TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Music Discussion
-- Music tastes and wider tastes
Pages (5): « 1 [2] 3 4 5 »

quote:

Originally posted by winston This. Remember Music is nothing but vibrations. What if you couldn't perceive these vibrations and assimilate such as 'sound', then that 'sound' becomes something else. Perhaps looking into this would be of great interest to do research on. The synaptic connections and the interpretation of noise and sound into music, etc. What if these vibrations could be seen instead of heard, or even both...

That sounds like some intro from ASOT yearmix

well, i'm not trying to be pretentious. more like playing devil's advocate, there is nothing wrong with listening to tiesto or paul van dyk, in the end, both are artists that create sound, melodies, call it what you will. they are popular because they attract an energetic young crowd, from that crowd there are many kinds of people. similar to you, me and everyone who frequents night clubs, concerts, etc.

if there were no sound and you would take a snap shot of some parties, certain corners are not too different than others, without sound the trance scene resembles any other scene (when there are no glowsticks involved) at that point in time, when there is no sound, you can't tell the difference. they are there because they enjoy these vibrations, which we are configured to interpret. how much of this is conditioned, how much of this is natural?

pretentious is to think that what you listen to is real and better, when it could not even be there, how are you sure? are you so easily offended? well, i didn't mean any offense.

Re: Music tastes and wider tastes

quote:

Originally posted by SYSTEM-J Another one of those conceptual MD threads. Basically, I've been thinking about how our music tastes fit into to our wider tastes, and whether tastes in other areas influence what we enjoy in music. I'm sure plenty of exceptions will crop up in this thread, but for me it seems there is a general correlation between the kind of things people like overall and what they like in music. Specifically with how lowbrow/highbrow their tastes are. I can't, for instance, imagine someone who has generally highbrow tastes, reads Proust, watches Bergman movies, likes abstract visual art and then listens to happy hardcore. Where as your stereotypical college student who likes touchy feely liberal things generally seems to gravitate towards blog rock, and your no-nonsense trash-TV loving folks love their disposible, digestible pop music.

See, right here, this is completely biased. There is no mold and people can't be entirely put into categories without other things brought to the equation. Music surpasses the intellect, i think nefardec said this. Well, i think it's very true, music is made up of vibrations. Unlike other means of art such as literature and visual art, music is based on sound. some people develop preferences to what tonalities please their senses, etc. These might or might not be influenced by their other tastes, I think most of these are conditioned and are dependent on demographics and standard of living as well as nurture. someone who is taught to play the piano from a young age might have a wider or more narrow selection, and it might even play a more personal role in his/her life. This doesn't mean that someone who is not well read, has no interest in literature, etc cannot make or listen to more difficult genres.

Pretentious is to have pretensions. Few people try to be pretentious. They try to achieve what they're straining for. In your case, it's something profound to add to this discussion.

quote:

Originally posted by nefardec also, i think philosophy certainly comes down to taste. there have been countless fashions in philosophy. maybe you personally are so objective that this isn't a part of your own experience, but the rest of the world, for better or for worse, runs on trends. anyways, philosophy was only one example. one could easily compare jk rowling to seneca or tom clancy to hesse.

Well, speaking personally, I don't like or dislike philosophy based on its beauty, but rather its logic. I understand it was just an example, but it does raise the question of what exactly defines "taste" and where it ends.

As for where the discussion goes, I'd rather avoid straightforward Marxesque explanations that it's all about social/cultural/economic background. It's not that I disagree, because it's obvious that upper class kids will have more highbrow tastes than lower class ones, but it's only a partial and simplistic explanation. I grew up in the same house in the same part of the world to the same parents and the same education as my brother, but our tastes are markedly different and have been all our lives.

There's something about a person, divorced from their surroundings, that defines their tastes. And it interests me.

Music, art, fashion and other aesthetically-defined areas definitely have large cross-overs. Though I think meat187's assertion that people have an image of themselves and uphold it by liking certain music or movies has merit, I don't think it's quite correct. Commodity culture tells us that people express themselves through their possessions - what they wear, drive, eat and drink, but I tend to think that appreciation of music, movies and art are less motivated by how we wish to be viewed by others.

Rather, it seems to me that these things are characterised by an individual's personality. By this I'm not talking about whether they are a hipster or a gangster, but rather whether they're energetic, mellow, introspective, extroverted, et cetera.

I have to go to work so I'll write more about this later.

quote:

Originally posted by SYSTEM-J Well, speaking personally, I don't like or dislike philosophy based on its beauty, but rather its logic. I understand it was just an example, but it does raise the question of what exactly defines "taste" and where it ends. As for where the discussion goes, I'd rather avoid straightforward Marxesque explanations that it's all about social/cultural/economic background. It's not that I disagree, because it's obvious that upper class kids will have more highbrow tastes than lower class ones, but it's only a partial and simplistic explanation. I grew up in the same house in the same part of the world to the same parents and the same education as my brother, but our tastes are markedly different and have been all our lives. There's something about a person, divorced from their surroundings, that defines their tastes. And it interests me.

Right, I guess what I was trying to say is that some people find good logic attractive or important, and some people couldn't give a shit as long as it gets them through another day of waiting for their cheating husband to come home and their kids to get back from baseball practice.

I agree with the obviousness of the social critique, but as for the 'something' question you've raised - I tried to answer this earlier by suggesting that the 'something' is basically curiosity and level of exposure.

Re: Re: Music tastes and wider tastes

quote:

Originally posted by winston Music surpasses the intellect, i think nefardec said this.

don't mean to single you out here, but just for the record, i don't think i said that...

quote:

Originally posted by Meat187 But I agree that this theory is true for most people. Maybe that's because a lot of them model their taste after an image they have of themselves.

I agree.

However, it could be more than people wanting to create an image - it could be simply because it works. For instance, if I'm reading Nietzsche or Schopenhauer chances are I'd pick soft classical music in the background. Any other music would simply be too distracting for me to grasp abstract thought, as say death metal or psytrance.

Of course there are exceptions - chances are a vagrant, womanizing drunk wouldn't have the sophistication to listen to Mozart regularly, but Bukowski did it, wrote about it, & it heightened his fame (or better put image). The man stood out for it.

quote:

Originally posted by karanicleaves What music you like depends on what drugs you do or have done in the past. Of course there are exceptions but this is what I came up with: 1) If you dont do drugs - you like top 40 shit. 2) If you smoke weed and nothing else - you usually like classic rock, maybe some reggae 3) If you like to smoke weed and eat shrooms and/or take acid - you usually like jam bands and some trip hop / chillout 4) If you like to do coke - you usually like hip hop. Maybe some house. 5) If you like to roll - you like trance / house/ EDM. If you do a combination of drugs, you enjoy a wide spectrum of music. Remember, it also depends if you have done these drugs in the past becuase just because you stop doing your d.o.c doesnt mean you stop listening to the music.

so much bullshit in one post, lol.

I saw a documentary recently about an English woman with synaesthesia - a rare disorder which merges your senses together. She was a really rare case because she had two forms of synaesthesia, sound -> vision and sound -> taste.
It was fascinating, but unfortunately I can't find any videos (it was in a show on the Science Channel).

She described what she saw as lines of different sizes and colors, size corresponding to loudness and colors coresponding to notes. When she went out to clubs, she saw big dark boxes for bass, and a variety of colors surrounding her for different notes. What's even more amazing is that she could actually taste music: for example, a song in C# major would sound sweet, E minor would be bitter, etc.

They monitored her brain and indeed, exposing her to music showed a lot of unusual activity in the vision and taste portions of her brain.

Watching that documentary made me change my perception of music. It definatley goes beyond just the way we perceive it - its universally beautiful patterns that are hardwired into all of us.

quote:

Originally posted by Leniu I saw a documentary recently about an English woman with synaesthesia - a rare disorder which merges your senses together. She was a really rare case because she had two forms of synaesthesia, sound -> vision and sound -> taste. It was fascinating, but unfortunately I can't find any videos (it was in a show on the Science Channel). She described what she saw as lines of different sizes and colors, size corresponding to loudness and colors coresponding to notes. When she went out to clubs, she saw big dark boxes for bass, and a variety of colors surrounding her for different notes. What's even more amazing is that she could actually taste music: for example, a song in C# major would sound sweet, E minor would be bitter, etc. They monitored her brain and indeed, exposing her to music showed a lot of unusual activity in the vision and taste portions of her brain. Watching that documentary made me change my perception of music. It definatley goes beyond just the way we perceive it - its universally beautiful patterns that are hardwired into all of us.

Wow, that's amazing. I mean it must be terrible for the woman but for some reason it just intrigues me.

quote:

Originally posted by karanicleaves What music you like depends on what drugs you do or have done in the past. Of course there are exceptions but this is what I came up with: 1) If you dont do drugs - you like top 40 shit.

I'm afraid you we're wrong at 1.

quote:

Originally posted by Leniu I saw a documentary recently about an English woman with synaesthesia - a rare disorder which merges your senses together. She was a really rare case because she had two forms of synaesthesia, sound -> vision and sound -> taste. It was fascinating, but unfortunately I can't find any videos (it was in a show on the Science Channel). She described what she saw as lines of different sizes and colors, size corresponding to loudness and colors coresponding to notes. When she went out to clubs, she saw big dark boxes for bass, and a variety of colors surrounding her for different notes. What's even more amazing is that she could actually taste music: for example, a song in C# major would sound sweet, E minor would be bitter, etc. They monitored her brain and indeed, exposing her to music showed a lot of unusual activity in the vision and taste portions of her brain. Watching that documentary made me change my perception of music. It definatley goes beyond just the way we perceive it - its universally beautiful patterns that are hardwired into all of us.

i forgot where i read about this, but, from what i understand there are patterns (especially in nature) that, for whatever reason, are just more appealing to the eye, ear, or mouth. for example, visually, things that have "balance" are just pleasing to the eye. we dont know why, they just do! its just one of those funny mysterious things about the universe. such as feng shai or however you spell it, where how furniture or decorations are placed well in a room just evokes a better reaction from people compared to when they are not placed well. red wine just goes better with darker colored food, white wine goes better with lighter colored food. music that has sound frequencies that span a larger spectrum (from the low bass to the mids to the highs) are more fulfilling. music that has a balanced pattern or structure will generally sound better to people. these are all just the safe bets when you want to please people. of course there are the exceptions, those weeds growing in the cracks of sidewalks of society, the squeak in the door or normalcy, but thats part of the whole package of everything in the world.

quote:

Originally posted by winston well, i'm not trying to be pretentious. more like playing devil's advocate, there is nothing wrong with listening to tiesto or paul van dyk, in the end, both are artists that create sound, melodies, call it what you will. they are popular because they attract an energetic young crowd, from that crowd there are many kinds of people. similar to you, me and everyone who frequents night clubs, concerts, etc. if there were no sound and you would take a snap shot of some parties, certain corners are not too different than others, without sound the trance scene resembles any other scene (when there are no glowsticks involved) at that point in time, when there is no sound, you can't tell the difference. they are there because they enjoy these vibrations, which we are configured to interpret. how much of this is conditioned, how much of this is natural? pretentious is to think that what you listen to is real and better, when it could not even be there, how are you sure? are you so easily offended? well, i didn't mean any offense.

System J has a deep inferiority complex and gets offended if someone posts something smart. Don't take it personally.

quote:

Originally posted by stev� i forgot where i read about this, but, from what i understand there are patterns (especially in nature) that, for whatever reason, are just more appealing to the eye, ear, or mouth. for example, visually, things that have "balance" are just pleasing to the eye. we dont know why, they just do!

I've always wondered if isolating someone to nothing but dissonant, atonal music for their entire lives would condition them into appreciating it and legitimately enjoying it, but when being exposed to diatonic, "normal" music it would be hard on their ears and they wouldn't enjoy it. And I don't mean enjoy in the sense of those weird introverted high schoolers who listen to atonal shit or extratone because they "appreciate" all music.

I always think it wouldn't because dissonance and atonality are legitimately unsettling, but again, that might just be because everyone's so conditioned to I IV V chords and non-experimental musicality for the most part. Maybe dissonance and atonality sound bad to our ears because it's something we generally don't get exposed to enough. But then again if you hurt someone every day for their entire lives they probably wouldn't grow to enjoy it.. I don't know.

I'm really going deeper than the initial discussion of genres, but it's something interesting to think of, if our perception of music as a whole is one giant chunk of conditioning or if people are hard wired to be drawn to certain types of music regardless of what they've been exposed to.

quote:

Originally posted by Existo22 System J has a deep inferiority complex and gets offended if someone posts something smart. Don't take it personally.

Plenty of smart people have posted smart things in this thread and I didn't take offence. You'll have to go back to the drawing board to figure out why I think you're an idiot.

No idea, but I'm positive that growing up a video game addict had a big effect on my music tastes.

i have always been a snob about a lot of things in the art spectrum, so you might be right.

One major taste that I would say is correlated to music taste would be style of dress. People that like a certain style of music tend to all dress alike.

My belief, supported by some research and personal life experience, is that music tastes are genetically encoded along racial/ethnic lines. Not specific genres, of course, but big picture-wise.

It's no coincidence that Lady GaGa writes disco music that harkens back to her Euro roots, or that Pitbull's music is steeped in Caribbean beats. Music preferences, and music traditions, could be as genetic and biological as skin color. People tend to like music that is genetically close to them.

A lot of people who live on the East Coast of the US, in cities like Boston, NYC, and Philly, are descendants of Eastern-European (non-Anglo) immigrants, from countries like Poland, Italy, Russia, etc. It's no surprise, then, that these people have some appreciation for Euro-style sounds and anything close to it, such as techno or techno-influenced pop, even if they were born in this country.

The rest of the US' white population is Anglo-Saxon. It has a totally different musical tradition (and hence genes, perhaps?). People with Anglo or Scandinavian genes have little in common with the continental-Euro genes discussed above, and have their own sound. Taylor Swift, country and folk music, as well as Rock, even the Beatles and the Stones, are all examples of a slightly different musical tradition of people carrying non-continental-Euro genes.

Africans, of course, have their own musical tastes, as do Latinos.

quote:

Originally posted by HardTranceProd My belief, supported by some research and personal life experience, is that music tastes are genetically encoded along racial/ethnic lines. Not specific genres, of course, but big picture-wise. It's no coincidence that Lady GaGa writes disco music that harkens back to her Euro roots, or that Pitbull's music is steeped in Caribbean beats. Music preferences, and music traditions, could be as genetic and biological as skin color. People tend to like music that is genetically close to them. A lot of people who live on the East Coast of the US, in cities like Boston, NYC, and Philly, are descendants of Eastern-European (non-Anglo) immigrants, from countries like Poland, Italy, Russia, etc. It's no surprise, then, that these people have some appreciation for Euro-style sounds and anything close to it, such as techno or techno-influenced pop, even if they were born in this country. The rest of the US' white population is Anglo-Saxon. It has a totally different musical tradition (and hence genes, perhaps?). People with Anglo or Scandinavian genes have little in common with the continental-Euro genes discussed above, and have their own sound. Taylor Swift, country and folk music, as well as Rock, even the Beatles and the Stones, are all examples of a slightly different musical tradition of people carrying non-continental-Euro genes. Africans, of course, have their own musical tastes, as do Latinos.

That's because music, much like the image of 'race', is an inherently social thing. People tend to act according to their racial camp because it's simply safer and easier to get by that way. This means exposure and familiarity with certain types of musical phenomenons that utilize a specific language or culture, typically geocentric. It's not solely genetic, though there is the Linear Time Phenomenon to consider if you analyze human development in proximity to the equator and how the improvisation instinct could obviously effect music production.

But I think that most everyone is naturally attracted by syncopation, the breadth or type of this most often being determined by individual, social circumstance, not to mention the sexual incentives for scene subscription given the popularity of a musical type in your corner of the world.

Ascribing depth to things just because you like them seems like more of a handicap than 'taste'; but that's not to imply I am necessarily opposed to wanton snobbery.

quote:

Originally posted by RoBDaWG One major taste that I would say is correlated to music taste would be style of dress. People that like a certain style of music tend to all dress alike.

I like Trance, Eurodance, classical music, Humppa and some cheesy vocal House. Tell me how I dress.

quote:

Originally posted by Halcyon+On+On That's because music, much like the image of 'race', is an inherently social thing.

That's the thing though... race is NOT 'just' a social thing... it is very much a biological, profound thing with consequences, even though this may sound controversial in today's PC society... A lot of people underestimate the role biology plays in our lives. Recent studies have all overturned the social-science ideals that were in vogue in the 70s and 80s, and now emphasize the genes, rather than the environment, in shaping our lives.

quote:

People tend to act according to their racial camp because it's simply safer and easier to get by that way.

There's one possibility you haven't considered, it's that people act that way because they are genetically predisposed to doing so. I know, sounds so extremely simple you would never have thought of it.

quote:

Originally posted by HardTranceProd That's the thing though... race is NOT 'just' a social thing... it is very much a biological thing, even though this may sound controversial in today's PC society... A lot of people underestimate the role biology plays in our lives. Recent studies have all overturned the social-science ideals that were in vogue in the 70s and 80s, and now emphasize the genes, rather than the environment, in shaping our lives. There's one possibility you haven't considered, it's that people act that way because they are genetically predisposed to doing so. I know, sounds so extremely simple you would never have thought of it.

today's stance is that we understand there are differences between races, we just have matured and evolved to know the right thing to do is celebrate our differences, not pretend they dont exist.

i forgot the term but there is a whole field of research and study of races, things like average width of the nose, hormone levels, etc. back in the late 60's, once we realized how stupid and pointless the subject is, its been near impossible to get grants for more research in this field. the science is considered unethical and meaningless.

If we are speaking genetic motive, I believe the social imperative comes first and foremost. I said race was an inherently social thing, not a solely social thing - I think this lends itself to biology being the true director of cultural behaviour, though if we are to consider this, we must accomodate for the fact that Mother Nature is just a greedy bitch who wants all of us to get our rocks off in the most expedient manner possible. What better way to do this than to gather up everyone in a dark room and have them sweating together to some sub-Freudian throbbing? People don't typically have sex in public bathrooms, but don't seem to have any qualms doing so in a club - why is this?

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.