unwritten, perhaps even undefined-in-their-heads) rules.

x-post again - yeah ned is onto what I mean.

On the other hand people who admit to being purist and admit to having rules are usually superior to people who have no idea that their listening is riven with partiality and exclusions (e.g. the "i like all music except rap and country" strawman).

"superior" in the sense that I find them more interesting to talk about music with - not necessarily better people.

I like nina simone AND the boredoms!!!!!

Freak.

I think that was a parody of el Jagz first post.

i like death metal AND black metal

favourite music includes both Blur AND Mogwai

favourite music includes both Blur AND Mogwai

See, are you mocking that statement? Because they're pretty different bands from my perspective and to me that's certainly broader than listening to just classic rock or 60s pop. But then I'm sure someone could make a good argument that the Beatles, Stones, Kinks and Who are all rather different. Hence my query about what defines "varied".

they're two bands from the same country, the same time period, and the same general genre.

I mean yeah you could argue that the Who/Stones/Beatles/Kinks are all nothing alike or that Coltrane/Miles/Monk are all nothing alike but they share a lot of central characteristics that to the unschooled listener represent some very real and basic similarities.

varied taste = (usually) an enormous record collection = a sizable disposable income = considerable success as a human being

-- Ol Bertie Dastard, Monday, March 31, 2008 1:19 PM (6 hours ago) Bookmark Link

Um, this is SO not true.

i admire people who are unpredictable and always ready to explore something unknown out of sheer curiosity and enthusiasm. they might be more empathetic in certain ways if only because most people i know like this spend little time on the things they dislike and more time trying to tell people about the things they're excited about. which is one reason i like jonathan gold, the food critic for l.a. weekly, because he has probably been to thousands of restaurants around the city but really only spends time focusing on what places are worth spending time on. well, save the occasional mildly humorous pan, pans which are so rare that i can only think of one. it's also why i think certain ilxors are great and others are stuck in some kind of weird taste rut.

x-post: More importantly, Blur and Mogwai are both pushed by the same kind of listening community - UK indie press etc.

If there is any value in varied listening in people sociologically, surely it would lie in those people not being so wrapped up in the aesthetic choices of a particular social sub-category that they think this represents the entire world - including thinking that the extreme poles of their particular group (Blur on one side and Mogwai on the other) constitutes diversity/polarity per se.

An analogy would be someone saying: "I like to hear all sides of the debate, that's why I read the Workers' Gazette and the Green Left Weekly" - and then when you press them on the fact that these aren't really a snapshot of the spectrum of any "given" debate, they say "Oh, but socialist politics and green-left politics are quite different!"

What's annoying isn't that they read these papers, or that they perceive differences between them, it's the self-congratulatory air of comprehensiveness.

(analogy inspired by Ned, who appears to both listen to music and reads politics much more widely than his apparent "taste" in both areas would require)

music is awesome and if you dont see the awesomeness in tons of music you kind of suck.

kind of more like totally

for sure

Totally.

more like if you don't read and post to ILM am I right

like, walk the walk, people

chaki nailed it

"(a) a person with an actually-quite-mentalist approach to music can ultimately find something to like in any given genre (see Geir, Pipecock - both of whom would seem to have massive, wildly varied record collections, albeit heirarchically arranged around depressing themes and assumptions)

-- Tim F"

depressing themes and assumptions? i dont know about that, i actually dont arrange or organize my collections at all. my music is all about achieving moods, atmospheres, and feelings. those can change radically depending on where you place the song (songs preceding/following them, location, activities you're doing when listening) so i'm not sure there is any theme or assumption.

"one of the weird things i find myself doing on ilm is reading many of pipecock's posts, even tho i find him unbearable, because i'm still trying to comprehend the scope of his perspective, what sounds + ideas he is receptive to vs. rejecting, probing the general boundaries of records ... especially because in some ways, guys who have 'healthier' perspectives on music probably aren't as good as DJs judging by Pipecock's last mix, which was fun .... that there are other things entering into the equation when discussing music that also matter, like confidence in your worldview ... i think if Pipecock took a lot of criticism to heart he might become a more boring poster, never mind DJ, and I might just skip his posts altogether.

-- deej"

i like to think my craziness helps me ;)

what varied taste really says to me is that people can recognize that some things are better than others for certain applications. listening to any one genre is going to limit the kinds of feelings the music you listen to is going to have. that's just the way it is. what jazz does best heavy metal could never do. and what ambient does best hiphop could never do. i need variety in my life, i have many different kinds of feelings and many different kinds of music to match/augment/counter them. the genres i find worthless are the ones with only superficial differences to them from other genres that get the same feelings with better results. that said, i feel like there is a thread that runs through all the music i like as well!

i have really varied and always changing tastes in pretty much EVERYTHING and all i think that says about me is that i'm fickle and have a short attention span :/

the need to explore can be driven by that as much as anything else.

not to say that i'm grimly grinding through every possible genre / experience in search of something that'll make me feel SOMETHING ANYTHING AGAIN MAN--i do get super-excited and passionate about stuff, all the time--but that element should be acknowledged.

lorax only posts to ilx when he is high out of his fucking mind

-- El Tomboto, Monday, March 31, 2008 10:18 PM (Yesterday) Bookmark Link

elevate your mind and maybe you will be able to comprehend

-- CaptainLorax, Monday, March 31, 2008 10:26 PM

lol tombot da prophet

there are a zillion good answers to this question -- which is a good question -- but basically i think varied taste however defined represents an openness to and enthusiasm for communication from varied perspectives. music is the most fluid and adaptable language human beings have (even more than other artforms, for my money, although you can make cases for film, painting, dance, theater, etc) and varied taste in music is to some degree varied taste in cultures and contexts. which is a good thing if you think that more cross-border cross-cultural communication is a net positive. it can also of course create a false sense of familiarity -- liking a highlife tape or a thai pop compilation or a george strait record for that matter does not necessarily mean you know or understand much of anything about the underlying culture. but it might mean you're open to knowing more about it, which is a start.

in some ways i think valuing varied taste, particularly as you age, is sort of the inverse of the maxim about "if you're not a socialist when you're 20 ... if you're not a conservative when you're 40 ... " i've always hated that line, which is really just a conservative apologia, assuming that lives have to be directed in this crabbed reductive way that seems totally at odds with actually learning from the world as you pass through it. and yes of course as you hear more things you find more and more consonances and similarities and derivations between and among them, but you also of course find very real differences and gulfs and incompatibilities, and those are important too.

Who is Pipecock and what is his schtick? Why on Earth is he being mentioned alongside Geir?

I have no idea what people think of my taste, and at this stage in the game, don't really give a fuck.

Also, when we talk about 'varied taste' do we mean just "liking lots of music" or "liking lots of music that's (ostensibly) from different genres"; because either way YOU LIKE LOTS OF MUSIC and as I see it that's better than not liking much music or not liking music much.

Physiologically, doesn't music almost literally stretch your brain and make you smarter? Aren't there studies demonstrating this? And if so, does liking "varied music" stretch your brain in lots of directions, therefore making you even smarter?

this is the poopiest thread to ever make ILX.

Why do colors make things beautiful>
Why do angels sing songs that make me happy
why do faggots suck ml.s;f,';df.

Suck what now?

sorry, I got drunk last night

almost everyone will claim to have varied taste -- even people who only own 20 or 30 cds will say, "oh, i like all sorts of things." which could be true, from their perspective. if you have greatest-hits discs from the police, prince and ac/dc, plus led zeppelin iv and the o brother where art thou soundtrack, it's easy to think of your taste as broad -- and flattering too. growing up most people at some point absorb the idea of open-mindedness as a cultural value (at least in the u.s. and europe, i don't know how universal that is, but it's definitely part of the heritage of the enlightenment), and so think of themselves that way whether it's demonstrably true or not.

Tipsy hyper-otm throughout each post. Ned -- re: well-trodden ground, are there other threads about this that you know of?

This is related, although it picks it up from a different angle:

TS: Dilettantism vs. Fanaticism ... Or can ILM have a good discussion?

It seems to me there have been at least a few others, but it's been a while.

Also this:

Breadth Or Depth?

'Well-trodden' meaning from my personal angle, Roxy! It's less a matter of specific threads on here than just the way of general discussion over the years -- that second thread Rockist linked is interesting because I barely say anything there as well, but that's likely because of all the good posts already there, plus the fact that I'd been talking on and off with a number of those posters about similar issues since the mid-nineties.

I think about this a lot. I'm fairly confident that my music taste is no less varied than that of anyone I know but I'm not sure I think of myself as having a particularly empathic and understanding personality. I don't think I'm as welcoming/tolerant/non-judgmental with people as I am with music (though I sometimes wish I were). When I think about it, I don't really think that 'interacting' with music is analogous to interacting with people. I never experience pieces of music as, say, condescending or spiteful and hypocritical or obnoxiously clingy or bigoted but I can experience people in these ways and react negatively. (I could experience lyrical messages in these ways but enjoyment of a piece of music isn't really tied to literal/semantic lyrical content for me most of the time. It's a lot harder to appreciate people 'despite' the content of what they say, however.)

Sundar OTM. (of course gypsy mothra on the money too)

If you don't like the record you are listening to or don't feel like listening to it at that moment, you can always put another one on, by the same artist, different artist, different genre, etc. But if you are stuck in a boring or annoying social situation and you don't have the "I'm outa here" option, well...

OTM. It also occurs to me that people who I do think of as truly empathic and understanding, e.g my grandmother, aren't necessarily mondo eclectic music connoisseurs, perhaps because they'd rather spend time with people than analysing 12-tone compositions or tracking down oud recordings. They might be willing to give anything a chance and try to at least understand it but that's not the same as varied taste per se IMO.

well yeah, liking music doesn't necessarily translate into liking people. or even completely admiring the culture that produces it. you can like some dancehall but also understand the misogyny, gay-baiting and so forth that runs through it; you can like some indie rock but be put off by the insular narcissism of the educated elite; etc. but by listening to those things you also can develop some broader sense of the world, and probably some appreciation for aspects of it that are otherwise inaccessible and foreign to your daily life.

of course that makes it all sound like some high-minded chore, when the reality is that for the novelty-seekers among us it's an entertaining kind of armchair exploration. i don't seek out new things to better myself or out of some noble sense of duty, i do it to keep from getting bored.

^^that last sentence

if you're getting bored, could it be that the music you are listening to is not that good in the first place? when the mood is right, i could easily listen to the same record over and over and over and never be bored with it.

ban pipecock

pipe bancock

there are tons of records and songs that do not in themselves bore me no matter how many times i hear them. but that doesn't mean i don't want to hear something new.

"there are tons of records and songs that do not in themselves bore me no matter how many times i hear them. but that doesn't mean i don't want to hear something new.

-- tipsy mothra"

hearing new things is good, but it doesn't mean you are doing it because you are bored. those doods upthread seem to say that that's why they do it.

[iggy_pop.jpg]

I'm Tired

lol @ the idea that a records must be statically "good"

Let me play HOOS for a moment and say:
Crutis is an honorable man.

"lol @ the idea that a records must be statically "good"

-- Curt1s Stephens"

lol @ you being a fucking retard

pipecock go post on 'rubbish dance' thread

lol @ the idea that being bored is indicative of some larger issue other than "Put the needle on another record."

Of course it COULD indicate some larger issue, but sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.

You shouldn't use a lit cigar to play records, you'll melt them!

pipecock why aren't you listening to your favorite record right now? is there something wrong with it?

he cant choose!!

http://a248.ac-images.myspacecdn.com/images01/15/l_f7ab63f002ab9661dbea15d23ab5e6bf.jpg
"which one should i play?"

Rachel Ray--you want to ask her if she's been into any free jazz lately, under 30 minutes, of course, and also, who's that guy, Nick Zimmer? something like, that, the Bizarre Foods on the Food Network or Channel. Rachel would not eat anything but I think the other guy would, and I would draw the line at, like, liver or things that are still alive when you eat them (saw one guy, Anthony Bourdain, eat a beating heart outta something last night). But overall, I tend to eat what's around in the place I'm at, unless it's this Mid-American kinda thing I'm living in right now, where everyone eats at chain restaurants. My sister can eat an Egg McMuffin, I can't; once I thought, shit, I love this Arto Lindsay record and it's funky, so I got her one from Amazon.com, and she hated it. So sometimes you can't win with this stuff, and then, in the case of music, so many people are just looking for validation. I'm looking for it too. However, music as backdrop I've tried and still try, like the other night I had just taped some Turkish action films like Tarkan Vs. the Vikings and listened to Dennis Coffey--"Son of Scorpio"--with the sound down on the movie. Often, though, I am looking for a big foreground experience, like something that really moves me, but realize that's not always possible. I've often ended up with women who seemed to have broad taste, but then you get 'em home and fuck, it's all...name it: Iggy, Velvets, Sting, etc., some pychosexual hangup they express in their shitty musical taste and they drive you nuts. Meanwhile, me, the Pop Eclectic or whatever, I'm listening to the Parliaments and Smog and that Yessir Endure dude, from Africa, and driving them nuts. "Why don't you wanna rock?" "Shit, baby, I do, jes' without the music, turn that goddamn Lou Reed Live 1975 Bootleg OFF."

It's like that, really, and so I worry about my own perceptions and of course, scope out what people are actually grooving to, on those occasions when I go out. I'd still like to see what happens to Rachel Ray if she were forced to listen to, like, the Fall and then to the Mekons, but with an excellent home-made peanut sauce and plenty of saucy dippin' stix, but in the end, it's not worth it, because these 30- minute men and women, they ain't never gonna slow down enough to savor anything, be it music or food.

"pipecock go post on 'rubbish dance' thread

-- deej"

already done.

"pipecock why aren't you listening to your favorite record right now? is there something wrong with it?

-- Curt1s Stephens"

i am listening to it. right now. it's fine.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_the_Leisure_Class

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/La_Distinction

I should clarify that when describing a person with varied taste I decidedly do NOT mean the type of person who simply listens to tons and tons of music and is always on the current tip. This type of person tends to annoy me, actually, as they often DO come off as completely uninvested in music and/or seem content to enjoy the novelty of mentioning a band/genre you've never heard of (and once they are sure you haven't, move on to something else). Again, this isn't a rule. More of a stereotype ("come off as", etc), really.

By "people with varied taste," I really just mean people who enjoy listening to various genres of music, or who desire to.

(Enter Mr. Odd to ask if Paul McCartney and Devo are dissimilar enough to count as various.)

It's all down to what you're looking for, isn't it? In music, in a conversation, in life. Frankly at this point it's just nice to run into people who are genuinely still interested in music at all, cause by 40 it seems few and far between.

Having varied taste only matters if having it makes you happy.

Bands stay at my house and sift through my wall of records and rip piles of them and seem genuinely amazed at the breadth of my collection. But it can still be argued that Brazilian death metal and Tangerine Dream are still "western white guy music".

Additionally, varied taste actually matters if you're going to call yourself a critic; having enough knowledge to imbue your reviews with PERSPECTIVE is of some inherent value. It can keep you out of trouble anyway.

Breadth and variety are not the same thing, surely? Not in my estimation.

Breadth:
3. freedom from narrowness or restraint; liberality:

Variety:
3. a number of different types of things, esp. ones in the same general category:

***

So?

Oh, it just seemed like you were equating them? Maybe not.

This thread should not be a semantic argument.

It should be about the how and why and appropriateness of music to specific occasions. why i don't listen to punk almost ever anymore, why i sometimes listen to instrumental music before bed (easier to read to), how come i listen to music with major-scale progressions when i get up in the morning, how come i am attracted to the genres of music that i am--i don't claim to like everything, and am something of a tourist when it comes to certain genres.

how much does environment account for taste?
if i had grown up listening to kurt weill and instead of the beatles and jackson browne, how would my taste be different? would i value different things in music? as it stands, i couldn't tell you what i value about "music" as a general topic of discussion; the trick is finding value in pieces of music for different reasons, unique to that track (or style of music, or album, or mega-mix or whatever). sometimes "songwriting" is something that an artist/audience values, and sometimes it's not. there are a lot of variables involved, especially when it comes down to music connecting with individuals.

blah blah blah.

like i said earlier in this thread, i don't want to bore myself.

This thread should not be a semantic argument.

Oh, I agree. I was just thinking, you know, maybe they ARE marveling at just how many records are in your collection, and it has nothing to do with variety.

i have 800 death metal LP records and 2000 pre-swing hot jazz 78s, and that is all of the music i listen to.

now THAT'S what i call music

varied taste is overrated. i much prefer to have a broad knowledge of a few select genres than a cursory knowledge of every genre. there are certain kinds of music that I have no use for.

i have 800 death metal LP records and 2000 pre-swing hot jazz 78s, and that is all of the music i listen to.
And you live on an island in New England?

Anyway, that post before last of Ian's was OTM.

But you tolerate lots of kinds of music, I bet! xxpost

I listen exclusively to True Norwegian R&B and Viking Hyphy.

i think it's possible to have varied taste and still specialize in certain genres. the two can be highly compatible even. i'm not talking like "country AND western" but if someone can have a broad knowledge of even ive or six genres of music, that can still be pretty varied. take for example, someone who listen to: hard bop, roots/dub reggae, disco, kbd punk, Turkish classical music and pre-war appalachian string bands. this person has taste that's varied, despite ignoring vast stretches of the worldwide history of music.

xppp
i have 800 death metal LP records and 2000 pre-swing hot jazz 78s, and that is all of the music i listen to.

^^ totally a joke! i don't collect 78s at all! and i barely have any metal records!

and NEW YORK IS NOT A FUCKING ISLAND.

i am not scott seward.

But Manhattan. Or Long Island or whatever.

I listen to moody Germans talking over mood music. (At least that's what I'm doing right now. Before that were crabby Canadian metal guys who like Pig Destroyer but were sponsored by their country's art council or something.)

oops, new york IS an island. i meant to type NEW YORK IS NOT A FUCKING PART OF NEW ENGLAND.
but i've been drinking.

ned raggett, do you like the shadow ring?
i love records with people talking. they can be talking over virtually anything, and in any language, and i will gladly listen to it. i like the way people sound when they talk assuredly.

Did you hear that guy on Michael Shelley's show the other day, ian, Ken Nordine?

No jokes about Michael Shelley street team please.

I did not hear that, but I totally dig Ken Nordine. The only record of his I see with any regularity is that "Sounds in Space" LP though, which is pretty fun. For some reason I think there's one involving a lighthouse or a shore or something? I might have dreamt that.

Anyway, I'm glad my Skot Seward joke went over so well.

I think this is the Ken Nordine LP i'm thinking of:
http://rateyourmusic.com/release/album/ken_nordine/how_are_things_in_your_town_/

I don't know if I ever listened to it. Just the cover made such an impression on me.

ned raggett, do you like the shadow ring?

I love me the Shadow Ring.

this thread just made me look for internet definitions of variety. my favorite was "a diversity of possibilities."

Maybe Morbius will show up on and tell us about that theater on the East Side.

I submit that "varied taste" is a symptom of a deeper characteristic that is desirable to folks what are blessed with a mind above average

inasmuch as music is concerned, chaki actually did probably say it best

I can't really stand to listen to the few or more stand-outs in a particular style. Any more and I get bored to death with the whole sound of it - no matter how "good" it may be. It's not a conscious thing, really, I guess I'm just wired like that.

"i think it's possible to have varied taste and still specialize in certain genres. the two can be highly compatible even."

^^^this

I don't think varied taste necessarily = dilettantism. Surely a lot of here are relative experts about a few types of music, or a few very different-sounding artists.

(And yeah, that's probably my favorite all-time Chaki quote upthread)

I want to pick up on something I've read by others (prob. Tim F) on other threads. Namely, that genres (e.g. jazz, rock, metal, r&b) have their own values, and that a lot of genre tourists are really looking for their favored genre's values in the other genre they're listening to. E.g. the rock fan who listens to free jazz and hears the wild abandon he values in garage rock: he's not appreciating the values of jazz, but only of rock, and inasmuch as there are shared values, he appreciates both, but no more.

Now what's the problem with this? I gather there are at least a couple:

(1) The listener thinks he's being open minded, but isn't really. So he's operating in bad faith. His genre tourism is superficial. And it's bad to be a superficial fan of a genre, because then you will fail to learn critical aspects of what there is to know about that genre.

(2) Genre tourism can turn into genre imperialism, When the audience for jazz ends up wanting rock-valued music, rather than jazz-valued music, there won't be "real" jazz anymore, but only a "fusion". But real jazz was valuable before, and now what was valuable about it has largely been lost...or it will remain but only in a consciously retro way. Either way is bad.

I'm not sure that either argument is sound, or representative of what others see as the problem with genre tourism. But they seem representative to me.

I'm willing to grant the "genre essentialism" regarding values too. I don't have an argument for it, but it seems right after reflection.

Ned above commented that metal and hip hop are two primary examples of "inclusive" genres in recent years. Rock has gotten a fair bit of flack for its inclusivity over the years, e.g. here on ILM, I gather for the reasons (1) and (2) given above. Don't those worries still apply to metal and hip hop's inclusivity?

I think the politics get really interesting here: for instance, one argument against rock value-imperialism is that those values are sexist and problematically hetero-normative (is racism absent? much harder to answer): and so importing rock's values into other genres taints them too. Are jazz or r&b or metal value-imperialism better than this? Because if every genre's values have something ugly about them, one argument for having varied taste is to avoid the ugly values of each genre...or else to possess all these ugly values, but then their inevitable clashes will temper you morally.

Namely, that genres (e.g. jazz, rock, metal, r&b) have their own values, and that a lot of genre tourists are really looking for their favored genre's values in the other genre they're listening to.

These people don't really have varied taste, then!

are really looking for their favored genre's values in the other genre they're listening to

i think this is probably true of me often when i'm listening to a lot of current euro techno/deep house stuff - except that used to be one of my favoured genres so you can be looking for something in the music that you used to like about it but doesn't seem to be there anymore. applies to drum n' bass too i guess.

obviously it's possible to have varied taste within a genre and between genres. it's not so much a dilettantism vs. specialization issue; plus anyway most people are some mixture of those, specialists in a few things and dilettantes in a lot of others. i don't really buy the value-imperialism thing because i think to whatever extent it exists it tends to be more of a transitional phase than anything else. i.e. a rock fan just getting into jazz might find their way from jeff beck to james blood ulmer to sonny sharrock, starting out with a rock set of guitar values but accruing knowledge of jazz guitar values along the way. it's a matter of becoming conversant. and of course you can like something in a given genre without really being conversant with the genre. but again, by getting to know or like one thing, you sort of open yourself up to the possibility of getting to know and like other related things.

also, things relate to each other by more than just genre. if you're someone attracted to certain kinds of sonic textures, say, you can find those more than one place, and exposure to varied musical approaches will uncover those.

Good point. Actually sometimes you start listening to something you think "Well, some interesting people seem to like this. Maybe I should see what it's all about," but you don't get it at first, and then maybe not for a while. (I know some annoying dude is going to say "If you don't like it don't listen to it") But then at some point you either find something that has more accessible melodies (an appeal to the Geir in all of us) or you start to understand what the basic drumbeats and basslines or guitar textures for this other type of music is, for example, or you just find one of those artists whose musical personality is so strong that they just kick your doors down. Or it can be nice of somebody else can lead you down the path and say "I couldn't wrap my head around it until I heard this" or just "Start here," instead of a certain kind of record collector guy who's all "You gotta go get THAT one, that one's great TOO!" all the time.

Of course, when I talk about drumbeats, I am referring to this thread.

it seems kind of dictatorial to say what the "right" reasons for listening to a given style of music are - that if one doesn't share the aesthetics of a genre's partisans, one's reasons for enjoying music from said genre are somehow invalid. kind of authorial-fallacy stuff.

J0hn D, I totally agree; I was trying to represent what I thought I'd heard others say on other threads. But I may have gotten them wrong.

I will say that being conscious of my own value-imperialism has helped me be more open to "mainstream" music within genres that I like, but thought of myself as only liking the "outsider" stuff. For me this is mostly w.r.t. jazz, where I started with the wild stuff and then became conscious that I wasn't appreciating jazz for its own sake, but only as an "exotic" version of rock. I spent time with jazz trying to learn more of its specific values: I'm sure I've mostly failed, but I'm closer than I was.

I think country music is like this for a lot of rock fans too.

one's reasons for enjoying music from said genre are somehow invalid

http://i209.photobucket.com/albums/bb208/EdwardCopeland/rules/vlcsnap-29039.png
Everybody has their reasons

J0hn D OTM - there is no "wrong" way to listen to music

I need to read this thread before I comment.

Great thread idea tho roxy a++

helgeson got it right when he said "everything is rad"; being able to appreciate great things outside of your own immediate experience is generally a sign of open-mindedness, empathy and depth in the listener's own life.
I.E.; real recognizes real.

If there is no right way to listen to music, then why is it better to listen to a varied array of genres than to listen to the same record over and over?

I don't think it is necessarily better, just that it might be indicative of traits that I value in a person.

But if the person who only listened to one record over and over could explain why they only listened to that one record, wouldn't that make you value them too?

I might value them already! But sure. The ability to explain why one likes something is a quality I like, too.

Of course, when I talk about drumbeats, I am referring to this thread.

Whoa, that's an excellent thread -- thanks for the link. These kinds of technical/historical discussions have done as much as anything else to help me hear different kinds of music.

Any suggestions about how to find more science like this on ILM? I'd never have run a search on "jazz cymbals" or whatever.

Why does varied taste matter? I used to work with a guy who only listened to hardcore released on cassette. He was able to parse massive amounts of value out of (to me) incredibly minute variations in songwriting or arrangement or technical ability.

He hated everything that wasn't hardcore.

And I dreaded every van ride with him.

you guys all need to read some walker percy, for real

It would be wrong to have the perception that every genre has a set of values that should exist in that genre forever. Most of the most interesting music ever made has come as a result of compromise, crossing genres, leaving out some purist elements that don't really fit into the fusion, but still getting enough interesting and new stuff to help move the mainstream in a different direction.

And, after all, most of the music that is actually being noticed by more than just a handful of devout fans is mainstream in some way or other.

Annnnnd...scene

(Geir's right.)

It's not about a 'varied taste', more an 'open mind' to things, surely? And having an open mind is good.

I kind of feel sad for people who have narrow, rigidly defined taste in music and are completely unwilling to sample anything beyond those boundaries. Like others have posted, I've known people who only listen to rap, or only listen to pre-1980 rock. This to me is like having a steady diet of nothing but Big Macs all the time. There's nothing wrong with liking a Big Mac now and then, but it's good to have variety. I don't eat the same kinds of food all the time, I don't watch the same kinds of movies all the time, and I don't listen to the same kinds of music all the time.

I don't think this makes me better than someone who prefers to only listen to one genre of music, but I do think that they're missing out.

If someone only exposes themselves to a limited variety of music, How will they really know the extent of their tastes? I've seen hip hop heads fall head over heels for the Neokarma Jooklo Octet, as well as a rigid gospel music listener (My Aunt) fall instantly in love with David Sylvian's Blemish. Anecdotal I know, but there really isn't a way to get any hard scientific data from such a subjective thing as music. Ultimately, I think getting into different styles in most cases means giving up ones expectations.

I'd say Nick Cave and Nick Lowe are pretty different in mood/tone/etc, but on the other hand they're both western and they're both making pop music, how different can they really be?

-- roxymuzak, Monday, March 31, 2008 1:12 PM (2 days ago)

I bet no one's ever taken a shit on the floor during a Nick Lowe gig

-- Shakey Mo Collier, Monday, March 31, 2008 1:14 PM (2 days ago)

post + reply of the year

Who is Pipecock and what is his schtick? Why on Earth is he being mentioned alongside Geir?

also: this ^^

"J0hn D OTM - there is no "wrong" way to listen to music

-- Shakey Mo Collier"

i disagree. i think the basic arguments Euler proposed were pretty much spot on. understanding a genre on its own terms is very important to understanding the music. i feel like certain records allow people to understand a genre's ideas better than others, those are good for turning people on to new genres.

"It would be wrong to have the perception that every genre has a set of values that should exist in that genre forever. Most of the most interesting music ever made has come as a result of compromise, crossing genres, leaving out some purist elements that don't really fit into the fusion, but still getting enough interesting and new stuff to help move the mainstream in a different direction.

-- Geir Hongro"

i'm not sure you can really say something like that about "most of the most interesting music" but surely the idea is not a bad one. the thing is, it is the pre-existing value system that allows the change to happen. basically, a revolution in genre X that is related to genre Y is more likely to come from a musician in genre X than an outsider of that genre.

^^vague bullshit

Like others have posted, I've known people who only listen to rap, or only listen to pre-1980 rock.

While they also miss a lot of great stuff (not least a lot of great post-1980 rock), I would say the latter still have a more varied approach then the former. It's not like everything before 1980 sounded completely alike, you know.

I think the idea of mine Euler was referring to was my thing about the indie solar system.

I don't think it's wrong to think about one type of music in terms of another - e.g. to treat disco as if it was rock. This is a pretty productive way to think about music. Thinking about stuff "on its own terms" is kinda boring, or at least limiting - not least because it impliedly enforces those terms. Conversely, most of the time when people do judge stuff on other genres' terms they're doing so in a manner that's not just distortive but boring and pointless - something like "I don't like commercial R&B because they don't write their own songs/play their own instruments etc." being a stereotypical example.

I don't like the idea of a genre to have a genre-specific set of criteria. I prefer all music to be based on the same criteria - a set of criteria that has nothing to do with "rock", just with quality, and putting the composer where he belongs as the most important musician.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XwKv3H9WAkY

So is it "wrong" to have strong opinions about what you do and do not like? There seems to be an implication that you must like everything in order to have an "open mind".

Varied taste vs. very deep, detailed knowledge of a narrow range of music-- in terms of conversation, the approaches are of equal merit. Plenty of interesting discussion can come out of either.

OTM.

(1) The listener thinks he's being open minded, but isn't really. So he's operating in bad faith. His genre tourism is superficial. And it's bad to be a superficial fan of a genre, because then you will fail to learn critical aspects of what there is to know about that genre.

http://www.internerd.com/frink.retired/frinkv.1/Popcorn1.gif

"No you may NOT play with it - you won't enjoy it on as many levels aa I do."

How is there so many posts here? I'm not reading anymore. I thought it was obvious that varied taste did matter more than it didn't matter even if the criteria for judging this is halfway superficial. The other half of non-superficial criteria supports varied taste as well because generally speaking, liking more things is better than liking few things (on almost all levels).

Basically the opposition - varied taste doesn't matter - has very few parameters, and even those factors are relatively null.

You seem to have limited taste in the posts on this thread.

"No you may NOT play with it - you won't enjoy it on as many levels aa I do."

Myonga on point lolz

I don't like the idea of a genre to have a genre-specific set of criteria. I prefer all music to be based on the same criteria - a set of criteria that has nothing to do with "rock", just with quality, and putting the composer where he belongs as the most important musician.

unfortunately, this is as ridiculous as "what is better: peanuts or noodles?"

Solution: paad thai

eat it Ned

My favorite DJs are always mixing in different genres and styles, I think that is a lot more fun than just playing all of one genre for an entire set. Mad boring.

Ned OTM!!

Sunflower seeds are better than peanuts.

Although I also like peanuts, don't get me wrong. And noodles, but not plain.

Tell us more, Jeff!

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v212/etienne_saint/o9irkn.jpg

Well, noodles can be good with just butter, but usually you need some sort of sauce. I like marinara and pesto the best. I don't Ramen noodles, though, they taste gross.

I don't LIKE Ramen noodles, that should be.

And metal. I like metal.

But not with noodles.

unfortunately, this is as ridiculous as "what is better: peanuts or noodles?"

-- J0hn D., Thursday, April 3, 2008 6:33 PM (49 minutes ago)

Solution: paad thai

-- Ned Raggett, Thursday, April 3, 2008 6:33 PM (49 minutes ago)

That's one of the funniest replies I've read in a while! (And I love paad thai...actually, it's on this week's dinner list.)

What's on this week's music list? :)

I like when artsy alternative folk-rock/rock artists try to replicate metal but fail and end up inventing something raw and riffy but with all the bells and whistle pops.

VARIED TASTE *DOES* MATTER! /copywriter

Ramen noodles are the Coldplay/DMB of music

If a critic has varied tastes, then it means he or she will presumably be more likely to be able appreciate different kinds of music. And different kinds of music represent the experiences of all different kinds of people, so there might be a benefit for a non-critic, too.

A critic could have a very limited taste in music, though, and still have very interesting things to say about his or her chosen field. By the same token, a non-critic could have a very limited taste in music and still be very open-minded as far as other kinds of people. And there can definitely be a gross "my collection is bigger than yours" aspect of showing off when it comes to varied tastes.

So whether it matters is, I guess, debatable. I think it's generally good as a human being to open yourself up to new experiences, either way.

There are many ways to be interesting and even more ways to be boring.

I agree with Tim's point b upthread (way upthread), as someone who has listened to mostly, but not exclusively dance, for a good few years now.

My take on this would be that there's no need for people to like all genres all at once, but just to be open to the possibility.

The more people keep in mind that what they know about music is just a tiny speck of info in a gigantic galaxy the better. You don't have to know everything, just to know that you know nothing.

That sounds long winded but the point is that by studying one area very intensely, as Tim says, and by watching how that area works and how other areas interact with it or don't interact with it, you can learn a lot about music, a lot about life beyond music even.

I guess we then get into a deeper issue with this question of whether we are picking music to reflect our philosophy or world view (picking the stuff from a genre that fits what we already like in other genres) or whether stuff can come along and change that philosophy.

I don't really know the answer to this, I think sometimes you can think something pushes the same buttons as something vastly different in style, but that's when you're ploughing through the depths of your own taste and others would probably never hear what you hear.

Even though people would probably define me as a purist, I feel less inclined to think this way, especially right now with so much of it about in dance music.

Above all I suppose it's important to acknowledge that somebody else may like something for interesting reasons, or that most peoples taste really is unique and subjective (and arbitrary and random), even if not everyone can map out the individuality of their own.

What's on this week's music list? :)

-- Kevin John Bozelka, Thursday, April 3, 2008 8:27 PM (1 hour ago)

Right now I'm listening to Beck. :)

While they also miss a lot of great stuff (not least a lot of great post-1980 rock), I would say the latter still have a more varied approach then the former. It's not like everything before 1980 sounded completely alike, you know.

-- Geir Hongro, Thursday, April 3, 2008 9:02 AM (13 hours ago)

True, but that doesn't make the "good music ended in 1980" POV any less annoying. It's like people who refuse to watch a movie simply because it's in B&W instead of color.

"So is it "wrong" to have strong opinions about what you do and do not like? There seems to be an implication that you must like everything in order to have an "open mind".

-- Mr. Odd"

i feel like every genre has records in it that are good. to be able to understand *why* they are good, it requires you to understand something of the culture and ideals that create it and to not compare it to music that is not similar.

so yeah, i feel like if you have a truly open mind, you can find something in every genre that you like.

"Even though people would probably define me as a purist, I feel less inclined to think this way, especially right now with so much of it about in dance music.

-- Ronan"

you're just trying to be contrary. i can't imagine someone who likes something so specific in such a vast area of dance music as you do as anything but a purist.

i find it interesting that the sub-genre/style i am probably most identified with (and the one i probably know the most about) is not even the genre i listen to the most. in fact, it is probably not even in the top 3 genres i listen to the most. but i am as in depth as i can be in it, mainly because to me it is a sum of the things i usually spend the most time listening to.

i feel like every genre has records in it that are good. to be able to understand *why* they are good, it requires you to understand something of the culture and ideals that create it and to not compare it to music that is not similar.

This is nothing but elitist horsewank. A piece of music is "good" because it pleases you. You don't have to understand a damn thing about culture or ideals in order to appreciate a piece of music. You only need ears. Furthermore, similarity is subjective, and I don't understand how comparing two pieces of music would mean you appreciate one of them less.

ding dong, you're wrong

http://static.flickr.com/46/136280226_296b7024bf_o.jpg

http://www.80stees.com/images/products/Sesame_Street_Oscar_the_Grouch_Head-T.jpg

http://blog.makezine.com/284163191_6f09179853_o.jpg

http://www.ics.uci.edu/~eppstein/pix/boobash05/OscarTheGrouch-m.jpg

http://7.content.collegehumor.com/d1/ch6/e/7/collegehumor.e53eaf3e8fe0c50cd34d1f774b497f9e.jpg

http://stevegarufi.com/costumes8.jpg

http://daddytypes.com/archive/xplory_oscar_costume.JPG

http://www.toughpigs.com/images/journalhalloween59.jpg

http://www.creative-baby-shower-ideas.com/images/oscarthegrouch2.jpg

http://conventioncostumes.asyoulikeitkc.com/gallery/albums/Halloween_Ride_06/108_0867.jpg

http://a0.vox.com/6a00c2251dc877f21900ccff84f718985d-500pi

http://media.collegepublisher.com/media/paper337/stills/hi0k73h4.jpg

http://www.cockeyed.com/incredible/california/california36.jpg

http://www.dangerdame.com/diary/images/Scaryoscarandcookie.jpg

http://cdn-www.answerbag.com/images/answers/142757/410646/tmb_n1373010065_30007367_3149.jpg

FUCKING WIN

http://www.milehighmutts.com/photos/halloween07/Oscar%20the%20grouch%20Golden%20(WinCE).jpg

lock thread

you're just trying to be contrary. i can't imagine someone who likes something so specific in such a vast area of dance music as you do as anything but a purist.

what you can't imagine would fill a couple of universes

"what you can't imagine would fill a couple of universes

-- Ronan"

i couldn't imagine your stupid ass, and i was all the better for it.

"This is nothing but elitist horsewank. A piece of music is "good" because it pleases you. You don't have to understand a damn thing about culture or ideals in order to appreciate a piece of music. You only need ears. Furthermore, similarity is subjective, and I don't understand how comparing two pieces of music would mean you appreciate one of them less.

-- Bimble"

you're right, your perspective is the only one that matters. nothing else makes a record good except what you hear in it, you small minded stupid fuck.

You talking to the mirror with that last line, Pipecock?

"I couldn't imagine your stupid ass"...?

Seriously, that is tantamount to that "Your brain...has the...shell on it." ARE YOU TALKING?!

i find it interesting that the sub-genre/style i am probably most identified with

Maybe you should stop "identifying" with a style of music and instead define yourself in terms more compatible with the world at large?

http://i1.iofferphoto.com/img/1161241200/_i/14796087/1.jpg

http://img158.imageshack.us/img158/2096/kermit5gu.jpg

http://www.ski-epic.com/burningman2005/p94b_kermit_crucified.jpg

"You talking to the mirror with that last line, Pipecock?

-- Ned Raggett"

you do realise that my entire argument was that there is something inherently good in the record, not simply in someone's enjoyment of it, right? you couldn't possibly be that dumb. oh wait, yes you could.

""I couldn't imagine your stupid ass"...?

-- roxymuzak"

i could not imagine his stupid ass, that's right. my imagination is not good enough to be able to conceive a dumbass as huge as Ronan. i know reading is very difficult for you, try to get over it.

"Maybe you should stop "identifying" with a style of music and instead define yourself in terms more compatible with the world at large?

-- ian"

uh, i DON'T identify with it in fact, people seem to identify me with it. which is why i find it interesting. dipshit.

lol

pipecock sure is an angry fellow, isn't he?
the thought that there is anything "inherently good" in a piece of any kind of art is kind of insane to me.

pipecock is grumpyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy

http://images.vinylpulse.com/vp_pics/grumpy_freak_show/FlyerImage_b.jpg

"pipecock sure is an angry fellow, isn't he?
the thought that there is anything "inherently good" in a piece of any kind of art is kind of insane to me.

-- ian"

it is insane to you because you cannot see past your own limitations.

OTM.

Are we in a Pinter play?

...

Yes.

Mm.

I still don't understand; who is pipecock and when did he emerge and what is the genre everyone associates with him?

cock rock

?? http://www.myspace.com/pipecock

"cock rock

-- Mr. Que"

pipe cock rock

pipecock have you read this greil marcus essay about taste in music??

no chance.

I'm with SM - when TF did this pipecock emerge, and where from? he's definitely not a Legendary ILX Character (tm) but seems to be considered like some big Personality

if this pipecock is the same one as on that www page, then it is nice to see someone angry and obnoxious who is also a big dance / funk / hip-hop / DJ whatever type, who can bring those genres into disrepute while the likes of Ronan wring their hands and shake their heads about it

(nb I'm kidding, nothing against you Ronan, I still have those touching pictures of our touching handshake of friendship, 2004)

"if this pipecock is the same one as on that www page

-- the pinefox"

there is only one pipecock on teh interwebs, i use this handle everywhere so i am always recognizable.

http://infinitestatemachine.com/

and on many forums about various styles of music. i like alot more than just dance music, too.

To bump this thread back on the rails, I think very taste can be a function of both maturity and exposure. While I freely admit that I don't have the most varied taste in the world, the increasing diversification on my listening habits has a lot to do with the advancement of my age (all 25 years of it!) The older I get, the more willing I am to try out new stuff. And the more I hang around on ILM or around other music fanatics, the more stuff I discover is out there. So that may be why people with more varied taste seem more empathetic -- they're probably older and have more friends!

Or, as I think someone pointed out above, more money and more free time.

so pipecock it's your opinion then that if everybody on earth died right now, and no humans ever existed again ever, but a piece of music plays 1,000,000 years later, that piece of music still has inherent qualities that exist apart from how the now-dead-for-a-million-years humans defined them?

if so, you are insane

uh... *zing*?

pinefox, have you ever read Robert Musil?

i love everything

A quick explanation:

Pipecock started posting regularly a few months ago, although had done so a bit before then. He likes quite a few different styles, as does Geir.

Geir rates different music heirarchically according to a privileging of (obvious, "Western") melody and harmony over rhythm and texture. Pipecock's particular partiality is less ground in strict sonics than it is in a proper appreciation of the "genius" of the artist (Theo Parrish, J Dilla etc.), which can be heard in the enhanced "soulfulness" of the music itself.

Geir's approach is more obviously mentalist because he places all his cards on the table; Pipecock's is more boringly insidious and useless because it rests on circular arguments about soul and genius (soulful music is made by geniuses, geniuses make soulful music - the definition of both these terms is strictly interdependent).

In both cases, we have varied taste in music coupled with somewhat shallow/mentalist/illogical criteria for heirarchically organising that taste. It's no barrier, of course, to the actual records they like being good (more consistently so in Pipecock's case). Heaps of great artists have bloody awful notions w/r/t how/why their music "works".

who's to say Pipecock's taste in music is better than Geir's taste in music? wouldn't most of us agree that what is "good" is subjective to each of them?

Varied taste is important because it means that we can have a dialogue about music instead of getting locked into the same unwinnable arguments with the same unyielding people. =D

:)

Varied cosmopolitan taste (w/r/t genres, as I understand the question), whether in music or anything else, is a result of mass consumer culture, not any kind of "character traits" (in so far as these character traits are separable from consumer culture). What was once largely the preserve of the rich elite is now the compulsion of anyone with enough disposable income, otherwise you risk looking too parochial, and therefore ignorant/uneducated/poorly travelled, and therefore poor (not that excessive parochialism can't be playfully applied by the middle classes as well). Taste is always about social distinction, and is a particular concern of the middle classes -- that it is an issue on a board primarily of middle class college grads is no surprise. Of course, all strata of society use taste in this way to some extent -- it's the legacy of having commodities so ingrained in culture from top to bottom: we will establish social borders through them.

This isn't to put a value judgement on cosmopolitan taste, that it is bad or good intrinsically; in fact, I am arguing against the ability to make value judgements about people this way. We can, however, try to understand the need among tastemakers (i.e. hyperconsumers) to prioritize consumption of a diverse range of music as a byproduct of larger socioeconomic forces and go from there.

There's nothing more fun than seeing some lower(-middle)-class guy who tried to find some escape from his friends and family by having better taste than them only to end up being laughed at for even believing in such an antiquated and ignorant (and lower(-middle)-class) notion as "better taste."

But I guess once that idea that "Better Taste Is Dead" finally trickles down to the high schools and community colleges, some academic will decide that there is such a thing after all.

(To all the community college teachers on this board: sorry about the cheap crack about the community colleges)

(To all the high school teachers too)

Well, it's not "better" taste so much as "varied=better" taste. You may now return to your regularly scheduled mediocre zings.

http://www.timvp.com/sanford3.jpg

Gavin, stop tugging at the curtain, you'll expose ILM for what it is!

it is my judaism that gives me good taste, and my jewish guilt that makes me ashamed of it.

^^^ ian