|
"Taste is subjective" (pg. 2)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| Mr.Mystery |
| It's the last desperate attempt at grasping at straws in an argument after "it sounds GREAT in a club" has failed. |
|
|
| MrJiveBoJingles |
| quote: | Originally posted by Mr.Mystery
It's the last desperate attempt at grasping at straws in an argument after "it sounds GREAT in a club" has failed. |
:stongue: |
|
|
| david.michael |
| quote: | Originally posted by MrJiveBoJingles
I don't know if most people are really as open-minded and relativistic as they like to make themselves seem.
If someone won't give the time of day to any music other than Britney Spears, and proclaims Britney Spears the best musician ever, wouldn't you say that person has bad taste? Or at least is profoundly ignorant and limited in some way? |
The fact that I think they are wrong based on my own opinion towards the music doesn't make it any less subjective.
My opinion would be that they are profoundly ignorant and limited in some way. :) |
|
|
| noikeee |
| quote: | Originally posted by MrJiveBoJingles
Of course! :rolleyes:
Don't actually disagree in any substantive way, just bring out the big secret weapon, the word "subjective," and all conversation and argument is rendered inconsequential.
Right? |
I wasn't trying to make a point, I was just talking e.
But now seriously: let's take the Britney Spears fanboy. When confronted with such a person, an uber-underground-EDM fanboy would find it difficult to understand such taste. Why? Because the music doesn't sound sophisticated enough to him.
Yet the Britney Spears fanboy most likely isn't a fanboy because the music sounds sophisticated to him, he most likely is a fanboy because it sounds mega-catchy, or Britney's voice makes him get a boner, or some other random excuse.
Basically both people rank music through totally different criteria. Who has the authority to say which is the "right" criteria? Who has the authority to say sophisticated music is better than music that gets you a boner?
Music is subjective, deal with it. The people "with good tastes" are just people that have similar tastes to yours. |
|
|
| david.michael |
| quote: | Originally posted by noikeee
I wasn't trying to make a point, I was just talking e.
But now seriously: let's take the Britney Spears fanboy. When confronted with such a person, an uber-underground-EDM fanboy would find it difficult to understand such taste. Why? Because the music doesn't sound sophisticated enough to him.
Yet the Britney Spears fanboy most likely isn't a fanboy because the music sounds sophisticated to him, he most likely is a fanboy because it sounds mega-catchy, or Britney's voice makes him get a boner, or some other random excuse.
Basically both people rank music through totally different criteria. Who has the authority to say which is the "right" criteria? Who has the authority to say sophisticated music is better than music that gets you a boner?
Music is subjective, deal with it. The people "with good tastes" are just people that have similar tastes to yours. |
Bingo. |
|
|
| Nostalgic |
| Taste is certainly subjective. I find tech and minimal house to be the biggest steaming piles of in the entire universe, yet so many of the "Cool" regulars on this board seem to love it for some god-forsaken reason. |
|
|
| RJT |
| quote: | Originally posted by noikeee
Music is subjective, deal with it. The people "with good tastes" are just people that have similar tastes to yours. |
This. |
|
|
| UWM |
| quote: | Originally posted by Nostalgic
Taste is certainly subjective. I find tech and minimal house to be the biggest steaming piles of in the entire universe, yet so many of the "Cool" regulars on this board seem to love it for some god-forsaken reason. |
Isn't it ironic?
Don't you think? |
|
|
| david.michael |
| quote: | Originally posted by UWM
Isn't it ironic?
Don't you think? |
 |
|
|
| Sykonee |
I've often found the entire 'taste is subjective' argument mostly revolves around one's exposure to the arts. Impressions are usually formed through comparisons, and, in most cases, the more one is exposed to the arts, the greater understanding of what it encompasses can greatly alter one's taste. As an example, let's use one of the most famous dance tracks ever produced: 2 Unlimited's Get Ready For This.
Individual With Limited Exposure To EDM: "Hey, this techno tune's pretty catchy! I kind of like to bounce to this, and it goes great when watching sports. Maybe I'll pick up one of those Jock Jams CDs if there's more like it."
Individual With General Exposure To EDM: "Oh, yeah, I remember dancing to this one back in high-school. It's still kind of fun to hear every once in a while. If someone played an updated remix of it at the party this weekend, I'd go off to it."
Individual With Obsessive Exposure To Only Detroit Techno: ", what a piece of crap. Total pop-cheese nonsense. 2 Unlimited are a ing disgrace, selling out techno the way they did. This isn't even techno, and doesn't deserve to be called house either. It's euro-crap."
Individual With Music Industry Exposure: "Now this was quite a clever little production. It has all the perfect pop attributes that's made it timeless even to this day -you're guaranteed to hear it at a sporting event at least once. And it certainly captured the dance explosion during the early 90s perfectly. Admirable job."
Individual With No EDM Exposure: "Oh, that's techno, right? Yeah, I've heard it a bunch of times, didn't know who it was by though. It's whatever, I guess. Wouldn't want to hear at home."
There's a bunch more I could do, but you get the general idea. It's the same song, yet creates a number of different reactions based on the individual's exposure to the scene (as such) they find themselves in. Each have their own perspective based on their basic understanding of what constitutes a dance track.
So the question remains: who's right? It really depends on which you'd feel has the more knowledgeable foundation to form an opinion of the track, but personally I tend to go with the ones that have a well-rounded understanding of the arts without succumbing to circle-jerking pretension. |
|
|
| david.michael |
| quote: | Originally posted by Sykonee
I've often found the entire 'taste is subjective' argument mostly revolves around one's exposure to the arts. Impressions are usually formed through comparisons, and, in most cases, the more one is exposed to the arts, the greater understanding of what it encompasses can greatly alter one's taste. As an example, let's use one of the most famous dance tracks ever produced: 2 Unlimited's Get Ready For This.
Individual With Limited Exposure To EDM: "Hey, this techno tune's pretty catchy! I kind of like to bounce to this, and it goes great when watching sports. Maybe I'll pick up one of those Jock Jams CDs if there's more like it."
Individual With General Exposure To EDM: "Oh, yeah, I remember dancing to this one back in high-school. It's still kind of fun to hear every once in a while. If someone played an updated remix of it at the party this weekend, I'd go off to it."
Individual With Obsessive Exposure To Only Detroit Techno: ", what a piece of crap. Total pop-cheese nonsense. 2 Unlimited are a ing disgrace, selling out techno the way they did. This isn't even techno, and doesn't deserve to be called house either. It's euro-crap."
Individual With Music Industry Exposure: "Now this was quite a clever little production. It has all the perfect pop attributes that's made it timeless even to this day -you're guaranteed to hear it at a sporting event at least once. And it certainly captured the dance explosion during the early 90s perfectly. Admirable job."
Individual With No EDM Exposure: "Oh, that's techno, right? Yeah, I've heard it a bunch of times, didn't know who it was by though. It's whatever, I guess. Wouldn't want to hear at home."
There's a bunch more I could do, but you get the general idea. It's the same song, yet creates a number of different reactions based on the individual's exposure to the scene (as such) they find themselves in. Each have their own perspective based on their basic understanding of what constitutes a dance track.
So the question remains: who's right? It really depends on which you'd feel has the more knowledgeable foundation to form an opinion of the track, but personally I tend to go with the ones that have a well-rounded understanding of the arts without succumbing to circle-jerking pretension. |
Great post! However, another point I would throw in there is that one who has such a high amount of exposure to EDM probably does so because they enjoy EDM.
In other words, is it fair to "go with" someone who has a well-rounded understanding of the arts, when it was probably their choice to not listen to such music in the first place? (Or, "do people like EDM based on their amount of exposure to it, or do people increase their amount of exposure to EDM because they like it?")
... if that makes any sense. |
|
|
| Project-K |
"Taste is subjective" - true to an extent but far too often used to excuse music.
I believe that there is a large diversity of different genres equal in their artistic merit, but which value very different aspects of music and therefore shouldn't be compared but rather considered individually. That being said, there are good and bad interpretations of each of those sets of values. When I think of bad taste, I think of art that is immature, shallow, obvious, or just plain idiotic in it's implications. |
|
|
|
|
