It's got different styles for everyone!!

(Maybe apropos of nothing, but this also applies to taste in some way. Why is *eclectic* so much more admirable than being into one genre?)

when ppl are too eclectic that sends alarm bells ringing (it's the 'jacks of all trades, master of none' thing).

My favourities tend to be ppl who have two or three ideas/concepts (if that) that are well executed.

what julio said. a smorgasboard of styles smakes of pandering in most cases (but then again, i guess that's what pop is about) -- few are really able to pull it off.

Jack of all trades, master of.... yadda yadda yadda. Right. Well, my votes go out to the people who at least TRY everything and fail miserably and INTERESTINGLY, and my money goes out to the few that try everything and succeed at all of them. People who do one or two things very well belong in an orchestra, and deserve to be conducted... by rock critics if nothing else.

― maria, Sunday, 28 July 2002 00:00 (twenty-three years ago)

classical musicans?! WTF maria. they don't even try anything, they only carry out the wishes of the composer (not a bad thing, especially if the music is a challenge or the music is very unusual or rarely played).

''Well, my votes go out to the people who at least TRY everything and fail miserably and INTERESTINGLY, and my money goes out to the few that try everything and succeed at all of them.''

I'm interested in hearing ppl who try everything and suceed, give some names. But i think ppl that work with a concept that they develop themselves and try to push it as far as they can go for as long as possible (and in many contexts) happens to be far more rewarding. They are ppl have their own ideas, and that is rare especially now that we have recorded music.

You sound like a Bill Laswell fan.

Julio, you sound like a David Grubbs acolyte. Seriously, though, I think there's a disconnect here, techniques or approaches being confused with genre styles of play -- using a screwdriver to play your guitar vs. bluegrass banjo pickin'. Are classical musicians programmed robots?

WE R MUSIC PLAYING MACHINES! TELL ME WHAT TO DO SCORE MEISTER!

that could actually be good lyrics for a electro song

I'm interested in hearing ppl who try everything and suceed

The winners in life. Well, I can't think of a lot of musicians who live up to that. Actually, I can't think of any; who are they?

Re: orchestral musicians -- Programmed robots? Depends on your point of view. Probably about as much so as carpenters or computer techinicans. I.e., they have learned a skill, but if they have attained such a high level as to make it into an orchestra (for reference, on average, a new spot for my instrument opens up about once every 7 years -- cattle call auditions for a major orch will attract more than 200 people regularly -- part of the programming?), it is probably because they have transcended the common "programming" that every music student in the country receives, and gone on to the next level of skill (and yes, musicianship -- not the same, say I).

In real life, I think you are more successfull when you choose an area to master, focus on that, try to be the best at whatever it is you do and love it enough to rarely lose motivation or momentum. Maybe that translates to music too (though it's hard to tell because by that definition, Ruins are the world's greatest band). When in doubt, consult solo Paul McCartney to see how an otherwise talented musician can go wrong trying his hand at everything under the sun.

i was joking about the robots -- nice analysis, dleone. if anything, after working in the accounting office of a major symphony, i know in reality that symphonies are composed of the mentally unstable. a symphony is the most dysfunctional hive there is. just ask the flautist being sexually harrassed by the tuba player.

''The winners in life. Well, I can't think of a lot of musicians who live up to that. Actually, I can't think of any; who are they?''

by 'try everything and suceed' I mean try this idea of cross pollinating diff genres/styles and actually making something out of it. like you, i haven't heard any who has done it but I would be interested in hearing them (if maria would give us some names)

If you will look at my original quote, I said that those "winners" you're describing get my MONEY. Okay, okay... I'll stop being coy.

Umm, well, on an ultimate absolute level, perfection and complete cross-pollenataion are impossible; however, I really like Bobby Conn. What he does transcends simple musical issues and moves into the realm of an arts discourse. Same with the KLF. Same with Fischerspooner. Momus is a bit like that too, although something more of a socio-political minstrel - nothing wrong with that. I've had limited love affairs with Prince and Michael Jackson and pretended that they did everything bizarre and otherworldly with a knowing wink and tongue planted firmly in cheek. I'm a dreamer. A wisful thinker. The messiah will come.

I'm with Jack on the orchestra discussion. Personally, while people that do one or two things mind-numbingly well are interesting for a while, they usually end up being anecdotal. Tiny voices in a neverending fugue. I like people who are... okay, I'll say it... basically deranged. At least I have no fucking clue where they're going. :)

― maria, Sunday, 28 July 2002 00:00 (twenty-three years ago)

It's just like people who say "Oh, I listen to everything". Their concept of everything means David Gray (indie), Moby (dance), Dido (pop), and The Beatles (every other musical genre ever).

Haha yes, that's why I don't think the thing of "you might like one song" is really that accurate. It might all be good because it's such a diluted form of all the different styles for everyone. I always hated "this one's got more of an edge to it" much more than "it's got different styles for everyone".

hah! in a perfect world i should only have to listen to ONE BAND to fulfill all of my 'eclectic' needs!! i am fully in favor of this idea!

and the more i think about it, the more my favorite bands/musicians did exactly this - for instance when i was in my teens the VU was 'all my favorite bands' on one album: straight-up rock 'n roll tunes, sensitive ballads, twenty minute noise freakouts, etc - 'focusing' can make you bored

I remember BeWitched marketed their first album has having "something for everyone".

Case closed.

Er, I thought natalie's response at the top was a more interesting issue: why is an 'eclectic' taste generally regarded with a warmer gaze than a narrower one ?
Only Dom's response seems to address this....
It's something vexing me (again) since stumbling across ILM a couple of weeks ago, because I thought my own tastes had become pretty broad over the last 15-20 years, until finding that compared to most other (older?) posters here they're actually very limited.
Is it because there is some link with good/bad notions of 'open-minded' vs. 'narrow-minded', of 'knowledgable' vs 'ignorant', of 'reasonable' vs 'prejudiced'?
For most of my adult life I had this other (probably unjustifiable) notion that people who liked all sorts of genres didn't really love anything, as if there was some sort of fixed capacity reservoir of passion that either drizzled out across a wide area or was localised into a downpour (..christ, music taste as weather..)
It's a suspicion I can't quite get rid of, even though I feel uncomfortable about it. Maybe it comes from a sense of remembering what it felt like when young to be that focussed and that visceral about loving some kinds of music and despising other kinds....and missing that certainty, that intensity.
But that was just childish?
The ILM term for people still in that mindstate is 'mentalist', right?

(originally I asked this question in response to groups like hearsay etc (for eg) coming out with this kinda statement, I just find it negative, why not just say "we've made a good album, and we hope you like it" rather than assuming that the buying public will go "no, they didn't say it'd have anything for me on there". It's this sort of blinkered thinking that makes me dislike this term. They may have been coached to say "it's got something for everyone", I guess)

fixed capacity reservoir of passion

I'd hate to get on your case and talk a bunch about "Oh genres are just for convenience... music is music!" etc. etc. but I wonder why a genre must necessarily be a pre-determined funnel for people's tastes to slide down. I suppose many people attach themselves to a genre and never let go, but it's also very possible to seek something in music that finds overlap in several different styles. The passion is not necessarily diluted.

Why is *eclectic* so much more admirable than being into one genre?

Probably the same reason people always think it's cool to have traveled the world: it makes talking to them for more than five minutes at least semi-interesting. *Or* maybe it makes you think they're well-eductated snobs who are trying to flaunt their worldliness. Personally, I want to travel the world -- but I don't actively listen to all sorts of music. It just kind of happens that way.

And really, how many people at ILM only listen to one kind of music? Is this where we complain about the outside world in abstract, ivory- tower terms? Even among my friends, I can't think of a lot of people who are so limited in their tastes, and even if they are, they're certainly aware of more out there (possibly just because of my referencing a bunch of weird bands).

Re: good at everything. Probably more like good at everything they've tried so far. And that's debatable, just like anything else.

I know why I like listening to lots of things rather than concentrating on specific styles. It has a good aspect - I like different sounds, ways of making music, rhythms - and a bad aspect - I have a low attention span.

I don't think there's any moral good in being open to lots of different kinds of music but I generally feel I have more in common with people who are. Listening to a narrow range of music and going out of your way to slag off whole genres you don't listen to strikes me as a bit feeble.

I suppose if I was going to justify the eclectic-is-good stance I'd say that eclectic people showed more awareness of the possibilities of music. I'm not sure I could defend that, though.

There's a good thread on breadth vs depth which tackles some of this stuff, too - can't find it now though.

Honda - please feel free to 'get on my case', it's one of the reasons I'm asking the question!
"Oh genres are just for convenience... music is music!" etc. etc
But that doesn't get us very far, does it? Isn't this entire site about going beyond that kind of thinking? I mean, you're obviously right in a way, but it's what the 'convenience' is there to enable that's part of the interesting stuff - I don't want to just lump nu-metal & baroque & indie & jazz & ...etc all together and say 'it's all just music isn't it'- I'm interested in issues around and about these things as different genres and preferences.
but it's also very possible to seek something in music that finds overlap in several different styles. The passion is not necessarily diluted.
Yes, I have experienced that, but haven't you also had the experience of one genre you like being crossed with one you disliked, and feeling like 'Piss off! GET OFF MY LAND!' ?

dleone - find this a bit troublesome:
Probably the same reason people always think it's cool to have traveled the world: it makes talking to them for more than five minutes at least semi-interesting. *Or* maybe it makes you think they're well-eductated snobs who are trying to flaunt their worldliness.
'Experiences' does not => 'Interesting to talk to' unless you're interested in those experiences! And it's really not my experience that having 'travelled' makes someone interesting - it's more a case of what they notice and reflect upon. (Bookish introverts can be interesting too!) So, to pursue your analogy, just because someone listens to a wide range of genres doesn't make them interesting unless they analyse and articulate about those genres and what it is about them that they find attractive. And while ILM may be stuffed with those kind of people, the 'outside world' seems to be more like that other thread 'quit stripping away the soul maaaaan', or to have a very 'utilitarian' approach.
but I don't actively listen to all sorts of music. It just kind of happens that way.
But why do you think that is ? Why do you like so many different things ? And do you think it makes you a more 'interesting' person, or just a 'less selective' one, or both ?

Tom - if you can find that breadth vs depth thread I'd be very grateful, because I'm struggling here...
Listening to a narrow range of music and going out of your way to slag off whole genres you don't listen to strikes me as a bit feeble.
Actually I can assure you it's quite hard work...:)
Seriously, I didn't mean to come across like I was doing that. But you've sort of illustrated my point- you've assumed that ignorance must be part of the deal. It may well become part of the deal - if you don't like most of what you hear initially you may well give up investigating/listening.....
And is that it ? Is it because we dislike 'ignorance' as such, and are applying this criterion ?
I just have this feeling that there's some other way of listening that's being disparaged along with this, something to do with hearing music as a more intense and simple semantics rather than in a more sophisticated syntactical and 'disconnected' way.

Sod it.I bet there's plenty of Frenchified philosphical discourse out there somewhere that addresses this kind of thing in big vague sentences that I won't understand....

Ray I dont think you came across like that and it wasn't aimed at you. I don't think there's much of that on this forum, so it probably seems like a bit of a straw man argument. I'm talking about the "I like all music except country" style of talk - it's fine not to like genres but it seems unproductive to then go on about how much you don't like them from a position of never really listening to them. I find, for instance, people who used to listen to particular styles of music and became disillusioned more interesting in general.

'Experiences' does not => 'Interesting to talk to' unless you're interested in those experiences! And it's really not my experience that having 'travelled' makes someone interesting - it's more a case of what they notice and reflect upon.

That's true. I guess I just assume that the kind of people who go to the trouble of finding out of the way things to do/see/hear are usually interesting. Sometimes not though -- I have met people who only seem interested in having a lot of nice small talk at their disposal, and because they can afford to go on long vacations to South America, they do. I think those people are exceptions, though.

I think am selective. Most people tell me that I'm too picky and/or I hate everything, but that's not true. I'm just not that interested in going over and over the same stuff all the time. To be honest, I think I have left behind some great music just because I was knee- deep into a new scene/sound. It's a good thing people don't have to get married to their CDs!

One question I have is how much value is there in going through a lot of the (eventually) mundane stuff (say, growing up on classic rock, like me) in relation to having disparate tastes now? In other words, does it make a difference if you started out liking one thing and eventually had more varied tastes, or if you were just always really ecelctic?

OK, got ya.
Mind you, I'm afraid I might actually be more in that first category, except I'd have a bigger list of -ves than +ves !
I am actually interested in why people just never like some things in the first place (to the extent that's true - recall hearing that children will listen to just about anything, but there's another issue)- but your second category may well be more interesting - cos their greater experience of their past genre gives them more 'knowledge' of it, and the change of opinion is more interesting than an initial reaction which sticks, because they can then see/explain both perceptions of it ?

Yes, I have experienced that, but haven't you also had the experience of one genre you like being crossed with one you disliked, and feeling like 'Piss off! GET OFF MY LAND!' ?

There may have been a time where I did have such an experience. However, it's not a reaction I could ever imagine myself having today. I recently heard the Linkin Park remix album which attempts to fuse nu- metal (something I care little for) with underground hip hop (something I've long been partial towards). Maybe years ago I'd be upset about this, but right now I feel that it's mostly amusing. I don't really feel in any position to defend a genre or its 'quality control'. I love music, sure, but I just don't think I've ever embraced an established genre/style with such vigor.

I think this is the breadth vs. depth question.

I find it hard to believe anyone who will slate entire genres of music is worth discussing music with, I'd be surprised if I liked the same music even within that genre. There is a difference between people who don't listen to other genres and people who don't like other genres. Most of my friends only listen to dance but they don't actively dislike other stuff and occasionally will like indie or hiphop. I'd look pretty dimly on anyone who slated an entire genre, particularly since, among my age group at least the usual suspects are country and dance, probably my two favourites.

Jeff, it isnt! The B vs D one had a lot of stuff on it from Glenn McDonald who does the War Against Silence, cos it kind of arose out of commentary on his 'Glenn buys some Motown' entry.

"'Status is stil very important, but the way it's gained is different," he [Richard A. Peterson of Vanderbilt U.] says, "People of high status still like classical art forms, but they are as equally prepared to embrace popular culture in all of its forms. When they go to the opera, it's not the thing they have to do, it's one option among many. One gets status now from being eclectic, or being omnivorous." American Demographics, April 2001, p. 18.

This article doesn't really discuss why there would be such a shift.

I started writing an article earlier this year, remarking on the fact that within (literally) 3 weeks of eachother, LPs came out by Télépopmusik, The Herbaliser, Rubin Steiner and Cornershop that all tried to do the 'Jacks Of All Trades...' thing to a greater or lesser extent, with mixed results. I think the current vogue for polystylism reflects both (i) the retro trends we've talked about in other threads recently and (ii) a way of addressing the "give me something mind-blowingly new, different, refreshing, something that is Not What We're Already Listening To" challenge that Nitsuh describes in the thread I just linked to above. I haven't quite formulated my grand theory yet though!

I hesitate to claim that the sorts of acts jel is referring to have any of this in mind. Here, I think we are simply talking about trying to broaden one's appeal within the marketplace. And that's hardly a recent phonemenon. What's kind of interesting about the last two Kylie LPs (from what I've heard of/about them) is that she isn't trying to make their appeal too broad, she concentrates on what she knows she does well.

Actually the Kylie album is a telling example - there's exactly two 'eclectic' moments on the album, an R&B track and a garagey track, and they're easily the first two tracks I'd remove if I had to.

I once submitted a very long-winded letter to Freaky Trigger on eclecticism vs purism. I wonder if it's still floating around.