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.

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